[booker_t]

It's best to not discuss what's going on in-theater with too much detail. We're still at war and Operational Security should be a priority in public forums.

Regarding equipment, every single piece of equipment released to the field has been rigorously tested and retested, for an enormous number of parameters including (but not limited to) lethality, survivability, reliability, maintainability, and safety. We generally don't want Soldiers, Marines, Sailors or Airmen modifying weapons or other equipment and injuring themselves or others, taking them out of the fight and absorbing resources that are needed elsewhere.

During the early days of IED attacks, many Soldiers and Marines were adding "armor" to their HMMWVs and other vehicles. In many cases, this additional material would actually decrease the occupants' chances for survival during an attack (for a host of reasons), in addition to improperly loading the vehicles causing breakages and premature component wear-out. Again, taking them out of the fight and absording maintenance and logistics resources that could have been better utilized.

Necessity might be the mother of invention, but field operators (from 19-year-old kids to field officers) rarely, if ever, have the highly specialized knowledge required to make good engineering decisions regarding their equipment. What is far more effective is for those Warfighters to express their battlefield needs and requirements to their COs, who then direct it through proper channels to the materiel developers and the test community, who will then respond to those requirements by developing and testing a safe, effective solution.