HP iPod not as heroic as previously believed
By Darren Murph 
posted Apr 9th 2007 10:40AM
posted Apr 9th 2007 10:40AM
This certainly won't go down as the first (or last) time that a shocking photograph and antsy storytellers blow an event out of proportion, but the HP iPod that reportedly saved the life of Kevin Garrad of the 3rd Infantry Division was actually nothing more than a battle scar. Kevin's body armor is actually the unsung hero, as he didn't even know he was shot until he fished around for his Pod and found a mangled piece of white / chrome kit instead. He did mention that he missed having his tunes on tap for the battlefield rituals, and certainly didn't mind it lessening the blow of a bullet to his armor, but it looks like Apple (or should that be HP?) will have to remove this now-nullified crowning achievement from the trophy case.[Via The Raw Feed]
WTF?
I don't get it, how is the story changed by the fact that he didn't know he was shot? Wouldn't you assume that he already had body armor on?
ummm... consider the following statement:
"... as he didn't even know he was shot until he fished around for his Pod and found a mangled piece of white / chrome kit instead"
wouldn't that only REINFORCE, not disprove the fact that the ipod WAS, indeed, the 'hero', as it were. I'm sure that, without the ipod there, he would have most certainly noticed?
Doesn't matter how you try to spin it, the bullet would have either done damage to the iPod or Garrad himself. The iPod obviously added a layer of protection.
This is not news. At least not to those of us that read the first post and possess a normal intelligence and critical thinking skills.
I wonder if they'll charge him a re-stocking fee.
Duh
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm maybe I read the original story wrong engadget but what I read said this guy rounded a corner and got into it with an AK-47 toting insurgent at point blank range.
Just so you know, virtually no flak jacket and definitely not the ones issued to our troops can stop an AK-47 bullet (or any high powered weapon) at point blank range. So while the ipod itself didn't stop the bullet it played a huge role along with the flak jacket.
Wrong.
Current issue body armor (with ceramic strike plate) is able to stop a .308 win, which is a much more powerful round than the 7.62x39 soviet.
The bullet passed right through the iPod like it was nothing, and hit the strike plate in this guys armor (like he said in the orginal interview). The iPod did nothing other than get a hole in it.
This just in: Soldiers were ballistic vests that contain a solid ceramic rifle plate, capable of stopping many bullets including the 7.62mm (i.e. the bullet from the AK47).
The stories I've seen did not try to say that the iPod stopped the bullet, but that the close range fire might have killed him if it were not for the iPod "taking one for the team".
I can see the guys at Mythbusters testign this one out sometime..
So an iPOD is being viewed, touted, or recognized as a life-saving device in a time of war? Only idiots would post such an article when real people are getting real killed in a real war... If this was legit, why not tell soldiers to make helmets with them, and create vital-organ shields with them too? Yeah, exactly, that would be pretty dumb, much like this "article", whether it refutes the previous bull!@#$ or not.
You obviously didnt read the article properly.
Um No Sh& Sherlock. God people are so gullible. You could tell from the picture that the bullet went through the ipod. I havn't decided yet if bloggers are good or bad for the internet. They seem to be going downhill reporting on just about anything to keep new post on the frontpage.
sigh...why do people like JinKazama stupidly insist on making statements based on their own assumptions without bothering to verify the details? ("Virtually no flak jacket and definitely not the ones issued to our troops can stop an AK-47 bullet or any high powered weapon at point blank range", my ass). Why are they so blinded by their own warm feelings about a music device that they will uncritically accept whatever they read, even tongue-in-cheek reports? Here is a quote from a non-engadget article interviewing the soldier with the iPod. Kind of calls into question the whole mythos surrounding the story, no?:
"He said the upgraded armor he was wearing could stop the AK-47 round. It was not the newest armor that is in Iraq now, but it was an upgrade. This was his second iPod that he had brought to Iraq. The first had been damaged earlier and the store would not replace it, even with the additional warranty he purchased."
Did the iPod slow the bullet down? Absolutely. Had the bullet not passed through the iPod would it have gotten through the body armour? I don't think the iPod would have slowed the bullet enough to make the difference between getting through the armour and not.
Well I wonder why he was carrying an Ipod during combat? You'd think he'd have more serious things to think about than checking his playlist during CQB (like maybe taking care of his buddies) I'm happy for him but I don't think troops should be toting personal entertainment gadgets into combat zones.
Dude, you totally fight better with a soundtrack.
Well, you get on out there with the soldiers, and tell them they can't lighten up once in a while.
If the marketers at Apple were smart, they would immediately hold a press conference for the guy, call him a hero, award him a new iPod, and talk up their new product offerings.
And if you REALLY want to increase your bottom line, you give everyone in his unit new iPods as well.
Can you imagine the amount of positive spin that would put on Apple? Even more than they already have?
Right, because I'm a fan of backdating stock options as well and fighting the "good fight" against DRM all the while pushing my own format as the new digital audio format of choice.
Maybe, just maybe if he loses the turtlenecks I'll consider it.
