Better US Army Weapons/Equipment in WW1

[Vincent0234]

Everyone loves flak jackets but what about (super primitive) plate carriers? all it is is a vest with an insert for a hard ceramic made out of kevlar. Not sure what ceramic would be easiest to produce that would be hard enough to be protective although the vest could be ballistic nylon in the 30s or some other tough synthetic thread in 1916. (maybe out of layers of linen like a gambeson i’m not really sure of the history of synthetic polymers used for protection.

Plates in plate carriers are Boron Carbide that was discovered in the 19th century but they didn’t really know anything about it until the 1930s. Now they make tanks out of the stuff ( plus fiberglass, void, and uranium on the Abrams).

I think it was the wired episode on youtube with the former navy seal that said if there was an active shooter scenario one of the best ways to protect yourself (other than run) is to put a piece of tile (ceramic) in between a book and have it on your chest. maybe something similar can be don?

Plate carriers are nothing new, everyone used steel since at that time it’s cheap and available and strong. Industrial ceramic production i’m not sure the viability maybe someone can do more research on it

 

[McPherson]

Everyone loves flak jackets but what about (super primitive) plate carriers? all it is is a vest with an insert for a hard ceramic made out of kevlar. Not sure what ceramic would be easiest to produce that would be hard enough to be protective although the vest could be ballistic nylon in the 30s or some other tough synthetic thread in 1916. (maybe out of layers of linen like a gambeson i’m not really sure of the history of synthetic polymers used for protection.

Plates in plate carriers are Boron Carbide that was discovered in the 19th century but they didn’t really know anything about it until the 1930s. Now they make tanks out of the stuff ( plus fiberglass, void, and uranium on the Abrams).

I think it was the wired episode on youtube with the former navy seal that said if there was an active shooter scenario one of the best ways to protect yourself (other than run) is to put a piece of tile (ceramic) in between a book and have it on your chest. maybe something similar can be don?

Plate carriers are nothing new, everyone used steel since at that time it’s cheap and available and strong. Industrial ceramic production i’m not sure the viability maybe someone can do more research on it

Got the important parts exactly right. Plate stopper + shock absorber for kinetic impact for heart, lungs and brain protection. Blast effect venting has to be 'natural".

 

[marathag]

Misreading of the results, which states the opposite.

No; it does not.

Body Armor - globalsecurity.org​

Blunt trauma is 'better' than suffering penetration into internal organs.
The first, you may get internal bleeding.
The second, with penetration, you will get internal bleeding.
Much rather get punched than stabbed.

 

[marathag]

Everyone loves flak jackets but what about (super primitive) plate carriers? all it is is a vest with an insert for a hard ceramic made out of kevlar. Not sure what ceramic would be easiest to produce that would be hard enough to be protective although the vest could be ballistic nylon in the 30s or some other tough synthetic thread in 1916. (maybe out of layers of linen like a gambeson i’m not really sure of the history of synthetic polymers used for protection.

Plates in plate carriers are Boron Carbide that was discovered in the 19th century but they didn’t really know anything about it until the 1930s. Now they make tanks out of the stuff ( plus fiberglass, void, and uranium on the Abrams).

I think it was the wired episode on youtube with the former navy seal that said if there was an active shooter scenario one of the best ways to protect yourself (other than run) is to put a piece of tile (ceramic) in between a book and have it on your chest. maybe something similar can be don?

Plate carriers are nothing new, everyone used steel since at that time it’s cheap and available and strong. Industrial ceramic production i’m not sure the viability maybe someone can do more research on it

Around WWI, Natural Silk, but that has issues with moisture. Rayon and Nylon are ready for WWII.
The Bashford Dean plates had some interior padding behind the steel.
When the US restarted personal armor research in 1942, they dusted off Dean's WWI examples, and added in the new developments of nylon and duron composite plates for first fliers armor, and them for the Army and Marines, that just missed Okinawa.

 

[marathag]

No; it does not

From that source
'Reducing the number of penetrations in this region has a significant effect on reducing the total fatality rates.'
With the region in question being the Torso.

 

[McPherson]

From that source
'Reducing the number of penetrations in this region has a significant effect on reducing the total fatality rates.'
With the region in question being the Torso.

Context. The British came to the opposite conclusion. And note the word "penetrations", that was an "assumption" of the authors' part on the case of successful armor resists incidents, not TOTAL incidents which includes where it failed.

 

[McPherson]

Blunt trauma is 'better' than suffering penetration into internal organs.
The first, you may get internal bleeding.
The second, with penetration, you will get internal bleeding.
Much rather get punched than stabbed.

How many blast injuries have you seen?

 

[Not James Stockdale]

The Soviets made fairly extensive use of body armor during the GPW. They used breastplates that were worn under uniform tunics, which would provide moderate protection from spall. The Soviets found that limitations to mobility were fairly minimal and that there were readily apparent improvements to the morale of troops equipped with body armor.

