Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/1/2013 5:11:45 PM EDT
|
Ok people. Wanted to throw a great discussion on the purpose of body armor. You all can comment what is your view on this.
What is the true purpose of body armor? |
|
I believe the true purpose was to protect the combatants mainly from shrapnel. I say that it is good for stopping bullets but it transmits the energy to whatever is under the armor. Ex, you get hit in the abdominal area by a bullet, you will get the wind knocked out of you and you will be momentarily incapacitated. Another Ex, with helmets, you get a round in that area, you are incapacitated (think knocked out) by the shear force behind the bullet.
I will say it will give you a fighting chance at survival. But in what conditions would it be considered a hindrance? |
|
I dont get the philosophical aspect of the question...
Depending on your personal tactics/mission/situation (military or civilian) (defensive versus offensive)... body armor (good armor) can be a lifesaver... or it can weigh you down, and hinder movement. Regardless of whether you have armor or not, you seek cover in a fight, which in itself is a form of armor. |
|
Quoted:
I dont get the philosophical aspect of the question... Depending on your personal tactics/mission/situation (military or civilian) (defensive versus offensive)... body armor (good armor) can be a lifesaver... or it can weigh you down, and hinder movement. Regardless of whether you have armor or not, you seek cover in a fight, which in itself is a form of armor. And I agree with you. It is better to have body armor on than no armor. No doubt in my mind it is a lifesaver. The philosophical aspect of it was "What was it intended for? What was it made to stop originally?" |
|
Body armor is a force multiplier.
It allows a degree of protection. Making it harder to kill you. Harder to kill means you get to fight longer. It is for your tactics not you. Situational dependent in deployment. Defense - wear as the uniform item it is. Accommodate it by using vehicles, and shade. Recon/ Offense / Ambush- it is an element of diminishing returns. |
|
Quoted:
Body armor is a force multiplier. It allows a degree of protection. Making it harder to kill you. Harder to kill means you get to fight longer. It is for your tactics not you. This. It's like biggef magazines are not so you can shoot more, they're so you can reload less. |
|
Quoted:
Body armor is a force multiplier. It allows a degree of protection. Making it harder to kill you. Harder to kill means you get to fight longer. It is for your tactics not you. Pretty much this. Early armor in the form of thick hide garments and then copper or bronze was intended to give the average warrior the ability to outlast their opponents on the battlefield, ensuring victory. I can pretty much promise you that ancient Greek soldiers hated wearing thick bronze plates in the Mediterranean sun just as much as soldiers hate the IOTV in A-Stan. As weapons are developed that negate that force multiplier, new armor is devised to bring it back into play. When firearms entered the equation, armor largely disappeared until technology could catch up - not because they didn't want to protect themselves, but because there was no easy way to gain the force multiplier with the technology of the era, so soldiers went into war with just clothing and ammo - the tools needed for victory. Nowadays, those tools are greatly expanded with high-tech protective gear, nightvision, lasers and lights, fancy optics, and all kinds of shit designed to give soldiers an edge in combat and ensure battlefield dominance. It's a constantly evolving game. All of this is designed around the "average warrior". Some fight better with light or no armor, some fight better with different weapons. However, the numbers game is won by the most efficient solution for the largest portion of the combatants, so everyone gets issued the "one size fits all" gear - if you can increase the efficacy of 90% of your force by 10%, that's better than increasing the efficacy of 10% by 40%. I think there's a lot more flexibility in this in today's military, but overall this is the general idea. (I believe this is also why, unless there's enough bad press, the military doesn't go for the nicest, most comfortable armor but instead goes for the thickest/most protective. Force multiplier, not empathy for the individual footsoldier) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok people. Wanted to throw a great discussion on the purpose of body armor. You all can comment what is your view on this. What is the true purpose of body armor? You are kidding, right? I am trying to ask a philosophical question here. There's nothing philosophical about it. BA helps you survive and keep fighting even if you get blasted, that's all. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok people. Wanted to throw a great discussion on the purpose of body armor. You all can comment what is your view on this. What is the true purpose of body armor? You are kidding, right? I am trying to ask a philosophical question here. To wear body armor or to not wear body armor. That is the question. