www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:Excellent point. Even modern infantry brain-buckets aren't proof against a typical rifle round. The idea of wearing them is to protect the wearer from other types of damage, as Seafort described.

To a certain extent the modern ones are - there are plenty of examples from Iraq of helmets and body armour stopping direct hits from AK rounds. This, however, is only with the modern kit, and with ceramic or metal inserts in the vests - which are very heavy.

I've seen evidence of the ceramic vest inserts stopping rifle rounds, but I've also seen evidence of such rounds going straight through - fore AND aft - a modern infantry helmet, with little more stopping effect being caused on the round than a WWII steel helmet.

I find it difficult to believe that an AK round would go right through the entire helmet, but I suppose it's a matter of luck - some rounds bounce off or are blocked, others go right through.

Well, it of course could be a matter of angle... but even if the bullet only goes trhough ONE wall of the helmet, the effect on the soldier is the same.

Could it have been an armour-piercing round?

It was actually a demonstration filmed for a TV documentary series, and the demonstration used a WWII Mauser rifle, with a WWII German "steelhelm" and a modern U.S. GI infantry helmet downrange.

Ah, in that case it's probably the round that's making the difference - a full-bore Mauser round is bigger, and has a higher muzzle velocity than an AK.

Maybe I'm being dense here, but if these older, and presumably cheaper, guns have a better effect against armour, then why aren't people using them?

Because full-bore ammunition is too powerful to control on full-auto (and the Mauser specifically was bolt-action). The weapons also tend to be too long to be handy in close quarter environments such as room clearing and inside APCs.

Rochey wrote:Maybe I'm being dense here, but if these older, and presumably cheaper, guns have a better effect against armour, then why aren't people using them?

They aren't, the round is. THe AK-47 uses a 7.62x39mm round. The orginal NATO round is 7.62x51mm and the German WWII round was 7.92x57mm. Note the xXX number at the end of the round type. That indicates how long the casing is and by extension how much powder is in it.

That plus the use of AP rounds is a severe test for body armour. The new CF vest for example will take 7.62x39mm point blank. As will the vests of several NATO nations. Helmets are a little different, the last I heard the k-pot would only stop a 9mm Parabellum round. But's primary purpose is to protect from shrapnell, and they are limited by weight for obvious reasons.

Why aren't they used? They are for specialist roles but for general issue, 5.56 is used because it''s lighter and you can carry twice as much.

Rochey wrote:Armour is always useful. We've seen shots bounce harmlessly off simple boxes before.

In TOS, shots tended to disintergrate whatever they hit. TNG saw a serious downgrading of the firepower of hand weapons.

Captain Seafort wrote:Because full-bore ammunition is too powerful to control on full-auto (and the Mauser specifically was bolt-action). The weapons also tend to be too long to be handy in close quarter environments such as room clearing and inside APCs.

This as well, the old FN C2 was uncontrollable if you didn't use the bipod, as was the M-14. Not quite to the point where your shooting down birds but pretty bad.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Rochey wrote:Armour is always useful. We've seen shots bounce harmlessly off simple boxes before.

In TOS, shots tended to disintergrate whatever they hit. TNG saw a serious downgrading of the firepower of hand weapons.

Yet we saw guys with body armour in TMP.

Ah, thanks for the info, Seafort and Kendall.

In TOS, shots tended to disintergrate whatever they hit. TNG saw a serious downgrading of the firepower of hand weapons.

True, just as we saw a downgrade in competance, as well. The fact that they had armour in TOS showed that, even then, they recognised the value of protection, however minimal it may be. If firepower in TNG is downgraded, then there's an even better reason for them to use armour.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Yet we saw guys with body armour in TMP.

Yeah, it started there. I remember those silly things raised quite a few eyebrows when they were first seen.