Should SAF issue bullet-proof vests?
-
neither would be the RQ nor the DYS4. More OTOriginally posted by ditzy:SAF has it in stock, just that no one wants to wear it.
And its a logistical nightmare for your CQ as well, so you can guess why they're not readily available. But if you need it, just snap your fingers, it'll be there in no time. I've seen MOPP suits enough for coy size appear from thin air just 2 hrs after the CO signs a piece a paper. But I doubt the CQ was equally exhilarated at the sight. -
Guerrillas don't wear helmets nor bullet-proof vestsOriginally posted by MobyDog:KNN, AP rounds... then wear helmet for what !
They depended on their skills to dodge bullets
-
You're going out there to fight, not catch bullets.Originally posted by MobyDog:KNN, AP rounds... then wear helmet for what ! -
I say better dun issue until on OPs.
My mind tells me, however, that we should train as we fight. If you do not get used to it now, what makes you think you will be comfortable when mobilised?
Anyway, its odd. Nowadays, everyone seems to be armoring up (see for eg. the Facial Armor System and the US army's kevlar shorts!) because technology has made wearing body armor for extended periods of time feasible. Kinda like medieval footmen and knights. The enemy will probably adapt however, and i wonder when it will become non-feasible to armor up again. -
Bullet proof vest useless? Tell that to the US soldiers in Iraq. They have new vests there that are so good that it was almost easy to NOT know that they got hit. Some of them went back and found bullet marks on their vests and never knew what shot them and when.
Another video clip i saw was taken by an iraqi insurgent, with another sniper targeting at a US soldier. The sniper fired, the soldier went down, and promptly got up and took cover behind his vehicle. Can tell that the soldier wasn't injured. -
Precisely, I remember that SAF was part of the peacekeeping force stationed in East Timor. And they always wear (very poor quality Looking) Body Armour with seperate BTU, out on patrol in the jungles.
-
Nothing is bullet proof, as long as you have enough rounds and time. It will go through..
-
Best thing is write a letter to NASA, ask them provide astronomy suits. Should be able to last you for some time before you are dead.
-
well, if youre happy enough to stand still and accept the incoming, i guess thats upto you..Originally posted by Pitot:Nothing is bullet proof, as long as you have enough rounds and time. It will go through..
Thats a big problem. Not just any old body armour will do. You have to keep with the times, and body armour is constantly evolving.Originally posted by MobyDog:Precisely, I remember that SAF was part of the peacekeeping force stationed in East Timor. And they always wear (very poor quality Looking) Body Armour with seperate BTU, out on patrol in the jungles.
Since its deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military has had at least a couple of generations worth of upgrades in issued body armour, each improving on both level of protection and weight than those before.
Outer soft body armour is now below 7lbs and large SAPI inserts are perhaps 8lb.
You can also get smaller hard plates that can cover your sides, so you get all round protection - ESAPI and better protection on front, level iiia on sides.
And dont forget that body armour is just that - it is not called bullet-proof armour for no reason - it helps protect against multiple hits and blunt trauma but no one has ever said it'll make you invulnerable on the battlefield.
If you look at what the modern soldier can purchase today in terms of gear, they can get plate carriers and modular systems that are much better than those issued, sometimes lighter, sometimes heavier, and all capable of differing types of plate carrying loadouts from just soft to all out combined hard and soft plates as mentioned before.
You also have the ability for quick release, so quick shedding of the plates and all armour is available should you require it [ie. if you happen to ditch in the water.]
Current US issue outer soft body armour shells [as of 1998 onwards manufacture and revised and upgraded in 2005] are supposed to stop multiple fragments and 9mm rounds, with hard plates you get additional protection from rifle rounds along with increased protection against blunt trauma - with the soft armour helping to cushion any blows to the hard armour [and any untoward backface deformation], adding another layer of protective comfort.
