>is body armor really important on a modern day battlefield?

Dealing with dead and dying soldiers sucks from the military's perspective. This helps reduce that at a low cost.

>>35132152
>Is having soldiers important on a modern day battlefield
Cue Patton quote about dying.

>>35132152
Are you implying that grunts are expendable and cheap, or that body armor is useless and ineffective?
Either implication suggests you don't know very much about how the military or combat functions

>>35132188
>body armor
It doesn't really seem to matter much, oh and yes I don't know much about military or combat functions, enlighten me.

File: 1494999838671.jpg (113KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x1024px

>>35132152
For a well trained volunteer army, yes.

For lots of fresh conscripts being sent directly to the front, no.

>>35132242
What a surprise.

>>35132271
No bulli pls

>>35132242
It's much more cost efficient and time efficient to buy a set of armor than it is to pay for a dead soldier and train a new one to replace him.

>It doesn't really seem to matter much
Is hat fact or an uneducated opinion? Armor saves a fuck ton of lives. Your armor significantly protects your body and vital organs from blasts,shrapnel, IED's, as well as small arms fire. The body is the easiest target to hit on a man due to it's size, and due to the abundance of vital organs it contains, it's also the best target.
In the army, you are trained to shoot at someones body, for the reasons mentioned above. Thus, it makes sense to protect it

the more armor you have on, the slower you are and as such are more likely to get shot.

what pisses me off about the USM is that when they lighten part of the kit, they just pile more shit on instead of just letting soldiers be lighter.

>>35132405
>the more armor you have on, the slower you are and as such are more likely to get shot.
This isn't true and goes against how the modern Infantry fights. You move with cover and concealment, and when it's not there you move under accurate suppressive fire. You don't just fucking sprint around and hope you're fast enough to not get hit.
Most of the time we get hit is when we are not moving, not because we aren't moving fast enough.

It's really useful at stopping casualties from fragments, debris, ricochets, etc. Most basic armor like 3a isn't helping you survive a hit from a 7.62x39 but it's still pretty useful on a battlefield and is a lot cheaper than having a soldier down from a preventable injury. For cqc plated armor is a life saver.

>>35132152
Not like soldiers cost money or anything, right? Oh you have your heart blown out? Suck it up, some people had worst! Oh your intestines got ripped out? Wipe it off a tiny bit and shove it back in! Not like that training back at base costed us thousands upon thousands of dollars, right? I mean, hell sure we can spend 2k on a set of body armor, or we could just let you die! Obviously dying is cheaper.

>>35132460
Bull-fucking-shit. I've played both CoD and CS:GO. Running fast and jumping erratically is like the first thing to learn about survival.

>>35132152
I dunno OP. Let's test it. Do you want me to shoot at you with or without body armor?

>>35132635
and don't forget, head shots do double damage!

>>35132242
Maybe at point blank ranges, but a lot of engagements happen at 300~ yards, give or take a hundred. I've seen sniper rounds ricochet off of someone's head that didn't have a helmet when they were far enough away, armor and a helmet at that distance can keep you from being toasted by Jafar's Slavshit 7.62x39 sent by Allah himself.

>>35132679
I can't tell if this is the shittiest larp attempt I've ever read or you're really stupid enough to Beleive bullets bounce off skulls

>>35132709
They can, but certainly not at 30 meters

>>35132152
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rLHU-_OhT8g

>>35132709
As a hunter, I've seen a bullet bounce off a deer skull. Why couldn't bullets ever bounce off a humans skull?

>>35132709
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AhcuLWIe3A#t=1943

File: 1389499050097.gif (2MB, 251x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 251x240px

>>35132152
>Conscript with gun vs Conscript with gun
>Whoever hits vital part first wins

>Conscript with gun and body armor vs conscript with gun
>Whoever strikes vitals first wins, conscript with body armor can tank more shots if the armor is good, leaving armor-less conscript at disadvantage. Conscript with body armor has higher chance to survive the shot that penetrates armor compared to lacking armor completely.

>Conscript with gun and body armor vs conscript with gun and body armor
>Conscripts can take a few bullets each so conflict is extended, higher survival chance on both sides.

>Professional soldier with gun vs professional soldier with gun
>Whoever deploys best tactics wins, more focus on safety for the trooper: ambushes, guerrilla warfare, IEDs. May lead to stalemates or reluctance to engage if not backed by vehicles

>Professional soldier with gun and armor vs professional soldier with gun
>Gun+Armor team is more aggressive and more ready to engage in a fight, ambushing them may not carry much result if they not only survive the shots, but also return fire, maiming unarmored teams. Gives one side a clear tactical, strategic and morale edge.