Luckily I hadn't tested my prototype body armor made of iPods stitched together. The "iBod" would have been perfect protection for urban warfare. Well, back to the drawing board.
"Just so you know, virtually no flak jacket and definitely not the ones issued to our troops can stop an AK-47 bullet "
Genuine 'flak' vests were originally developed for bomber crews and fight pilots who had to contend with actual 'flak' (shrapnel from nearby exploding anti-aircraft fire). If I recall correctly, those were made of a tight cotton or silk weave (and many layers of it at that) and functioned much like modern day kevlar by basically 'catching' or ensnaring irregularly shaped pieces of shrapnel.
Of course police and criminals had been using similar 'body armor' for years to stop handgun rounds, as they are usually made of soft metal , that deforms easily and thus can also be 'caught' by a tight fabric weave and have their shock dissipated throughout the entire torso. This makes the impact more like a body blow from George Foreman (in his heyday), it might break a rib or two, but it's safer than getting perforated.
But even kevlar vests aren't actually designed to stop rifle rounds at any range. Why ? Due to both their shape (spear like...pointy) and composition (hard, unlikely to deform unless they hit somthing made of a denser material) rifle rounds slide through fabric weaves fairly easily. Heck, one of the main reasons a 'dirk or dagger possessing a double edged blade' is illegal to carry in CA is because you can actually stab one right through the kind of kevlar vest most police officers wear , again because of the blade's shape and the fact that it's usually made of steel.
But, most crime is usually committed with soft bullet firing handguns, against which kevlar is quite effective. So most cops stick with 'soft' body armor as it's lighter, more comfortable, and allows them more range of motion (which is usually more important since many cops work very hard serving the public for years without every being involved in a firefight). But since soldiers face all manner of threats on the battle field, they need all kinds of protection. The easiest solution is simply to beef up soft body armor with a hard metal or ceramic plate that IS designed to stop rifle rounds. That way you have as much area on the torso as possible covered against collateral damage (meaning shrapnel), and the most like aiming points for directed/aimed threats (ie, the chest, gut, and back) protected against rifle fire, while still affording the wearer a good deal of freedom to move. Usually the plates slip into pockets in front and back so they can be replaced if damaged, or swapped out if one wants to use plates of different composition or weight(for whatever reason).
So in all likelihood, had the armor plate not been there, the soldier would have been injured or killed by the AK round, regardless of the iPod. And based purely on the density of an iPod, the density of an armor plate, and the power of said AK round, I rather suspect the armor would still have worked without the assistance of the iPod.
But if we learned nothing else in WWII (and I certainly hope we did) the Rusian T-34 tank proves that angle of incidence is a critical factor in projectile combat. Looking at the exit channel in the iPod suggests to me at least the possibility that while the iPod probably didn't significantly slow the bullet, it may have slightly changed it's trajectory, causing it to strike the armor plate at an angle and not dead on. If the shot really did come from close range that *could* make the critical difference between penetration and DEFLECTION.
But really, it's anyones guess...
I'm gonna rank you up just because you took that much time just to own someone.
By the way, why doesn't Microsoft jump in and give this guy a Zune? That'll be really good spin for them. If Apple doesn't take this opportunity, someone should.
Grant your right, in fact, how about a special edition rugged iPod sport in coyote brown or olive drab, where in a portion of the proceeds go to disabled vets or something? now that is PR!
I have been holding out with my Rio, but that would put me over the fence, and I would join the iHerd.
With my full respect to those body armor makers, I can't imagine how could someone not to mention he got shot. Though (thanks heavens) I've never had such an experience, but I believe it must be quite an uncomfortable feeling - to get a bullet from AK.
Matt & jarofchris,
This is really a question of science and not one of opinion. Only a type III or Type IV issue of body armor is "capable" or stopping a weapon as powerful as the AK-47 at point blank range. Note I said "capable", again, no vest makes a soldier impenetrable.
Like I said, with a weapon of that stopping power (mind you, while a .44 magnum round is a little heavier, the reference velocity of an AK-47 is nearly double that of a .44), at point blank range where friction and all the other forces that act on an object play little to no role in decreasing its velocity, all bets are off. I defy you to find anyone experienced with firearms to bet their life on a vest when faced with a weapon of that caliber.
Furthermore to say the ipod played no role is to ignore the laws of Physics. The role of a vest is to slow and deform a bullet, no matter how you slice it the ipod acted on the bullet to slow it. Whether that was the difference between life or death we'll never know, but the ipod played a role.
The point of my initial post was not to laude the ipod but to make a point that "bulletproof vest" is a misnomer the general public has been led to believe.
How stuff works is a great website for the layman to reference before posting about things you know little about first hand.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/body-armor2.htm
Of course the iPod presented a very tiny amount of resistance, but if you think it had any effect on the outcome of the guys life, you're flat out wrong. Ceramic strike plates (SAPI) can easily take a direct hit from a AK-47 at close range, as they are designed to survive a close range hit from a .308 win which is a much more powerful round.
stop the war, bring all ipods home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-arms_protective_insert