Body armor of the Great Patriotic War

Body armor of the Great Patriotic WarMemory History and events

In 1938, the first experimental steel cuirass, the steel breastplate SN-38 (SN-1), entered service with the Red Army. It protected the soldier only from the front (chest, stomach and groin), the back was open. The weaknesses of the bib became apparent during the Finnish Company, and in 1941 the development and production of the CH-42 (CH-2) bib began. Its creators were the armor laboratory of the Institute of Metals (TsNIIM) under the leadership of M.I. Koryukov, one of the authors of the famous Soviet helmet mod. 1940, which is in service with the CIS armies to this day. The CH-42 steel breastplate protected the soldier’s body and consisted of upper and lower steel plates - since in a solid breastplate the soldier could not bend or squat, connected by straps, as well as a soft backing and fastening straps on the torso. On the right shoulder there was a cutout for the butt of a weapon. The use of the bib was envisaged in three versions: to protect the chest and abdomen, as a shield with an embrasure when crawling, and as a shield to cover the head, sides, etc.

CH-42 was made of steel 2 mm thick and weighing 3.5 kg. (according to some sources, also 4 mm thick, weight 8 kg). It protected well from shrapnel and from machine gun fire (at a distance of over 100 meters), although it could not withstand a shot from a rifle or machine gun. They were not widely used due to their large weight, the restriction of the fighters’ movements and... lack of protection from behind. It was deliberately believed and widely believed that the Red Army should only advance.

In 1946, the CH-46, the last steel breastplate, entered service. Its thickness was increased to 5 mm, which made it possible to withstand a burst from a PPSh or MP-40 type machine gun at a distance of 25 m, and for greater convenience for the fighter, it consisted of three parts. Unfortunately, the process of development and research in this direction in the USSR was stopped with the end of the Second World War.

Based on materials from: belorys.info

Did you read the article to the end? Please take part in the discussion, express your point of view, or simply rate the article. You also can:

Go to the main page and check out the most interesting posts of the day
Add article to notes on:

A brief history of body armor in Russia and the world: part 2

Cheremzin's shell

Russia was recovering from its defeat from Japan.
The army needed to be updated. One of the topics that began to be developed was shells. According to a number of sources, Russia ordered a batch of 100 thousand pieces of bulletproof cuirass from the French during the Russo-Japanese War, but the cuirasses turned out to be unusable. The idea of bulletproof shields also didn't work. However, work to protect the soldiers did not stop. Russian cuirass of 1915
“Catalog of armor invented by Lieutenant Colonel A. A. Chemerzin” is the name of a brochure published in printing and sewn into one of the files stored in the Central State Military-Historical Archive.
It provides the following information: “Weight of shells: lightest 11/2 pounds (pound - 409.5 g), heaviest 8 pounds. Unnoticeable under clothes. Armor against rifle bullets, not penetrated by a 3-line military rifle, weighs 8 pounds. The shells cover: the heart, lungs, stomach, both sides, spinal column and back against the lungs and heart. The impenetrability of each shell is tested by shooting in the presence of the buyer.” One of the Russian breastplates and bulletproof shields.
The Catalog contains several test reports of armor carried out in 1905-1907. One of them reported: “In the presence of HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE GOVERNMENT EMPEROR, on June 11, 1905, a machine gun company fired in the city of Oranienbaum. They fired from 8 machine guns at an alloy shell invented by Lieutenant Colonel Chemerzin from a distance of 300 steps. 36 bullets hit the shell. The shell was not broken and there were no cracks. The entire variable composition of the shooting school was present during the test.” The armor was also tested in the reserve of the Moscow Metropolitan Police, upon whose order they were manufactured. They were fired at at a distance of 15 steps. The shells, as noted in the act, “turned out to be impenetrable, and the bullets did not produce any fragments. The first batch turned out to be manufactured quite satisfactorily.”

Newspaper “Rus” (N69, 1907): “Yesterday I saw a miracle. A young man of about thirty, in military uniform, stood motionless in the room. Half a step away, a Browning gun was pointed at him—a terrible Browning gun. They aimed straight at the chest, against the heart. The young man waited, smiling. A shot rang out. The bullet bounced off... “Well, you see,” said the military man. “I felt almost nothing.”

“New Time” (February 27, 1908): “The impenetrable armor and the new cuirass, this wonderful invention of our century, surpassed the strength of the knightly fittings of bygone times. The scaly system remains the same as in the ancient shell, but the metal alloy is different. He is the secret of the inventor. A. A. Chemerzin found the opportunity to explain to me only the basic idea of his discovery. A. A. Chemerzin - lieutenant colonel of the engineering troops. After graduating from the Faculty of Mathematics and Engineering School, he taught mathematics, studied chemistry, and a series of experiments gave him the idea of filling the pores of chromium-nickel steel. The alloy was produced at high temperature and hydraulic pressure. Precious metals began to be added to the ordinary recipe - platinum, silver, iridium, vanadium and many others. When filling the pores, the result was greater ductility and hardness of the metal, which was 3.5 times stronger than steel. As a result, a Mauser bullet did not penetrate a half-millimeter alloy plate three steps away. Shells and cuirasses appeared, impenetrable to revolver and rifle bullets, which were deformed but did not produce fragments. The danger of shell shock and rebound damage was eliminated. The price of A. A. Chemerzin’s shells is quite expensive, but life is more expensive. Having put on the five-pound armor that covered my chest and back, I did not find it heavy. Under the frock coat he was completely invisible. 7,000 armor, helmets and shields of A. A. Chemerzin were sent to the active army in the Far East, unfortunately, too late...” The cost of the best armor, impenetrable to any revolvers and bomb fragments, ranged from 1,500 to 1,900 rubles. Similar shells, made to the exact measurements of the figure (which required a plaster cast), cost from 5,000 to 8,000 rubles. The price of armoring the engine (car) from bomb fragments and bullets from any revolvers was 15,000, and the carriage was 20,000 rubles.” Yuri Minkin

As we see, in Russia they took a slightly different path than in the United States. And at that time it was a logical decision - silk body armor held mainly pistol bullets, and of a certain caliber; mass production was extremely difficult to establish.

Breastplates began to be actively used by police in different countries. For private individuals, cuirasses were made from individual plaster casts. But the finest hour of such body armor came with the beginning of the First World War.

