# Canadian body armour research:  what do we look at next?



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2009)

A couple of papers just out via Defence Research & Development Canada here and here (big PDFs) - plain English summaries:


> Research shows folks in tanks, other armoured vehicles and trucks need to be able to move from the waist up to do their jobs, so we’ll have to consider that when designing body armour and other personal protection against IEDs. Still, there were some worries about protecting the troops’ sides, necks, throats and pelvises.
> 
> After checking out what’s out there in body armour (both military and commercial rigs) and other protective gear (sports and industrial included), we're suggesting some combinations of add-ons we should explore further to see if they can protect while letting the soldier get on with his or her job.



The suggested add-on combos are shown here (7 pg. PDF).

The papers are from 2007, so assuming further research has gone on, they're still useful snapshots.

_- edited to fix diagrams PDF link -_


----------



## bran (6 Nov 2009)

The PDF link doesn't work


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2009)

ONT:  If you mean the diagrams PDF link, try now - it's fixed.


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Nov 2009)

Lets hope Canada does not seek any decent input from Australia with their new MCBAS.

On my tour we had ECBA, and it was not an over engineered POS like MCBAS. 

All last week I observed troops (who will be deploying to Afghanistan in 2010) assembling their MCBAS with a manual as thick as a Hustler magazine. It took hours and there was much confusion.

I wonder if McDonalds has a weed up their arses in the name used, ha!

Read on  http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,26273247-2,00.html

Text shared IAW the usual....

Defect armour risk to Australian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan
By Ian McPhedran
The Daily Telegraph
October 29, 2009 12:00am
The Daily Telegraph 
Breaking news: What's happening now

DEFENCE chiefs were told more than a year ago about serious safety concerns with combat body armour worn by Diggers in Afghanistan.

Federal Government documents obtained by The Daily Telegraph confirm troops were issued with armour with "known defects". 

The documents also show that top brass knew in April this year that troops were forced to use split pins and nails to prevent quick release catches on the armour from failing. 

The military ordered 14,688 sets of the suspect armour under a $24 million project and by May this year more than 8400 had been delivered. 

Despite two years of field testing by the army, the body armour, known as the modular combat armour system (MCBAS), will now be replaced by a lightweight system called American Eagle that is worn by special forces troops. 

The documents show serious failures in the original armour were identified in September 2008 and in February and April this year. 


I was lucky when I was in Iraq recently. My job allowed me to wear the Eagle Industries "Marine Lite". It was lighter, less bulky and easier to move in. I felt sorry fo... 

(Read More) 

R of Victoria Amid concerns about the impact of weight and a dodgy quick-release mechanism, the armour put soldiers at risk as they attempted to drag the body of Corporal Mathew Hopkins to safety during an ambush in Afghanistan in March this year. 

An official report said the armour "did contribute to the difficulty in recovering Cpl Hopkins from an exposed position and evacuating him" to a medical post. According to one document dated September 23, 2008, the armour's quick-release system had opened "without the wearer's intent" when "simulated" casualties were dragged by the shoulder straps by two personnel. 

However, despite the numerous documented complaints, Defence Materiel Organisation official Brigadier Bill Horrocks told a Senate inquiry in June "the feedback we have ... is that they are very happy with what we delivered to them; however, it is certainly heavy". 

Another Defence document dated April 6, 2009 said that one inspection had found that 15 sets of the armour had failed. 

"Some MCBAS issued to units and members has shoulder straps with single loop brown plastic buckle. These buckles are a known defect," the document said. 

Another report dated February 17, 2009 said quick release could not be operated by a single hand pull if the armour was wet or submerged. 

Troops in Afghanistan patrol through channels and streams.

----------------------

OWDU


----------



## COBRA-6 (6 Nov 2009)

I don't want to be uparmoured like robocop, I want to be light, quick and agile. Hopefully materials science and engineering will continue to progress to the point where armour capable of stopping rifle rounds will be as thin, light and flexible as current soft IIIa armour. 

In the short term I would like to see the in-service plates, which offer great protection, replaced by ones that offer the same level of protection in a thinner and hopefully lighter package like some of the titanium based plates availible today. I am also convinced the in-service FPV could be replaced by a more ergonomic chasis similar to the one from crye.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2009)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> I don't want to be uparmoured like robocop, I want to be light, quick and agile.



It'll be interesting how "the system" will end up balancing that need with what they appear to be looking at here:  protecting troops in vehicles.  Yeah, I know they don't ALWAYS stay in vehicles, but it looks like these studies look at that tile in the mosaic of ops.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Nov 2009)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> I don't want to be uparmoured like robocop, I want to be light, quick and agile.



What are you, a Ninja?
We need more heavier armor, like a space marine.  So we can shrug off blasts from AK47s and kick IEDs  ;D


What about www.lineoffire.ca

Self-healing body armor or whatever it's called sounds neat. And expensive.

Hope this picture isn't huge. When they say 'curret plate' I wonder how close specs wise that current plate is to ours.


----------



## Farmboy (14 Nov 2009)

> What about www.lineoffire.ca
> 
> Self-healing body armor or whatever it's called sounds neat. And expensive.
> 
> Hope this picture isn't huge. When they say 'curret plate' I wonder how close specs wise that current plate is to ours.



 I sent a couple of these plates down to the US to be independently tested.  Results are on Lightfighter, Armour Forum, in a thread by DocGKR about testing plates.



> This past week, we had an unexpected opportunity to shoot a couple of additional Level III plates to the same protocol as used for the Level III Patrol Armor Test in the initial post of this thread.
> 
> During this follow on testing, we shot two different Level III triple curve plate designs—a DefenseTech (DT855) Defend-X TCPL LIII and the In the Line of Fire (ILF) PBAIII01012 LIII.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeanNewman (14 Nov 2009)

The theory behind the Dragon Skin (like fish scales) seems to make a lot of sense.  It works by displacing the impact instead of having little tank-soldiers running (crawling) around.  If it works as promised, we're be wearing full-torso suits that are actually comfortable that weigh a few pounds instead of 10kg worth of thicker and thicker plates.

Not sure where I saw it first, one of those Weapons of Tomorrow shows or something like that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin_(body_armor)


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Nov 2009)

Farmboy thanks for posting that.

I wonder why the M855 punched through the ILF


----------



## Snaketnk (15 Nov 2009)

I have this link saved from an old debate on Dragonskin. I believe the conclusion of the thread was "this stuff is garbage"

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14523


----------



## SeanNewman (15 Nov 2009)

Hmm, that's too bad.  I haven't seen the results for myself so it's a tough call.  One guy on a forum quoting one study doesn't convince me.

I didn't know that it weighed so much though, almost 50 pounds for a vest is retarded, even if it worked perfectly.


----------



## Farmboy (15 Nov 2009)

The M855 has a steel penetrator. 

It is widely available in the US as surplus, which causes concern for anyone using armor that will not stop it.

DocGKR also uses a different test than NIJ.  Armour that survives one test might not survive the others.





Dragon Skin is not as good as they make it out to be.  It has failed tests done by independent agencies.  One of my buddies owned a set (or still does) he was trying to sell it awhile ago for a number of reasons.


----------

