Body Armour

[Marcello]

Suhiir said:
For all intents and purposes military body armor is useless against anything but fragmentation weapons. Any full jacketed military round would barely notice anything light enough for an infantryman to wear.
That said, I seem to recall that a study done during WW II indicated that something like 70% of casualties we caused by fragmentation type weapons.

I am sure this was the case until a few years ago. But with modern composite plates resistance against against military rifles round has been achieved. Interceptor with the ceramic plates can stop 7.62x51 standard rounds, although as I said I do not have a numerical breakdown of what would happen after (incapacitated percentages of body armor fitted troops vs ones without etc.)

[rfisher]

Curiosity satisfied, thanks.
And some very interesting points too!

[PanzerBob]

Given how "casualities" are represented, Mobhack is correct at this scale of simulation.

Body Armour as used and even in the future, only means that more troops will survive, it will not make super soldiers. Even if a Vest can withstand high powered military bullets (and as mentioned some of the new stuff coming out can.) The effects of an attack with small arms and lets say grenades will still make men combat ineffective.

The primary bonus for body armor as used is HOPEFULLY less injuries and death. I have read and experianced that body armor has a disadvantage of being clumsy. Some complaints along those lines have been made. This too is being worked on as the technology is improved. It is a heck of a trade off though to have to decide on in the meantime!!

[Wdll]

I know, in theory, I would rather wear one than not lol.

[Suhiir]

The big problem with body armor is weight and cost.
Sure, there's stuff out there that can stop anything short of a nuke, but even the US Army can't afford to buy it for general issue.
That and the classic weight problem.
it seems that very few people that haven't been a mud grunt themselves really appreciate that adding an extra 20-40 pounds of high-tech body armor to their load just ain't gonna work.

[Marcello]

Suhiir said:
The big problem with body armor is weight and cost.
Sure, there's stuff out there that can stop anything short of a nuke, but even the US Army can't afford to buy it for general issue.
That and the classic weight problem.
it seems that very few people that haven't been a mud grunt themselves really appreciate that adding an extra 20-40 pounds of high-tech body armor to their load just ain't gonna work.

As far as I know Interceptor has been a standard issue in Iraq for quite some time. There were shortage issues in the early years of the war, just like it happened for armored cars but eventually production caught up. Now interceptor,like the up armored HMMWVs, may not be the absolute best but it is good enough and has been available in quantity for some time.
The cost issue: given all the money which is spent training, recruiting etc. an american soldier issuing everyone deployed a set of body armor that stops AK rounds and the like is no big deal. It was not possible/practical/economic some years ago but now it is (IIRC it took some advances in composite materials technology during the early 90's).
The weight issue: like all things it comes down to trade offs; additional weight limits your mobility, the armor traps the heat etc. No doubt there may be times and circumstances where it is not worth. But at least in Iraq it seems to be deemed worthwhile most of the time and vehicles are used extensively anyway, it is not like troops have to climb mountains or march 20 Km in the jungle.

[Marcello]

On a purely anedocte basis it seems that you can get shot at with an AK-47 and if the bullet hits the hard plates you can get away with minor bruises and be still combat effective, but this of course is only a fraction of the possible cases. The soldier who gets shot both in the arm and in the chest is still a casualty for example even if he is much better off than it would have been otherwise.