Body armor in World War I

It is worth noting that the First World War completely changed the very concept of war and its rules.
Trench, positional warfare. Barbed wire. Machine guns. Powerful long-range artillery. Aviation. Tanks. The commanders had to urgently change the strategy and tactics of military operations. One of the options for heavy bulletproof armor
It immediately became clear that soldiers needed protection from new guns. Shrapnel and shrapnel mowed down the warriors of the warring armies, and there was no normal protection - including helmets. To one degree or another, all countries began to develop armor. But the Germans were the most successful in equipping their soldiers.

German soldiers in Grabenpanzer M16 armor
(aka Sappenpanzer) appeared in the army in 1916. The armor of the German army was designed to protect against small arms fire and shrapnel. The production used the recently introduced nickel-silicon (armor) steel.

The armor consisted of a breastplate, with 3 overlapping protective sections for the stomach and groin.
2 shoulder plates secured with 3 rivets on each side. The individual plates were connected to 2 strap straps that were attached to the inside of the armor, starting at the chest. Soldiers after a battle, their shells stacked in a trench.
Rectangular felt pads made of horsehair were placed between the sections and were supposed to reduce the noise level when moving. The armor thickness was approx. 3.25 mm, in some cases increasing to 25 mm. The differences were often due to the fact that at least seven separate enterprises were involved in production.

Shell diagram

The armor was produced in a variety of models, but mainly 2 types can be found by searching for photographs and original items.
The first armor is of the original type, manufactured in 1916. German breastplate

Test results of the German chest armor
It is minimalistic, there are almost no protrusions on it. The second common model has 2 additional hooks for accessories on. The weight, depending on the manufacturer, ranged from 8 to 10 kg, and came in 2 or 3 different sizes.

In all cases, the armor was not very comfortable and could be used mainly in a stationary position. The main consumers of this armor were snipers, sentries, and frontline soldiers.

In some cases, the cuirass was put on the back - the chest was covered with a trench.
The prevalence of this item can be judged by the large number of photographs of allies wearing the breastplate for commemorative photographs.

American soldiers in captured German shells

Canadian soldier in a captured German shell.
There is also a version about the use of captured armored cuirasses at the front. In total, more than 500,000 of these armors were produced.

British in captured breastplates
Defense of the Triple Alliance countries

Unfortunately, I was unable to find photographs of Cheremizin’s breastplates on the fronts of the First World War or any mention of them. Apparently, protection in the Russian army at that time was used either little or not at all.

Advance of Italian units

In the illustration, the Germans, French, and British are wearing protective vests.
The Allies had armor in smaller quantities. The most common shells are Italians. Their cuirasses had pronounced shoulder pads, and covered the chest only to the waist.

Soldier of the Italian assault battalion
The Americans, who entered the war later than the others, gave birth to the Brewster Body Shield in 1917, very similar to the armor of Ned Kelly (the Australian raider). The armor was surprisingly good, withstood a bullet from a Lewis machine gun, weighed 18 kg in the heavy version + 5 kg of padding, and was used primarily by snipers until the end of the war. The United States had several types of armor, but Brewster's armor was the most memorable.

Brewster's armor, 1917
However, towards the end of the war, the Americans had options that were less creative, but more suitable for ordinary infantrymen.
A less creative version of American armor,
France used old cavalry cuirasses at the very beginning of the First World War. As practice has shown, they turned out to be unsuitable for modern combat.

French cuirasses of the First World War One of the types of French armor

French heavy armor
In the later stages of the war, the French acquired new armor and breastplates. But - in fairly limited quantities, and mentions of them are rare.

The British were the most equipped with body armor of all the Allies.
At the same time, body armor was not supplied en masse to the army - they were bought with their own money. Often, concerned relatives, who were unnerved by reports from the front, paid for the vest. And, it is worth noting, body armor often saved the lives of soldiers. British soldiers in body armor
The main owners of vests were officers - they were the ones who could afford to purchase this rather expensive item. Advertising was often targeted specifically at them. In total, there were more than 18 companies in the United Kingdom that produced bulletproof suits of various types.

An advertisement for an officer's vest from those years. Guaranteed protection against pistol bullets

Label from a bulletproof vest.
There were three main types of protective vests.
Hard armor (often consisting of metal plates sandwiched between fabric and worn like a vest); Intermediate armor (various forms of small area metal plates attached to fabric); soft armor (made of layers of silk/cotton/linen). All three types of armor had their problems. Hard armor was heavy and thus awkward and impractical to wear in an attack. Intermediate chainmail armor did not sufficiently disperse the impact of a bullet or shrapnel. Fabric vests, although sometimes effective, were virtually useless in wet weather. One of the types of body armor produced at that time.
One of the most successful was DAYFIELD DAY SHIELD' BODY ARMOR. It was made of thick khaki-colored fabric, and four compartments contained special metal plates. This vest did not stop a rifle bullet, but it was not bad against fragments, shrapnel and pistol shots. In addition, the British had an important advantage - the vest was comfortable.

One of the most successful body armor of that time was the DAYFIELD DAY SHIELD' BODY ARMOR. The sections have armor plates.

Body armor “with history.”
Unfortunately, its plates are too thin to stop a rifle shot - but it could still soften the impact of a bullet a little, or stop a fragment. Belonged to Private Tankes, who was wounded in 1916 in France and subsequently demobilized in March 1917. Meanwhile, the First World War was coming to an end. A revolution took place in Russia, Germany was losing, and the idea that metal armor was not the most suitable option increasingly began to haunt the inventors of the “life vest.”

How armor didn't save millions in World War I

Home » Real story » History of Wars » How armor did not save millions in the First World War

History of WarsUnsold and little-known weaponsReal history

Viki Wilkinson 06/01/2019 2780

in Favoritesin Favoritesfrom Favorites 8

The article was translated from English by Google and slightly combed. SOURCE

The author is Michael Vlahos, professor of strategy and policy at the US Naval War College and adjunct professor at the Zanville Krieger School of Arts and Sciences (Johns Hopkins University). He is the author of a forthcoming book, Counterterrorism, American Exceptionalism, and Retributive Justice

German trenches in the region of the Aisne River (France).

Unlike ancient battles, the memory of the losses of the First World War is ingrained in our collective DNA. The image of the trenches is our icon of hell on earth. Ten million soldiers died in mud-filled ditches and wastelands during the Great War, and we remember this dark tale because they died for nothing . Having reached the pinnacle of human achievement, civilizations set out to destroy themselves out of pride over perceived slights and disrespect.

All in all, by the early 1900s, the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Arms and Armor Collection was a magical place. Boys who read Howard Pyle's Champions of the Round Table or Arthur Conan Doyle's White Company (and illustrated by NC Wyeth!) came here to see the armor... and dream.

