Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Body Armour
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Thursday, 2nd March 2006
Probably some of the ex-millitary guys that post on here may know this but when was body armour first issued as standard military kit?
I was watching Full Metal Jacket last night on telly, which I have seen on several occasions before but it suddenly dawned on me that the marines were wearing body armour (catch on quick
). But I hadn't realised body armour was standard issue in Vietnam in the 1960's, I thought the use of body armour was really only common from the 80's early 90's onwards?
i.e. Did we (British) use it in the Falklands in 1982?
The other thing is and I have previously touched on this with DL before, but just how effective is body armour in stopping a round? (I obviously appreciate that body armour is not a magic shield
)
e.g. in Full Metal Jacket (yes I realise it's a movie and not gospel truth), every time one of the yanks got hit he seemed to get killed irrespective of wearing armour, albeit half of them seemed to be running round with their body armour undone anyway
, which kind of defeats the point I guess? -
Message 2
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Thursday, 2nd March 2006
I'm not an ex-military guy but I can tell you the Romans wore body armour that is going back a considerable time before 'Nam.
Both sides in the Englsih civil war wore body armour, chain-mail body armour and full metal armour has been used for centuries by various armies.
In my local museum they have a old metal breast plate which has a musket shot indentation, which they reckon was a 'trial' shot to ensure it withstood the impact - which it did. -
Message 3
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Thursday, 2nd March 2006
What I was meaning was "modern era" specifically bullet resistant / proof vest type armour as worn by troops now in theatres such as the gulf / Afghanistan.
For example in WWI or WWII certainly to my knowledge you never saw any allied or axis troops wearing body armour?
So was body armour actually used by US forces in Vietnam in the 60's? As I didn't think as posted it was standard issue back then?
But yeah, obviously body armour has been used historically as you say right back to the roman age. -
Message 4
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 2nd March 2006
Body armour was used in world war one and two in World war one it was mainly used by snipers
World war two, its was mainly restricted to us bomber crews
The body armour used in vietnam was intended to stop shrapnel not so much bullets. And as far as Im aware was general issue
Depending on range, bullet type, and the type of materiel used in the jacket then most will stop a pistol bullet at short range. 10 to 20 feet. Rifle fire will probably penetrate at that sort of range.
However, even if the bullet doesnt penetrate. all the jacket does is stop the bullet entering the body. It does nothing about the impact. You get hit and the least you can expect is broken ribs and some truely spectacular bruising . -
Message 5
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Thursday, 2nd March 2006
Have read many accounts of helicoptor crews in Vietnam that should have had body armour as standard issue but didn't get it because of stores being corrupt.
In Chickenhawk (a great book by the way) I remember the author saying that a Japanese film crew had came around and asked what their flak vests were (and thats what they told them they were) and when thewy asked if it stopped bullets the crews laughed and told them they wouldn't even slow them down (dark laughter all round) I guess they were talking about .50 cal's at high altitude and maybe not AK's at 500m but you get the point...
Apparently in the Gulf right now body armour that is given to infantry men contravenes health and safety rules relating to carried weight when tallied up with personal kit - this causes back damage and eventually you would imagaine the need to be sent to hospital with chronic back injuries - what a trade off huh? -
Message 6
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
I guess thats the trade of protection V mobility, i.e. I think the consensus is from a lot of soldiers is that they don't want it anyway as the weight added to normal kit etc slows them down too much, thus resulting in the fact that your more likely to get hit.
You could end up wandering round the battlefield like some kind of medieval knight head to toe in armour but a sitting duck for enemy fire due to lack of mobility.
i.e. hiking x-amount of Ibs worth of kit and body armour over mountainous terrain in Afghanistan for example must be murder (literally). Especially when I presume the average Taliban / Insurgent is running round in a robe, sandals and a pair of levi's with his AK-47, a burst which will probably go straight through your armour anyway.
Albeit if it were me I think I would still want my flack jacket!!!
I guess the other factor is body armour must be extremely expensive to mass produce and supply to a front line army? i.e. I have read / heard many stories of British troops having insufficient body armour to go round in Iraq.
Bit like the Vietnam chopper pilots?! -
Message 7
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
Going back to the Vietnam thing, from accounts I've read, many helicopter crews used to sit on their body armour (pretty sensible really as most rounds would be travelling from the ground up!
There was always plenty of body armour around in my experience (usually kevlar flak jacket type stuff, or the type with ceramic srmour plates in). Personally, I never really bothered with wearing it since we were always told that it wouldn't stop anything high-velocity, just reduce exit wound damage by "holding your body together". Plus I was on Armoured vehicles, so figured that the body armour would be better used by others. It wasn't being careless, or anything silly like bravery or bravado, just simple practicality (plus in the commander's position, the hatch cover makes a better shield to hide behind!!) since AFVs are always limited in space, and any body armour, when combined with PLCE, weapons and any other assorted kit you're carrying makes it almost impossible to move around inside a vehicle, you could simply get stuck in the hatch, and you're safer inside a buttoned-down vehicle than any body armour could make you!
