Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/25/2001 8:16:53 PM EST
really, doesnt it seem obvious? the helmet is supposed to take small arms fire.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 8:21:11 PM EST
It's probably in the Geneva Convention. Something about it not being fair if the other guys don't die. Though, standard body armor not stopping rifle rounds could be another reason.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 8:22:41 PM EST
Because a bullet resistant vest wont even begin to stop a 223, or a 7.62. They only work with handgun rounds. I saw a vest once that would stop a 308 round but in was a huge ceramic monstrocity that no one would want to lug around. The helmet wont stop a direct hit either, solders are equipted to be protected agains flak, not direct hits.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 8:32:30 PM EST
This topic came-up once at work. An idiot coworker of mine (ex-LEO of all things) once suggested that the soldiers can't handle the extra weight of a class III vest plus the rifle plus 20 mags full of ammo. His suggestion was, "if the army really cared about them, they wouldn't make them carry that heavy rifle and all that ammo so they could wear a vest and be safe." WTF! Like a head shot and other weapons would be useless against them. Of course, this is the same guy that doesn't seem to mind starting a fight when he's wearing his vest (as a security guard!). Like the vest will protect him from a punch to the chin or a knife to the throat. I can understand wearing extra protection on your head. It's usually what's sticking-up from behind something or from around a corner. With that said, every pound on your head is about the equivalent of ten carried on your body. I'd hate to have to wear a helmet that would stop a 308.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 8:38:28 PM EST
It would weigh to much to protect against rifle fire, and at those times just about everybody has a rifle (or worse). Have you heard about the new blinding lasers they are testing? I read about them a couple of years ago and hav'nt heard of them since. They supposedly burn your retna out leaving you blind and leaving your fellow soldiers having to assist you.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 8:53:41 PM EST
Flak jackets are also heavy. I am by no means an expert on tactics and balistic vests. The reason Body armor above level 1 are not issued to soldiers is because of medical treatment. it is easier to get to and treat an open wound then an internal wound. police are in a position to recieve advanced medical care at a hospital. a soldier is likely to be to far away from such treatment and would die quicker from internal injuries such as internal bleeding. unbroken lib
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 8:54:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/25/2001 8:52:50 PM EST by SGB]
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 9:26:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2001 4:35:21 AM EST by skullworks]
There's three things that offer protection in combat, but they should be combined: Fire - duh! Movement - should be another duh. Cover - [b]DUH![/b] If you're wearing ceramic plates and all that good stuff you will have an awfully hard time moving from point A to point B. So even if you have better protection, you will become a better target - and than you're back to square one. It's therefore better to have lower level protection in form of a vest, but allowing for added agility. Of course, as technology proceeds we will see better lightweight vests that offer the desired level of agility and protection. Swedish troops on foreign missions are now issued Class IIA vests with magpockets and everything. A definate improvement from the old flakvests we used to wear.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 10:31:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/25/2001 10:28:52 PM EST by Stg44]
There is a vest currently being issued. It is about the same weight as the flak vest, but will stop 5.56, 5.45, 7.62x39, and 7.62x51. All soldiers are supposed to get it, combat arms first. (they showed it on The History Channel recently in an episode about combat equipment over the ages-looked thinner than the flak jacket)
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 12:22:00 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 1:15:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By osprey21: Current USMC issue.[url]http://www.pointblankarmor.com/interceptor_components.html[/url]
View Quote
[img]http://www.pointblankarmor.com/interceptor_vest_components.jpg[/img] Gotta have the groin protector, so they can fish your nuts out of your undies after you get smacked in the pee-pee with a .308. Yee-ouch!!! So what protection level does this vest offer, and exactly who fields it?
