Better US Army Weapons/Equipment in WW1

[marathag]

Sigh. Then you lose the ability to re-purpose older, and less needed, weapons. You are building a completely new design and will find it a fast harder sell .
The "main difference" between .32 or .351 rounds and .30 is they won't fit down a .30 barrel.

32SL was never popular. Getting an army contract for new ammo in .308 would have made them happy for future sales, as it uses all the same manufacturing line and the same tooling, with minor tweaks

 

[marathag]

he guy who designed it, Bashford Dean, was the curator of arms and armor at the Met. It was, likewise, designed to stop pistol ammo and shrapnel, rather than rifle or machine gun

And was light, 12.5 pounds without the Helmet, and would have saved thousands from shrapnel injuries, and reduced severity of wounds, as proven by crews in bombers during the next war, with flak jackets with manganese steel straps and plates.
Form follows function, and by the 1400s, half armor like that was judged most effective.

 

[McPherson]

And was light, 12.5 pounds without the Helmet, and would have saved thousands from shrapnel injuries, and reduced severity of wounds, as proven by crews in bombers during the next war, with flak jackets with manganese steel straps and plates.
Form follows function, and by the 1400s, half armor like that was judged most effective.

Bomber crews did not have to run across broken ground.

 

[Crowbar Six]

And please fix the magazine.

You can't fix the magazine without fixing the round. The French realised that they needed a round with way less taper than that when they went over to magazine rifles. If WW1 hadn't happened they were going to ditch 8mm Lebel sooner rather than later.

 

[marathag]

Bomber crews did not have to run across broken ground.

Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan had armor packages, over 33 pounds with all the add on for the Interceptor armor. With the best hard plates that could give protection against rifle fire, was around 40.
The German WWI armor, less Helmet with extras forehead plate, was 24 pounds, and the Machine Gunners Lobster armor was over 27.
Bashford Dean has a set made for mobility, able to shoot a rifle, and with the helmet, 15 pounds, and protection level against shrapnel and pistol bullets.

 

[McPherson]

Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan had armor packages, over 33 pounds with all the add on for the Interceptor armor. With the best hard plates that could give protection against rifle fire, was around 40.
The German WWI armor, less Helmet with extras forehead plate, was 24 pounds, and the Machine Gunners Lobster armor was over 27.
Bashford Dean has a set made for mobility, able to shoot a rifle, and with the helmet, 15 pounds, and protection level against shrapnel and pistol bullets.

If you have been following the trends, infantry body armor only became "viable" after the down bore sizing of bullets post WWII and the punch of grenades and mortar bombs in a similar fashion. Now that bullet bore sizing and grenade punch has gone up in reaction to that body armor, the troops are choosing between being able to move and live with the heat burden and the politician mandated body armor. Guess what they chose?

 

[marathag]

In the Korean War, that basic Marine ballistic Nylon vest, with Duron plates, more uncomfortable than the WWI Dean set, also was rated only for fragments and pistol bullets, and drastically reduced the severity of wounds

 

[McPherson]

In the Korean War, that basic Marine ballistic Nylon vest, with Duron plates, more uncomfortable than the WWI Dean set, also was rated only for fragments and pistol bullets, and drastically reduced the severity of wounds

Prove this.

 

[marathag]

Prove this.

That the Vests in Korea worked?

Flak Jackets for infantry in WW2

I was wondering was it possible for the US to design and produce Flak Jackets similar to those that saw use in Korean War, and issue them in sufficient quantities to its infantry during WW2? I am not exactly sure how well developed were the industries necessary for production of the materials...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[McPherson]

WWII US Army Casualties
KIA 192,798
WIA 592,623
died of wounds 26,762


From my post above

Reports received by the Office of the Surgeon General of the Army on the combat testing of the new Army nylon vest show that the armor has been deflecting approximately 65 per cent of all types of missiles, 75 per cent of all fragments, and 25 per cent of all small-arms fire. The reports also state that the armor has reduced torso wounds by 60 to 70 per cent, while those inflicted in spite of the armor’s protection were reduced in severity by 25 to 35 per cent.

so even a 10% reduction, that 19k not dead, and almost 60k not wounded, and say 2600 not dying of wounds

The first Doron plates produced in mid 1943, with first test vests in August, 1944, and in combat for Okinawa
Dupont invented fiberglass in 1935, and Monsanto had the right Resin in 1943. The big use during the War was in making fiberglass radomes

That the Vests in Korea worked?