Yeah, this is a very popular video. He and his unit later captured the guy that shot him.Originally posted by Shotgun:Bullet proof vest useless? Tell that to the US soldiers in Iraq. They have new vests there that are so good that it was almost easy to NOT know that they got hit. Some of them went back and found bullet marks on their vests and never knew what shot them and when.
Another video clip i saw was taken by an iraqi insurgent, with another sniper targeting at a US soldier. The sniper fired, the soldier went down, and promptly got up and took cover behind his vehicle. Can tell that the soldier wasn't injured.
True. The old flak vest system of the Vietnam war weighed at 25lbs.Originally posted by lwflee:I say better dun issue until on OPs.
My mind tells me, however, that we should train as we fight. If you do not get used to it now, what makes you think you will be comfortable when mobilised?
Anyway, its odd. Nowadays, everyone seems to be armoring up (see for eg. the Facial Armor System and the US army's kevlar shorts!) because technology has made wearing body armor for extended periods of time feasible. Kinda like medieval footmen and knights. The enemy will probably adapt however, and i wonder when it will become non-feasible to armor up again.
Todays [standard] issue vest is 6.8lbs. The hard plates are an extra 8lb.
Throat, shoulder and groin protection is another 5lb.
Still alot less weight for alot more protection than ever before.
Your generation should count yourselves lucky that you have access to this level of comfortable protection [IF sg government buys into it of course..]
The problem is if you procure it all for your forces in one go. If you do that, and the time comes to get deployed - how long ago did your government buy that armour? And who from?
By the time you get issued it, it could be obselete and not worth much against modern projectile technology.
So only ordering when you know you are going to require it makes sense.
Military issues both soft and hard type armour, at varying levels of protection.Originally posted by MobyDog:No the ballistic test were done on soft/light body armour and not military grade Body armour. The Dragon Skin is most effective and will stop typical round.
Soft is for 9mm, blunt trauma [both in itself as well from any hits to hard plates] and fragmentation.
Hard is for 9mm, 7.62, blunt and fragmentation.
Dragon Skin type is the most effective at this time, protective even from M993 and M995 AP rounds, as well as being more flexible than combined hard and soft plated carriers.
It exceeded level iiia and iv level protection and afforded better back face deformation, which was always an issue with hard plates [and a big issue with the older PASGT style plates that were brittle and could cause injury because of this, even protecting you from the actual round]
Dragon skin was originally for protection on vehicles, seaborne and airborne equipment, upto 20mm calibre projectiles.
Dragon Skin type also has better breathability characteristics which means less overheating for the human body.
The drawback of the Dragon Skin type, as ever, is cost.
Still, with current issue protection against standard fielded ammunition [anything likely fielded by current opfor as experienced in the Middle East] is considered better protection than none at all.
Is it only the NSmen who complain of weight when training with BA?
is it because the BA is old and heavy, or is it because NSmen are considered too.. soft..?
I know everyone complains about BA but when they get deployed, they are happy to be with it, mission dependant of course.
Yes, amen to train as you mean to fight - many foreign forces adopt this approach, why not sg? -
I think the weight complaint is a very immature thing.
Granted, we are a conscript army.But your life in today's battlefield depends on your BA.Even NSmen get deployed on UN missions, and perhaps more will go, is it so hard to wear them?
Once you train hard in them, you will get used to it.If you are able to fight and are PES A, i have nothing to say if these chaps keep complaining.
Common sense tells you BA saves lives.We may not be at war, but who ever knows when we might be sent abroad?
-
Agreed.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I think the weight complaint is a very immature thing.
Granted, we are a conscript army.But your life in today's battlefield depends on your BA.Even NSmen get deployed on UN missions, and perhaps more will go, is it so hard to wear them?
Once you train hard in them, you will get used to it.If you are able to fight and are PES A, i have nothing to say if these chaps keep complaining.
Common sense tells you BA saves lives.We may not be at war, but who ever knows when we might be sent abroad?
Nowadays you see all US military with protection, even just LE have just-as-good levels of protection. And they have it all the time. This means they train as they fight and I dont know anyone who would now say 'Dont bother with BA', unless it was very mission specific.