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 2:43:55 AM EST
The interceptor vest is customizable to the circumstances. As issued it is only protection against frag and handgun ammo. There are armor plated that can be added, once that is done it can stop 7.62 AP. But is heavy as hell. Everyone has mention the various reasons that body armor is only proofed against frag. The simple fact that is in most wars most wounds are caused by explosive produced fragmentation. In Vietnam when body armor and helmets were religiously worn causality rates for those troops went down by about half. Since the increase in non-typical peace keeping ops and MOUT, there is now more chance of getting shot vice blown up. Hence you now see things like the RBA and the interceptor that can contain armor plates that will stop small arms fire.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 3:59:12 AM EST
The "Flak Jackets" that we were issued (along with WWII helmets) were mainly for protection against "Frag's, etc.". They were fairly heavy along with the helmet and gear you carried. I don't know what they were supposed to stop as far as small arms rounds. Generally one attempted to be "invisible". This was in 1967/68. I imagine the new ones are pretty good. Of course they are only designed to protect vital organs, etc.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 4:30:38 AM EST
You guys are also not taking into account the concussion that taking a round and stopping it will produce. Anyone shot wearing a vest will tell you it was like getting hit with a baseball bat. There are actually deaths due to the blunt force trauma inflicted to internal organs. This is with pistol ammo. Imagine stopping a .308 with armor. You would be propelled backwards when the round fully dumps all its energy into you. Also if the vest partially stops a bullet, again all its energy will be dumped in the body and cause massive internal damage. A though and though wound, if not in a vital area will be more survivable.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 4:46:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2001 4:44:54 AM EST by skullworks]
Originally Posted By ARDOC: Imagine stopping a .308 with armor. You would be propelled backwards when the round fully dumps all its energy into you.
View Quote
No you won't! This is a common misconception, largely due to what's being depicted in movies. The impact will not propell you more than the shooter (if the rifle used is a bolt action.) It's simple physics - the bullet doesn't gain energy after it's been discharged. Therefore the energy pushed towards the shooter (manifested in recoil) will be equal to the energy displaced into the target. The only difference is that it's transferred into a smaller area - the shooter has two hands and a shoulder to counter the recoil, the target has an area with the diameter of the bullet receiving the same energy.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 4:48:42 AM EST
ARDOC. The blunt trauma can hurt, and in extreme cases kill. Not from a 5.56 or 7.62 though. In the case of most small arms hits a penetrating wound would be worse. That is actually taken into account with newer vest, companies like second chance are more than willing to point the cops lives saved in auto accidents, in which the body armor limited the internal injuries from blunt force trauma.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 4:52:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By STLRN: ARDOC. The blunt trauma can hurt, and in extreme cases kill. Not from a 5.56 or 7.62 though. In the case of most small arms hits a penetrating wound would be worse. That is actually taken into account with newer vest, companies like second chance are more than willing to point the cops lives saved in auto accidents, in which the body armor limited the internal injuries from blunt force trauma.
View Quote
I think most of those in the auto accidents wore ballistic plates, which helped to displace the impact into a larger area. Of course, any sort of padding will help when you take the steering wheel column in the chest.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 4:53:16 AM EST
What level of protection do the surplus flak vests have? (the ones tou see at pawn shops and surplus stores that have the camo pattern)
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 5:14:58 AM EST
That could very well be the case, I'm not certain. But I have to think that at least one of those "saves" involved someone in just Soft armor without the plates. But really doesn't matter anyway, the current "small arms proof" armor, interceptor and RBA, use plate armor to stop rifle rounds. They can be worn without the plates, and they give soft body armor levels of protection
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 5:24:03 AM EST
Originally Posted By ARDOC: There are actually deaths due to the blunt force trauma inflicted to internal organs. This is with pistol ammo. Also if the vest partially stops a bullet, again all its energy will be dumped in the body and cause massive internal damage. A though and though wound, if not in a vital area will be more survivable.