Flak Jackets for infantry in WW2

I was wondering was it possible for the US to design and produce Flak Jackets similar to those that saw use in Korean War, and issue them in sufficient quantities to its infantry during WW2? I am not exactly sure how well developed were the industries necessary for production of the materials...

www.alternatehistory.com

WWII British Army body armour - Weapons and Warfare

The possibility of the British Army adopting some form of body armour for the personal protection of certain categories of troops, namely those exposed to

weaponsandwarfare.com

It was "ineffective".

The size of the body armour was governed by the limitations placed on its design by its required weight. These factors, combined with the findings that the armour was likely to create worse wounds when high-penetration missiles, (1) on passing through the armour were caused to be retained inside the wearer’s body instead of passing clean through an unprotected body, led to the suit being designed in the way it was. It only covered those regions of the body where practically all wounds would have proved fatal, and it was therefore considered worthwhile to stop at least low-penetration missiles,

Similar results of wound aggravation was encountered in Okinawa. And no armor could do anything about battle injury amputation.

 

[marathag]

WWII British Army body armour - Weapons and Warfare

The possibility of the British Army adopting some form of body armour for the personal protection of certain categories of troops, namely those exposed to

weaponsandwarfare.com

It was "ineffective".



Similar results of wound aggravation was encountered in Okinawa. And no armor could do anything about battle injury amputation.

So since armor isn't 100% effective, better just to send the troops out in red striped trousers and Kepis.
Got it.

 

[McPherson]

So since armor isn't 100% effective, better just to send the troops out in red striped trousers and Kepis.
Got it.

I go where the evidence leads. Armor is useful where it makes sense and useless where it does not.

 

[marathag]

I go where the evidence leads. Armor is useful where it makes sense and useless where it does not.

So do you try to protect the torso, or not?
Don't forget about survivor bias, like
'Before helmets, we never saw so many head wounds'
That because without helmets, they died on the battlefield rather than being wounded and brought back to the aid station.
Same with the Flak Vests of Korea and Vietnam.

It reduces the severity of wounds, changing a instant KIA to a WIA in some cases.

 

[McPherson]

So do you try to protect the torso, or not?
Don't forget about survivor bias, like
'Before helmets, we never saw so many head wounds'
That because without helmets, they died on the battlefield rather than being wounded and brought back to the aid station.
Same with the Flak Vests of Korea and Vietnam.

It reduces the severity of wounds, changing a instant KIA to a WIA in some cases.

1. Helmets make limited sense.
2. Torso armor works until it does not. When it traps and directs explosive effect or projectiles inside the person, then obviously NO ARMOR is better.

See 2. And remember... the only thing that counts in war is results.

 

[marathag]

See 2. And remember... the only thing that counts in war is results.

Which is why the US Troops in active combat has upto 40 pounds of Armor.

I find the argument that a complete penetration of the Torso is superior result to partial penetration as specious at best.

 

[McPherson]

And cannot MOVE.

I find the argument that a complete penetration of the Torso is superior result to partial penetration as specious at best.

Pass through wound channels are easier to treat and more survivable than bullet and fragment splash off backer plate or reflected shockwave injuries. THIS has been demonstrated in the medical literature. Partial penetration is not what happens.

 

[Questerr]

Is no one going to bring up the fact that there’s a significant difference in the mindset of providing armor to expensive, difficult to replace, difficult to recruit volunteer soldiers and providing that armor to every slave-soldier (sorry, forgot to be PC “Draftee”) who can be readily replaced by just forcing another citizen into service?

 

[McPherson]

Is no one going to bring up the fact that there’s a significant difference in the mindset of providing armor to expensive, difficult to replace, difficult to recruit volunteer soldiers and providing that armor to every slave-soldier (sorry, forgot to be PC “Draftee”) who can be readily replaced by just forcing another citizen into service?

As long as one does not lose sight of the physics in the real situation. Losing paid mercenaries is not as politically sensitive as losing VOTERS (draftees), either.

 

[Questerr]

As long as one does not lose sight of the physics in the real situation. Losing paid mercenaries is not as politically sensitive as losing VOTERS (draftees), either.

Those paid mercenaries are also voters and they will expect to receive sufficient protection in exchange for their service. Draftees have no say. They can’t refuse to join the Army if the Army refuses to provide armor.

 

[McPherson]

Those paid mercenaries are also voters and they will expect to receive sufficient protection in exchange for their service. Draftees have no say. They can’t refuse to join the Army if the Army refuses to provide armor.

Vietnam lesson learned. Professionals may whine, but if they want their pay, they play... by the rules set. Draftees whine, Eugene McCarthy pops up. then Robert Kennedy and a president falls.

Called representative republic.