tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post9018375727212581639..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: Another shot at the historical failure of fragmentation protection vest procurementUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-13404902499059941212011-01-06T21:40:13.043+01:002011-01-06T21:40:13.043+01:00I don't know that book, but I've read othe...I don't know that book, but I've read other books and articles about the subject. A part of the early body armour problems especially until 1918 was that engineers attempted to make the armour bulletproof. It's much easier to make it proof against the vast majority of fragments instead.<br /><br />WW2 troops were usually not very much weighed down by their personal equipment, even the machine gunners. A transport vehicle (horse cart) per platoon was very usual, and soldiers carried thus usually less than 20 kg clothes and equipment (unless their leaders were dumb).<br /><br /><br />Btw, the Japanese used body armour in WW2, too:<br />http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter11.htmS Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-68750443735107605322011-01-06T21:22:49.954+01:002011-01-06T21:22:49.954+01:00Have you read Bashford Dean's 'Helmets and...Have you read Bashford Dean's 'Helmets and Body Armour in Modern Warfare'(1920)? <br /><br />He covers the use of armour up until 1920, especially in the Great War. Essentially he argues that whilst body armour would help prevent wounds it is disliked by troops because (a) it is often clumsy and (b) it's weight. <br /><br />In particular he records soldiers feeling that wearing armour was just one item too many considering all the equipment already necessary in industrial warfare. He suggests that soldiers be provided with transport or that a light armour be designed only to protect the most vulnerable areas (such as major organs).<br /><br />The British actually adopted the latter idea in the second war and produced some millions of an armour designed to cover the vital organs. However it's name escapes me (I only remember that it was named after the Medical Board) and it was not issued to the troops.Cyrusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-50914813173638656892011-01-04T19:59:35.998+01:002011-01-04T19:59:35.998+01:00Steel and aluminum were the only real options in W...Steel and aluminum were the only real options in WW2, for the other stuff was either not invented yet or no real production capacity was at hand.<br /><br />I'm going to add (edit in) some figures that will highlight the relevance of such thin steel plates for protection.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-90081016553510107922011-01-04T19:27:38.332+01:002011-01-04T19:27:38.332+01:00First of all, thanks for another insightful articl...First of all, thanks for another insightful article. Now, the criticism ;).<br /><br />Huh... I somehow find this hard to believe, given that today, protection against 7.62mm NATO and protection against artillery fragments is usually treated as the same, at least as far as vehicle armour is concerned. <br />And since modern ammunition in 5.56mm or 7.62mm can easily penetrate multiples of 1.5mm of regular steel, I don't think that such a vest with steel inlays would offer sufficient protection against enemy fire or artillery fragments.<br />It would likely protect the wearer against hand grenade fragments, but you can use much lighter and easier to wear basic kevlar vests to the same effect.<br /><br />I wonder where you get your numbers, but I assume that two other factors than the effectiveness of steel would have a greater impact:<br />First, artillery during the first world war was largely "light" artillery, with medium calibers such as 75mm or 3'', which of course produce smaller shrapnel with a lower velocity.<br /><br />Second, and this I consider most important, a protective helmet has a very different ballistic profile (term?) than a vest. It has a rounded shape, which results in "thicker" effective armour (as with tanks) and can also deflect incoming projectiles a lot better, something which a "flat" vest inlay can not provide.<br /><br />Granted, your math makes sense, but I think the problem lies with the underlying assumtion:<br />I still doubt the effectiveness of steel as compared to Kevlar and/or ceramic body armour.<br /><br />An afterthought: Besides, steel, when penetrated, can create more and nastier fragments itself than brittle ceramic.Stormcrownoreply@blogger.com