It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Modern military grade body armor

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
What are some of the best body armor systems for the modern military and where can they be purchased? I recently read in the newspaper that the US government is re-imbursing private purchases of body armor (and the shipping inccured thereon) up to $1,100. Apparently its in reaction to pressure put on the government concerning injuries in the field.

Obviously, US body armor is better than its ever been, but equally obviously the standard issue armor can't be anywhere near as good as the private stuff. Also, the current armor, from what I understand, provides focused protection on the trunk of the body, but not the upper limbs, throat, and lower body, not even the important femoral artery.

So perhaps there are areas that some of you who are familiar with this sort of thing think that the US issue armor can be improved on? Also, is it possible that there is such a thing as 'too much' armor, on such a budget?

Obviously no armor can stop RPGS or these ballistically forming molten slugs that iran has shipped over the the militias, but surely there is a lot fo room for improved protection no?




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Body armour is all a matter of compromise. Either you wear little or no body armour and be a faster moving and therefore harder to hit target, or you can wear loads of armour that will protect most of the body and stop 7.62 AP rounds but restricts mobility to the extent whereby you become an easier to hit target.

From what I have seen and used, the troops on the ground tend to want stuff that will stop a bullet from killing them, which generally means torso armour. All of the leg/arm/neck/groin stuff tends to restrict the soldiers movement to the extent that they can't use their weapons or access their kit in a hurry - potentially lethal in many circumstances. They also tend to add a lot of weight to the system, making it harder to wear for long periods particularly in hot environments. This makes it easier for the soldier to find excuses not to wear their armour or only wear the light weight kevlar filling without the ballistic plates. This gets soldiers killed. The brits are trying out new armour in the sandpit at the moment which offers protection for more of the upper body and neck, but most reports say that it is despised by everyone who uses it. It simply makes life too difficult and uncomfortable. Yes it will stop more, but at the expense of reducing the soldiers efficiency.

US issue armour is quite good (much better than the brit flackers), although it is quite heavy. It will stop a lot of the stuff flying around these days. The plates in the Brit vest only cover a small amount of the chest and back, so we can only go to war with people who are good shots!

[edit on 8-1-2006 by PaddyInf]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Well here is a good article about current body armor in Iraq and updates that they have made to it. Troops are now field a new body amour that's lighter then what they previously had, and that's capable of stopping 7.62 mm rounds.



Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System is made up of two modular components: the outer tactical vest and small-arms protective inserts, or plates. The new body armor, which is unisex, is equipped with removable throat and groin protectors, as well as front and back removable plates, which can stop 7.62 mm rounds. It weighs 16.4 pounds; each of the two inserts weighs 4 pounds, and the outer tactical vest weighs 8.4 pounds. The previous body armor, the flak jacket, weighed 25.1 pounds.





posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
The guy looks ridiculous. I can see that get-up being useful for sitting in a gun position or riding in a fixed mount on top of a tank or something - a position that exposes you and limits your movement. But for actual combat operations?

I personally like Miguel Caballero's offerings, he's a Colombian designer of armored apparel. You don't have to look like Poppin' Fresh to take a 7.62 round to the chest and live to tell about it. He also produces armored camel packs, riot gear, ceramic inserts, and some other nifty stuff.

I know this is somewhat off-topic, but I wanted to add that I think the American regulations banning civilian posession of body armor are ludicrous. You can't harm your fellow citizens with body armor, it simply allows you to protect yourself. The American government is ostensibly in the business of protecting its citizens, so what gives? I know the standard reasoning, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Sorry, I know its of topic, but I had to...


The American government is ostensibly in the business of protecting its citizens, so what gives? I know the standard reasoning, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


Yeah? I suggest you look up the North Hollywood Shootout, then come back and talk about how it protects citizens.

Besides, that law only prohibits convicted criminals from possessing body armor, are you suggesting we let criminals wear body armor?


United States Law 18USC931 provides that: (a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess body armor, if that person has been convicted of a felony that is—(1) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16); or (2) an offense under State law that would constitute a crime of violence under paragraph (1) if it occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.


[edit on 8-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   


Yeah? I suggest you look up the North Hollywood Shootout, then come back and talk about how it protects citizens.