But what was the Met armor collection going to do with the First World War? We know from war poets such as Rupert Brooke that many of these boys will grow up to lead their soldiers and themselves to death in the mud, still idealizing the knights they once dreamed of being.

But there is another irony, even sadder, and now completely and painstakingly forgotten: medieval armorers and warriors knew a secret that would have saved perhaps up to 30 percent of those who died in battle. We have evidence in that very Metropolitan Museum.

Bashford Dean, a zoologist and curator of the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Arms and Armor Collection, knew that the methods of medieval warriors could save lives on the Western Front: not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of lives. To this end, the US government called upon him to take charge of the American body armor program in 1917.

Bashford Dean

As an artillery major in charge of the US Army Armor Unit, and as chairman of the Committee on Helmets and Body Armor at the National Research Council, he showed how soldiers could survive the horrors of modern combat. There have been similar large-scale studies of protective devices in the UK, France, Italy, Germany, and even Japan.

Bashford Dean, Major of Artillery

But with such knowledge everywhere, why was there no production of anything resembling personal armor from 1914 to 1918?

In August 1914, it was already clear that this was a different kind of war. He sucked in millions—in fact, almost all the young men of his generation.

Casualties were horrendous as the armies discovered how best to deploy large-caliber howitzers and mortars (and, to a much lesser extent, machine guns). In the first four weeks of the war, France lost 250,000 people in futile attacks. As the war continued, the horrific losses soon became catastrophic losses.

So what to do? Throw away the red trousers and blue overcoats. Check it out. Mark out and then dig deep and complex field fortifications—called “trenches”—to defend against artillery barrages. Check it out.

But what about protecting our own bodies from fire? During the Middle Ages, no effort was spared to protect the body from blades and crossbow bolts. Why not make bulletproof and anti-fragmentation protective devices too?

Two long, death-filled years passed before European armies came up with helmets for their soldiers. Helmets should have been literally an immediate priority for all armies from the very beginning. WW2 studies report that the head accounted for 21 percent of all recorded injuries, even though it represents only 12 percent of our body. World War I hospital records also show about 20 percent wounds to the head and chest.

Two years to understand even this? But when helmets were eventually introduced, the Allied results were tragically suboptimal. The Brodie (UK) and Adrian (French) helmets were very poor at protecting the head and neck. They seem, in retrospect, more keen to create a brand icon of national identity in the wars - Adrian was a cross between the fireman's helmet and the bravura cuirassier helmet of the Napoleonic wars, while Brodie was the spitting image of the English archer Chapel de Fer at Agincourt. Only the Germans created an effective helmet, borrowing liberally from one of the finest medieval designs, the Salade (or Sallet).

Sallet style helmet from late 15th century Italy. (Wikimedia Commons)

The problem was that the German Stahlhelm became so instantly iconic that no Allied designs dared to come alongside it for fear that their soldiers might somehow begin to quietly respect the "despicable Huns" - dooming their effectiveness! More on this later.

If Afghanistan and Iraq were wars of explosion and shell shock, World War I was a war of fragments. Bashford Dean, mentioned in his post-war work Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare (Yale University Press, 1920), cites various medical sources, but the range of shrapnel wounds, artillery and mortar, was from 70 to 95 percent.

Steel fragments are not like bullets fired from a rifle or machine gun, with their high velocity (up to 3,000 feet per second). Almost all of them move less than 1000 feet per second. The best steel helmet may not defeat them. But the helmets only protected their heads - and the Entente helmets protected their heads poorly.

However, an 18 to 20 gauge steel helmet (.036-.040 inch) can stop a .45 Automatic Colt Pistol (ACP) bullet fired at point blank range. Just like silicon-nickel or nickel-manganese-vanadium alloys can protect against almost all fragments. With steels like these already in production for helmets, why not protect the torso too?

Weight was the big bugbear of 20th century body armor. Some wanted armored cuirasses that could stop machine gun and rifle bullets at 200 yards. The Germans increased the lbster armor towards the end of the war. Intended primarily for assault units, weighing up to 22-27 pounds, it was considered too heavy for regular infantry. Was there hope for the line infantry soldiers?

German stormtroopers

Enter Bashford Dean and his team. The Metropolitan Museum's armorers crafted a combat harness with full torso protection, front and back, weighing approximately 8.5 pounds With pauldrons (shoulder pads), couters (elbow) and vambraces (forearm), add another 4 pounds with the helmet - and Dean suggested two of the best combat helmets of our time - all coming in for just over £15. Quite tolerable, you might think, considering that a full arsenal for an American soldier today can reach 40 pounds, which is already close to the full plate armor of the 15th century!

In addition, Dean's armor, lined with "vulcanized sponge rubber," and made from the latest alloys, could stop a .45 ACP bullet at 1,000 fps (and a rifle bullet at 1,250 fps). In terms of coverage, lightness and comfort, and conventional protection, this was as close as anyone in WWII came to the Grail of personal armor protection. If used by the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, it could have reduced 26,000 combat deaths by one third or more.

Bashford Dean's armor

Why do I think the armor would work this way? Just think: if three-quarters of all combat casualties were from shrapnel, and if most shrapnel deaths arose from head and torso wounds, then protecting the head and torso from shrapnel must mean a lot. Just one data point: Army analysis of World War II bomber crew protective jackets. There was no ambiguity: with body armor, 58 percent fewer casualties. Period.

Dean's "half armor" was not used at all. Of course, there were big questions about hand protection. Shooting Springfield and Mauser-type rifles depends on the smooth reciprocating action of the bolt and reloading the weapon with clips from pouches every five shots. Medieval bracers, no matter how well designed, will simply get in the way. But protecting the torso and shoulders is another matter. In fact, the Metropolitan shell itself is carefully designed for easy use by the Springfield.

Springfield. (Wikimedia Commons)

So why wasn't anything done? I believe there are three obstacles worth noting.

First , fear and disgust of the Allied "Huns" was a major obstacle to American helmet design. Stalhelmophobia lasted for decades. When the US finally adopted the new M1 helmet (Potty) in 1941, it was a clear improvement over the Brodie. But she still did not protect her temples and neck well, for fear that the helmet might look too German.

Research shows that this helmet saved more than 70,000 lives during World War II, but if Dean's Model 5, or better yet the Model 2, had been adopted, it would have saved perhaps 5,000 more American soldiers. Get this: We let 5,000 of our young people die after 1941 because we don't want them to look like Germans .

Oddly enough, when we finally got a potty replacement in the 1970s, we went straight to Stahlhelm. The new PASGT helmet was actually nicknamed Fritz.