The only people I see complaining about BA, and its weight, are kids.
I tried some wrap around [higher than] level iiia type body armour this weekend [protection on sides and shoulders], integrated into a modular vest, so i had great load carrying capability as well - and for the weight - it was so well spread across my body, I did not think it was so bad, compared to very heavy LBV based loadouts. Granted, I was not in the jungle heat, but its indicative of what soldiers wear in the Middle East right now. -
But I feel that no matter how much training you had, running with a heavy body armour for a long time will make you tired. And when you are tired, you will need a lot of time to recover. That is too much a tradeoff considering that during war you are on the run all the time. You have to stay sharp, vilgilant but yet you are tired.
-
Bullet-proof vests = useless and expensive.
Reason
They are meant for use against submachine guns and handguns, not against rifles or machine guns.
What's the point of wearing a 7kg armour when you'll be gunned down easily by any mobile vehicle with a machine-gun mounted?
So that you can run slower and be an easy target for the picking? -
If they are deployed for peacekeeping missions, I can see the need of such vests. However, in a scenario where we will be facing heavy firefight, such practise not only harass movement, it constitutes other minor problems which will affect a soldier's well-being in warfare.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I think the weight complaint is a very immature thing.
Granted, we are a conscript army.But your life in today's battlefield depends on your BA.Even NSmen get deployed on UN missions, and perhaps more will go, is it so hard to wear them?
Once you train hard in them, you will get used to it.If you are able to fight and are PES A, i have nothing to say if these chaps keep complaining.
Common sense tells you BA saves lives.We may not be at war, but who ever knows when we might be sent abroad?
Moreover, the protection given by such vests is nearly negligible, considering the weapons that the army are using. Yes, it protect the body but it has its limitations. We're all well aware that explosives, high-penetrating bullets (yes, rifles and machine-guns) are deployed in war and these armour does little but give a false sense of security and lumber down movement of all sort.
It's a good piece of equipment in peace-time, no doubts, but practising it in warfare is definitely not recommended and our dearest oxford mushroom is suggesting having that for war. Perhaps he's growing mushrooms in his skull after visiting the oxford library. -
This is to elaborate the details and to avoid our dearest oxford mushroom from editing his original post. The red text summarizes what our dearest oxford mushroom is saying.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I have always been wondering why doesn't the SAF issue bullet-proof vests. If they have no money, I would want to buy one myself. It may be too late to stock up in times of war. -
Yet, we have video evidence of Body armors being affective against 7.62mm projectiles!Originally posted by Nelstar:Bullet-proof vests = useless and expensive.
Reason They are meant for use against submachine guns and handguns, not against rifles or machine guns.
What's the point of wearing a 7kg armour when you'll be gunned down easily by any mobile vehicle with a machine-gun mounted?
So that you can run slower and be an easy target for the picking?
Just look for Juba the sniper on Google.
BA is not about eliminating all threats. That is impossible. Even tank crewman can get killed if you have the right equipment. BA can, however, reduce the chances of being killed. Take for example Iraq. how many insurgents go around carrying 0.5cal MGs? Most will be carrying AK47s and M16s. By wearing BA, at least you have some protection against people carrying the latter group of weapons. -
Does the body armor prevent death from artillery shells? And does the video provide evidence on how much difficulty in movement does one have to endure, and how more encumbered the person will be trying to clear SOC?Originally posted by lwflee:Yet, we have video evidence of Body armors being affective against 7.62mm projectiles!
Just look for Juba the sniper on Google. -
I repeat my edited post above:Originally posted by Nelstar:Does the body armor prevent death from artillery shells? And does the video provide evidence on how much difficulty in movement does one have to endure, and how more encumbered the person will be trying to clear SOC? BA is not about eliminating all threats. That is impossible. Even tank crewman can get killed if you have the right equipment. BA can, however, reduce the chances of being killed. Take for example Iraq. how many insurgents go around carrying 0.5cal MGs? Most will be carrying AK47s and M16s. By wearing BA, at least you have some protection against people carrying the latter group of weapons.