I don't have to look it up because I know the story. The body armor did a fine job of protecting the people wearing it, which is obviously the point. Just because something can be misused by criminals is no reason to deny ordinary law-abiding citizens access. By that logic automobiles and firearms should also be illegal, since without access to those two things, the body armor used by the bank robbers would have hardly been sufficient to rob the bank.

And just so we're clear, you know there were only two fatalities that day, right? The only people who died were the criminals who started the shoot-out.



Besides, that law only prohibits convicted criminals from possessing body armor, are you suggesting we let criminals wear body armor?


No, if that was what I had intended to suggest I would have done so explicitly. Don't put words in my mouth lest I spit them back at you.

Most (if not all) states have laws against private individuals posessing certain grades of body armor, or certain inserts. Also, I assume you're not aware of the patchwork of local laws governing the specific uses for which body armor is legal/illegal. A number of states have laws against, for example, having body armor shipped by mail, ordering body armor online, wearing body armor while carrying a firearm, wearing concealable body armor, etc..

In my state it's extremely hard to dodge the procedural hurdles necessary to acquire body armor, and if it's TOO EFFECTIVE you aren't allowed to own it. Hoo boy. Does that make sense to anyone?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Wyrde, your local laws can do that?

I know in Canada, the only caveats to body armor ownership are A) that you aren't convicted of a criminal offense and B) you don't wear it in the commision of a crime.

I mean, I envy the safety that CCW provides, but wouldn't a little body armor help? You're not going to have the first shot every time. And, to be frank, not everyone wants to carry, but the odd ones do want to wear body armor.

DE



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

And just so we're clear, you know there were only two fatalities that day, right? The only people who died were the criminals who started the shoot-out.


I know, twelve officers and eight civilians were severely wounded, and the two men (one committed suicide) and the other was only killed when over 350 LAPD officer showed up an when SWAT arrived.

If not being able to buy or wear military grade body armor really bothers you that much then take it up with your local officials, because Federal Law allows it. I just think that the police don't want to come up against people who are heavily armed and armored, that's why local or state governments may be enacting such laws.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
DE
Yeah, the federal guidelines are the same here, no felons allowed to own. Also, there're extra-stiff penalties for wearing body armor in the commission of a crime. Some places though, it's downright retarded. I think it's Louisiana where you can't pick up a gun if you're a civilian wearing body armor.

The laws are well-intentioned but, IMO, foolish.

Like you say, not wanting to carry a weapon at all times is understandable, but not wanting to wear body armor baffles me. Armored clothing is coming into its own right now, pretty spiffy stuff. You can get IIIA in pinstripes or double-breasted.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I can definitely understand wanting to wear body armor at all times. Hell, if I could AFFORD body armor, especially the concealable type, I'd definitely wear nearly around the clock.

But one wonders, do they have restrictions on wearing body armor into federal buildings and similar places, where one couldn't carry?

LOL at Lousiana, though. Wouldn't criminal types just wait outside gun stores and then open you up like a fish for your gun?

DE



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Anyway, getting back on track, and thanks for the information so far, does anyone else know of any other places where soldiers can get armour additions that are improvements over standard issue type stuff? Are there any private companies that are actually approved by the US military? Should there be?

Anyone know if there is much of a chance of the DoD re-imbursing purchases later on? Probably not, considering that congress had to pass a law and then they still went a year over the deadline to implement the program. Then again, if congress passed the law, then the pentagon might drag its feet, but eventually have it done no?

Here is a thread on a similar topic
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17-1-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Here's an interesting article. I did'nt think it rated it's own thread so I stuck it here.

Troops refusing to wear body armor is not excuse for the military not providing it. Imo, they should still have the option when it comes to wearing some of the heavier armor, especially while on foot patrols and when clearing buildings..etc...



ap.washingtontimes.com
HUSAYBAH, Iraq (AP) -- Extra body armor - the lack of which caused a political storm in the United States - has flooded in to Iraq, but many Marines here promptly stuck it in lockers or under bunks. Too heavy and cumbersome, many say.

Marines already carry loads as heavy as 70 pounds when they patrol the dangerous streets in towns and villages in restive Anbar province. The new armor plates, while only about five pounds per set, are not worth carrying for the additional safety they are said to provide, some say.


Other cources with the same article.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Dragon skin armor

From what I understand, this is the best stuff out there, and it is getting ready to be tested by the armed forces to replace current protection. I know the SEALS are excited about it.