The second obstacle was the weight myth, such as: these guys will never wear this material; they will throw it the first opportunity. But in Iraq and Afghanistan, our “boys” wear things as heavy as the armor of medieval gendarmes. They carry up to 40 pounds (with helmet): not happily, but diligently because it saves lives.

Weight was not the real reason, but a reason, a rationalization. The general staffs and senior leadership of that era thought completely wrong from our point of view. It was not exactly the mentality of death, but rather, in the spirit of the time, sacrifice for the nation.

Thus, the third reason why body armor was not an item of primary importance was that WWII leaders believed that sacrifice was inevitable and necessary in war, and, moreover, society was willing to sacrifice its young people on the altar of the nation.

We know that this was a widespread phenomenon from the outpouring of war news in August 1914. In Berlin, people shouted that it was: "A holy moment" illuminated by the "holy fire of wrath", if we went "from suffering in everyday life to new heights" to "rebirth through war", "revelation", finally, " awaken faith in the future of our people" in the "beautiful unity of sacrifice, brotherhood, faith." Gertrude Baumer exclaimed: "the limitations of our ego were broken, our blood flowed with the blood of others, we felt ourselves one body in a mystical union." (quoted in The Spirit of 1914: Militarism, Myth, and Mobilization in Germany - Jeffrey Verhey, Cambridge University Press, May 4, 2000)

The spirit of 1914 does not seek to protect and preserve life at any cost. Today, the life of our soldier is a treasure that we spend at our own peril and risk. We are always afraid of losing too much, whatever “too much” might be.

But in the breath of time, people kissed and accepted their path to death, because their sacrifice would not only renew the nation; but in the blood let him come to life. Soldier protection was not part of the program .

Standing in the armor room of the Met Museum, as I first did in 1957, in the silence at the end of the day, was like using a time machine. To cope with the armor of de Montmorency, Constable of France: the battle plate he wore at the Battle of San Quentin against Philip II of Spain, in the battle that made Europe a Habsburg possession, was breathtaking. (Only in very recent times has this armor been correctly identified as belonging to Henry VIII, but in my time the Met had a different label)

Armor of de Montmorency, constable and marshal of France (Metropolitan Museum)

This must have been how it must have felt in 1914 at the Met, and in armor museums across Europe, as if the armored spirits of these knights, still clad in iron, had risen to help rescue men from the trenches.

But saving people was not even close to the theme of this new war.

***

Update 5/1/2013:

It's gratifying that there are so many answers and objections. Thank you! Several questions were raised, however, about issues that I did not have space to cover in a 2000 word essay. So here are some quick answers:

On whether such armor could be produced for millions: I just think that all the warring sides produced shells, very large shells, millions and tens of millions. The artillery doctrines on which such a massive appropriation of resources depended were, to be polite, highly flawed. How much better it would be to protect people directly. It's also worth noting that it was much easier to make breastplates and shoulder pads than helmets.

And yes, French metallurgy, in the urgent context of an existential crisis, is not able to supply good alloys, but English steel-manganese grades were quite acceptable. German and American alloys were higher, as my article indicates.

Remember that the "Dean Armor" was never intended to be bulletproof, but rather, like all modern helmets, to stop shrapnel. Keeping shrapnel from the soldier's torso meant survival, pure and simple. France lost 1.75 million dead out of a total population of 39 million. Wouldn't being saved from the loss of one and a half million (or more) men be welcomed by wives, mothers and children?

Body armor thus reduced overall casualties, perhaps only slightly. My whole thesis is about death, or what we call clinically KIA (killed on the battlefield). It is important.

And no, non-Americans would not have been collaterally killed because their helmet looked German. Models 2 and 5 were completely identified as American, not German!

Regarding mobility on the battlefield, if you all think that nine pounds of armor is too heavy, then how do you approach today's reality where we all carry 40 pounds of gear and are proud to be alive? While soldiers could tolerate a three-pound helmet, a nine-pound shell (including the backplate) was entirely within the combat zone. Unless you guys have more relevant combat experience.

This entire exercise was what some call a “thought experiment.” The point of this kind of excursion is to check why the result is so terrible, and at the same time preventable, why everything happened the way it actually happened. In practice, given real-world conditions, it is of course quite unlikely that the major warring parties could have introduced effective, widely deployed body armor during a war. Only the Germans and the British did this, and only at the very end.

But the US could do it because we had the means, experience and dedicated research (Dean) to do it. Besides, it could so easily be transported to the next war.

But it wasn't. Therefore my text.

LiveInternetLiveInternet

The CH-42 steel breastplate protected the soldier’s body and consisted of upper and lower steel plates - since in a solid breastplate the soldier could not bend or squat, connected by straps, as well as a soft backing and fastening straps on the torso. On the right shoulder there was a cutout for the butt of a weapon. The use of the bib was envisaged in three versions: to protect the chest and abdomen, as a shield with an embrasure when crawling, and as a shield to cover the head, sides, etc. CH-42 was made of steel 2 mm thick and weighing 3.5 kg. (according to some sources, it is also 4 mm thick and weighs 8 kg). It protected well from shrapnel and from machine gun fire (at a distance of over 100 meters), although it could not withstand a shot from a rifle or machine gun. They were not widely used due to their large weight, the restriction of the fighters’ movements and ... lack of protection from behind. It was deliberately believed and widely believed that the Red Army should only advance.

First of all, they were equipped with army special forces groups - assault engineer brigades (SHISBr). They were used in the most difficult areas: the capture of powerful fortifications, street battles. At the front they were called “armored infantry”, and also jokingly “crayfish”. Soldiers usually put this “shell” on a padded jacket with the sleeves torn off, which served as an additional shock absorber, despite the fact that the breastplate had a special lining on the inside. Has proven itself well in urban battles. In 1946, the CH-46, the last steel breastplate, entered service. Its thickness was increased to 5 mm, which made it possible to withstand a burst from a PPSh or MP-40 type machine gun at a distance of 25 m, and for greater convenience for the fighter, it consisted of three parts. Unfortunately, the process of development and research in this direction in the USSR was stopped with the end of the Second World War.