Soviet Infantry Protection

Imperial Russian and Soviet breastplates and bulletproof vests, pre 1945.

www.tankarchives.ca

 

[McPherson]

The Soviets made fairly extensive use of body armor during the GPW. They used breastplates that were worn under uniform tunics, which would provide moderate protection from spall. The Soviets found that limitations to mobility were fairly minimal and that there were readily apparent improvements to the morale of troops equipped with body armor.

Soviet Infantry Protection

Imperial Russian and Soviet breastplates and bulletproof vests, pre 1945.

www.tankarchives.ca

Sturmovik gunners and machine gun teams.

CAMD RF 81-12040-69

"In 1939, NKV NII-13 manufactured trial batches of steel SN-39 (150 units) breastplates and SNSh-39 (100 units ) breastplate-shields, which were then tested in combat (on Karelia).

As is stated in our previous report for 1940 (report T-06-77), the breastplate received good reviews from the commanders of the 7th army, but the issue of increasing the strength of the armour in order to ensure bullet protection in close combat was raised.

To resolve this issue, we have created a new (thickened) breastplate, SN-40A. According to the orders from GAU KA, a decision was made to mass produce the SN-40A, with the following goals in mind:

1. Manufacture 100-150 SN-40A breastplates, providing protection from model 1908 bullets fired from a rifle or machine gun from 150 meters at 0 degrees and from any distance at 30 degrees.
2. Manufacture the breastplates in three sizes. Previously, breastplates were produces in one size (small).
3. Explore the requirements for production of the breastplates and develop blueprints for equipment to mass produce the breastplates.
4. Conduct proving ground and battlefield trials to determine if the breastplates can be accepted by the Red Army.

The aforementioned mass production of the SN-40A is the topic of this report."

SN stands for Stalnoy Nagrudnik (steel breastplate).

Lets look some more.

"The manufacturing of the SN-40A was done at the "Industria" factory in Lysva. The breastplates were produced in 3 sizes, and in two thicknesses and weights. The blueprints of the the breastplate are shown in figure 2."

Trials of the SN-40A were performed in the fall of 1941. The results were unsatisfactory. At 5.2 mm (one batch was 4.2 mm), the breastplates were too heavy. Even the air force did not want to use them. One would not immediately expect a heavy breastplate to matter in an airplane, but it does. "Uniform of the Russian Air Force 1935-1955" writes "The medical corps frequently equipped pilots with army type steel helmets. For example, in 1943, elements of the 4th Air Army made it mandatory for Il-2 and Pe-2 gunners to wear "a metallic helmet and special breast shields". However, in practice, when breaking away from a steep dive, the rear gunner was subjected to unacceptable forces, which lowered his capacity of defending the plane from enemy fighters." However, the specific breastplate in question was almost certainly not the SN-40A, but its successor, the SN-42.

The SN-42 was developed in the spring of 1942 and tested in August of the same year by airborne troops. It was composed of 36 SGN type steel, and was 2 mm thick. 500 units were manufactured, and sent to be tested in the army.

Let's look some more.

"In 1942, according to the orders from the GAU of the Red Army, the Scientific-Investigative Institute #13 of the USSR NKV, developed a steel breastplate 3.3 kg in mass, 2 mm thick, that protects the main organs of the human body against German submachineguns at all distances, and rifles and machineguns at 300 meters.
According to GOKO order #2160ss from August 8th, 1942, the steel breastplates were sent to the army, and received positive reviews. The reviews mention the following:

1. The steel breastplates provide reliable protection from German submachineguns, as well as fragments of mines and hand grenades.
2. The maneuverability of soldiers with breastplates is almost unimpaired.
3. Aside from providing protection for the soldier, the breastplate also increases the soldier's morale when performing his duties.

The technical documentation on the steel breastplate was accepted by the GAU of the Red Army on August 7th, 1942, after which the breastplate was mass produced at factory #700 (city of Lysva). At this time, 85,000 breastplates have been produced, distributed as follows:

1. South-Western Front: 5,000
2. Stalingrad Front: 3,000
3. Leningrad Front: 1,000
4. Volhov Front: 1,000
5. Don Front: 5,000

70,000 units remain at the warehouse. "

The benefits of the SN-42 breastplate are outlined in more detail in a letter from the deputy commander of the artillery of the 68th Army to the head of the GAU KA, Major-General Hohlov.

The armor was not issued. Wonder why?

 

[stephen the barbarian]

yet manganese steel in the WWII Flier Flak Armor made a real difference in crew survivability.

it also weighed 22 lbs.
not bad if you're standing behind a machine gun for an hour, horrible if you're trying to scramble around the battle field, especially on top of the 70 lb load you're already humping around

 

[Catsmate]

yet manganese steel in the WWII Flier Flak Armor made a real difference in crew survivability.