JDub



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well here is a good article about current body armor in Iraq and updates that they have made to it. Troops are now field a new body amour that's lighter then what they previously had, and that's capable of stopping 7.62 mm rounds.



Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System is made up of two modular components: the outer tactical vest and small-arms protective inserts, or plates. The new body armor, which is unisex, is equipped with removable throat and groin protectors, as well as front and back removable plates, which can stop 7.62 mm rounds. It weighs 16.4 pounds; each of the two inserts weighs 4 pounds, and the outer tactical vest weighs 8.4 pounds. The previous body armor, the flak jacket, weighed 25.1 pounds.


you know how slow this would make you in addition to the norm 50lb of equipment on his backpack and straps. lol!! it will hurt mobility and u will got shot at with rocket launcher (Us army rangers)



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
it will hurt mobility and u will got shot at with rocket launcher (Us army rangers)

Again, exactly how mobile does the avergae joe need to be? They could have no armour at all and be extremely agile, they could just carry a few grenades and wear running shorts and they'd be faster than anyone else out there.

How many joes have died from not being able to dive and tumble out of the way of a jihadi's line of fire? Most of these guys seem to be dying from sudden, unexpected, and immposible to counter-act IEDs. And the ones that are dying from bullet wounds, they're dying because they are getting hit in the places where the armour isn't covered, not because they couldn't do a flying sommersualt over a barricade to avoid an RPG.


M6D

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
You actually make a good point there, id be intrested to see statistics about how many kills were frm IED's in iraq, or hits around the chest area, anyway, surely against gureillia fighters wont your first sign of hostiles be a gunshot or a firearm been fired? in this type of enviroment when you can be caught by suprise woudlnt it be a wiser idea to wear armour? i wouldnt now of course but you know, its just, i swear soldiers ages ago used to wear such heavy loads, sometimes it just comes across as theyre fussing and fussing even when theyre loads are been decreased!



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Just to throw this in the mix...

The 2 men in the north hollywood shootout did indeed have purchased body armor.

Theyre vests and plates.

On the other hand, theyre groins, arms, and legs, as well as the adding on to of the vests, were all home jobs..

Kevlar CAN be purchased by the roll... and you CAN stitch it together.

In other words, they MADE theyre armor. So that is, i beleive, still, a loophole in the law.

Is it considered body armor if you make thick clothing out of a certain material?

Who knows.
But they made a good chunk of theyre armor months before they robbed the place.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I think the body armor (interceptor) we had in Iraq was a good compromise. Once you get used to the weight of it and wearing it all the time you actually have to adjust to not wearing it. I can remember times when I would leave my body armor on in secure areas just because it gave some additional core support to my back on those long days. You get used to it fast, and feel naked without it.

Also, mobility was bad enough with the current system, I wouldn’t wish less mobility on troops. Its not so much about running, jumping, and diving as it is reaching for the mag. you just dropped or the radio hand mic. Those kinda things can get you killed when they cause you to be exposed for too long.

Oh, and I have seen the current system stop a 7.62X39 round from about 5 feet away and cause only bruising.


So far as the North Hollywood thing, there are two points that have not been made. First, it was stated that it took a long time to take them out. This was not due to their armor, but to the police being out gunned. If memory serves me correctly none of the cops had riffles and couldn’t hit their targets with the pistols from that distance. One cop went and borrowed some .22 caliber riffles from a gun store and was able to make shots to un-armored areas. Those same departments now issue riffles.


So far as felons walking down your street armed and armored, why not ask a smart question? How about this: "why are felons walking down the street?" If they are dangerous, keep them locked up. If not and you release them, restore their civil rights. I for one don’t want dangerous felons living on my street. (Over half of the incarcerated people in our nation are there for non-violent, victimless crimes. Child-molesters rapists and murderers get out early due to prison overcrowding and drug entrepreneurs take their cell space. Chew on that when you are asking if the felon (child molester) that lives on your block should be allowed to own body armor.)

[edit on 2-4-2006 by cavscout]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
i still wonder if such armor can stop a high powered sniper rifle equipped with DU bullets.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I dont think that any body armor can stop a Depleted Uranium round. That new body armor does look ridiculous. Enemy soldiers will fall over laughing, instead of shooting at our soldiers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join