Body Armor...A Historical Perspective AUTHOR Major James P. Carothers, USMC CSC 1988 SUBJECT AREA History EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE; BODY ARMOR...A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. I. Purpose: To provide an abbreviated historical review of individual body armor from ancient civilizations through today and to furnish some insight into the threat and body armor protection required on the future battlefied. II. Data: As long as man has developed weapons, he has simultaneously produced armor to protect against its threat. The crude and unsophisticated armor of the Romans to the medieval knights of the middle ages established a trend towards armor modernization. Gunpowder ended the development of armor for centuries until the famous Australian "bushranger" Ned Kelly introduced effective armor in the 1850's. Soldiers and criminals experimented with varying degrees of success during World War I through the gangster years of the 1930's. World War II and the Korean Conflict were a renaissance for body armor. Technological innovation and combat experimentation firmly reestablished the requirement for effective body armor. Research and development through the last two decades have resulted in "state of the art" body armor in the hands of the common soldier today. III. Conclusions: Tomorrows battlefield will no doubt introduce a new and effective projectile threat. A historical perspective will provide the knowledge necessary to meet and overcome the threat and enhances our ability to be successful in our next conflict. CAROTHERS, JAMES P. Major USMC Conference Group 10 BODY ARMOR... A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE! Thesis Statement: Projectile shielding for the individual soldier was pioneered by ancient civilizations and has seen a technological rebirth in the 2Oth century. I. Ancient armor a. Early to middle ages b. 19th century Ned Kelly II. WW I a. Germans b. French c. British III. WW II a. USAF b. Fragment data IV. KOREA and Vietnam a. Test Data b. Variety and uses V. Today a. Modern armor types b. Current testing of experimental armor for the future. BODY ARMOR. . . A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE! Greek soldiers held shields of wood, leather and hammered metal plates. The roman legions had leather vestments, helmets and shields of light weight metal. Although austere, the first body armor was reasonably effective considering the crude weapons of war used in their time. The middle ages produced a wide ad diverse variety of body armor. Noblemen bought armor for ceremonial occations. It was thin, ornate and highly polished and was designed to attract attention and impress the viewer. Jousting armor was slightly thicker, polished, and usually designed to deflect a lance, morning star or sword. Most of the armor made for battle ranged from the ornate for those who could afford it, to rough leather, chain mail and metal plates sewn to fabric for the less well to do. The idea of body armor is by no means new, but the traditional style was retired from the batlefield upon the advent of gunpowder. Even then, the cost of outfitting a army with armor was staggering and restricted to those who could best afford it, the nobility. The foot soldier did what he could, from using boiled leather to chain mail. The iron helment of the private soldier and his coat of mail have only rarely been preserved, perhaps because chain mail is so useful for scouring copper pots. Only where archaeologists have found a mass grave, such as the one from the battle of Visby in 1361 is it possible to obtain first-hand evidence of the ordinary man's equipment.1 Projectile shielding for the individual soldier was pioneered by ancient civilizations and has seen a technilogical rebirth in the 20th century. There was however, a somewhat colorful character from Australia who developed an effective suit of body armor and used it for personal profit. In 1880, the Australian police found the famous bushranger, Ned Kelly, a formidable foe. An "Outback Outlaw", Ned fashoned a suit of boiler-plate iron armor, with a twin panneled breastplate. A metal apron protected the groin and a crude helmet with eye slits completed the outfit. Dispite the unrefined apperance, Ned's armor was extremely efficient and enabled him to face, and survive the concentrated fires of numerous Australian police. Unfortunately for Ned, his armor didn't cover his legs and after catching a few rounds in his lower extremities the police captured him. World War I produced a large number of experiments in the body armor field. France developed a number of chest, thigh and leg protectors, but for some reason never issued them to the field units. The English were more active and produced 18 different body shield designs for commerical use. These designs included some "soft armors" with padded neck defences and vests with linen, tissue, cotten and silk. One