Working on the theory that soldiers are less likely to ditch or ignore body armor that they choose to purchase themselves, the WW2 British and Americans allow private soldiers to purchase body armor like they did in WW1. (When quite a few British officers purchased, used, and attested to the success of various armor types....although results varied enormously.) Like most armor from that period, these will probably be limited in effectiveness to stopping shrapnel.
Any restrictions on war profiteering that would ordinarily prohibit private manufacturers from making and selling body armor are relaxed for that particular type of equipment.
However, all privately manufactured body armor models are subject to extremely stringent government regulation to ensure acceptable quality.
Two questions:
1) Does this lead to any reduction in casualties from shrapnel and similar injuries?
2) To what degree does the potential consumption of necessary war materials (presumably steel, nickel, and any other metals used to make body armor) make this policy a liability rather than an asset at a strategic level?
Any restrictions on war profiteering that would ordinarily prohibit private manufacturers from making and selling body armor are relaxed for that particular type of equipment.
However, all privately manufactured body armor models are subject to extremely stringent government regulation to ensure acceptable quality.
Two questions:
1) Does this lead to any reduction in casualties from shrapnel and similar injuries?
2) To what degree does the potential consumption of necessary war materials (presumably steel, nickel, and any other metals used to make body armor) make this policy a liability rather than an asset at a strategic level?
Last edited: