Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Effectiveness of Body Armor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Effectiveness of Body Armor

    I'm curious, how effective is body armor these days? Some of the standard body armor being issued to the US fighting man is supposed to be capable of resisting 5.56 NATO rounds at reasonably close ranges.

  • #2
    Very effective. Interceptor vests with armor inserts is rifle proof. 5.56mm at point blank barely makes a dent. I know 7.62x54mm from a Dragonov cannot crack the trauma plate. This lead me to speculate that Interceptor is at least Level IV--the only defeat mechanism is placing armor piercing rounds in a tight point at close quarters.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

    Comment


    • #3
      But arent there medical problems being observed from all that kinetic energy loading onto the body?
      For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by bolo121 View Post
        But arent there medical problems being observed from all that kinetic energy loading onto the body?
        What, worse than death? ;)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
          What, worse than death? ;)
          In many cases as per news reports, the person suffered severe mental damage and loss of cognitive function something I personally fear more than death.
          For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bolo121 View Post
            In many cases as per news reports, the person suffered severe mental damage and loss of cognitive function something I personally fear more than death.
            Ouch!! :(

            I guess there's a limit to how much energy dissipant (spelling?) material they can pack in a one-man armor suit. Either someone comes up with a new, miracle-type material, or robots/armored exosqueletons are gonna show up faster...

            And then I guess everyone with start firing AP rounds...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bolo121 View Post
              But arent there medical problems being observed from all that kinetic energy loading onto the body?
              I'm not aware of it specifically, but I do know that you often saw spec ops folks with specialized plate carriers, meaning that the IBA wasn't available to dissipate all that energy over a larger area, and so the likelihood of those individuals experiencing blunt force trauma was increased.
              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, it still beats becoming an instant K/WIA. Good ballistic plates are hard to break, probably requiring multiple hits from very high KE rounds at the same spot.

                In many cases as per news reports, the person suffered severe mental damage and loss of cognitive function something I personally fear more than death.

                Do you have a more detailed source? It's hard to speculate what happened without knowing with what the soldier was hit with and where.
                All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'd imagine he was joking that people would think they're Superman and try to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

                  What about, say, ballistic shields? I understand that the ballistic shields currently being carried by SWAT teams are only supposed to be proof to pistol rounds; anything higher and you'd have holes or cracks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Inst View Post
                    I'd imagine he was joking that people would think they're Superman and try to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

                    What about, say, ballistic shields? I understand that the ballistic shields currently being carried by SWAT teams are only supposed to be proof to pistol rounds; anything higher and you'd have holes or cracks.
                    I don't see shields as very practical for military applications - SWAT missions are very different in nature.

                    You are already tabbing with 60 kilos of gear on your back (e.g. radio, ammo etc). If you'd issue them to grunts, you'd see a crap load of these dumped on the side of the road. Too heavy and cumbersome, and make you a big visible target for RPG's.

                    You know what WOULD be cool - liquid/invisible camouflage, like in Predator. :P

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      By the way, do we have information on the body armor being fielded by various countries?

                      Armor is never as interesting to the amateur as weapons, but if modern body armor can resist multiple hits from common assault rifle rounds, then body armor is a truly war-changing technology.

                      I think there's documentation on US interceptor armor, on the Dragon-skin scale armor that caused a scandal in the US media, but what about other countries? What does the UK use? How effective is UK armor when compared to other armor types?

                      What about armor-piercing rounds? The Chinese switched their standard ammunition to armor-piercing because of the prevalence of body armor among Western militaries, how effective is the 5.8mm round versus standard body armor? What about the Russian AP rounds?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Walking Dead View Post
                        You know what WOULD be cool - liquid/invisible camouflage, like in Predator. :P
                        Only for scouts and such. In a firefight, crossfire and shrapnel would stil get you...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          my apologies, the article i was reading was i think from msnbc but it was speaking of brain injuries in general from rounds, ieds and other things.
                          Here is an other one from the army's own website.

                          Brain injuries high among Iraq casualties

                          USATODAY.com - Key Iraq wound: Brain trauma
                          Last edited by bolo121; 30 Sep 08,, 19:09.
                          For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            For all my criticisms of the Osprey Armour, (UK forces theatre issue), it is a lot better at stopping a bullet than what we used to use. I myself have taken a bullet straight in the plate, (confirmed 7.62x39 from an AK, Chinese in case you are interested), from approx 200-250m away, hurt a bit but I was fine. I am unwilling to go into to many characteristics but protection wise it is very good, now if they could only make it lighter and fix issues with the straps it would be even better.
                            Nulli Secundus
                            People always talk of dying for their country, and never of making the other bastard die for his

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                              Only for scouts and such. In a firefight, crossfire and shrapnel would stil get you...
                              Yeah, but if that happens, you could just scare everyone with the insane war cry and then heal with the gooey blue stuff afterwards. :P

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X