Why WW2 infantry wasn't equiped with body armour ??

[Ordvark]

Even today a lot of soldiers dont like to use helmets.
The question is - why in ww2 soldiers heads were protected (not much),and the body wasnt protected at all ??

[Paul_G_Baker]

The body was protected if the soldier was in a slit-trench; but they still were vulnerable to airbursts, hence the issue of helmets.

[Clive Mortimore]

The British did devise body armour, 1 million sets were ordered but this was reduced to 300,000 because the commanders could decide who would be issued with it, in the end 15,000 sets were sent to the 21st Army group but never used. The RAF received quite a large number but I do not know waht they done with them.

It consisted of two plates in the front, one protecting the chest and one the abdomen. These were worn with a thrid inverted T shaped plate worn on the back protecting the lower lungs, kidneys and spine. All up weight was 3 1/2 lbs, a little under 2 Kg.

Information from British Army Uniforms and Insignia of world war Two by Brian Davis.

Am I right that the term "Flak Jacket" as we called the armoured vest we wore in Northern Ireland, comes from the jackets worn by USAAF bomber crews to protect them from shell splinters from German Anti-Aircraft guns. The USAAF wore body armour in WW2.

Clive

[Ordvark]

Clive Mortimore ,
why brits never used that stuff ?

[JamesL]

Clive - US Army Air Force Col. Malcolm Grow (Medical Corps) working with Wilkinson Sword Company, Ltd., of London developed a jacket for USAAF crews. I don't know who named it 'flak jacket' but I suspect some tinsmith in a back room came up with it.

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive Mortimore ,
why brits never used that stuff ?

Hi Ordvark

Brian Davis states that the trials showed it was not as efficient as expected and their was a lack of demand for it.

Hi James

Cheers for the info on the "Flak Jacket".

Clive

[Dunserving]

Body armour ain't necessarily bullet proof. Much better these days, but in WW2? Steel helmets were definitely not bullet proof either.

There is an upper limit on the weight a soldier can carry in combat - adding even 2kg of body armour must mean either carrying 2kg less in ammunition/grenades etc or a reduction in mobility/efficiency/combat effectiveness. There's a lot to be said for increasing your potential to hurt the enemy by being able to shoot more and reducing his chance of hurting you by being able to move more easily and rapidly.

It is not difficult to see why soldiers do not always like to wear helmets. But for those who don't understand try wearing a beret for 12 hours, and then try wearing a modern helmet for 12 hours. You'll soon understand......

[Ordvark]

Guys,guys,guys, you dont get the point.The main question is : why infantrymen were equiped with steel helmets ( no metter like them or not,bullet proof or not),and not equiped with body armour ? I dont mean todays "body armour" , which can protrct from rifle bullets.I mean steel bibs, like soviets had, who cud protect from shell frags,shrapnel and pistol bullets from long range.

[Karelia]

Because the head is often the part of the body which is most visible to the enemy. To be able to shoot you had to lift your head to be able to aim, while the rest of the body could be in cover.

The statistics in the WW1 showed that the head injuries were very common and the use of helmet gave significant protection (not for the straight hits though). The protection gained was more valuable than the little extra weight.

Also the head injuries were most of the times fatal or at least very serious. The other wounds were not so.

[Ordvark]

ww1 = tranch warfare
ww2 = "motor" war (soldiers were moving on the open space , in common).
Karelia , as you say head injuries were common.As a response - soldiers start using helmets.
In ww2 most deaths and heavy injuries (aprox. 80%) were caused by shrapnel\blast fragment hits in
torso.Response = zero. Where's the logic ?

[Orwell1984]

Guys,guys,guys, you dont get the point.The main question is : why infantrymen were equiped with steel helmets ( no metter like them or not,bullet proof or not),and not equiped with body armour ? I dont mean todays "body armour" , which can protrct from rifle bullets.I mean steel bibs, like soviets had, who cud protect from shell frags,shrapnel and pistol bullets from long range.

Sorry Ordvark but you don't seem to be listening to what people are telling you. Body armour ,as available in World War Two, was bulky, uncomfortable, and not effective enough to outweigh these negative aspects. The average foot soldier would not appreciate having to lug steel bibs of armour around. Steel helmets were not as big an inconvenience or weight penalty. Hiking along a dusty road under the hot summer sun and I can almost guarantee you any large slabs of steel being carried would find themselves consigned to a ditch by a sweaty, exhausted soldier.
Note what wikipedia says in their article on Soviet Sn-42 armour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN-42

It was very useful in dense, intense urban battles (Stalingrad) where the Germans used the MP-40 predominantly, but, because of its weight, was not practical for soldiers charging across an open field.

More discussion here with a link back to a previous AHF thread on the subject:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=61956

[Dunserving]

The Russian armour in WW2 weighed 3.5kg and as described, markedly restricted mobility. It could stop a 9mm bullet fired from 100 metres away, but could not stop a rifle bullet.....

That armour weighs abut the same as 120 rounds of 0.303 ammunition. I think I know which I would have preferred.....

It isn't body armour that stops you getting an unwanted chest perforation, well not on its own anyway. The bad guy has to see you and aim at you first. A more mobile and camouflaged soldier who is better able to make effective use of the terrain in order to avoid being seen is far less likely to be fired on.

[Juha Tompuri]

More discussion here with a link back to a previous AHF thread on the subject:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=61956

Here:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=16207
Also:
viewtopic.php?f=79&t=8101
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=21011

The Russian armour in WW2 weighed 3.5kg and as described, markedly restricted mobility. It could stop a 9mm bullet fired from 100 metres away, but could not stop a rifle bullet.....

Attached is photo of Soviet bodyarmour captured during World War 2 - and it has two bullet holes. Photo taken in Infantry Museum in Mikkeli (Finland).

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=16207&start=30#p1417416

Regards, Juha

[Karelia]

ww1 = tranch warfare
ww2 = "motor" war (soldiers were moving on the open space , in common).
Karelia , as you say head injuries were common.As a response - soldiers start using helmets.
In ww2 most deaths and heavy injuries (aprox. 80%) were caused by shrapnel\blast fragment hits in
torso.Response = zero. Where's the logic ?

The WW2 was not all about moving on open spaces. It also had trench warfare elements from time to time too.

Even in the moving warfare soldiers tried to look for cover - but they still had to stick their heads up.

The share of deaths/injuries in different body parts would have been different if the soldiers hadn't used the helmets. Also the head wounds were (would have been) more often fatal than the torso wounds.

The answer which many have already given you is simply this: the nuisance of extra weight of a helmet was acceptable in comparison to the gain. The gain of a body armour was not enough to justify the extra weight.

[Trackhead M2]

The British did devise body armour, 1 million sets were ordered but this was reduced to 300,000 because the commanders could decide who would be issued with it, in the end 15,000 sets were sent to the 21st Army group but never used. The RAF received quite a large number but I do not know waht they done with them.
Am I right that the term "Flak Jacket" as we called the armoured vest we wore in Northern Ireland, comes from the jackets worn by USAAF bomber crews to protect them from shell splinters from German Anti-Aircraft guns. The USAAF wore body armour in WW2.

Clive

Dear Clive,
Don't you think RAF crews needed the armor for the same reasons the USAAF crews did?
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2