Body Armor
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
In a close quarter fight, why doesn't the side with body armor basically wipe the floor? Although they don't protect everything, I would think it'd be enough to give the distinct advantage. Most people instinctively aim for center mass and given that Level III can withstand up to 7.62, is there any reason that for two equally trained sides, that the one with body armor shouldn't win? Assuming that the opposition would have no knowledge of the armor before hand and that none of the weapons have armor piercing capabilities.
Obviously, again, this wouldn't happen, just wondering why.
>>30637863
Body armor makes a big difference, but so does training.
We've got the best of both, thus our enemies cannot stand up and fight, therefore most of our casualties are bomb related.
Thing is though, body armor isn't 100% coverage, so while it might stop 30% of hits from counting, it mostly changes the fight by teaching users to be bigger risk takers because it principally protects you from wounds that would have been fatal.
>>30637941
So in a one on one, if the one without body armor shoots center mass only for the bullet to be blocked, is he fucked? Is there any time to readjust the shot or is he going to be smoked before he realizes that the armor did its job?
>>30638184
depends on the caliber, 7.62x39 has alot of kenetic energy, if you took a hit from one at close range, the armor would stop the bullet, but the force of the bullet would knock you back, making it hard to get a clean shot off
>>30638517
while you're half correct, you're a fucking memelord who doesn't know how armor works
>>30638517
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5f1Fo4r4_I
>>30637863
https://youtu.be/tMMSA3opBk4
>>30638517
>whut is physics
The power of the bullet is slightly less than the recoil on the shooter, and is now distributed across a larger area.
Imagine the kick of an ak with a butt that covers your whole chest.
Probably not gonna throw you back, ey?
>>30637863
Real life is not a videogame.
Body armor does not magically protect your entire body, and the right term for armor is "bullet resistant". Any armor will ultimately fail, and these days people tend to prefer the "high speed, low drag" designs, that is more comfortable and less in your way vests and helmets, like these simple and plain plate carriers. Majority of helmets still are not designed to stop rifle rounds, as the resulted weight would be a literal pain in the neck. Face is still left mostly unprotected, because breathing, communicating with people, and cheek-welding your rifle are kinda essential. At least frag-protective goggles are already standard issue gear.
Just like armor ain't a magical cover-it-all solution, the human body is also a lot more vulnerable than what vidya and films tend to portray. You get shot anywhere in the body, and it's instant countdown to death without proper medical procedures. I remember few years ago these European forces (French if I recall right) tried to rescue some captured troops of theirs by sending couple operators (in quite MGS-like fashion) to the enemy stronghold. The gig went belly-side up, one of the guys got shot just below his armor around the hip, and while he managed to escape and hide into a cave, he soon bled to death. His corpse was found by the terrorists and looted of all his fancy NATO gear.
The biggest lethal force in most wars in the past century or so has been the indirect fire. Mortars, artillery, rockets, missiles...etc. The first helmets and armors were designed to mostly protect the soldiers from the frag, pressure and heat caused by the indirect fire, that have resulted around 75% of all deaths in the wars. The protection from direct fire (guns) was kind of a side-effect, which designers have slowly tried to crank up each generation.
tl;dr: armor only covers so much, people want to be able to move and breath freely, and getting wounded in a firefight is a serious problem.
>>30641678
jesus, that pic. Just thinking about punching out to shoot a handgun or shouldering a rifle already makes me uncomfortable.
>>30641678
>armor only covers so much, people want to be able to move and breath freely
That's the big trade off currently, no?
Comfort/mobility vs protection.
>>30641715
Pretty much yeah.
The (stereotypical) modern oper8or tends to be these loosely and comfortably clothed bearded guys with a plate carrier at maximum on them. If they happen to wear helmets, even they often tend to be just lightweight, non-ballistic "bump" helmets, that they use as mounting base for NVGs, coms, etc.
I do kinda understand the point, especially when operating in hot as hell countries, but considering how light the modern armor sets can be nowadays, I find the whole "at least I'll die comfy" ideology annoyingly self-destructive.
>>30642137
holy shit that guy is xboxhueg
>>30638759
This is a bad meme. While technically correct, it fails to take into account that only in a straight blowback gun is it purely Le Opposite Newtonian Reaction :^)
In a gas operated or any modified blowback system (like those roller lock widgets or w/e) the force of the round exiting the weapon is imparted over a much longer timeframe than the impact of the round against a target, and some of the forces are directed away from the shooter (an extreme example of this is the Super V, which redirects some recoil down instead of into the shooter's shoulder)
Hits to armor most certainly do break bones and sometimes even knock people down if they're not standing steady.