Sigh. Just look at those goalposts move.......
1. World War 2 is not World War 1.
2. Aircrew don't have the weight/mobility/heat issues of infantry.
3. The 'flak armour' was designed to protect against shell splinters.
4. The armour, which used 1mm steel plates but still weighed 11kg, would be utterly useless against even pistol rounds.

 

[marathag]

it also weighed 22 lbs.
not bad if you're standing behind a machine gun for an hour, horrible if you're trying to scramble around the battle field, especially on top of the 70 lb load you're already humping around

Yet troops today, in the inhospitable Iraq and Afghanistan, have had from 30 to 40 pound of armor, along with even more load.

 

[marathag]

Sigh. Just look at those goalposts move.......
1. World War 2 is not World War 1.
2. Aircrew don't have the weight/mobility/heat issues of infantry.
3. The 'flak armour' was designed to protect against shell splinters.
4. The armour, which used 1mm steel plates but still weighed 11kg, would be utterly useless against even pistol rounds.

Previous cites I have listed on the benefits of the basic protection.
WWI manganese steel was not much different than the WWII era, except cheaper to produce.

That early armor would stop most fragments, that were a big killer in WWI, and reduce severity of wounds from larger fragments and rifle bullets.

75% of wounds were caused by shrapnel.
Bashford Dean style armor was pistol bullet proof past close combat distance.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Yet troops today, in the inhospitable Iraq and Afghanistan, have had from 30 to 40 pound of armor, along with even more load.

They're also bigger, stronger, carried around by trucks and helicopters, and so on and so forth. The body armor is also a lot more effective in general. I don't really think these are comparable situations.

 

[ArtosStark]

Since grenade launchers came up earlier in this thread, perhaps people will be interested in this:

Blanch-Chevallier grenade launcher - Arms of the First World War - Royal Armouries collections

Development The proliferation of complex trench systems led to the widespread reintroduction of hand grenades like the British 'Mills bomb' from 1914. These provided a means of attacking an enemy otherwise protected by the cover of a trench, but had

collections.royalarmouries.org

The Blanch-Chevallier grenade launcher. Made from converting a Martini action, fired by blank cartridge. Incorporating a spring recoil system to allow grenades to be fired from the shoulder to increase the utility of grenade launching on the attack. Only one made, and probably never even trialled, the gun was not perfect as is. It might have been worth developing though, and if the British had picked it up, a version might have been possible in American service as well.

 

[marathag]

They're also bigger, stronger, carried around by trucks and helicopters, and so on and so forth. The body armor is also a lot more effective in general. I don't really think these are comparable situations.

Lot of foot patrols in Afghanistan. If you are in vehicles most if the time, the armor weight is less important.
Also, I'm talking about a 15 pound armor kit, not 30+
One of the links above that WWI infantry loads were over 60 pounds, but by WWII were 80-100 pounds. I don't think the sons of WWI Vets had evolved that much to carry 40 more pounds than the Father, especially with the Depression.
Going from 60 to 75 pounds is not a huge stretch.

That lighter weight armor won't stop 7.62x54 like the modern, but that isn't the goal, but to protect against fragments from artillery.
That's something it could do very well.

 

[McPherson]

Lot of foot patrols in Afghanistan. If you are in vehicles most if the time, the armor weight is less important.
Also, I'm talking about a 15 pound armor kit, not 30+
One of the links above that WWI infantry loads were over 60 pounds, but by WWII were 80-100 pounds. I don't think the sons of WWI Vets had evolved that much to carry 40 more pounds than the Father, especially with the Depression.
Going from 60 to 75 pounds is not a huge stretch.

That lighter weight armor won't stop 7.62x54 like the modern, but that isn't the goal, but to protect against fragments from artillery.
That's something it could do very well.

1. Infantry lighten their loads when on foot.
2.

File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - Foot patrol (2).jpg ...
Tell me what you see?

 

[marathag]

Tell me what you see?

US guys with full packs and gear, on foot patrol, like I said. If it's before 2011, likely they have the IOTV armor package, but possible the SPCP which is about 9 pounds lighter for the same protection. But from the below, that 20-30 pounds of the average 119 pound load. Maybe the other stuff is the real problem, than protection

"Body armor provides increasingly advanced protection, but at a cost in soldier performance," according to "The Soldier's Heavy Load," part of the "Super Soldiers" series of reports that Army Research Laboratory commissioned CNAS to conduct looking at soldier survivability.

"Increased soldier load not only slows movement and increases fatigue, but also has been experimentally demonstrated to decrease situational awareness and shooting response times," the report added.
The document draws on past reports that have estimated soldiers routinely carried an average of 119 pounds apiece in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[McPherson]

As expected, one missed the emphasis of ammo over body armor.