Japanese body armor and portable body armor

Dear readers of the “War Album,” I bring to your attention a selection of articles and photographs on the topic of personal protective equipment of the imperial army and navy of Japan in World War II. Sincerely, reader. Articles on the topic Japanese body armor and portable body armor. Overall plan. 1. Japanese bulletproof shields from the Russo-Japanese War. 2. Experimental type of infantry armor protection “Turtle”. 3. Bulletproof shields, period of the Shanghai incident of 1937. 4. Bulletproof vests of any commercial type, from the period of the Shanghai incident of 1937. 5. Body armor type 92. 6. Portable body armor type 93 (first option). 7. Portable armored breastplate type 93 (second heavy version). 8. Single-plate half-cuirass (experimental, unknown type). 9. Mobile firing point type 93. 10. Portable machine gun shield type 98 (light). 11. Portable machine gun shield type 98 (heavy). 12. Portable machine gun shield type 99 (light). 13. Portable machine gun shield type 99 (heavy). 14. Body armor type 1 (according to the Australian-American classification). 15. Body armor type 2 (according to the Australian-American classification) 16. Anti-aircraft ship crew armor protection kit type 3 (according to the Australian-American classification). 17. Navy and army anti-fragmentation vests. (unattributed trophies from 1945-1946).

Article 1. Japanese bulletproof shields from the period of the Russo-Japanese War.

During the siege of Port Arthur, the Japanese Imperial Army was faced with the phenomenon of increasing the density of enemy fire due to the use of rapid-fire repeating rifles and the first machine guns used (Maxim, Madsen). The particular importance of having protection from bullets, shrapnel and shrapnel was indicated by engineering and sapper units operating directly on the front line outside the protection of trenches and earthen shelters. The likelihood of being hit by bullets and shrapnel at observation and forward posts has increased, and despite the lack of optical sighting devices, shooting at single targets brought results in the form of attrition of officers and non-commissioned officers. In order to reduce losses, a number of portable bulletproof shields were made, structurally reminiscent of medieval siege mentlets - “tate” (man-sized shields for covering shooters) which were used in the internecine wars of Japan. A large number of manufactured mentlets were used by Japanese troops in the trenches near Port Arthur. The beginning of production dates back to July 19, 1904, when the artillery arsenal produced 100 units of portable shields for engineering units engaged in the destruction of wire barriers around Russian positions. On October 2, 1904, a telegram was received from the second chief of staff of the army to the military supply department of the army about the need to supply 40 “botate” shields. On November 15, 1904, according to a report from the General Staff of the Army in Manchuria, 100 units of armored shields were delivered to the Second Army. The high need for protective equipment attracted the attention of private manufacturers, who provided several dozen ready-made samples of shields. On December 15, practical tests were carried out on resistance to hits from type 30 (6.5 mm) bullets; the best option was recognized as being able to withstand hits from 75 meters. These heavy shields (up to 40 kg) in the amount of 300 units were sent to the third army.

Some of these devices were a wooden package of boards up to 2 inches (51 mm) thick, designed to partially protect the infantryman from fragments and bullets (at the end); a vertical slot for a rifle was equipped in the upper part of the package. A wooden mentlet served as cover for shooting while lying down or standing from a trench. Another shield design consisted of ship's hull steel with a thickness of 6 to 8 mm, a pair of supports were installed on the back, and a slot was made in the shield for an observer. The metal mentlet provided cover up to the waist. The sizes of portable shelters were chosen arbitrarily by the manufacturers of the army and navy workshops. Subsequently, the experience of using these bulletproof shields was used during the Second Shanghai Incident in 1937. copyright for the text © Tsvershits Andrey / lautlesen.livejournal.com

Quote

They do not emit a warlike roar, do not sparkle with a surface polished to a mirror shine, they are not decorated with plumes and embossed coats of arms - and are often completely disguised under jackets. But today, without this unsightly-looking armor, it is simply unthinkable to send soldiers into battle or ensure the minimum security of VIPs...

Who first came up with the idea of putting armor on a warrior to protect him from a fatal blow from the enemy is still a controversial issue.

In ancient times, hoplites (heavily armed ancient Greek infantry), like the warriors of Ancient Rome, wore bronze cuirasses, and these cuirasses had the shape of a muscular human body, which, in addition to aesthetic considerations and the psychological impact on the enemy, could also strengthen the structure, since these changes in the section play a role improvised stiffeners.

In terms of strength, bronze at that time was definitely more effective than iron, due to its viscosity, because mankind had only just begun to comprehend the basics of metallurgy and the properties of metals in full, and steel armor plates were still fragile and unreliable.

Bronze armor, including solid cuirasses, was used in the Roman army until the beginning of our era. The disadvantage of bronze was its high cost, therefore, in many respects, the Roman army owed its victories to the superiority of its infantry in terms of armor protection against an enemy who did not have effective protection against edged and throwing weapons.

The fall of Rome also led to the decline of the blacksmith's craft. In the Dark Ages, the main and almost only armor of knights was chain mail or scales. It was not as effective as a cuirass, and quite inconvenient due to its weight, but it still made it possible, to a certain extent, to reduce losses in hand-to-hand combat.

In the 13th century, the so-called “brigantine”, made of metal plates lined with cloth, began to be used to strengthen chain mail.

Brigantines were somewhat similar in design to modern body armor, but the quality of the materials available at that time and used in their manufacture did not allow effective protection from a direct, piercing blow in close combat. By the end of the 14th century, chain mail began to be replaced by more effective armor, and the brigantine became the lot of the poor warriors who made up the light infantry and archers.

For some time, knightly cavalry, well protected by steel armor, was an almost ideal means of deciding the outcome of any battle, until firearms put an end to its dominance on the battlefield.

The heavy armor of the knight turned out to be powerless in the face of buckshot and often only aggravated bullet wounds - bullets and buckshot, piercing the thin steel breastplate, passing out, ricocheted off the armor, inflicting additional mortal wounds. Or it could be like this: taking their master, the valiant warrior, under the water, in a matter of minutes.

There was only one way out of this situation - thanks to the imperfection of firearms, connected with the pace and accuracy of shooting, only the speed and maneuverability of the cavalry could save the situation, which means that the heavy armor worn by the knight was already a burden.

Therefore, only the cuirass remained the main armor of the cavalry of the 16-17th centuries, leading to the emergence of a new type of combat cavalry units - cuirassiers and hussars, whose swift attacks often turned the tide of historical battles. But with the improvement of military affairs and the modernization of firearms, this “armor” ultimately turned out to be a burden.

Cuirasses, undeservedly forgotten for several decades, returned to the Russian army only in 1812. On January 1, 1812, the highest decree was issued on the production of this safety equipment for the cavalry. By July 1812, all cuirassier regiments received a new type of cuirass, made of iron and covered with black paint.

The cuirass consisted of two halves - the chest and the back, fastened with two belts with copper tips, riveted to the back half at the shoulders and fastened on the chest with two copper buttons. For privates, these support belts had iron scales, for officers - copper.

