A history on the development of modern armour

[Kings_Rook]

@Sodin

How is that not true? There were always some protective measures to give additional protection to the soldiers, giving them a greater chance of survival.

Yes there are. The question is whether the benefits are worth the costs, and not just in money. you also have to take into account things like endurance, temperature stress, mobility, flexibility, etc.

Something like this

Has great protection against bullets and shrapnel and can keep a person live if blown up by an IED, but is only ever worn by one person in an EOD team because the downsides outweigh the benefits.

It greatly limits your ability to move around, it weighs over 80 lbs, it is claustrophobic, you have greatly reduced situational awareness, and wearing one for even a short period of time can cause heat stroke, even if the local environment is cold because the heat gets trapped in the suit with you.

Now you have to ask why they did not give them:

1. The lack of resources for every soldier because you need more resources in other areas (ships, aircraft, vehicles, tanks).
2. Soldiers were replaceable and training time was short.
3. To some smart asses this did not seem so important because of the above two points.

To address the second two points, the most successful generals in WW 1 did not believe either of those two points. The worst did yes, but even the best didn’t issue body armor, and the reasons varied by country, though all included a cost/benefit analysis that would have precluded their use outside of certain roles.

Regarding the German Trench armour, the Metropolitan Museum did testing on the after the war and found highly variable quality. They were also quite useless against rifle and machine gun ammo. They were design to protect against shrapnel and pistol rounds only. It is only once you got to 300 yards that they start protecting against rifle shots

courtesy of Forgotten Weapons

The German armor is also something like 30 lbs and only protects the front, which would be about 60 lbs to protect the entire torso, and well over 75 lbs with a helmet of comparable stopping power. Try climbing around in a trench with that. it is going to be very difficult, and if you trip and fall into the mud and dirt, you are quite likely to drown from the weight of your armour. Add to that that it won’t protect you against most of the weapons you will be facing, and there aren’t many benefits to outweigh the costs.

From wikipedia:

• The combatants of World War I started the war without any attempt at providing the soldiers with body armor. Various private companies advertised body protection suits such as the Birmingham Chemico Body Shield, although these products were generally far too expensive for an average soldier.

From what I can find, it started being sold during 1917, long after the war started. Also, pistol rated only. And I had to search because it is uncited.

• During the late 1920s through the early 1930s, gunmen from criminal gangs in the United States began wearing less-expensive vests made from thick layers of cotton padding and cloth. These early vests could absorb the impact of handgun rounds such as .22 Long Rifle, .25 ACP, .32 S&W Long, .32 S&W, .380 ACP, .38 Special and .45 ACP traveling at speeds of up to 300 m/s (980 ft/s). To overcome these vests, law enforcement agents such as the FBI began using the newer and more powerful .38 Super, and later the .357 Magnum cartridge.

Again, pistol rated only. And uncited.

• In 1940, the Medical Research Council in Britain proposed the use of a lightweight suit of armor for general use by infantry, and a heavier suit for troops in more dangerous positions, such as anti-aircraft and naval gun crews. By February 1941, trials had begun on body armor made of manganese steel plates. Two plates covered the front area and one plate on the lower back protected the kidneys and other vital organs. Five thousand sets were made and evaluated to almost unanimous approval - as well as providing adequate protection, the armor didn’t severely impede the mobility of the soldier and were reasonably comfortable to wear. The armor was introduced in 1942 although the demand for it was later scaled down.[18] The Canadian Army in northwestern Europe also adopted this armor for the medical personnel of the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division .

The only citation there leads to an article, on some website I’ve never heard of, on the resurgence of infantry in the Late medieval period.

You see my 2 point in this. The additional armor was given to a more educated “important” soldier.

Let us assume for a second you are right here and ask who needs the armour that is only rated to protect against pistols more:

the soldier with a gun that can kill the enemy or at least force the enemy into cover thereby preventing bullets from flying towards your troops

or

the medic running around wrapping bandages around people, without a weapon, and even if they had one, would have been too busy to use it.

Here you can see how little they cared in the past for an ordinary soldier, because they were for some people replaceable.

Now are times are different and in smaller armies every soldier is important. It took a lot of resources and time for training and education. Therefore, the basic protection will continue to grow in the future.

If you ignore the fact that the US has more to spend now on their soldiers than they did in ww2.

@Vathar

Bear in mind that I don’t overly care about ultra realistic weapon design, and won’t cancel my pre-order if the sidearm’s grip is angled to sharply to let the magazine feed the chamber properly, but it does pass the time on these forums. @Kings_Rook’s feedback could also be valuable for the artist who drew this should he wish to read it.

I feel I am being mis-characterized here. It seems as though you are implying that I’d cancel my pre-order over them not doing something as detailed an intricate as World of Guns, which I wouldn’t. Frankly I wouldn’t want them to do something that detailed. This isn’t a full simulation game after all.