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I dont get the philosophical aspect of the question... Depending on your personal tactics/mission/situation (military or civilian) (defensive versus offensive)... body armor (good armor) can be a lifesaver... or it can weigh you down, and hinder movement. Regardless of whether you have armor or not, you seek cover in a fight, which in itself is a form of armor. And I agree with you. It is better to have body armor on than no armor. No doubt in my mind it is a lifesaver. The philosophical aspect of it was "What was it intended for? What was it made to stop originally?" Originally it was designed to stop slashing attacks from edged weapons when chain mail was the fashion. This didn't protect much against heavy swords or axe-type or crushing weapons like the halberd. These were mainly used for crushing the bones underneath. Hence plate armor, which gave better protection due to the reinforcing curves (although the halberd was designed to dismount knights in plate armor). And then the gun came along and all of it became useless until people started experimenting with defenses against shrapnel woulds and bullets shortly before WWI. Most of this armor was heavy or bulky enough to make a soldier almost unable to fight or maneuver effectively. Round about WWII, bomber crews started wearing flak jackets (named for the German term for anti-aircraft fire) that used shrapnel in the form of exploding ballistic shells. They were bulky, much like previous designs of the late 1800's, but slightly more effective. They still did not stop small arms fire. In about the last 30 years body armor has taken off with all the new composites and fibers available, finally making reasonably useable armor that would actually catch bullets. There's even stuff in the works that can flex like a winter coat but absorb the energy of a bullet due to non-newtonian fluids. About like wearing a rainsuit in feel but will stop pistol bullets without as much blunt force trauma. Armor hasn't always been for ballistic projectiles and some modern armor serves as a multipurpose item (frag, ballistic, stab, etc). Until firearms make another big leap, ballistic armor is just going to get better. But it will most likely always be just an item that increases your chances of surviving a fight to fight another day. Police and military training has become expensive, so every one that survives is worth the investment. I'm sure the guys who have taken one to the armor will agree. |
|
Quoted:
I believe the true purpose was to protect the combatants mainly from shrapnel. I say that it is good for stopping bullets but it transmits the energy to whatever is under the armor. Ex, you get hit in the abdominal area by a bullet, you will get the wind knocked out of you and you will be momentarily incapacitated. Another Ex, with helmets, you get a round in that area, you are incapacitated (think knocked out) by the shear force behind the bullet. I will say it will give you a fighting chance at survival. But in what conditions would it be considered a hindrance? Body armor is to keep you from dying, not to keep you from getting hurt. If you get shot in the plate, you're going to be feeling it, and you won't be able to fight in the engagement as well as if you hadn't taken the round, but you'll still be alive. That's why the plate only needs to cover your heart, the base of your lungs, and spine, and you don't worry about your guts or the peripheries of your organs. Getting shot in the heart ends the game immediately. Getting shot on the edge of your lung or in your guts isn't, because you'll survive for a couple minutes at least. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I dont get the philosophical aspect of the question... Depending on your personal tactics/mission/situation (military or civilian) (defensive versus offensive)... body armor (good armor) can be a lifesaver... or it can weigh you down, and hinder movement. Regardless of whether you have armor or not, you seek cover in a fight, which in itself is a form of armor. And I agree with you. It is better to have body armor on than no armor. No doubt in my mind it is a lifesaver. The philosophical aspect of it was "What was it intended for? What was it made to stop originally?" Originally it was designed to stop slashing attacks from edged weapons when chain mail was the fashion. This didn't protect much against heavy swords or axe-type or crushing weapons like the halberd. These were mainly used for crushing the bones underneath. Hence plate armor, which gave better protection due to the reinforcing curves (although the halberd was designed to dismount knights in plate armor). And then the gun came along and all of it became useless until people started experimenting with defenses against shrapnel woulds and bullets shortly before WWI. Most of this armor was heavy or bulky enough to make a soldier almost unable to fight or maneuver effectively. Round about WWII, bomber crews started wearing flak jackets (named for the German term for anti-aircraft fire) that used shrapnel in the form of exploding ballistic shells. They were bulky, much like previous designs