安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Very experimental and no "bullet proof" just resistant.
Warfare changed drastically in the last 70 years. Troops get dropped off at the battle field.
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.
As for answering the title question,
Stopping rounds like that would be relatively pointless anyway. The sheer kinectic punch would likely finish you off without having to penetrate you.
A 20MM would do more than that....
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.
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?