I think the only time I ever wore it was on guard duty, because you can be a sitting duck for a sniper. -
Message 8
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
I didn't know the Taliban had a thing for Levi's!!!!
-
Message 9
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
Never bothered with it...
Unlike DL, who was sat behind several inches of armour laughing at us lot running around, I was on foot, extra weight that could be better taken up with ammo etc, and reduced movement. I'd prefer to be able to get out of the line of fire quicker.... -
Message 10
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
Maybe it's the SAS then that are running round in the Levi's?
I Bet they don't where body armour, far to hard for that ! Aren't the majority of SAS Scottish incidently? So their probably all charging round top less trying to get a sun tan in any event....
But I can't see many Afghans lugging round back packs and the like etc, RPG and an AK of some description would be all presumably? So logically they will have a mobility advantage as well as a greater knowledge of the terrain?
So do you guys think we can sort out the Afghanistan situation? I guess "win" is the wrong word but the violence seems to be escalating. After all the Soviets couldn't do it with all their combat power in the 80's therefore are we going to fair any better? -
Message 11
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
DL,Mani
Personally do I love the remains of my old blue kevlar west.
It probably sawed my life in Congo.
As you both are aware of are the wests not primaraly made for stop small arm direct fire,but shrapnell and splinters wich are by far the main cause for causialites.
That they was reintroduced in Vietnam,is quite naturaly since even a small wound often did give deadly infecctions.
You have both been under fire knowing its rather unpleasant altough knowing that its less risk to seriously be injured by enemy small calibre(with the possible exeption of snipers)than some joker in your own units run over you by a truck.
Live long and well
Hasse
P.S.My regards to mrs Mani,the ice-hockey final was that dream final,we spoke of some months ago.
To my but I strongly suspect mrs Mani wont agree pleasure did the Three Crowns once more carry the day against heroic fighting Lions. -
Message 12
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
With regard to "sorting out" Afganistan. I think the only people who are going to do that are the Afgans.
They have no particular cause to love the brits particulary as we probably caused the current situation by meddling in the 19th century.
The best we can do is try and keep some kind of order until their in a position to do it themselves.
God alone knows how long that will take. -
Message 13
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
HasseTh
I couldn't help but laugh when I went upstairs and Pia (Mrs Mani) was crying on the bed!
They really though it was going to be their year, and getting beat by Sweden just made it that much harder…. Oh Finland!!!! Always wanting to put one over their ‘big brother’.
Suffice to say her reaction to my laughing was not good, and she's promised to support France in the weekend's Rugby.
In regards to the flak jacket… When operating behind enemy lines etc, or even when operating I had to carry too much equipment to be concerned with a flak jacket or similar, so never bothered… Extra water, or ammo was my priority. -
Message 14
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
Yeah I agree hence my point about the Soviets, for all our technology you will never "westernise" or create a democratic society with some middle eastern races as its just not in their culture and however barbaric it may seem to us in the West, I sometimes think we worsen matters by intervening.
Take Iraq for example how many Iraqi civillians have died (and continue to die....) as a result of the Coalition war and occupation?
Compare that to how many would of died had we left things as they are with Sadam in charge? I would argue a lot less?
Now I don't mean this to sound anti-war or pro Sadam or in fact undermine the efforts of British and American forces who have a thankless task. But more questioning the wisdom of our politicians.....
I don't think the current situation resembles the "freedom" that the Iraqi's were "promised" in 2003.
After all the insurgents / terrorists wouldn't be there if Sadam was still in charge?
I just think we have swapped one containable evil for one far bigger escalating evil......
Likewise with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Albeit I'm now getting of topic from body armour -
Message 15
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
Mani
Ouch that must hurt suporting France,yea the Finns are tough customers,if you taunt them.
Give Pia a big hug and a small one for me the Finns did a marvelous job in the rink.
No time to go home to my family and give my wife and children a hug.
Have to go up early morning and drive my son and some of his friends,its a big Karate competition,tommorow and its just the second one he had been alowed to participate in,so his very exited.
Y friend
Hasse -
Message 16
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
There will be Scandinavian hugs given all round!!!!
Like many Finns, she was actually born and raised in Sweden, holds a Swedish passport etc... For some reason it makes her even more of a patriotic Finn (despite living in Manchester).
Infact I'm going out to Sweden in a few weeks to see her Grandfather...
She will be informed that supporting France is unacceptable and will result in her having all privileges revoked. No more fine dinning, Pea soup for her (Just like in her youth).