of the late 1800's, but slightly more effective. They still did not stop small arms fire. In about the last 30 years body armor has taken off with all the new composites and fibers available, finally making reasonably useable armor that would actually catch bullets. There's even stuff in the works that can flex like a winter coat but absorb the energy of a bullet due to non-newtonian fluids. About like wearing a rainsuit in feel but will stop pistol bullets without as much blunt force trauma. Armor hasn't always been for ballistic projectiles and some modern armor serves as a multipurpose item (frag, ballistic, stab, etc). Until firearms make another big leap, ballistic armor is just going to get better. But it will most likely always be just an item that increases your chances of surviving a fight to fight another day. Police and military training has become expensive, so every one that survives is worth the investment. I'm sure the guys who have taken one to the armor will agree. So different variants of body armor are built to defeat certain projectiles (frag armor defeats drags but does not do a good job of defeating bullets) is what you are saying right? I also heard about prototypes in body armor regarding non-Newtonian fluids and materials. Is this true? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I dont get the philosophical aspect of the question... Depending on your personal tactics/mission/situation (military or civilian) (defensive versus offensive)... body armor (good armor) can be a lifesaver... or it can weigh you down, and hinder movement. Regardless of whether you have armor or not, you seek cover in a fight, which in itself is a form of armor. And I agree with you. It is better to have body armor on than no armor. No doubt in my mind it is a lifesaver. The philosophical aspect of it was "What was it intended for? What was it made to stop originally?" Originally it was designed to stop slashing attacks from edged weapons when chain mail was the fashion. This didn't protect much against heavy swords or axe-type or crushing weapons like the halberd. These were mainly used for crushing the bones underneath. Hence plate armor, which gave better protection due to the reinforcing curves (although the halberd was designed to dismount knights in plate armor). And then the gun came along and all of it became useless until people started experimenting with defenses against shrapnel woulds and bullets shortly before WWI. Most of this armor was heavy or bulky enough to make a soldier almost unable to fight or maneuver effectively. Round about WWII, bomber crews started wearing flak jackets (named for the German term for anti-aircraft fire) that used shrapnel in the form of exploding ballistic shells. They were bulky, much like previous designs of the late 1800's, but slightly more effective. They still did not stop small arms fire. In about the last 30 years body armor has taken off with all the new composites and fibers available, finally making reasonably useable armor that would actually catch bullets. There's even stuff in the works that can flex like a winter coat but absorb the energy of a bullet due to non-newtonian fluids. About like wearing a rainsuit in feel but will stop pistol bullets without as much blunt force trauma. Armor hasn't always been for ballistic projectiles and some modern armor serves as a multipurpose item (frag, ballistic, stab, etc). Until firearms make another big leap, ballistic armor is just going to get better. But it will most likely always be just an item that increases your chances of surviving a fight to fight another day. Police and military training has become expensive, so every one that survives is worth the investment. I'm sure the guys who have taken one to the armor will agree. So different variants of body armor are built to defeat certain projectiles (frag armor defeats drags but does not do a good job of defeating bullets) is what you are saying right? I also heard about prototypes in body armor regarding non-Newtonian fluids and materials. Is this true? Body armor is built for certain purposes, yes. Edged attacks, stabbing weapons, pistol rounds, rifle rounds, shrapnel, blunt force trauma, etc all require different methodologies to protect the wearer, which is why it is hard to defend against all of the threats. If you work in a prison, you probably don't need protection from rifle rounds as much as you do shivs. If you are an infantryman, you better be able to stop rifle rounds. If you are SOF, you may not want all of the extra weight and restrictions in movement, so you may not wear any at all or the bare minimum. And yes, there are prototypes of these types of armors. Neat stuff but I am unaware of any commercial applications yet. And again, even if it does become commercially viable, it won't be a panacea. Weapons technology and defensive measures are always undergoing a constant arms race. Just look at the reactive armor on tanks, the tech ping pongs back and forth until the cost (in terms of money, deployability, etc) ratio no longer holds true and a new technology must be developed. |
|
I cannot believe I am even responding to this, but...
