Bulletproof vests for infantry in WW2?

[UrbanRedneck]

What do you all think would be the affect of bulletproof vests?

What I'm thinking is taking the basic flak jacket worn by bomber crews and cutting it down some so it just protects the upper torso. It would be designed to stop all caliber German bullets up to heavy machinegun.
I'm also thinking to add on and give more protection I'm thinking an improved helmet, safety goggles for some eye protection, and heavy leather chaps to help cover the legs and lower torso. This wouldnt stop a bullet but would protect agianst shrapnel and ordinary material flung up from bomb blasts.

Now as for the cost, Well I see this is for a new class of infantry - a "heavy" infantry. Who's job is to fight their way thru heavily defended targets. So the cost would be minimal since other infastry would be cosnidered "light" plus the armor wouldnt be needed for tankers, supply units, or artillery.

Would this have been possible?

 

[BigWillyG]

I'm not sure about heavy infantry. Is there any way to have KEVLAR discovered at around the same time as NYLON? The light weight could make infantry vests easier to make common.

 

[LHB]

Heavy infantry still share the same major drawback of all modern infantry: artillery mows them down like grass, something that would be very plentiful in any operations where heavier infantry would theoretically be used.

 

[Gunnarnz]

It would be designed to stop all caliber German bullets up to heavy machinegun.

I don't know what you're imagining as the relevant calibers, but a normal heavy machinegun is somewhere around the .50cal/12.7mm range. I doubt it's practical to create infantry armour that will reliably stop such projectiles, especially if you want the infantry to be able to move while wearing it. This goes double for the WW2 period, where the materials we take for granted today were not commonly available.
However, the ubiquitous MG34/MG42 fired a 7.92mm round IIRC, and it might be possible to provide reliable protection against that. Such a projectile still has a fair load of kinetic energy, though - far more than a modern assault rifle round, more like the 7.62mm NATO round - and effective armour would be heavy, bulky, and hot; assuming it was possible at all (which it may not be).

In practice, I'm not sure the idea of heavy infantry will be worth the effort. Others have already pointed out the problems caused by artillery, but it's also worth mentioning that they won't be able to march very far or fast so their tactical mobility will be severely limited. An infantryman can also only carry so much weight, so they'll have less load capacity available for other things - water, ammunition, and so on. These are less of an issue on the defensive, of course, but in that case the need for such armour is reduced as well.
In general, the idea seems like a solution in search of a problem. I was never an infantryman so I don't know how many situations arise where something like this would be a significant advantage, but it's hard to imagine that there would be a lot.

 

[Mr.J]

I could swear I've seen pictures of Soviet troops wearing makeshift body armor (basically metal vests). I don't know how successful it was, and I think it was only for a few specific situations (close-in fighting at Stalingrad IIRC).

 

[BigWillyG]

Would flak jackets made out of ballistic nylon work? They were already being worn by infantry by Korea so it shouldn't be too hard push those vests back to WWII.

 

[Dan]

The biggest issue I could see in all of this is the weight. The early plates that were used were very heavy indeed. If you're pretty much stood in one place just swinging a .50cal waist gun around that may not be too bad, but imagine trying to go for a jog in that?

Infact, thinking of that, I'd say the idea would come up with a big problem. If I saw a heavy infantrymany plodding towards me, I'd shoot his legs out. It's only heavy leather, so a 7.92mm round will just shatter the leg.

I think though, not going that far, just looking at the cut down plate for the front and rear, while heavy would be a benefit for PBI.

 

[MattII]

I could swear I've seen pictures of Soviet troops wearing makeshift body armor (basically metal vests). I don't know how successful it was, and I think it was only for a few specific situations (close-in fighting at Stalingrad IIRC).

Yeah, they were called 'Steel Bibs', good enough to stop a MP-40 round at 10 metres, and a Gewehr 41 round at 100m, provided it didn't hit flat on.

 

[Smaug]

Ive red about japanese wearing knotted silk vests...might help with shrapnel.

 

[pdf27]

Problem is the level of protection you're describing is **only just** achievable with modern body armour at a weight which allows an infantryman to do something other than flail around on the ground like an upturned tortoise. For WW2 era materials you don't have a hope of providing that much protection - the Steel Bib mentioned is a fraction of the thickness needed for protection against rifle-calibre bullets at normal combat ranges (note: I don't consider protection against a tangential hit from a single rifle-calibre bullet at 100m to be that much use).

What might be of value is protection against shrapnel to the torso, and what would save a hell of a lot of lives is giving each soldier a couple of modern-design CAT torniquets. The only part of the design not available in WW2 is the velcro, and I'm sure that could be got around with some clever design. Those and some basic medical training would save far more lives than body armour ever would.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

A nice pic...

http://content.foto.mail.ru/mail/boris.mikhailov/1720/i-1742.jpg

 

[AdA]

calibers

Back in WW2 infantry used real ammo, not intermediate calibers. Stoping a 7,92x57 round at 200m with 40s tech is going to require a lot of weight...

 

[MattII]

(note: I don't consider protection against a tangential hit from a single rifle-calibre bullet at 100m to be that much use).

Better than a bullet in the kidneys because you weren't wearing it.

Back in WW2 infantry used real ammo, not intermediate calibers. Stoping a 7,92x57 round at 200m with 40s tech is going to require a lot of weight...

Yes, but stopping one (with bad bruising) that's slightly off would be somewhat easier. Also, the rate of fire was much lower (40-50 aimed shots per minute for the M1, which was unusually fast).

 

[AdA]

Better than a bullet in the kidneys because you weren't wearing it.

Yes, but stopping one (with bad bruising) that's slightly off would be somewhat easier. Also, the rate of fire was much lower (40-50 aimed shots per minute for the M1, which was unusually fast).