experimental version included a uniform jacket with the entire chest area lined with small metal plates. From 1917-1918 the British Government produced a corslet known as the E.O.B. Evidently very efficient, it consisted of a metalic breast and back plate with abdomen protection. Germany by far, made the most extensive use of body armor. Weighing 19-24 pounds, the shields were composed of a large metalic breast plate with flat hook-like shoulder harnesses. Secured to the bottom by two long straps were three plates for mgroin protection. Designed for protection, not mobility, they were primarily used by machine gun crews.2 Armor development between the two World Wars was focused on its use on tanks and armored vehicles. It was in America during the 1920's and 1930's that the so called "bullet-proof vests" appeared. Composed of overlapping steel plates sewn to strong fabric garments, they were heavy and expensive. Produced for and purchased by the urban gangsters of that era, they provided good protection from pistol projectiles but reduced individual mobility.3 Plates that were hit would buckle on impact and required replacement prior to the next encounter. Due to their weight, expense, and obvious appearance, few were ever worn. World War II produced only limited use of body armor. Pilot and gunner protection, mostly metal plates, sheltered the crews of the Flying Fortress and Liberator bombers of the United States Army Air Forces, (USAAF). An early conflict survey determined that 70% of the causative agents of wounds suffered by Air Force crews were due to relatively low velocity fragments.4 Later in World War II with "flak jackets" being worn extensively there was a 60% reduction in the total number of wounds. Another estimate confined to the area covered by body armor showed a 74% reduction in wounds.5 The fatality rate for the type of wound also was remarkably reduced, i.e. thoracic wounds had a fatality rate of 8% with armor vice 36% without armor.6 To protect a highly trained aircrew, always in demand, the expense was justified. Furthermore, their lack of physical mobility within the aircraft negated the weight factor of the heavy metal armor. Modern armor was born during World War II and the Korean War became the testing ground for more capable and light weight body armor. The impetus of his drive for more effective armor for all soldiers lies in statistical data on casualties from World War II. In rough numbers, the U.S. Army incurred a total of 949,000 battle casualties during World War II. Of these 599,000 were wounded or injured (including 27,000 who died of wounds), 175,000 were killed in action, and 175,000 were reported as missing in action.7 Extensive studies show as those by Dr.'s Oughtderson, 8 - Tribby9 and Hopkins10 indicate that in round figures, 70% of the total injuries received wre due to fine or course missle fragments and 30% due to bullets and other causes.11,12,13,14 High explosive and mortar shells, aerial bombs, and grenades were responsible for fragments causing the greatest number of hits during World War II. Adequate casualty reporting began in the Crimean War of 1854-56 and ground combatant data has remained consistent through World War II. Among ground troops, about 20 men die in action for every 100 who are hit. The infantry made up about 20% of the strength of the Army overseas in World War II, and incurred about 70% of the total battle casualties.15 The above data considered, it is obvious that an effective body armor could make an exceptional contribution to the combat readiness and efficiency of any unit exposed to a shrapnel environment. Prior to the Korean War, the materials used as armor protection were relatively simple in form and basic in composition. Technical advances in our ability to composite materials for ballisic protection have changed rapidly in the last 30 years. Modern armor can be divided into two catagories, opague and transparent, and they provide protection by three different methods. The armor can totally reject the projectile and bounce it off; it can absorb it, dissipating the kinetic energy along the impacted material and its backing surface or by combining the capabilities of both methods. The opaque armors are composed of metallic, reinforced plastic, ceramic or textile materials. Historically metal has been the preferred material for armor. Its best feature is the ability to withstand repeated impacts in the same area, a characteristic riot shared by the other armor materials. Examples of this type of armor are the standard steel helmet (MIL -H-1988) used by U.S. forces from World War II to the early 1980's and the M-69 fragmentation vest composed of titanium plates. Some of the super-hard steels produced today using special tempering and quenching processes successfully stop steel-cored bullets and armor-piercing projectiles. Unfortunately as the armies of the middle ages discarded their armor because it was