Since most casualties in war were done by arty. Wouldn't flak vests be the best bang for the buck? for military industry.
Is rifle caliber ballistic plate really necessary?
Nathaniel Evans
Other urls found in this thread:
Lincoln Barnes
machineguns also cause a significant fraction of casualties, and those are often full rifle caliber.
Zachary Gomez
fpbp
Ryder Hill
This. And also because this isn't WW2 anymore. In the modern assymetrical warafre aside from IEDs most casualties are caused by rifles since insurgents aren't likely to have artillery or CAS.
Cameron Cooper
Ian Cooper
Don't ballistic plates also stop shrapnel?
Landon Russell
It's not really necessary to take a step back now. Plates have gotten pretty advanced and are lightweight for the protection. You might not have this happen until somebody makes a caliber that can't be stopped by a plate without it getting cumbersome then we might go back to flak vest. Similar thing happened with plate armor and firearms after all.
David Jones
Yes.
Leo Baker
following your reasoning:
considering 71 percent of the earth's surface is water-covered, wouldn't a life vest be more useful.
Oliver Perez
most casualties are caused by rucking too much weight
Ethan Brown
I know this is off topic, but what japanese magazine are those pictures from. It isn't the first time I've seen them
James Gray
African militia, truly ahead of its time.
Adam Smith
Durkas don't really do artillery.
Jordan Reed
There are studies that show that in modern warfare (post 90s or so) majority of fatalities come from wounds to limbs or head instead of torso thanks to body armour. I'll have to try to find the study.
Jeremiah Murphy
Yes, but they only cover a small area compared to flak vests.
Robert Phillips
>Flak will protect you from shrapnel & small arms but is heavy and bulky
>SAPIs will protect you from small arms and little vs shrapnel but is light and manoeuvrable
Sebastian Wilson
Overall, yes the majority of casualties in conventional war are inflicted by artillery. However, a large part of the reason for that is that artillery reaches well behind the front lines (interdicting troops moving up and hitting the enemy rear echelon) while bullets are mostly only an issue at under a mile from the enemy. I would expect full-weight ballistic plates to only be comprehensively issued to front line troops (especially those in an offensive role) in a conventional war with clear front lines.
Jose Bennett
>Zerg 2.0
Landon Brown
why don't they just not get hit lol
Asher Edwards
bump
Noah Smith
There is no body armor you can wear that will protect you from artillery fragments.
Jaxson Fisher
I think it's part of the Special Operations medical studies group. I can't remember their actual name. But you're right, the number one treatable cause of battle field deaths is massive hemorrhage to the extremities. The second number one cause is tension hemothorax, though I've heard some studies now indicate this is the number one.
Joshua Jackson
>most casualties in war were done by arty.
Depend on the war. Iraq 2003-2018 has plenty firearm caused casualties.
Nolan Williams
>people aren't dying that often from rifles
>let's get rid of the rifle plates
>afterall, we don't need them, since after adopting them people are getting killed and injured less and less by rifles!
user, are you pretending or actually this stupid?
Joshua Wilson
are you stupid or dumb
flak protection is like the easiest thing to get out of a vest
Jose Gutierrez
Ironically metal plates these days can stop rifle bullets so there is no point.
Isaiah Cook
>Since most casualties in war were done by arty. Wouldn't flak vests be the best bang for the buck? for military industry
that why you wear lvl 3 Kevlar under your plates op
Jason Johnson
>>Flak will protect you from shrapnel & small arms
>small arms
no
youtube.com