A lot of the killing was done by LMG. A 40s era vest would just make you a slower target for a MG42 team to pick off.

 

[Genmotty]

Problem is the level of protection you're describing is **only just** achievable with modern body armour at a weight which allows an infantryman to do something other than flail around on the ground like an upturned tortoise. For WW2 era materials you don't have a hope of providing that much protection - the Steel Bib mentioned is a fraction of the thickness needed for protection against rifle-calibre bullets at normal combat ranges (note: I don't consider protection against a tangential hit from a single rifle-calibre bullet at 100m to be that much use).

What might be of value is protection against shrapnel to the torso, and what would save a hell of a lot of lives is giving each soldier a couple of modern-design CAT torniquets. The only part of the design not available in WW2 is the velcro, and I'm sure that could be got around with some clever design. Those and some basic medical training would save far more lives than body armour ever would.

Seconded.


It's fairly ludercris to have bulletproof vests around then. Even modern ones aren't much good against anything by pistol fire at range, and rifle fire can still permiate them at closer ranges.

Any 1940s tech 'bulletvest' is going to be steel plate, very heavy, tiring, impractical and expensive. Remember the helmets of the age were more to protect against shrapnel from shells, than against small-arms fire.



Even if we use handwaiveum to magic 10million modern kevlar vests back, all the nations are going to do is up the calibre of their weapons, and now your just a slower target.

Body armour is for when your opponent is lesser armed than yourself, to give you a tactical advantage. As soon as your enemy knows that your wearing it, they are going to adjust tactics.

 

[pdf27]

It's fairly ludicrous to have bulletproof vests around then. Even modern ones aren't much good against anything but pistol fire at range, and rifle fire can still permeate them at closer ranges.

The most modern ones will just about stop 7.62mm NATO or similar at combat ranges, depending on exactly where it strikes, etc. And by modern I’m talking about in the last couple of years.

Even if we use handwavium to magic 10million modern kevlar vests back, all the nations are going to do is up the calibre of their weapons, and now your just a slower target.

Ummm… typically not – in Iraq and Afghanistan the insurgents didn’t stop using AK-type rifles just because the US/UK/Other forces were wearing body armour that could stop the short 7.62mm round it uses. In any case, all the major powers were using about .30 calibre rifle rounds at the time, equivalent in power to the 7.62mm NATO round that is barely stoppable with current armour technology. It’s also one of the most powerful rounds that can be fired by an individual rifleman, rather than by a crew-served weapon – so the scope for increasing round size is rather limited, even leaving aside the industrial and logistical headaches involved in changing calibre.
Another thing not mentioned yet – body armour is HEAVY. The load a soldier can carry and still fight effectively hasn’t really changed since Marius – so if you’re adding 15kg+ of body armour you have to delete equipment. That means either the troops have that much less ability to sustain themselves, or you need to provide them with a great deal more mechanical support right up to the front line. That means pretty much inventing the armoured personnel carrier or even the infantry fighting vehicle to carry the infantry close to their targets where they can dismount and fight through without risking exhaustion, and then can be replenished on the objective. If not they’re horribly vulnerable to counterattack without the reserves of ammunition, food and water they’ve had to leave behind to carry the body armour, not to mention the entrenching tools, etc.

Body armour is for when your opponent is lesser armed than yourself, to give you a tactical advantage. As soon as your enemy knows that you’re wearing it, they are going to adjust tactics.

Ummm… not really. The main purpose is to convert fatalities among soldiers to serious or even occasionally minor injuries. Look at the areas covered by armour in Afghanistan – head, neck, torso and groin. They’re also the areas with major blood vessels and critical organs. It’s only about half the frontal area of a person though, and a hit on the rest of the body will still be crippling.
The modern western way of war is based on small numbers of expensively trained professional soldiers, lavishly equipped and coming from a population sensitive to casualties. WW2 was based on huge conscript armies with relatively limited training, poorly equipped and coming from a population that accepted casualties. In that circumstance, the value of body armour goes way down – the “cost” of a dead soldier is a great deal lower.

There’s another point here – WW2 was a resource limited war. That means, if you spend X% of your national output on body armour and supporting units, you need to spend that much less on something else. Since you’re equipping the army, the odds are that the money/resources would be taken away from the army at the same time. At a guess, that means fewer tanks and automatic weapons, possibly less artillery support as well. The net result is a move away from a modern combined-arms style of warfare back towards the trench-warfare style of 1915-16.

 

[wietze]

indeed, however nylon was around at WW2 so you can have flakjackets, which should reduce the amount of death from shrapnel.
And even they only would stop pistol rounds, it would mean an early use of assault guns, because the smg's are less usueful due to the vests.

 

[Beedok]

Sadly, with most of the fighting being on the Eastern Front, people were more expendable than the material that would be used to keep the alive. (That might even be true on the West.)

 

[UrbanRedneck]

All good points.

I once talked to a Korean War veteran and he said some of the chinese soldiers wore heavy leather coats which could deflect rounds.

Also what if we changed that all around and had the Germans wearing body armor especially in '44 on? So now the armoured soldier is in the defensive role. He would not need to be as mobile. I think just having armor capable of stopping the most common rounds from Soviet soldiers (those light submachine guns they carried) or American (the round from the M-1) would be a strong advantage.

 

[AdA]

indeed, however nylon was around at WW2 so you can have flakjackets, which should reduce the amount of death from shrapnel.
And even they only would stop pistol rounds, it would mean an early use of assault guns, because the smg's are less usueful due to the vests.

9mm from a P38 maybe. The 7.62 Tokarev round pemetrates a lot more, (particulary from the longer barrel of a PPSH) and was the most widely used combat pistol round.