>Professional Soldier with gun and armor vs professional soldier with gun and armor
>Stalemate scenario that everyone currently fears to see on modern battlefield, where most general issue rifles are inadequate against modern military body armor, thus creating situations where from 3 to 10 shots into torso are required to down an enemy reliably outside of DMR and GPMG. Winner is the one who brings most guys, has most armor and most explosives on their side.

In the current day, not issuing body armor to your troops effectively leaves them at disadvantage and forces you into defensive war as your troops lose effectiveness. You also suffer more lethal losses and are required to spend resources to acquire more fighters, while enemy may survive same situations with only some bruises or remain completely unscathed.

>>35132261
Actually I would still argue even North Korea tier shitholes could benefit from a cheap set of soft type I or IIa armour to reduce shrapnel losses.

I seem to recall during the early part of WW1 French Cuirassiers kept their cuirasses because they provided not insignificant shrapnel protection.

>>35132635
Bullshit, if you played CS:GO you'd know how important armour is. Any pro would take a pistol and armour over rifle and nothing any day. Not to say the game's in any way realistic, or that you aren't memeing.

>>35133219
Even a nylon vest significantly cuts down on shrapnel deaths, so I can totally see a steel chestplate helping.

>>35132261
Isn't a person more likely to get wounded in combat rather killed these days?
I'd see a world war playing out as if everyone just got shot in the leg and went home.
Till the nukes dropped that is.

>>35132709
Everyone knows they only bounce INSIDE skulls, he's a chucklefuck.

>>35134744
Soldiers tend to survive their wounds because we got better at keeping them alive until they reach a field hospital. As soon as the casualty rate exceeds our capability to process them, we'll revert back to a lot of people dying, there is no way we could deal with WW1 or even WW2 engagement without losing a lot of soldiers only because there aren't enough helicopters to medevac them.

>>35132152
>>is body armor really important on a modern day battlefield?
For first wold country punching sandniggers? Yes important for reduction of casualties and morale increase.
For everyone else will not help really with casualties, could actual decrease combat capability. Some sort of body armor may be feasible because of morale reasons.

>>35132709
>garbage durkdurkastan ammo leaving the muzzle 900f/s below spec
>bouncing off anything harder than a pencil at 300y
I'd buy it.

>>35133219
>North Korea
>cheap set of soft type I or IIa armour
Pick one.
Aramid fibers production is not cheap, is not low tech and is under export control.

>shrapnel losses
Pro tip shrapnel rounds are no used anymore. Today is not WWI.

we are a professional military. Losing a single engagement can make a group or branch look like idiots for 20 years. The rules apply to us in different ways than everyone else, we have to do everything we can.

>>35134922
Are you implying that ballistic nylon is hard to make? NK has the industrial base to produce their own 135nm CPUs and laser rangefinders for export. Making some ancient synthetic fibers isn't a problem for them.

>>35132188
The paperwork said my life was worth $400,000 as a US grunt deployed in a combat zone in 2007-2011, if I died.

So yeah it's probably cheaper to keep us alive.

>>35132152
If you let all your soldiers die you win

>>35134955
>NK has the industrial base to produce their own 135nm CPUs and laser rangefinders for export.
Implying those aren't smuggled in from China

>>35134955
>Are you implying that ballistic nylon is hard to make?
yes it is. It is not basic industry at all and your limited high technology chemical industry should produce more important things. Like missiles, artillery and WMD.

File: 451234123.jpg (65KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 400x600px

For the shithole countries most practical and useful form of body armor seems to be steel 3+ rifle plate in the plate carrier, only one plate for chest.

Reasons.
1. It is here mostly fro morale reason, to make soldiers have an illusion of protection and show them their motherland "cares" about them.
2. This sort of armor has minimal costs and can be produced and bought everywhere.
3. Minimal for low tech armor weight so it does reduce combat capability of soldiers much.
4. Soft flack jackets, helmets suck for morale reasons. Why? because first thing soldiers will do is shoot them with their AKs. "Shit armor, doesn't stop bullets". Persuading grunts that small fragments are more important than bullets is not an easy endeavor.
5. Back plate can be drooped because plate is here not for protection but for morale and soldiers at least try do believe that they are not a cowards who need back plate.

>>35134922
>Shrapnel rounds aren't used anymore
Idk what this even means. Of course they're still in use. Wtf do you think soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have been getting killed by? Wtf do you think we've been dropping on them?

File: shrapnel_round.jpg (263KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1280x960px

>>35135154

>>35133032
What's the story behind this gif

File: 1500161145457.jpg (49KB, 330x428px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 330x428px

>>35135165
Why thank you, Captain Pedant.