bulky, heavy and inhibited their movement, metal armors of today still display this characteristic. The exception seems to be aircrews not requiring excessive movement to accomplish their mission. Reinforced plastic armor, also called glass-reinforced- plastic (GRP) is a combination of a glass weave fiber and a chemical resin. It requires additional backing for support when used on garments in small overlapping plates. It is good for low velocity bullets, blast and grenade/mortar fragments. Although lightweight, it is very expensive. It protects by partially rejecting the projectile and partly absorbing it. The best exampIe of this type of armor is the air crew helmet (MIL-H- 43059). It was composed of nine piles of phenolformaldehyde resin coated ballistic nylon cloth with a textured olive green finish and was equipped with integrally mounted communication equipment. It was a standard item used by the Army and Marine Corps. In the early 1960's, ceramic armors provided the first technical breakthrough by reducing weight while improving ballistic protection. A composite material was developed that could stop high energy projectiles. It was a ceramic, aluminum oxide with a fiberglass laminate. Body armor was developed for small arms protection utilizing ceramic/GRP plates within a ballistic nylon carrier and used by all the U.S. Armed Services. An example of this armor is the Aircrewman Small Arms Protective Vest, Series 8470-935-3183. These armors are used primarily by aircrewmen and can provide protection against small caliber projectiles and low velocity shrapnel. Four classes of ceramics are used. These materials are aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, modifed boron carbide and boron carbide. The boron carbide provided a 20% weight reduction with the same relative protection of the cheaper but heavier aluminum oxide. Vests containing boron carbide were not purchased in large numbers or used as extensively. Textile armors are by far the newest and most revolutionary materials in the body armor field. Ballistic nylon was ori- ginally developed and given combat field testing from 1 March 1952 to 15 July 1952 in Korea. EventualIy over 1400 Armored Nylon Vests (T-52-.1) and (T-52-2) were tested by air crews and ground organizations from six different countries. The two most commonly used body armors in existance use ballistic nylon. The M69 (MIL-B-12370) Body Armor, Fragmentation Protective, Vest with 3/4 Collar and the (MIL-A-43366) Body Armor, Fragmentation-Protective, for the Groin were extensively used in Viet Nam by the common soldier. Transparent, or see- through armors, are most commonly referred to as bullet-proof glass. Military users include Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Security Unit installations. Armored glass is composed of one of three materials; Glass, polycarbonate or acrylic plastic and a laminated layer of polyvinyl butyryl. This interlaying is necessary to prevent shattering and to break up the shock waves. Bullet-proof glass protects by absorbing the projectile in its laminated layers. It is the only transparent armor that can withstand rifle projectiles. Its inhererit weight severly limits its use as body armor. Plastic armor is composed of sheets of polycarbonate. Laminated to sufficient thickness, it offers good protection against low velocity projectiles, but not rifle calibres. An example of this type of armor is the Marine corps M-55 Fragmentation Protective Vest (MIL-A-17367). It was the sleeveless, zipper front vest also used in the Viet Nam era. As were most of the armored vests produced in the 1960's and 1970's, it was composed of layers of ballistic nylon. The twenty-three, 1/8" Doron inserts were molded to the correct shape and integrated into the vest and provided the best protection of its day. It should be noted that all the body armor vests identified so far were never advertised as being capable of stopping standard rifle projectiles at any velocity. This problem seems to have been solved by a Dupont polymer research group in early 1965. It took eight years of research before the final product called KEVLAR16 reached the marketplace. This new aramid fibre proved to be five times the tinsel strength of steel by weight. it is flame resistant and does not melt. When a KEVLAR fibre receives impact from a high energy projectile, it stretches and transmits the energy along its length. The greater the length of the fibres involved in the impact, the better the ballistic resistance. Classified as a textile armor, it is produced in a heavy-weave fabric and sewn in layers. A blunting or mushrooming effect on the bullet prevents penetration through the strong fibres. Sixteen layers of heavy-weave cloth will stop all standard handgun rounds, while 24 layers will stop magnum size loads.17 The support necesary to sustain its ballistic repulsing capabilities is the body structure behind the vest. Unfortunately, blunt trauma effects such as internal injuries will result and depend on the projectile velocity and weight. Lightweight and flexible, it can be tailored to a reasonably comfortable and well fitting garment. Textile armors have significantly reduced performance when saturated with water. This characteristic is reverssable to 100% strength by drying and the effect can be reduced by use of water repellant treatments such as "Zepel" or "Scotchguard". The body armor used today by the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps was introduced in 1982 to combat units. It is a 25% inprovement in weight reduction, flexibility and ballistic protection over the previously used vest. Many elements effect the use of body armor by the basic soldier or Marine. Weight, fit and comfort, body heat retained by the vest, and confidence in the ability of the body armor to prevent or reduce the severity of injury are a few of the major factors. The interaction of all these elements in a combat environment can influence a tactical situation both positively and negatively. Given the advanced technological environment of tomorrows battefield, what type of threat on the common soldier expect to face? What material will defeat the predicted threat? What is being done now? Answers to these questions require premonition, clairvoyance or prophetic capabilities, none of which are possessed by the author. However, some information now available can provide at least some partial insight to the solutions. Tomorrows threat seems to fall in the catagory of "improved" fragmentation munitions, specifically "flechettes". Conventional shells detonate forming chunks that greatly exceed the requirement ti incapacitate an adversary. Shell fragment trajectories can rarely be predicted or directed and usually produce "overkill " casualties. Flechettes are aerodynamic and stable at velocity. Effective at ranges up to several thousand meters,they don't go "ballistic and undirected". Soviet munitions using flechettes are already in use around the world. The bad news is that flechettes penetrate todays aramid fiber body armors. The U.S. Army, with support from the other services, tests and evaluates the state-of-the-art materials produced today for their value as ballistic protection at the Natick Research and Development Command, Natick, Massachuesetts. Major chemical firms such as Dow, Du Pont, and Allied-Signal continually experiment and develop high-order polymers such as KEVLAR for a variety. of commercial uses. A polyethalyne base fiber called "Spectra" has exceeded some of the fragmentation resistant capabilities of the KEVLAR fabrics used today. Research personel are enthused about its possibilities. The marriage of metals and ballistic fiber fabrics holds the possibility of flechette protection and is being tested by Natick Research Laboratories. The evolutionary cycle of threat vs armor protection is progressing at an accelerated pace. When and if another American steps onto a modern battlefield can be argued, however it is unlikely that he will ever do so again without some type of "high technology" body armor. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Neils M. Saxtorph, Warriors and Weapons of Early Times (MacMillan Co., NY, NY, 1972) p. 11 2. Frederick Wilkinson, Battle Dress (Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden city, NY, 1969) p. 64 3. Janes Infantry Weapons, (1981-1982) p. 691 4. J.B.Coates and J.C.Beyer, Wound Ballistics (Dept. of the Army, Washington, D.C., 1962) 5. J.B.Coates and J.C.Beyer, Wound Ballistics, (Dept. of the Army, Washington, D.C., 1962) 6. J .B.Coates and J .C.Beyer , Wound Ballistics, (Dept. of the Army, Washington, D.C., 1962) 7. John H. Gardner, Norman A. Hitchman and Robert J. Best Report: Protection of the Soldier in Warfare, Operations Research Office, The Johns Hopkins University, Chevy Chase, Maryland (U.S. Army Report 21 April 1953 {SECRET} {DECLASSIFIED} P. 21 8. Wound Ballistics Report, Bougainiville Campaign, 1944 (RESTRICTED) 9. Tribby, William W. Examination of One Thousand American Casualties Killed in Action in Italy, Vol. I, (RESTRICTED) 10. Casuality Analysis, New Georgia and Burma, (Undated- Unclassified) 11. Report M.P.R.C. 54 (Wa-33-19a) NRC (RESTRICTED). 12. ASF Montly Progress Report, Section 7,Health, 31 July 1941 (RESTRICTED) 13. A.O.R.G. Report No. 271 (R.C. 444), Ministry of Home Security, 1945 (SECRET) 14. Satistical Report on the Health of the Army (British), 1943 - 1945. The War Office, 20 August 1948 15. John H. Gardner, Norman A. Hitchman and Robert J. Best Report: Protection of the Soldier in Warfare, Operations Research Office, The Johns Hopkins University, Chevy Chase, Maryland U.S. Army Report 21 April 1953 {SECRET} {DECLASSIFIED} P. 21 16. KEVLAR Special Products, Textile Fibers Dept., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. Inc., Wilmington, Delaware 17. Janes Infantry Weapons, (1981-1982) p. 691