>>30642137
If you could pick between a plate carrier and a helmet for weight, why not pick the helmet? You can survive getting shot in the gut and eventually eat solid foods again, but just one little piece of shrapnel could go through your dome and make you permanently disabled. Same for eyepro. Just some metal slivers or sharp sand kicked up by the wind could injure you, but it's stopped by a $2 dollar set of safety goggles. You could even get tinted ones for dealing with the sun too
>>30642159
>Hits to armor most certainly do break bones and sometimes even knock people down if they're not standing steady.
Are you being ironic here?
>>30638759
yeah but it would probably fuck your aim up
>>30642159
>If you could pick between a plate carrier and a helmet for weight, why not pick the helmet?
Very weird question to ask, and also some very optimistic assumptions with those survival chances. Tons of people have died INSTANTLY from being stabbed or shot to the torso. A puny .22 short to the heart or spine, and you're out for good. Plus, the center mass is the bigger target to which people tend to aim naturally.
Still, I see there being no situation where you would be forced to pic one or the other. There's no reason, besides personal silly preferences, to not take 360 degree coverage by wearing both helmet and body armor of some sort. You could get a all around level IIIa protection for head and torso, that'd weight ~2 kilograms in total. Add some of those modern level III plates that weight a mere kg each, and you got superb protection ~4kg total.
>Hits to armor most certainly do break bones and sometimes even knock people down if they're not standing steady.
False. Please stop doing and spreading that childish meme crap, and learn basics of the laws of physics.
Consult this video for a proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5f1Fo4r4_I
>>30638517
Against full size rifle cartridges (ie, not intermediate cartridges like the 5.56), most rigid body armor strike faces are only certified for a single hit. Absorbing that energy alters the crystalline structure of the ceramic.
Soldiers typically want to fight as light as possible. They'll be moving for an unknowable amount of time, perhaps even days at a time.
SWAT and HR teams know theyre going into a building, blasting the bad guy and coming out. They typically armor the shit out of themselves. Arms, legs, crotches, shields, etc. Yes it's effective, otherwise why would they bother?
>>30637863
Body armor is just a force multiplier. You cant make a group of soldiers win by simple giving them body armor and the other group not since it is not that directly simple.
Now if you have one side with good rifles, body armor, night vision and the other side not then things may change due to more factors and equipment advantage.
>>30642190
If you are shot wearing armor without a plate you can expect terrible bruising, possibly internal injuries, or even broken bones. And that is if the armor defeats the bullet.
>>30642244
this was true still maybe last decade.
however nowadays it's hard to find lv III (enough to stop regular .308 and similar rounds) plates that'd not be multi-hit and standalone. There's also plenty of those "Level III+" and "III++", which are not official ratings, but only tell that the plate's protection exceeds NIJ III requirements, but is not quite on par with level IV requirements.
>>30642285
You're greatly over-exaggerating things.
Like said, would a bullet have that kind of power, the shooter would pretty much dislocate his shoulder with each shot. And the plate spreads that little kinetic energy the projectile has around its entire area, which is further softened by the potential soft-armor layer behind it.
More and more people are using Lv4 standalone + multihit plates.
>>30642282
>That pic
My sides
>>30642291
I'm speaking in generalities mostly since there is a great variance based on armor worn, what you are hit with, distance, and many other factors. That being said, it will range from, "that wasn't so bad" to, "oh fuck I think I'm dying."
>>30642285
If you are using older or lower rated soft armor vests yes. Otherwise modern lvl3A vests and lvl2 vests provide low BFD against their rated threats (cant excede 44mm or you fail the US ballistic standard) by having so many layers of kevlar. Did you know that you only need about 7 layers of kevlar to stop a 45 acp? But vests that are rated to stop a 45acp like lvl2a got 22 layers and those layers are there to make sure that you wont get too much blunt trauma and suffer internal damage.
Most stories that you hear of people getting broken ribs come from the late 20th century where cops got hit by threats that exceded their vests rating but was stopped and resulted in bad bruises and broken ribs. Now im not saying that you wont get a broken rib with a modern vest but the chance to get one is lower then before. Now when the US body armor market is full of nice things like trauma pads and lvl3a soft armor panels that you can put under your vest or plate. One can equip themself to have even a lower chance to get a broken rib.
Take this book http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=D261BFF9842AE1B70DD3098A85A391AE
You can download it for free and it provide rather good information about western body armor development and I would recommend it for you. It is old but the information is still valid.
>>30642159
>If you could pick between a plate carrier and a helmet for weight, why not pick the helmet? You can survive getting shot in the gut and eventually eat solid foods again
But proper modern plate carriers emphasizes the heart and lungs, not so much the gut.
And unless you're going to get down and dirty into CQB, I'm pretty sure without proper training or lord forbid, clearing rooms BY YOUR SELF, your torso is an easier mass to shoot at than your head.