And to add to that, now you are being absurd. Short of a hardened underground facility, what can take a direct arty hit? Of course BA cannot protect agaisnt a direct arty hit. But It, together with ballistic glasses and headwear, can help protect agaisnt shrapnel.
And to answer the point about encumberance, true. it probably does slow you down and restrict movement somewhat. But I would rather be slow than dead. Most of the people in the Juba Sniper videos would probably be dead had they not been wearing body armor. -
I remembered an old saying regarding body armour when being issued with helmets.
"We are a mobile unit, not stationary targets."
Can you tell me why we're issued helmets only? 'Cause the sarge will f**k you upside down when you impress your enemies with your muscular body when you're supposed to prone down. -
I would be amazed that the Juba Snipers would be wearing body armour after they came to Singapore.Originally posted by lwflee:And to add to that, now you are being absurd. Short of a hardened underground facility, what can take a direct arty hit? Of course BA cannot protect agaisnt a direct arty hit. But It, together with ballistic glasses and headwear, can help protect agaisnt shrapnel.
And to answer the point about encumberance, true. it probably does slow you down and restrict movement somewhat. But I would rather be slow than dead. Most of the people in the Juba Sniper videos would probably be dead had they not been wearing body armor.
Oh my god, it's HOT! -
Why did you learn to dig trenches for?
So that you can show off body armour or to have a better protection than even body armour? -
Well, slow is better than dead in warfare. However, how much can an armour block? If they continue shooting at the same location, sooner or later you will be dead. Even if they don't shoot the same location, after a while, the armour would be full of holes. A few more fires and that's it.
Without the armour, you would run faster and dodge them and probably find some good hiding places to kill your enemy instead. -
Let's say it's your 9th reservice....
You'll definitely move like a tortoise with body armour. -
Does not wearing body armor save u from artillery shells? Artillery dpicm rounds will kill exposed infantry regardless of body armor. Covering an area of football field, u think u can run in time with or without body armor?Originally posted by Nelstar:Does the body armor prevent death from artillery shells? And does the video provide evidence on how much difficulty in movement does one have to endure, and how more encumbered the person will be trying to clear SOC?
I don't see the logic in quite a lot of the arguements here. If we are at war, and I have to be in a hostile environment, I'd take every bit of protection I can get to get OUT OF IT ALIVE. I'm not gonna outrun a bullet without body armor. So I'd take body armor and make sure my movements are tactical and economised.
New generations of body armor, bullet proof vests HAVE shown that they are capable of stopping rounds out right. Even if they dont stop rounds outright, anything less than a magnum/AP round is ain't gonna cost much tissue damage. Chances of getting wounded and surviving is at least higher.
The best light weight solution to bullets now, is still non-existent. Ever heard of an inertia dampening field? Its still theoretical, but its gonna be as light as the unit can get. -
Current US BA is rated for multiple hits, the trauma being spread over the whole of the plate, and not in one area. Same goes for soft armour.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Well, slow is better than dead in warfare. However, how much can an armour block? If they continue shooting at the same location, sooner or later you will be dead. Even if they don't shoot the same location, after a while, the armour would be full of holes. A few more fires and that's it.
Without the armour, you would run faster and dodge them and probably find some good hiding places to kill your enemy instead.
If you are standing in one location and receiving multiple hits in exactly the same spot, it might be suggested that you were already deceased.
Given that youre more than likely to have moved out of the direct line of fire by the energy transfer from the first round that hit you, its unlikely you'd be in the same spot anyway.
To state this as a reason for not wearing BA is a little on the short side of common sense.
This may well be true of older generations of body armour - for example flak vests during the Vietnam War that were said to provide only the most basic of protection against low levels of fragmentations and weighed half as much as full loadout on its own.Originally posted by Nelstar:I remembered an old saying regarding body armour when being issued with helmets.
"We are a mobile unit, not stationary targets."