"In Army medical research in 1988, confirmed by later ballistic research, has confirmed that all bullets longer then their diameter will tumble in animal tissue." --LTC Chuck Santose

Originally Posted by Locke

so let me get this straight:
the main type of body armour given to soldiers in iraq is guaranteed to stop a round from a pistol, but not one from an AK, which (from what iv heard) is the most common gun overthere. is it worth having bodyarmour that wont stop most rounds and impedes mobility or are they used mainly to stop the soldier being injured by shrapnel and to give the soldier a sense of personal safety (which may be a false one)?? and why, with all out technological advances, haven't we been able to make something which is bulletproof against higher calibre rounds, and breathable and able to be mass produced.

In the IBA, you've got the outer vest that will protect against 9mm/sharpnel. It has inserts to place what are called SAPI plates, these are hard ceramic plates that go into the front and back (some have side plates now), these are what will stop the 7.62. So yeah, we have it, it's just that it's heavy. Then you'll add the shoulder, neck, crotch protection. And your guy is walking around like something out of Total Recall with "Ahnold." Your officer wants to know why there's a tank sitting there, and your NCO replies "No Cpt., that's not a tank, that's Pvt. Jones!"

(id just like to point out a bit of aussie history, the bushranger Ned Kelly covered himself in iron plates when he went out and did his business. i understand this made him essentially bulletproof and scared the shite out of the cops who couldn't kill him. eventually he was hit in an unprotected area in the end and captured. But yeah, slow and bulletproof actually worked for a whlie for him!)

Same thing happened in Los Angeles, CA years ago. Two bank robbers were armored from head to toe, cops had to borrow weapons from a local gun store. Eventually the guys went down.

re bullet tumbling, is it a myth or reality, i would have thought at the speeds they were travelling once a bullet hit a body it would have gone straight through. it would take something pretty dense to be able to deflect a bullet through human flesh, right? im asking this with no knowledge of the subject, please inform me!

Tumbling is most definitely not a myth. As you know, the closer the target, the more stable the bullet, but after so long it begins to yaw.

All FMJ bullets with tapered noses will tumble in flesh with enough velocity, because their center of gravity is aft of their length center, causing them to want to travel "tail first" in denser mediums (like water and tissue).

If the rounds are moving fast enough when they yaw to about 90 degrees of their original trajectory the stress on the bullet from traveling sideways through tissue will overcome the structural integrity of the bullet and it will start to break up (fragment), if it hits bone, it can become deformed and it will also fragment. What's left of the bullet will change trajectory and can easily "tumble" elsewhere in the body.

talking with a buddy I escorted to demob a few months ago, he said that heat stroke will indeed kill you faster than a bullet. Consider- you're in a HummVee- +5 to temp, which is already around 120. armor- +5-10. You HAVE to have the A/C units installed in Hummvees, or you're going to cook. End of discussion. That's why his unit couldn't get the damn 5 inch armor plates. They impair the A/C and require modification.

Although Australian soldiers now wear chest and back plates de riguer, it can be such an impediment to movement etc that it does get discarded. I know a couple of guys from 5/7 who would just wear the plate carrier without the armour and then chest webbing over it. It does help you fight a better fight not having.

Remember Vietnam, our lads discarded the flak vest and steel helmet for a soft giggle hat and long sleeved shirt. It allowed greater movement, less heat illness, and more rapid action.

You've confirmed a lot of what I assumed PJ... that sicking a bunch of armor on has some very significant disadvantages in a desert against an enemy that uses mobility and surprise as his principle strength.

I don't have any friends that are infantry, can someone tell me how much gear the normal foot/mounted patrol carries in Iraq? I'm guessing that's where the most disagreement is, yes? If you're assaulting a known terrorist base I would imagine most soldiers would "opt-in" for the armor.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

I don't have any friends that are infantry, can someone tell me how much gear the normal foot/mounted patrol carries in Iraq? I'm guessing that's where the most disagreement is, yes? If you're assaulting a known terrorist base I would imagine most soldiers would "opt-in" for the armor.

For an infantryman/rifleman, basic combat load will weight around 30 to 70lbs, that's for short patrols. If you're going for the long haul, anywhere from 70 to 150lbs.

On average, I carried 90 to 100lbs when I was on patrols (medical supplies add more). I didn't wear the IBA, different armor for us.

As for assaulting a "terrorist base," that could be anything over there. From a small itty bity house in the middle of the city, to a little farming compound out in the middle of nowhere. Regardless, if you're assaulting, you NEED mobility, the last thing you want is to be hindered and put on the defensive.

It's a catch 22, and I think it always will be at least until something more practical comes out of R&D.

It's been about 2 and half years since I got out but the armor we had when we first went over there was big and bulky. We later received what we called "Scorpian Body Armor". It was lighter, thinner and more comfortable. It had one iron plate for the front and one for the back. There were gell packs that were supposed to be kept cool and then placed in the armor before wearing.

A google search for this scorpian armor turned up nothing.

This armor could be worn under civilian clothes with little variance from normal wear and appearence.

Originally Posted by zhjsg

mobility is as important as safe

I have to agree on Mobility, I have seen how clumsy even the best troops can be once the are loaded down with all this extra weight.. In a urban fire fight you need to be able to move and move fast

Originally Posted by PJ24

As for assaulting a "terrorist base," that could be anything over there. From a small itty bity house in the middle of the city, to a little farming compound out in the middle of nowhere. Regardless, if you're assaulting, you NEED mobility, the last thing you want is to be hindered and put on the defensive.

Obviously, and tactical situations always dictate the ideal equipment. But are you saying that in situations such as attacking a known terrorist hideout/strong point, fewer marines in your opinion use the "optional" armor plate in favor of greater mobility?

I always assumed that more marines would opt-out when on routine patrols to avoid becomming a heat casualty, and opt-in when in more high-risk situations.

The thing is over half the time they are doing patrols and not actually engaging "known" hideouts. They are attacked and have to react. How much weight you have to dump factors in alot for your react time.