The edges of the cuirass were lined with red cord, and the inside was lined with white canvas lined with cotton wool. Naturally, such protection did not hold a bullet, but in close combat, hand-to-hand combat or horse fighting, this type of armor protection was simply necessary. Subsequently, with a decrease in the effectiveness of this protection, the cuirass eventually remained in the troops only as an element of ceremonial clothing

. The results of the Battle of Inkerman (1854), in which Russian infantry were shot as targets at a shooting range, and the stunning losses of George Edward Pickett’s (1825-1875) division in the Battle of Gettysburg (1863), literally mowed down by the fire of the northerners, forced commanders think not only about changing traditional battle tactics.

After all, the soldier’s chest was protected from deadly metal only by the thin cloth of his uniform.

As long as the battles consisted of an exchange of musket volleys followed by hand-to-hand threshing, this did not cause much concern. But with the advent of rapid-fire artillery, which covered the battlefield with shrapnel and fragmentation grenades, rapid-fire rifles, and then machine guns, the losses of the armies grew monstrously.

The generals had different attitudes towards the lives of their soldiers. Some people respected and took care of them, some considered death in battle to be honorable for a real man, for some, soldiers were simply expendable material. But they all agreed that excessive losses would not allow them to win the battle - or even lead to defeat. Particularly vulnerable were the soldiers of the infantry battalions going on the attack and the sapper companies operating on the front line - on whom the enemy concentrated his main fire. Therefore, the idea arose to find a way to protect at least them.

She was the first to try to return the old reliable shield on the battlefield. In 1886, steel shields designed by Colonel Fisher, with special windows for shooting, were tested in Russia. Unfortunately, they were too thin and turned out to be ineffective - since they were easily shot through by new rifles. But the Japanese, who used British-made steel shields during the siege of Port Arthur, had another problem. Having dimensions of 1 m by 0.5 m and sufficient thickness, these shields weighed 20 kg - so it was simply impossible to attack with them. Subsequently, the idea arose of placing similar heavy shields on wheels, which was transformed into the creation of armored boxes-carts - having climbed into which, the infantryman moved, pushing off with his feet. These were ingenious, but of little use, designs, since such a cart could only be pushed to the first obstacle.

"Harvest of Death" One of the most famous photographs by American photographer Timothy O'Sullivan (1840-1882), taken on the day of the Battle of Gettysburg. Photo: Timothy H. O'Sullivan from the Library of Congress archives

Another project turned out to be promising - a return to the use of cuirass (shell). Fortunately, the idea was right before our eyes, since at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries it was still part of the ceremonial uniform of cuirassier regiments. It turned out that even a simple old-style cuirass (intended for protection against edged weapons) from a distance of a couple of ten meters can withstand a 7.62 mm bullet from a Nagant revolver. Accordingly, some thickening of it (to reasonable limits) could protect a person from something more powerful.

Thus began the revival of cuirass. It should be noted that Russia responded to the Japanese shields by ordering 100 thousand infantry cuirasses for its army from the French. However, the delivered goods turned out to be unusable. Either the company cheated, or Paris was interested in the defeat of the Russians - which entailed an even greater involvement of Russia in debt bondage to French banks.

The protective equipment of the domestic design turned out to be reliable. Among their authors, the most famous is Lieutenant Colonel A. A. Chemerzin, who made cuirasses from various steel alloys developed by him. This talented man can without a doubt be called the father of Russian body armor.

“Catalogue of armor invented by Lieutenant Colonel A. A. Chemerzin” is the name of a brochure published in printing and sewn into one of the files stored in the Central State Military-Historical Archive. It provides the following information: “Weight of shells: lightest 11/2 pounds (lb -409.5 g), heaviest 8 pounds. Unnoticeable under clothes. Armor against rifle bullets, not penetrated by a 3-line military rifle, weighs 8 pounds. The shells cover: the heart, lungs, stomach, both sides, spinal column and back against the lungs and heart. The impenetrability of each shell is tested by shooting in the presence of the buyer.”

The “Catalogue” contains several test reports of shells carried out in 1905-1907. One of them reported: “In the presence of HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE GOVERNMENT EMPEROR, on June 11, 1905, a machine gun company fired in the city of Oranienbaum. They fired from 8 machine guns at an alloy shell invented by Lieutenant Colonel Chemerzin from a distance of 300 steps. 36 bullets hit the shell. The shell was not broken and there were no cracks. The entire variable composition of the shooting school was present during the test.”

The shield-shell that society offered during the First World War.

The armor was also tested in the reserve of the Moscow Metropolitan Police, upon whose order they were manufactured. They were fired at at a distance of 15 steps. The shells, as noted in the act, “turned out to be impenetrable, and the bullets did not produce any fragments. The first batch turned out to be manufactured quite satisfactorily.”

The report of the reserve commission of the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Police stated: “The test gave the following results: when shooting at the chest and dorsal armor, covered with thin silk fabric, the first weighed 4 pounds 75 spools (spool -4.26 g) and the second 5 pounds 18 spools , covering the chest, stomach, sides and back, bullets (Browning), having pierced the material, are deformed and make a depression on the shell, but do not pierce it, remaining between the material and the shell, and no fragments of the bullet fly out.”

By the beginning of the First World War, cuirasses had become fashionable in Russia. The metropolitan police were equipped with them to protect them from the knives of criminals and the bullets of revolutionaries. Several thousand of them were sent to the army. Civilians who were afraid of armed robbery, despite the high prices (from 1,500 to 8,000 rubles), also became interested in cuirasses for concealed (under clothing) wear. Alas, along with the first demand for these prototypes of civilian body armor, the first crooks appeared who took advantage of them. Promising that their goods could not be shot through even by a machine gun, they sold cuirasses, which, to put it mildly, did not withstand any tests.

In the first days of 1918, the French artillery and technical department tested old cuirasses at the Fort de la Peña training ground. The soldiers, covered with a metal shell, were shot with a pistol, rifle and machine gun with quite encouraging results. With the outbreak of the First World War, cuirasses and similar means of protection were used not only by Russia, but also by other countries. The American Army experimented with armor for its troops on the Western Front of World War I.

The German army used helmets with special mounted armor. The pins of the additional protection fastenings on a standard German helmet caused only malicious judgments from the enemy about the “hornedness” of the Kaiser’s army, when the product itself, although it protected against a direct bullet hit, simply could not withstand the energy of a bullet strike in the soldier’s cervical vertebrae, making a hit fatal to anyway.

