Did some searching, but I couldn't really find a whole lot about side plate philosophy in general. Maybe it's fairly straightforward, but since side plates are "optional equipment" for most intents and purposes, I'm curious to hear what some of the deciding factors are around:
1. When would you elect to run side plates vs. not? What would the mission or use parameters be?
2. What level of protection would you choose (IIIa, III+, etc.)? Why?
3. Is that level of protection different than that offered by the main plates? Why or why not?
4. What size would you choose? 6x6, 7x8, etc.
4. Aside from weight and mobility, are there other factors to consider around choosing side plates?
From what I can tell the camps are pretty well split between "side plates aren't worth it" and "they offer additional protection and generally a low weight penalty". I remember finding a statistic from an older (2006) article that read, "A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body would have survived if they had had extra body armor."
1. When would you elect to run side plates vs. not? What would the mission or use parameters be?
2. What level of protection would you choose (IIIa, III+, etc.)? Why?
3. Is that level of protection different than that offered by the main plates? Why or why not?
4. What size would you choose? 6x6, 7x8, etc.
4. Aside from weight and mobility, are there other factors to consider around choosing side plates?
From what I can tell the camps are pretty well split between "side plates aren't worth it" and "they offer additional protection and generally a low weight penalty". I remember finding a statistic from an older (2006) article that read, "A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body would have survived if they had had extra body armor."