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 needed to create something like a Flak Vest composed out of Ballistic Nylon and/or Fiberglass plates, similar to those that were used in Korean war.

If this is indeed possible to do in this time period, how long of a time frame we may be looking at, from the first prototype to issue on a larger scale? Also, considering that soldiers equipped with it would be at least somewhat more protected from shell splinters and other nasty things on the battlefield, at least to a greater degree then IOTL, what kind of decrease in casualties we may see, considering that Artillery generally was the greatest killer?
 
Flak jackets where developed and used by the US Air Force and US Navy in WW2. However they where bulky and weighed 22 pounds. If issued to infantry the reduction in the equipment and weapons they could carry would probebly negate the benefits of the armours protection. I also suspect that by slowing down the movement of the infantry they would be less able/quick to react and take cover. By Korea the amounr was down to under 11 pounds and by Vietnam it offered much better protection. However I've seen anecdotal evidence that US infantry often decided not to wear flak jackets due to the weight and the subsequent reduction in speed of reaction and manouver.

That said flack jackets could have been issued to tankers and artilerymen and other specialists who don't need to be as agile as the PBI. This would have a positive effect on the amount and severity of casualties. Possibly a greater effect than if issuing flak armour to the infantry as these specialists are more likely to be hit by artillery than small arms.

However there would be a positive effect on moral of troups who feel better protected and a corrisponding reduction in the moral of the oppersition who don't have the protection of armour. An example of this was in the early desert war the Italians often surrendered when they saw the Aussies attacking them wearing body armour. Of course they had no such protection but where issued with sheep skin vests to help with the nightinme and early morning chill in the desert. This was no doubt a source of considerable consternation when the Italian POW's realised their mistake!
 
In Tony Williams Foresight war he has the Artillery men equipped with flak jackets

The reasoning that they are not going to be carrying lots of equipment when serving the guns so will not be overloaded wearing them and are more likely to be subjected to counter battery fire than other arms.
 
That said flack jackets could have been issued to tankers and artilerymen and other specialists who don't need to be as agile as the PBI.

I wouldn't fancy trying to get out of a burning tank while wearing 22 pounds of bulky body armour.
 
I wouldn't fancy trying to load any artillery piece while wearing 22 lb of armour either.
Been doing it for years
m198_041021-m-8096k-036.jpg

But to be honest, those are around 17 pounds
 
by Vietnam it offered much better protection. However I've seen anecdotal evidence that US infantry often decided not to wear flak jackets due to the weight and the subsequent reduction in speed of reaction and manouver.
My Uncle was with the Marines for two tours there. No not wearing the Gear as an option there, and he said that even though terribly hot, did do a good job at soaking up mortar and hand grenade fragments.
 
My Uncle was with the Marines for two tours there. No not wearing the Gear as an option there, and he said that even though terribly hot, did do a good job at soaking up mortar and hand grenade fragments.
Just because it "wasnt allowed" doesnt mean people didnt not wear it. I believe ive seen old film where some guys flat out say they wont wear it. But I could be mistaken.
 
Just because it "wasnt allowed" doesnt mean people didnt not wear it. I believe ive seen old film where some guys flat out say they wont wear it. But I could be mistaken.
Probably not Marines.
Army allowed a lot more slack, along withthe overall loss of discipline than Marines, not that there weren't poor Marine units, esp after 1968.
He was Gunnery Sergeant, so only the Lt could order him around, but he wore it willingly. He ordered everybody else to wear them. He did believe in them

Why? He said it was good for the fragments it would catch, like the little ones, that wouldn't wound enough for a trip back to the Aidstation, so the Medic would patch you up and then you spend time with a bunch of slow healing, tiny wounds. In the Tropics.

Got that info after asking why his legs were looking kind of messed up at the Beach when we were vacationing about 10 years after he got them, in '77? or so.
His torso was great: Arms and legs less so. He jokingly said that had the NVA been equipped with better US grenades, He'd be dead.
 
Infantry only really started wearing body armour as standard in the 2000’s.
When we finally has relatively light weight stuff which could stop a rifle round.

Unless there is reliable protection against rifle rounds offered by light weight armour, I don see it as standard or general issue.
 
Infantry only really started wearing body armour as standard in the 2000’s.
When we finally has relatively light weight stuff which could stop a rifle round.

Unless there is reliable protection against rifle rounds offered by light weight armour, I don see it as standard or general issue.

Nah, the British Army started introducing it in the 1970s in Northern Ireland although it wasn't used in the Falklands. The first lot was bought second hand from the Americans but the INIBA vest was introduced in the 1980s and designed to be worn under the combat jacket so it didn't look as intimidating to locals (because wandering round their street with a GPMG obviously wasn't the intimidating part of the outfit). I've seen photos of troops in flak jackets going back to at least 1972. ECBA (Enhanced Combat Body Armour) was in use for Op Granby (Gulf War).
 
