Why didn't WW2 soldier wear bulletproof vest?

[PsychedelicBurger]

I'm a know it all when it come to WW2 and WW1 but I can't figure this question out.

[Bluemenkranz]

Expensive, unweildy, wont stop a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ 50cal or 20mm.
Very experimental and no "bullet proof" just resistant.

[Dominic]

Maybe money and fitting size reasons. Got to remember back then in war a lot of times it was send in the next wave as a tactic.

[Indiana Georg]

Too expensive and some had ”bulletproof ” vest the Russian shock troopers

[Sirens]

they did.

[Ⓥenom Ⓢnake 🐍]

Because combat was way different back then. You got dropped off, and then had to hoof it everywhere. Could you imagine having to quickly march 40 miles humping a 60 pound rut, your weapon, 10 to 15 recharges, grenades, any specialist kit you were issued, plus all the crap you might have squirreled away, then slapping on an extra 40 pounds of steel plate to the mix.

Warfare changed drastically in the last 70 years. Troops get dropped off at the battle field.

[AtTheGates]

Generally because it wasn't practical. Stuff like Kevlar wasn't around until the 70s.
They Germans actually tried a kind of body armour in WWI. It was nicknamed lobster armour, and designed to help protect against trench warfare, where low calibre weapons would be used (trenches make using rifles in them very difficult). It could stop 9MM etc at a pretty low range, but it was heavy and highly fatiguing to wear. It was also completely useless against rifle and carbines, ever .45 or 9MM steel core could penetrate it.

So yeah, by WWII things hadn't really changed much. The only reasonably effective material they had at that point was silk, but again that only really works against low velocity rounds.

[King Manuel I]

What is with you and WW2?


As for answering the title question,

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Val:

Expensive, unweildy, wont stop a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ 50cal or 20mm.
Very experimental and no "bullet proof" just resistant.

[AtTheGates]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Val:

Expensive, unweildy, wont stop a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ 50cal or 20mm.
Very experimental and no "bullet proof" just resistant.

Stopping rounds like that would be relatively pointless anyway. The sheer kinectic punch would likely finish you off without having to penetrate you.

[Bluemenkranz]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von AtTheGates:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Val:

Expensive, unweildy, wont stop a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ 50cal or 20mm.
Very experimental and no "bullet proof" just resistant.

Stopping rounds like that would be relatively pointless anyway. The sheer kinectic punch would likely finish you off without having to penetrate you.

Who doesnt love 6 broken ribs and a collapsed lung?

[AtTheGates]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Val:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von AtTheGates:

Stopping rounds like that would be relatively pointless anyway. The sheer kinectic punch would likely finish you off without having to penetrate you.

Who doesnt love 6 broken ribs and a collapsed lung?

A 20MM would do more than that....

[Arya]

Effective body armour didn't exist at that point. Bulletproof Vests as you know them first appeared in the 1970s, and truly bullet proof armour only appeared a few years ago and is still horrifyingly expensive.

First of all, they didn't have the materials. Ideally you want your body armour to be made from a fibre cloth that's innately bullet resistant, with heavy plates inside. The best stuff right now is Aramid Weave with Ceramic Plate. Neither of those existed in the 1940s, the best they had were Canvas and Steel.

Canvas won't stop a bullet, and it's very heavy. Steel might take a small-calibre bullet, but it's extremely heavy and can actually fire shrapnel into your body, even if the bullet doesn't penetrate. The bullet hitting one side can transfer enough force through the plate that jagged shrapnel fires off the inside edge, killing you regardless.

And secondly, WWII rifles would give modern body armour a run for it's money. Japan and Italy had 6.5mm rifles, Germany had 7.92 Mauser. They're big, brutal rounds with a very high velocity and a lot of muzzle energy. I wouldn'tr want to be hit by one, even with 21st century armour on. At the very best I'd have serious bruising and maybe broken bones, at worst the round would go straight through.

On the Allied side you had even better firepower. The Americans had .30-06 which effectively a slightly longer 7.62 NATO. Russia had 7.62MMr and the British Empire had .303.

[AtTheGates]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Wolfıe:

Effective body armour didn't exist at that point. Bulletproof Vests as you know them first appeared in the 1970s, and truly bullet proof armour only appeared a few years ago and is still horrifyingly expensive.

First of all, they didn't have the materials. Ideally you want your body armour to be made from a fibre cloth that's innately bullet resistant, with heavy plates inside. The best stuff right now is Aramid Weave with Ceramic Plate. Neither of those existed in the 1940s, the best they had were Canvas and Steel.

Canvas won't stop a bullet, and it's very heavy. Steel might take a small-calibre bullet, but it's extremely heavy and can actually fire shrapnel into your body, even if the bullet doesn't penetrate. The bullet hitting one side can transfer enough force through the plate that jagged shrapnel fires off the inside edge, killing you regardless.

And secondly, WWII rifles would give modern body armour a run for it's money. Japan and Italy had 6.5mm rifles, Germany had 7.92 Mauser. They're big, brutal rounds with a very high velocity and a lot of muzzle energy. I wouldn'tr want to be hit by one, even with 21st century armour on. At the very best I'd have serious bruising and maybe broken bones, at worst the round would go straight through.

On the Allied side you had even better firepower. The Americans had .30-06 which effectively a slightly longer 7.62 NATO. Russia had 7.62MMr and the British Empire had .303.

Truly bulletproof armour doesn't exist, period.

A through shot is actually preferable to a round staying in you, especially considering deformation. Sniper rifles are high velocity for range, not killing power as such. A solid slug from a shotgun is where you really get brutal wounds from, especially if it tumbles.

[Bluemenkranz]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von AtTheGates:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Val:

Who doesnt love 6 broken ribs and a collapsed lung?

A 20MM would do more than that....

I was talking about if the armor could stop a 50cal, a 20mm would flatten you

[PsychedelicBurger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von King Manuel I:

What is with you and WW2?


As for answering the title question,

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Val:

Expensive, unweildy, wont stop a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ 50cal or 20mm.
Very experimental and no "bullet proof" just resistant.

I love WW2 its a war that has great technology for its era, a ♥♥♥♥ load of death within 5 years and its reasoning for it starting was ok

[Arya]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von NuclearHoneyHam:

I love WW2 its a war that has great technology for its era, a ♥♥♥♥ load of death within 5 years and its reasoning for it starting was ok

Really?

WWII began because Adolf Hitler convinced the Germans that they were descended from a ficticious race of ancient super-men, and that it was their birthright and destiny to conquer and exterminate all other "inferior" races. And you consider that an "OK" reason?