The purpose of body armor is to protect against a certain level of physical threat to the covered are of the body to allow the user to continue to fight when the body would have normally suffered a potentially debilitating injury. That being said, this is quite possibly the dumbest question I have ever read in 10 years on ARFCOM. There is nothing "philisophical" about it. You wear the armor that is rated to protect against the the threat you perceive. There are several systems that rate the effectiveness of current armor systems, NIJ being the most common one. |
|
Quoted:
I cannot believe I am even responding to this, but... The purpose of body armor is to protect against a certain level of physical threat to the covered are of the body to allow the user to continue to fight when the body would have normally suffered a potentially debilitating injury. That being said, this is quite possibly the dumbest question I have ever read in 10 years on ARFCOM. There is nothing "philisophical" about it. You wear the armor that is rated to protect against the the threat you perceive. There are several systems that rate the effectiveness of current armor systems, NIJ being the most common one. Yep. It's just another piece of PPE to me. |
Awesome!
|
Quoted:
Since nobody has mentioned it yet... BA is also for laying out with all your other kit to take and post pics for a gear queer circle jerk. Why do you even post here? 
For the most part, this forum is for knowledge and experience. The vast majority of your posts are completely worthless. Hmmm... Maybe your posts reflect on you? Key word would be worthless... Sorry dude. ETA: From what I have seen from you, you should have a lot of experience to pass on. SHOULD. Maybe that isn't the case. Since the majority of your posts are making fun of tactical gear. What is this forum again? Oh yeah.. it's the tactical gear forum.... hmmm... in my business, that would be what we call, a 'clue'. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since nobody has mentioned it yet... BA is also for laying out with all your other kit to take and post pics for a gear queer circle jerk. Why do you even post here?
For the most part, this forum is for knowledge and experience. The vast majority of your posts are completely worthless. Hmmm... Maybe your posts reflect on you? Key word would be worthless... Sorry dude. ETA: From what I have seen from you, you should have a lot of experience to pass on. SHOULD. Maybe that isn't the case. Since the majority of your posts are making fun of tactical gear. What is this forum again? Oh yeah.. it's the tactical gear forum.... hmmm... in my business, that would be what we call, a 'clue'. This from the guy who said airsoft BBs hurt? Wait, I bet you were joking there... You must have missed my earlier post. Next time I make a joke I'll include  so no one gets hurt feelings.
|
|
One reason only: TO KEEP YOU IN THE FIGHT!
People with a bullet wound to the chest tend not to shoot back so much. Shot in the arm? Put a pressure dressing on, shoot with your good arm. Remember, the best aid for a downed soldier is a wall of bullets heading towards the enemy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since nobody has mentioned it yet... BA is also for laying out with all your other kit to take and post pics for a gear queer circle jerk. You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm glad I'm not the only one who can joke about this.  I myself like comparing gucci |
|
Quoted:
I cannot believe I am even responding to this, but... The purpose of body armor is to protect against a certain level of physical threat to the covered are of the body to allow the user to continue to fight when the body would have normally suffered a potentially debilitating injury. That being said, this is quite possibly the dumbest question I have ever read in 10 years on ARFCOM. There is nothing "philisophical" about it. You wear the armor that is rated to protect against the the threat you perceive. There are several systems that rate the effectiveness of current armor systems, NIJ being the most common one. PPE, how does it work?
|
Armory Sponsor