View Quote
Please show me where there has been a DOCUMENTED death from blunt trauma. I've heard bruising but never fatal injuries by bullets that did NOT penetrate the vest. The Army has had people shot with rifle rounds with level III plates and they did not die or even suffer serious injury.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 5:26:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By zipster223: What level of protection do the surplus flak vests have? (the ones tou see at pawn shops and surplus stores that have the camo pattern)
View Quote
It depends on how much abuse they have taken, but they average II to IIIA. The only way to test it is to shoot it, which ruins the vest. You are better off buying a new vest.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 5:31:12 AM EST
Originally Posted By 11BravoE5:
Originally Posted By zipster223: What level of protection do the surplus flak vests have? (the ones tou see at pawn shops and surplus stores that have the camo pattern)
View Quote
It depends on how much abuse they have taken, but they average II to IIIA. The only way to test it is to shoot it, which ruins the vest. You are better off buying a new vest.
View Quote
I wouldn't think they'd rate that high? I mean they're not made to stop ammo in the first place, just flak and shrapnel (sp).
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 6:01:06 AM EST
The real answer is because artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield, and body armor effective against a military caliber rifle would seriously hinder ground mobility. The body armor supplied is geared toward the statistically greatest threat. The old steel pot might deflect a round away from your noggin' but a square hit would go right trhough it. It was intended as protection against fragmenting ordinince. The K-pot is intended for the same role, but is more effective agaist small arms than the k-pot.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 6:07:24 AM EST
Originally Posted By Hipower: The real answer is because artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield, and body armor effective against a military caliber rifle would seriously hinder ground mobility. The body armor supplied is geared toward the statistically greatest threat. The old steel pot might deflect a round away from your noggin' but a square hit would go right trhough it. It was intended as protection against fragmenting ordinince. The K-pot is intended for the same role, but is more effective agaist small arms than the k-pot.
View Quote
I've seen Kpots shot with a bunch of different rounds. Rifle rounds of course, zip right through. Handgun rounds usually dent the helmet so much, it looks like it would crack your skull. Note this is only USGI PASGT helmets, NOT the RBR and similar "souped up" helmets that have the same profile.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 6:12:42 AM EST
Originally Posted By Pompey: really, doesnt it seem obvious? the helmet is supposed to take small arms fire.
View Quote
The helmet is not designed to take small arms fire. It is designed for shrapnel. Look at casualty statistics for combat. Mostly frag. Even small arms fire is rifle rounds. How many people run around in full blown combat with pistols? It's laughable.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 6:16:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2001 9:39:46 AM EST by SGB]
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 6:42:38 AM EST
Blunt trauma deaths, at this point, seem to be more of an urban legend than a reality. However, it’s not totally inconceivable, think about how close your heart is to the surface of your chest. Obviously blunt trauma is more of a problem with soft body armor than a plate. In, I think, the mid-80’s the NIJ added blunt trauma testing to its standards for body armor threat levels. When considering how hard a bullet hits, think about silhouette shooters who often have a hard time simply knocking over a 50-pound target. When shooting pie plates with a 9MM, you have to make sure they are almost ready to fall over anyway, otherwise they won’t go down. Determining if body armor saved someone’s life in an automobile accident is a lot harder than a shooting since the injuries can be so varied. My recollection is that some of these saves involved motorcycle cops being knocked off their bikes.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 9:38:21 AM EST
The older Kevlar vest worked differently than todays variety. They allowed more kinetic energy to transfer through to the person underneath. Most vests now days are made of Spectra fiber. This is a kevlar/resin combo laminated into a single chunk. Spectra, like Lexan, absorbs energy radially. If you've ever seen a sheet of Lexan that's stopped bullets, you will notice that as the bullet impacts, it creates a large circular fracture around the impact inside the Lexan. This energy is being disippated radially or sideways, instead of straight through. Most of the energy is deflected away from the intended target. The .308 proof vest that I saw demonstrated on the Discovery channel was very, very thick. Over 1 1/2" thick, with no plates. It looked very cumbersome to wear. It may work well for SWAT but not for a soldier. Imaging marching for miles on end carrying 70lbs packs and having 1 1/2" of heat trapping insulation wrapped around your torso and down your crotch.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 12:50:49 PM EST
The PASGT vest is made of 13 layers of Kevlar 26, it give the same amount of protection as anything with 13 layers of Kevlar 26 would, but remember that a surplus may have seen a lot of hard us, example some unit, specifically the Marine issue them to everyone and we wear them to the field just about every time we go to the field. The body armor used by cops normally has an expiration date or max amount of time they are supposed to be used. Some military body armor is used for many years longer than the body armor of the police. Although Spectra is one of the choices for body armor today, it is still not what most vest are made from. Military so far is reluctant to use Spectra because of how it acts under temperature. Kevlar and the other aramid fiber materials smolder when exposed to high temperature. Spectra melts, not a good thing if operating in an aircraft, ship or armor vehicle were one of the consequences of taking a hit, is fire.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 3:00:09 PM EST
Originally Posted By SGB:
Originally Posted By skullworks:
Originally Posted By 11BravoE5:
Originally Posted By zipster223: What level of protection do the surplus flak vests have? (the ones tou see at pawn shops and surplus stores that have the camo pattern)
View Quote
It depends on how much abuse they have taken, but they average II to IIIA. The only way to test it is to shoot it, which ruins the vest. You are better off buying a new vest.