Testing other elements of armor protection in action showed their advantages and disadvantages. Of course, this was good protection for the torso - including its vital organs. However, the durability of the cuirass depended on its thickness. Too thin and light did not protect at all from standard rifle bullets and large fragments, while the thicker one weighed so much that it became impossible to fight in it.

German "body armor"

1916 However, research in the field of personal armor protection of infantry was not limited to the end of the First World War.

A relatively successful compromise was found in 1938, when the first experimental steel breastplate, CH-38 (SN-1), entered service with the Red Army. As the name implies, it protected the soldier only from the front (chest, stomach and groin). By saving on back protection, it became possible to increase the thickness of the steel sheet without overloading the fighter. But all the weaknesses of this solution showed themselves during the Finnish company, and in 1941 the development and production of the CH-42 (CH-2) bib began. Its creators were the armor laboratory of the Institute of Metals (TsNIIM) under the leadership of M.I. Koryukov, one of the authors of the famous Soviet helmet, which is still in service today.

CH-42 consisted of two plates three millimeters thick, upper and lower - since in a solid breastplate a soldier would not be able to help but bend or crouch. It protected well from shrapnel and from machine gun fire (at a distance of over 100 meters), although it could not withstand a shot from a rifle or machine gun. First of all, they were equipped with army special forces groups - assault engineer brigades (SHISBr). They were used in the most difficult areas: the capture of powerful fortifications, street battles. At the front they were called “armored infantry”, and also jokingly “crayfish”.

Soldiers usually put this “shell” on a padded jacket with the sleeves torn off, which served as an additional shock absorber, despite the fact that the breastplate had a special lining on the inside. But there were cases when the “shell” was worn on top of a camouflage suit, as well as on top of an overcoat. According to reviews from front-line soldiers, the assessment of such a bib was the most controversial - from flattering reviews to complete rejection. But after analyzing the combat path of the “experts,” you come to the following paradox: the breastplate was valuable in the assault units that “took” large cities, and negative reviews came mainly from the units that captured field fortifications. The “shell” protected the chest from bullets and shrapnel while the soldier was walking or running, as well as in hand-to-hand combat, so it was more necessary in street fighting. However, in field conditions, assault sappers moved more on their bellies, and then the steel breastplate became an absolutely unnecessary hindrance. In units that fought in sparsely populated areas, these breastplates migrated first to battalion and then to brigade warehouses.

In 1942, an armored shield measuring 560x450 mm, made of 4 mm steel, was tested. Usually it was worn on a belt behind the back, and in a combat situation the shooter placed it in front of him and inserted the rifle into the provided slot. Fragmentary information has been preserved about the so-called “soldier’s armor” - a 5-mm steel sheet measuring 700x1000 mm and weighing 20-25 kg with edges curved inward and, again, a hole for a rifle. These devices were used by observers and snipers. In 1946, the CH-46, the last steel breastplate, entered service. Its thickness was increased to 5 mm, which made it possible to withstand a burst from a PPSh or MP-40 type machine gun at a distance of 25 m, and for greater convenience for the fighter, it consisted of three parts.

The steel cuirass had three drawbacks: heavy weight, inconvenience when moving, and when hit by a bullet, splinters of steel and splashes of lead wounded its owner. It was possible to get rid of them thanks to the use of fabric made of durable synthetic fibers as a material.

The Americans were among the first to create a new means of protection. During the Korean War, they provided their soldiers with multi-layer nylon vests. There were several types of them (M-1951, M-1952, M-12, etc.), and some had the cut of a real vest - fastened in the front. They were powerless against bullets, and in general were originally intended to protect the crews of military equipment from small fragments. That is why they covered the soldiers only to the waist. Somewhat later, bulletproof vests began to be issued to those soldiers who fought on “their own two” (that is, infantry). To do this, they were lengthened and protective collars were added. In addition, to enhance protection, metal plates began to be placed inside the body armor (sewn in or placed in special pockets).

The United States entered the Vietnam War with these body armor. An analysis of the losses of the American army showed that 70-75% of wounds were fragmentation, with the majority in the torso. To reduce them, it was decided to put all the infantry in body armor, which saved many American soldiers and officers from injury, or even death. The emergence of the especially durable synthetic material Kevlar, developed in 1965 by the American company DuPont, as well as special ceramics, allowed the United States to begin producing body armor that could somehow protect its soldiers from bullets.

The first domestic body armor was made at the All-Union Institute of Aviation Materials (VIAM). It began to be developed in 1954, and in 1957 it received the index 6B1 and was accepted for supply to the USSR Armed Forces. About one and a half thousand copies were made and stored in warehouses. It was decided to launch mass production of body armor only in the event of a threatened period.

The protective composition of the BZ was a mosaic of hexagonal plates made of aluminum alloy, behind which there were several layers of nylon fabric and a batting lining. The vest protected against bullets of the 7.62x25 cartridge fired from a submachine gun (PPSh or PPS) from a distance of 50 meters and shrapnel.

During the initial period of the war in Afghanistan, a number of these armored vehicles ended up in units of the 40th Army. Although the protective characteristics of these body armor were considered insufficient, their operation gave positive experience. In February 1979, the Central Committee of the CPSU held a meeting on equipping OKSV units in Afghanistan with Personal Armor Protection. Representatives of the Steel Research Institute present at the meeting proposed to create a vest for the army using the design solutions of the ZhZT-71M body armor vest previously developed by order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The first experimental batch of such body armor was sent to Afghanistan in March 1979. In 1981, the body armor was accepted for supply to the USSR Armed Forces under the name 6B2 (Zh-81). Its protective composition consisted of ADU-605-80 titanium armor plates with a thickness of 1.25 mm and a ballistic screen made of TSVM-Dzh aramid fabric. With a mass of 4.8 kg, the BZ provided protection from shrapnel and pistol bullets. He could no longer resist the bullets of long-barreled small arms (bullets from the 7.62x39 cartridge pierced the protective composition already at distances of 400-600 meters). By the way, an interesting fact. The cover of this bulletproof vest was made of nylon fabric, and it was fastened with the then newfangled “Velcro.” All this gave the product a very “foreign” look. Which gave rise to numerous rumors that these BZ were purchased abroad - either in the Czech Republic, or in the GDR, or even in some capital country.