Infantry only really started wearing body armour as standard in the 2000’s.
When we finally has relatively light weight stuff which could stop a rifle round.

Unless there is reliable protection against rifle rounds offered by light weight armour, I don see it as standard or general issue.
Artillery had been the big killer, and wounder during the World Wars.
Following data from Korea
Bullets caused 33.2% of Deaths and 27% of non fatal wounds
Explosive shells were 49.2% of Deaths and 50.7% of non fatal wounds

KIA by cause, for US Army Divisions
Bullets&Small Arms, 2584
Explosives or Fragments, 4883
Explosive Projectile Shells, 3859

Wounds by cause, for US Army Divisions
Bullets&Small Arms, 19,833
Explosives or Fragments, 46,781
Explosive Projectile Shells, 36,379

By body location
KIA
Head 35.7%
Face 5%
Neck 4.5%
Thorax 22.1%
Abdomen 16.9%
Arms 2.9%
Legs 9.1%

Non-fatal Wounds
Head 7%
Brain 2.1%
Ear .97%
Face 9.17%
Eye 2.81%
other 6.36%
Neck 2%
Thorax 7.25%
Arms 29%
Abdomen 6.97%
Spinal Cord 1.18%
Pelvis .78%
Genitalia .39%
Buttocks 3.7%
Legs 36.3%

That's why the Marines started wearing the M-1951 and M-1952 Nylon Vests, that really just were rated for stopping fragments

Helmet, Collar and Torso where most of the fatal wounds were at.
 
Last edited:
I did run across the occasional Marine Viet Nam veteran who had a the Flack Jacket stop or slow down rifle caliber & pistol rounds. One such had the remnant of a .45 caliber slug he dug out of the fiberglass plate in his jacket. Left a bruise the size of a salad plate on his torso.
 
There's another issue in WW2, you are potentially talking about a lot of jackets, and if you restrict to them to only certain users than you are limiting the benefit over all

I think when it comes to a the balance of benefit vs. trade off in armour the a big game changer is being able to protect the torso from full power rifle rounds (or even AP ones), and even if you bring fibreglass along a bit that going to be a way off in WW2.
 
Last edited:
Of interest, with some pic pulled in from other pages

Armored Vest Fact Sheet
Office of the Quartermaster General
Washington, D.C.
23 December 1952



Development of body armor, including armored vests for Army ground troops was conducted during World War II by both the Army Ordnance Corps and the Army Quartermaster Corps.
4722183946_5c595e679a_b.jpg


908625135_xNDqm-XL.jpg


Quartermaster efforts were directed toward development of non-metallic body armor and at the end of World War II had reached the combat test stage with an experimental vest armored with rigid plates of Doron, laminated plastic fibre-glass. The term Doron is derived from the name of Brigadier General Georges Doriot, World War II chief of the Research and Development Branch, Office of The Quartermaster General of the Army.


Body armor developed by the Ordnance Corps during this period included a 12-pound vest of aluminum plates and nylon fabric designated as M-12, which was adopted as a standard Army item by the end of World War II.
body_armor_m12.jpg
139655626395.jpg


On 25 June 1947, the Army Quartermaster Corps was assigned primary responsibility within the War Department, for the development of helmets, body armor, and other armored clothing. At that time the only specific requirements for body armor was for over-all armor for engineer troops engaged in mine clearance work. A study was made by the Operations Research Office, Department of the Army, to determine the value of armor for the use by ground troops engaged in active combat. The report of this study, issued in 1949, was not favorable to the use of armor for active ground troops, partly because of the excessive weight of the standard models then available.


Immediately after it was assigned responsibility for body armor, the Quartermaster Corps began development on a new type of vest utilizing flexible laminated nylon duck, recommended by the Ordnance Corps as the best of all lightweight flexible ballistic materials. The fibres of nylon trap jagged fragments of low-velocity missiles, which cause the majority of combat wounds. (Multi-layered nylon was an important ballistic element in World War II U.S. Airman’s armor.) Ordnance Corps ballistic tests reveal that nylon, weight for weight, is superior even to steel in stopping fragments from exploding missiles.


The Army’s first laminated nylon body armor, developed in 1948 by the Quartermaster Corps, was a fully laminated two-piece vest (front armor and back armor) with a groin apron. It was similar to the World War II vest-and-apron armor of the Air Force.


Spot-laminating was substituted for full laminating to achieve greater flexibility in later models of the Army body armor and the groin apron was eliminated. In 1950 the Army nylon armor was redesigned as a one-piece vest. This model was the progenitor of the present Army armored vest.


