Re: [GZG] Tech Levels

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:10 PM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Erm? Absolute statements like that always make me twitch.
>>
>> While it's certainly true that body armour was not widely used by
>> ground troops during this period, there certainly was technological
>> development in the field. Other posters have referred to the use of
>> armour in the trenches of WW1, and so-called "bullet-proof vests"
>> were sold commercially in the inter-war period. More importantly,
>> first the British RAF and later especially the United States Army
>> Airforce sponsored a lot of work on body armour for aircrew, and
>> hundreds of thousands of sets were manufactured and deployed by the
>> end of WWII. Similar armours were also issued to naval personnel in
>> WWII and saw some use by US ground troops in Korea, especially the
>> thirty-odd thousand issued by the Marine Corps.
>>
>> There's a reason why the generic name for body-armour in the modern
>> era is (or maybe *was*) "flak jacket"; they descended from the "flak
>> suits" worn by bomber crews, and were intended to stop relatively
low-
>> velocity splinters and fragments, although the were also effective
>> against low-performance bullets.
>
> Utterly ineffective against small arms of the kind issued to ground
troops.

It was not meant to be effective against small arms.  It was meant to
protect against shell fragments and grenades-- the stuff that kills in
job lots.
>
> I will concede some work being done in the 1940-1960 time period, and
> occasional experiments before then, however, during this time, no
> armor that was even moderately effective against the primary weapon of
> an infantryman was in use other than an oddity for limited
> circumstances and limited numbers.  The point I was making is valid,
> nitpicks aside.

The weapons that inflicted the most casualties were artillery and
air-dropped bombs.  Bombs and shells, by happy coincidence, are easier
to protect against than bullets from high velocity rifles, so body
armor developement went for the low hanging fruit that would still
yield significant results, if picked.  As for not stopping the primary
weapon of an infantryman, the ideal role of the infantryman's rifle
was to pin the enemy down long enough for the artillery or airstrike
to kill him.  The primary weapon of the infantryman was not the
primary weapon of warfare (until fairly recently).
>
>> Oh, and let's not forget the first piece of body armour for the
>> modern era. The humble tin hat...
>
> Which is actually a huge step backwards compared to the heights
> reached in helmet design during the 1400s.  Have a buddy with a
> bascinet which is incredibly glancy.	He's got to screw up his
> defenses something bad for me to put a solid blow on his head.

Next time, use a gun.  The problem with all of those classic armors
(aside form hideous expense) was the problem of not stopping bullets
reliably and seldom stopping crossbow bolts, at all.  Even pike
squares gave them pause.  The humble modern helmet does do its
assigned task of allowing a soldier to peek over the top of a trench,
without guaranteeing that the enemy marksman takes off the top of his
head

The problem with modern body armor on the battlefield is that the
weapons already have far too much penetration, as a side effect of
being able to hit a mansized target at just under a kilometer.	The
danger of modern armor is that it will prevent a round that would
normally pass straight through from exitting-- generating a much more
severe wound, as it stops.
>

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l