ANSWERS: 12
  • The problem with body armor for limbs is that the weight and bulkiness of the armor restricts the wearer's movements too much. It's nice to have soldiers protected, but they also have to be able to move and fight.
  • Yeah its called a suit of armor
  • I agree with OldSchool. It's all about compromise. Remember the saying that the best defence is a good offense. Although not to be taken very literally, it is still somewhat true. Yes, soldiers need to be protected by armour. However, even the thickest armour can be penetrated. Shooting the enemy is a much better way of staying alive than hiding in a protective shell.
  • Actually....they do have soulder, groin, and leg body armor. It is mandatory for use in Iraq. Total body armor weight with fighting load is roughly 67 pounds...it does help 70% of the time....
  • because you would have a greater chance of being hit with the leg armour beause of the imobility of such armour,so they calclated that by not having restrictive armour you increase your chance of being hit by some number worked in to the equation, and by protecting your vital organs from small arms fire your chance of survivle out weighed the weight of the extra armour to your legs. them odds change with what job you are engaged in at the time, for example mines and muntions engineers would more than likley have alot more armoour because of the extreme nature of their job
  • For the same reason that the army does not have 20mm of armour on the humvee you know that if there was that kind of armour around every sqaure inch the hummer would negate its number one defense, and that is speed. Same with the infantry if you could have armour over your whole body you would not get shot but you would be taken as a prisnor of war, for the very reason that you would be left behind because of how cumbersome you would become. jepordizing the strength that your group has in that it is a fighting unit as the unit fights as one. So as a sacrfice of some mobility every one gets body armour and head protection, saving one from a leathal shot to the most important parts of your body heart lungs.And if there was protection for the legs and shoulders I doubt if it would save you from land mines and IEDs
  • for a couple of reasons. one for mobility. a soldier wearing a full body armor, completely covered in kevlar wont be able to be as agile. they would become easy target to pick off. i can imagine the weight of the armor that they would have to carry. also, you dont need armor for your extremities, because contain no vital organs, just some major blood vessels. i guess you have a better chance of surviving if shot in ur arms or legs rather than your torso.
  • The problem with such body armor is it would seriously compromise the wearer's ability to move around. While they are good for many types of small arms things like heavy machine gun rounds and explosive charges are too much for the vest so the soldier would need to be able to do something such as duck or take cover which is difficult to do in such bulky awkward armor. Plus as is soldiers in the field generally carry around 70 pounds worth of equipment, supplies, and weapons so such armor would add even more weight to them making it harder and slower to move around.
  • they do
  • They do, but like everyone else has said, it seriously restricts your mobility. Imagine dressing up like the Michellin Man and trying to engage in a firefight.
  • Who is this mysterious "they" ?
  • maybe youre supposed to get that yourself if you want it

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy