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
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
