# Body Armor Study



## tomahawk6 (7 Jan 2006)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180937,00.html

This type of forensic study is normal procedure to improve the equipment of US troops/marines. I think body armor will continue to evolve. Last year protection was added to the groin and shoulders
in response to injuries that had occured due to lack of coverage of existing armor.


----------



## Armymedic (7 Jan 2006)

Armour, whether is be vehicle or personal, has always had to balance protection with mobility.

Our Cdn body armour already has neck and shoulder protection, but many of our soldiers remove it for comfort.

I am sure that as technology improves, there will be more and better equipment for us to wear and use.


----------



## Big Red (7 Jan 2006)

If I were in the turret of a G-wagon I'd be wearing DBT bicep armour and sideplates. Rated to stop 7.62x39. Have worn it while on the gun and its not unconfortable.


----------



## SoF (8 Jan 2006)

So Canadian body armour doesn't have protection for the groin area, thats not nice. I don't want to be coming home from a war w/o my boys because someone wanted to save a little money.


----------



## Pikache (8 Jan 2006)

I'm still waiting for my power armour a la Starship Troopers to be issued.


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Jan 2006)

As Armymedic said, it's a balance between protection and mobility. We could wrap ourselves in EOD-style armour suits but then we'd all move like zombies. I'd like to see more modularity to allow for different situations. 

I was reading Soldier magazine and they highlighted the new armour the Brits are bringing in for Iraq, with much better neck and upper-arm protection. The intended user is the guy on top of the land cruiser. 

Our neck and shoulder pieces are junk, IMHO. They don't offer very good protection and all they do is get in the way.


----------



## Armymedic (8 Jan 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Our neck and shoulder pieces are junk, IMHO. They don't offer very good protection and all they do is get in the way.


But do you still wear them?



			
				SoF said:
			
		

> So Canadian body armour doesn't have protection for the groin area, thats not nice. I don't want to be coming home from a war w/o my boys because someone wanted to save a little money.



If you are really worried about getting hit in that non-vital 1%, then I suppose you could go purchase a kevlar jock strap and hockey cup.  :


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jan 2006)

Additional info:

http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4459

Dragon skin:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_PArmor,00.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jan 2006)

More on the "protection vs. mobility" angle...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_body_armor_10;_ylt=AkevrQ.0x3g3NcI6OvQXkCVsbEwB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

(...)

Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade "Rakkasans" are required to wear an array of protective clothing they refer to as their "happy gear," ranging from Kevlar drapes over their shoulders and sides, to knee pads and fire-resistant uniforms.

But many soldiers say they feel encumbered by the weight and restricted by fabric that does not move as they do. They frequently joke as they strap on their equipment before a patrol, and express relief when they return and peel it off.

Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said he already sacrifices enough movement when he wears the equipment. More armor would only increase his chances of getting killed, he said.

(...)


----------



## teddy49 (8 Jan 2006)

I think that the US mil would solve a lot of problems if they increased the protection of the soft armour in the Interceptor vest.  Probably to level III.  As it is, the existing armour is only rated to stop shrapnel and 9mm.  At my old job the insurance company mandated that we wear Level III soft armour vests with Standalone Level IV main and side plates, as well as level III shoulder protection.  These vests weighed in excess of 40 pounds.  By themselves.  That was ok to drive trucks in, but for any kind of dismounted role, it was just too heavy.  The Dragon Skin armour may prove to be effective, but as a rule, I mistrust anything written by David Crane and the Defence Review mob.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jan 2006)

The current body armor worn by the Army has stopped 7.62mm bullets.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2006)

http://www.isracast.com/tech_news/091205_tech.htm

Nano armor may be the future of body armor.


----------



## KevinB (9 Jan 2006)

David Crane  :

  One of our guys just ordered the DragonSkin armour - we shall see - the First Gen crashed and burned in HP White lab testing - the one he ordered in the 2nd gen a circular plate not the squares from before.

I guess if I where riding around a soft skin a great deal of time or up in a turret I might be looking for more protection than my RAV gives - but I like the ability to shoot quickly and easily.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Jan 2006)

Is that the vest that cost $5000 Amer?


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2006)

The stories I have heard about the dragon skin is good if pricey. The remarks on ArmyRanger is that the vest needs to be worn alot so it conforms to the body.

http://www.armyranger.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=14183

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/sov.php

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/dragon-skin-survivors.php


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Jan 2006)

The soldier is the best piece of kit any military has.  If mass producing these for the US (and friends) would drop the price substantially they (gov't) should seriously consider it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Jan 2006)

Any followup to this:Quote: 
Got an email the other day from a buddy over in USASOC. He said they did some tests and it didn't perform as advertised. I would love to get a plate and do my own test but the rep at the company said they didn't have any more plates to send out. I'll try again later. 

Basically, be careful if you are really interested in buying this stuff until we get some better (independent) tests results. 

Phil 


Also that video doesn't show the vest after the shooting.  I'm also wondering about the kinetic energy left over.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2006)

The pictures do show the effect of the shots. Also there is a testimonial page among the users was a SOCOM soldier.






http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_PArmor2,00.html


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Jan 2006)

I read the lightfighter thread and it pretty much died out.  Either this thing is so good people are keeping it too themselves or they is more to it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2006)

Cost is probably the biggest drawback. Only contractors making the big bucks or SF guys with their bonus money can buy it. Its cost is over 3 times as much as the Interceptor body armor.


----------



## Franko (9 Jan 2006)

Currently in theater the shoulder pads are the only thing allowed to be removed off the vest....*by "A Veh" crews ONLY.*

This is due to the hatches being so small that to leave them on hinders movement in and out of the hatch. Especially for turret crews.

Anyone else doing so....well, I would'nt do it. The Force RSM will have you for breakfast   

They are there for a reason and they work for shrapnell coming at you.

Yes it's bulky and hot as hell. It's a pain in the butt to put on and it hurts the back after wearing it for 8 hours or more...bouncing around in a LAV.

But it will save your life from the dirtbag who's got a bead on you.....

Regards


----------



## Daidalous (9 Jan 2006)

You know what, now that I think about it our armor does not have any protection for my Junk.    Man thats like playing hockey without a jock  one of these days your gonna get it there.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2006)

Maybe kevlar boxers ?

Interceptor body armor with new ACU [army combat uniform].


----------



## scm77 (9 Jan 2006)

Kevlar Shorts

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Kevlar,,00.html


----------



## teddy49 (12 Jan 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The current body armor worn by the Army has stopped 7.62mm bullets.



Yeah if it hit's the plates.  I believe the study was talking mainly about the stuff that missed the plates and penetrated the soft armor itself.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Jan 2006)

Body armor cannot protect every part of the body if you want the soldier to be able to move. I saw somewhere that a complately armored soldier would be wearing 125 pounds of armor not to mention the rest of the equipment he was obliged to carry. Right now we have a happy medium and as technology allows we might be able to move away from plates to more flexible armor types.


----------