Good luck to your nipper in the Karate! Just remember during the bout(as a parent) as I used to tell my Mum watching me play Rugby - It looks worse that it feels! -
Message 17
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
Hi Mani,
hiding behind a few inches of Chobham is always a good idea in a fire-fight (not that you'll ever agree-yes I know, we make big targets!), and the hatch cover I am referring to (Gawd bless it, whereever it is now) took two hits from small arms, exactly where I would have been, had I not been behind the thing (it made a right old mess of the silly white UN paint job I can tell you!!)! Had I been of the "let's go on foot" persuasion, I think I would have dumped the stuff for the same reasons you noted-there's already too much junk to carry!!!
Hasse,
I'm not surprised that you feel a great deal of fondness to your bright blue body armour!
Cheers to all! -
Message 18
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
watch video on this page
www.pointblankarmor.com/news.asp#h
nuff said
-
Message 19
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
they can stop .9mm rounds, but not much else. there was this bank roberry in the US where the 2 robbers where totally kitted out in armour, and fought off upwards of 300 cops for several hours, infuring dozens of them, while the cops could do nothing as all they had (till swat arrived) were their pistols and shotguns, which the robbers could just shrug off (they werent even slowed down!)
-
Message 20
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
how do u get this into a hyperlink
its hilarious and good stuff - the speed the lad gets up and hides behind the jeep is awesome -
Message 21
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
they can stop .9mm rounds, but not much else. there was this bank roberry in the US where the 2 robbers where totally kitted out in armour, and fought off upwards of 300 cops for several hours, infuring dozens of them, while the cops could do nothing as all they had (till swat arrived) were their pistols and shotguns, which the robbers could just shrug off (they werent even slowed down!)Ìý
I never understood why they never went for head shots during that robbery? -
Message 22
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
their heads where protected too! according to the cops at least
-
Message 23
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
their heads where protected too! according to the cops at leastÌý
They had balaclavas on from what I remember? -
Message 24
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
thats what it looked like to me too, but according to the cops they were clad in armour (literally) from the top of their heads to the tips of their toes. id assume they were wearing a couple of layers of kevlar or something.
-
Message 25
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
-
Message 26
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
Try again....
I don't think they could have been covered, as one topped himself through the mouth, but the other died of bullet wounds later in hospital (From what I remember, but I may be incorrect) -
Message 27
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
i cant help but believe the state of affairs in america to be atrocious when the civvies are more heavily armed and armoured than the cops, and as heavily eqquipped as the army!
-
Message 28
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
of course its a generaliation
-
Message 29
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
It is rediculous, I agree.
I wonder how long before it's the same here... (Criminals anyway) -
Message 30
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
lord, knows. round here people still seem to rely on knives to make people dead. i think its worse that way, cos it takes a crueller person to come close and stick you than to shoot you from 40 yards away, where they might not be able see you as anything but a faceless person.
-
Message 31
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Saturday, 4th March 2006
The Police in America had some troubles a few years ago with bullets going through the target and hitting passers by. The result was they lowered the amount of propellant in the cartridges they use. I ve heared of one incident where the copper emptied six rounds into a guys chest and they bounced off his overcoat.
-
Message 32
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
The Police in America had some troubles a few years ago with bullets going through the target and hitting passers by. The result was they lowered the amount of propellant in the cartridges they use. I ve heared of one incident where the copper emptied six rounds into a guys chest and they bounced off his overcoat.
Ìý
Why not just use 3/4 jacketed hollow points? -
Message 33
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Re sorting out Afganistan. May I suggest we take a leaf out of an old time Liverpool copper. When dealing with a very large punch up. Wait round the corner until the punch up is over, then arrest whoever is still on his feet. It worked for me.
Fred -
Message 34
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
This is going back to the early eighties. I think they were limited to full jackets. I do know it helped the fbi switch to a bigger calibre 10mm I think. The rest just went for 9mm automatics working on the theory that if six dont work maybe another 11 will help.
-
Message 35
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
You have my vote.
-
Message 36
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
In my local museum they have a old metal breast plate which has a musket shot indentation, which they reckon was a 'trial' shot to ensure it withstood the impact - which it did. Ìý
'Proofing' armour by firing a pistol at it was common in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, especially for cavalry breastplates, to demonstrate it was bullet proof. However, the more unscrupulous armourers would use a hammer to simulate the proofing mark on cheaper armour. -
Message 37
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Sorry, late 16th to LATE 17th centuries.
-
Message 38
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 6th March 2006
Why not just use 3/4 jacketed hollow points?Ìý
Mani,
Have you ever seen what a hollow point does? Not to mention the loss in accuracy. To the best of my knowledge they are illegal for anything other than wildlife.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 39
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 7th March 2006
Hi Matt,
Yes, I used to make them!
There are illegal world wide in the military, but over here, legal for Police forces to use for specifically the reason that the chance of the bullet going straight through the intended target are hugely reduced unlike the old FMJ.
In regards to the accuracy, I’ve never really had a problem with them, especially with the reasonable ranges of a pistol. Rifles I’ve only ever used FMJ/Tracer.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.