View Quote
I wouldn't think they'd rate that high? I mean they're not made to stop ammo in the first place, just flak and shrapnel (sp).
View Quote
The flack jackets they gave us in the 70's would stop a standard velocity .38 spec from 10 feet is memory serves me.
View Quote
I have no experience with the US flak vests, so I'll take your word for it. I still wouldn't depend my life on a flak vest to handle gunfire.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 3:01:09 PM EST
Originally Posted By 11BravoE5:
Originally Posted By ARDOC: There are actually deaths due to the blunt force trauma inflicted to internal organs. This is with pistol ammo. Also if the vest partially stops a bullet, again all its energy will be dumped in the body and cause massive internal damage. A though and though wound, if not in a vital area will be more survivable.
View Quote
Please show me where there has been a DOCUMENTED death from blunt trauma. I've heard bruising but never fatal injuries by bullets that did NOT penetrate the vest. The Army has had people shot with rifle rounds with level III plates and they did not die or even suffer serious injury.
View Quote
There's 1 I've heard of, and the round involved was stopped by the vest and by all rights shouldn't have been. An LA Deputy Sheriff serving a warrant on a "drug house" was hit be a .45-70 rifle bullet. The IIIA vest stopped the bullet. He died from the trauma to his heart, he was hit on the sternum. Initially his survivors initiateda suit, the defense was something like that bullet was WAY above what the vest should have protected, and it stopped the bullet. There has been at least one center of mass hit on a level IIIA vest with a 12 ga. slug that resulted in a "save", a bruised save but a sve none the less. Vests work by dissipating the force of the round. Vests work better on people than "test fixtures". Because most people have "give" if struck by an object. Vests will dissipate any force, steering wheel, fist, or bullet. They are bad at stopping "ice pick" type knives or knives in thrusting attacks. in slashing attacks with knives vest do offer protection. Arrows also have the ability to go through vests.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 3:06:12 PM EST
Another thing regarding surplus vests is that soldiers are supposed to renew their vests every two or three years, because the aramid looses it's abilities over time. That's why you shouldn't buy old vests (or vests for covert carry) at gunshows, because their often past their due date.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 9:46:08 PM EST
i saw this show a while back where army scientists were studying spider-webs. they said that in scale, a spider web can dissipate enough pressure when catching insects etc... that it would catch a 747 jumbo jet flying at full speed. (a big spider web!) anyway, i thought that was amazing and if you think about it, if you are 2mm large and your web can catch a large insect flying by, thats pretty darn good. well, the point of this is that the army scientist were working on synthesizing a spider web for a new bullet RESISTANT vest.
Link Posted: 7/27/2001 4:20:08 AM EST
The trend towards smaller caliber, higher velocity rounds, like the 5.7 is usually supported by the claim that in the near future troops will be wearing body armour. Maybe just an excuse to sell a new widget. Anyway, I just checked out a FN P90 1st hand (haven't got a chance to shoot it yet), and it's pretty D@#$ cool, so I'm glad the people in Belgium think body armour is the next wave.
Top Top