>>35135183
PCP

>>35132278
If you're for srs, body armor comes in different types, each with different protection levels and weights or mobility restrictions. Whether or not you would want to issue body armor would depend on your budget, the threats faced, the role of the soldiers in question, and the overall strategic environment. I'll give you some hypothetical examples if you want.

>>35133032
Rifle protection plates cover no more than 20% of body area. So statically speaking they will stop only 1 bullet of 5. At the same time body armor encumber soldiers and tired humans are bad at executing any tasks, especially requiring attention and precision (sounds like combat? hmmm).

Body armor is "win more" gear.

>>35135266
>Rifle protection plates cover no more than 20% of body area. So statically speaking they will stop only 1 bullet of 5
When considering the fact that everyone in the world with any training is aiming for center mass, this is a stupid way of thinking about it.

>>35132460
>You don't just fucking sprint around and hope you're fast enough to not get hit.
This is what rush movement aimed for.

>>35135266
>>35135290
The sapis cover your vitals. Jesus fuck you cawaduties.

>Aim center mass

On a hadji sure, they don't have armor. I've known forever if I was fighting troops that had it it's going to be leg shots. You don't have to kill to win a firefight, just incapacitate.

>>35135290
Aiming =/= hitting. Practical accuracy of small arms fire in real combat situations is much larger than any particular body size. All combat wounds statistics acquired supports this, hits are distrusted randomly across body proportionally to the area of body parts and are no different than fragments hits distribution (head and neck are exceptions and get more as they stick out of cover more but head body armor lol)

>>35135322
Sapis cover what they can cover.

>>35135358
>head body armor lol
delet this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejVPBkQpSKI

>>35132709
All about the angles

>>35134922
>Definition of shrapnel in English:
>shrapnel
>1 Fragments of a bomb, shell, or other object thrown out by an explosion.

Your autism is showing. (And mine for responding)

>>35135358
Different anon, but hits are for sure not distributed randomly. Not if you take into account what caused the wound (bullet, shrapnel, explosive, etc). You can see patterns inside those categories without a doubt. Even if you ignore that, not all wounds are made equal, and not all locations mean the same if they are wounded (this is why everyone gets a helmet).

>>35135262
Fuck it, I'll do it anyways.

If you're a wealthy nation fighting a guerilla enemy, you have the money to equip your troops with body armor. For troops in mostly static positions that are generally sitting ducks (convoy guards, isolated garrisons, checkpoints), plaster as much armor as you can afford on them, as the mobility loss isn't that big a deal. This would be in the form of metal or ceramic plates over soft covers, with ceramic helmets and maybe arm and leg coverings. For troops that go out on foot maneuvers (light infantry, alpine troops, skirmishers), mobility is too important to use anything more than a basic helmet and some soft armor. Mobile troops that have vehicle support (aircav, motorized, mech infantry) can take more armor as their time running in it should be less than a foot soldier. This means they could take soft vests with hard inserts, maybe a chest plate or a flak jacket, along with a helmet. Troops in specialized roles (spec ops, vehicle crew, paratroops) would need specialized armor, if any. Since they're a larger investment in training time and have high combat abilities, making armor tailored to their needs may be worth the expenditure. Non combat personnel shouldn't need armor at all, and if they do something's not been done right.

tl;dr, give troops armor depending on their role, just like you would give them different guns.

>>35132405
When you can outrun bullets ill say you're right. Until then, you're stupid as fuck.

>>35132261
What is this, Skyrim? Being trained makes your armor stop bullets better?

>>35132152
>The way I see it the only thing a grunt needs is a gun.
Get you hands off my kitchenware, get your pig iron somewhere else.

>>35134993
The machines to make them? Sure.

>>35132187
>Hey fags, don't be a dead faggot.

Why do you think that a soldiers life is soooooooooooo important for the army?

File: 3qafhk.jpg (46KB, 625x351px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 625x351px

>>35132588

>>35132152
>Is having a higher chance of surviving engagements really important on a modern battlefield
If this isn't bait, you are the stupidest fucking person on this board right now.

>>35135494
I'm sure he's talking about generally the whole average of wounds, from all vectors. While bullets may have a higher incidence of center mass wounds, everything else has a higher incidence of high surface area parts like the arms and legs, so I'm sure they average out. Either way you arent going back to fight if you're hit with any.

Are civilian level 5 plates available?

>>35135421
>Not firing a couple of shots at it to test it.

>>35137353

Their training, supply and payroll actually adds up to an appreciable sum?