The war going on in Afghanistan required equipping the army with more reliable means of individual armor protection, providing protection from small arms bullets at real ranges of combined arms combat. Two types of such body armor were developed and accepted for supply: 6B3TM and 6B4. The first used titanium armor plates ADU-605T-83 with a thickness of 6.5 mm, the second used ceramic ADU 14.20.00.000, made of boron carbide. Both body armor provided all-round bulletproof protection against bullets from the 7.62x39 PS cartridge from a distance of 10 meters. However, the experience of military operation has shown that the weight of such protection is excessive. So, 6B3TM weighed 12.2 kg, and 6B4 - 12 kg. As a result, it was decided to make the protection differentiated: the chest section was bulletproof, and the back section was anti-fragmentation (with titanium armor panels similar to those used in the 6B2 vest. This made it possible to reduce the weight of the vests to 8.2 and 7.6 kg, respectively. In 1985, such bulletproof vests were adopted for supply under the indexes 6B3-01 (Zh-85T) and 6B4-01 (Zh-85K).

When creating these body armor, an attempt was made for the first time to combine protective functions with the ability to carry combat gear. The special pockets of the vest covers could accommodate 4 magazines for an AK or RPK, 4 hand grenades, a gas mask and a radio station. Based on the accumulated experience, it was decided to make a unified body armor, which, having a single design, could be equipped with various types of armor elements and provide various levels of protection. This vest was accepted for supply in 1986 under the designation 6B5 (Zh-86). It was decided to leave the remaining body armor accepted for supply in the troops until they were completely replaced (in fact, the BZ 6B3-01 managed to fight in both the first and second Chechen campaigns).

The final series of Russian vests of the first generation is the 6B5 series of body armor. This series was created by the Steel Research Institute in 1985 after conducting a series of research works to determine standardized standard means of personal armor protection. The 6B5 series was based on vests already developed and in use and included 19 modifications, differing in the level of protection, area, and purpose. A distinctive feature of this series is the modular principle of construction of protection. those. each subsequent model in the series could be formed from unified protective units. The latter included modules based on fabric structures, titanium, ceramics and steel.

The 6B5 body armor was adopted for service in 1986 under the designation Zh-86. The new vest was a case in which soft ballistic screens made of TSVM-DZh fabric, etc. were placed. circuit boards, in the pockets of which armor plates were placed. The following types of armor panels could be used in the protective composition: ceramic ADU 14.20.00.000, titanium ADU-605T-83 and ADU-605-80 and steel ADU 14.05 with a thickness of 3.8 mm. Early models of body armor had covers made of nylon fabric in various shades of green or gray-green. There were also batches with covers made of cotton fabric with a camouflage pattern (two-color for the KGB and Air Force units of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, three-color for the Airborne Forces and Marine Corps).

After the adoption of the general military camouflage pattern "Flora", the 6B5 body armor was also produced with the same camouflage pattern. The 6B5 bulletproof vest consists of a front and a back, connected in the shoulder area with a textile fastener and a belt-buckle fastening for height adjustment. The front and back consist of covers in which fabric protective pockets and blocks of pockets and armor elements are located. The protective properties are maintained after exposure to moisture when using water-repellent covers for protective pockets. The body armor is equipped with two water-repellent covers for protective pockets, two spare armor elements and a bag. All models of body armor are equipped with a fragmentation collar. On the outside of the body armor cover there are pockets for machine gun magazines and other weapons. There are bolsters in the shoulder area that prevent the gun belt from slipping off the shoulder. During the turbulent 90s, the development of army personal protective equipment stalled, and funding for many promising body armor projects was curtailed. But rampant crime in the country gave impetus to the development and production of personal armor protection for individuals. Demand for them in these early years greatly exceeded supply. It is no coincidence that in Russia, companies offering these products began to appear like mushrooms after rain. After only 3 years, the number of such companies exceeded 50. The apparent simplicity of body armor brought a lot of amateur companies, and sometimes outright charlatans, into this area. As a result, the quality of body armor that flooded the Russian market has dropped sharply. While evaluating one of these “body armor,” experts from the Steel Research Institute once discovered that it used ordinary food-grade aluminum as protective elements. Obviously, such a vest did not protect from anything other than being hit by a ladle. Therefore, in 1995, a significant step was taken in the field of personal armor protection - the appearance of GOST R 50744-95 (link), which regulates the classification and technical requirements for body armor. Progress did not stand still, and the army needed new body armor. The concept of BKIE (basic set of individual equipment) appeared, in which body armor played a significant role. The first project of the BKIE “Barmitsa” contained the theme “Visor” - a new army body armor to replace the body armor of the “Beehive” series.

As part of the “Visor” theme, body armor vests 6B11, 6B12, 6B13 were created and put into service in 1999. Uncharacteristically for the Soviet period, these body armor were developed and produced by a significant number of organizations and differ significantly in their characteristics. Body armor 6B11, 6B12, 6B13 are produced or were produced by the Research Institute of Steel, TsVM Armokom, NPF Tekhinkom, JSC Kirasa. In general, 6B11 is a body armor of the 2nd protection class, weighing about 5 kg. 6B12 - provides protection for the chest according to the 4th protection class, for the back - according to the second. Weight - about 8 kg. 6B13 - all-round protection of the 4th class, weighing about 11 kg. Boron carbide, together with corundum and silicon carbide, is still used today for the manufacture of body armor in the Russian army. Unlike metals, these materials, when hit by a bullet, do not create fragments - which surgeons then have to pick out, but crumble into safe “sand” (like car glass). In addition to several basic general-arms (infantry) models, the army and special services also have an innumerable number of specific ones: from protective kits for pilots to armored suits for sappers that look like space suits, reinforced with a special frame - which must withstand not only fragments, but also a blast wave. You can’t do without some oddities: in fact, body armor has always been “cut out” for men, but now women are joining the army en masse, whose figure, as you know, has some differences. Meanwhile, they promise to make another revolution in the production of body armor. For example, the Dutch announced the development of “Dyneema SB61” fabric made from polyethylene fiber, which, according to it, is 40% stronger than Kevlar. And specialists from the University of Delaware and the US Army Research Laboratory (USA) proposed a completely original “liquid armor”. Their experimental sample is a Kevlar fabric impregnated with STF material - a mixture of microscopic quartz particles and polyethylene glycol. The point of the innovation is that quartz particles, having penetrated the fabric fibers, replace inconvenient insert armor plates. As in the case of military cuirasses, after the appearance of body armor in the army, civilians also wanted to have them. The excitement for them arose immediately after the Korean War - soldiers returning home told many fantastic stories about “magic vests”. As a result, a myth arose that a simple fabric bulletproof vest is completely impenetrable. Moreover, tales appeared about certain “armored shirts” - which turned out to be a common scam. Judge for yourself: the shirt is made from just one layer of fabric, which is not enough even to protect against a miniature Browning. To protect yourself, you should wear at least a Kevlar padded jacket.