Meantime the Department of the Navy also had been engaged in extensive body armor development, concentrating principally on the use of Doron. In 1950 experts of the Army Quartermaster Corps and the Marine Corps began joint experiments on various models utilizing both Doron and nylon. In 1951, 100 test models of a combination of Doron-nylon armor, for which the Quartermaster Corps furnished the fabric, Doron and webbing, and which were made by the Marine Corps, were shipped to Korea for test under supervision of a joint Army Marine Corps team. This vest used over-lapping, curved Doron plates around the upper torso and nylon duck over the shoulders. At the conclusion of the test in Korea, the Marine Corps continued development of the new-type Doron vest, which was subsequently standardized for issue to Marines.


After analysis of the results of the test, the Army Quartermaster Corps continued development of its all-nylon vest, since Ordnance Corps tests continued to affirm that the flexible nylon was superior ballistically to Doron. Modifications suggested by a representative of the office of the Army Surgeon General, a member of the joint Army-Marine Corps body armor mission, were incorporated in the Army nylon vest. From February to July, 1952, a total of 1400 of this new model of the Army vest (T 52-1) were shipped to Korea for tests by an Army body armor test team under direction of the office of The Quartermaster General. Minor modifications were made between shipments, based on recommendations of the test team.
armorvest1.jpg

Army T-52-2 Armored Vest


In the summer of 1952, the Far East Command requested immediate supply of the latest Army type vest for issue to combat troops. Although field testing of this model had been completed, the vest had never been mass-produced. For this reason, vest of this type could not be furnished immediately and the Far East Command indicated that, although the Army armored vest was preferred, the Marine Corps’ Doron vest was acceptable to fill immediate requirements. Therefor, 31,017 of the Marine Corps vests were procured and shipped to the Far East Command. Five thousand Army-type vests also were ordered at this time for shipment to the Far East Command.


Delivery to the Far East Command of an additional 20,000 of the Army vests is scheduled for the period of January through May, 1953. Cost of these 20,000 of the Army vests, including price of materials furnished the contractor by the Quartermaster Corps, is $39.04 each.


The Army armored vest currently being provided troops in Korea weighs approximately 8 pounds, and is made of 12 layer of flexible, spot-laminated Nylon-duck, enclosed in a heat-sealed water-repellent vinyl envelope. The T-52-2 Model (the 5,000 shipped to Korea late in 1952) is designed to be worn as an outside garment and has an outer cover of 6 ounce, nylon fabric. It has adjustable side straps to assure a snug fit. The T-52-3 Model (the 20,000 ordered for shipment to Korea early in 1953) is designed to be worn under the field jacket and is covered with light-weight 6 ounce nylon. New elastic side-laces insures a snug fit. Both models are fastened in the front with a zipper, plus a fly closure utilizing snaps. Both models are made in three sizes—small, medium, and large. The new Army vest (T-52-3) has an area of approximately six square feet; the earlier model (T-52-2), 5 ½ square feet.


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.


Although experience in Korea has established that both the current Army and Marine Corps types of armored vests are extremely effective in reducing combat casualties, the Army Quartermaster Corps is continuing body armor research, including tests of high tenacity yarns of different compositions, various cloth weaves, and various laminated structures. This work is being conducted in cooperation with industry and military agencies.
 
Last edited:
The British Army had 2 types of body armour in WW2 a light set for troops and a heavy set for RAF and Artillery/Naval gunner use. The ballistic plates were steel and it could only cover the most vital parts or it would have weighed too much. It was also found that it could give the wearer nasty bruises if he had to drop to the ground or jump an obstacle. Eventually only Canadian assault units, Glider pilots and troops, Royal Engineers for special duties and the RAF ever used the light set. Some of the heavy sets were made for the RAF but proved too bulky for use in a Lancaster so were usually passed onto the USAAF.

Heavy set
usaaf-british-made-anti-flak-vest-apron_15273_main_size3.jpg

Light Set
exnXHDx.jpg
 
For as long as there has been armor, there have been soldiers not wearing some of their armor because it's too burdensome. So it's unclear what to conclude from the points others made about soldiers doing that in recent times. I guess a big question is whether laziness or self-preservation is a more powerful instinct in soldiers; is it safe to assume that if they don't consider a piece of armor worth putting up with, it probably isn't helping much? Or should we instead think that, out of either overconfidence or fatalism, they undervalue armor and so they'd be better off with more even if they don't want it? And that isn't really clear; we can try to work out some numbers for possible injuries prevented (and it looks like the numbers are substantial, even for the quality of armor possible with WWII tech), but is there a good way to attach numbers to the cost of burdening soldiers more heavily?
 
we can try to work out some numbers for possible injuries prevented (and it looks like the numbers are substantial, even for the quality of armor possible with WWII tech), but is there a good way to attach numbers to the cost of burdening soldiers more heavily?

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
 
Last edited:
Top