Marks photos of that pock marked sniper's shield reminded me of another item of personal protection. I enclose 3 photos, one shows a squad of German soldiers wearing the stuff, two is of a British soldier wearing captured body armour (and looking for all the world like a Flowerpot man) and three shows the results of American tests on body armour (one assumes that the soldiers modeling it did not wear it during the test). It certainly looks as if the breastplate on the right of the shot is seriously holed.
Given that this is not the sort of product that you are able to take back to the shop if it fails, is there any evidence of its efficacy or otherwise?
The Osprey publication "Flak Jackets" (no. 157) devoted a few pages to this subject. The German "Sappenpanzer" was said to be proof against smaller grenade and shell fragments, and rifle bullets at greater than 300 m range. It was said to be noisy with movement, and at 11 kg weight was impractical except for static troops such as sentries or machine gun emplacements. The British introduced a variety of metal and ballistic fibre types of body armour, of both commercial and army issue. Scale armour was said to be only marginally effective, able to stop low velocity fragmentation projectiles only, and sometimes worsening a bullet wound by forcing the scale into the wound. The Experimental Ordnance Board plate armour model of 1917 weighed about 4.5 kg and was said to be able to stop a .45 calibre pistol bullet at 800 ft/sec or a rifle bullet at 1000 ft/sec. The Chemico ballistic fibre vest (silk and other fibres in a resinous compound) was light (2.5 kg) and comfortable and was capable of stopping a .45 calibre pistol bullet at 300 ft/sec. When penetrated, it did not cause bullet deformity like the plate armour.
Body armour is not mentioned frequently in the British memoirs which I have read, despite the EOB set being fairly widely distributed in 1917-18. At least one memoir commented negatively on the courage of the wearer of body armour. Perhaps, like parachutes, the introduction of this life-saving technology was inhibited as much by prevailing attitudes as by technological limitations.
Marks photos of that pock marked sniper's shield reminded me of another item of personal protection. I enclose 3 photos, one shows a squad of German soldiers wearing the stuff...
In the same display case as the sniper shield there was a set of body armour. Here's a photo of it, along with some other items.
Let's not forget the real life superhero ARMOR MAN.
(Well, ok, that's just what I call him. But he really does look like a superhero, taking off his jacket and getting ready to save the dames! At least, I presume that to be some sort of armor.)
Vilkata wrote: Let's not forget the real life superhero ARMOR MAN. (Well, ok, that's just what I call him. But he really does look like a superhero, taking off his jacket and getting ready to save the dames! At least, I presume that to be some sort of armor.) ---Vil.
ah, now that im familiar with, awhile ago while randomly looking for helmet designs, i found the us office of medical history's webbook about wound ballistics in WWII, it appears the us army did little development in the way of armor protection, infact, it was after discovering japanese body armor that the us began to develop individual body armor for the average trooper, before this however there was signifigant devlopment in body armor for bomber crews, usualy involving entire suits made out of metal, dense materials, and nylon,