Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 10-06-2014, 05:27 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 267
Does the Russian army give bullet proof vests to it's army?

I noticed from footage of Russian army troops who invaded Chechnya and Georgia that most did not appear to be wearing bullet proof vests, the ones who invaded Crimea, it looked like some one them might have been and some did not, it is hard to tell with the type of tactical webbed vests they were wearing over their uniform to hold ammunition, and none of the Russian troops sent into ukraine to fight "undercover" have bullet proof vests, which makes me wonder if the Russian army gives bullet proof vests to all troops like the US army does.
#2
Old 10-06-2014, 07:24 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Terminology nitpick / education: Nobody, not even the US, issues troops "bullet proof vests." Troops are issued "body armor." Body armor stops some / most shrapnel. And attenuates most bullets at least a little. But in no practical sense is it "bullet proof" against the kinds of bullets a trooper is likely to face.

As to current Russian practice, I have no clue.
#3
Old 10-06-2014, 08:23 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Alaska!
Posts: 8,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
Terminology nitpick / education: Nobody, not even the US, issues troops "bullet proof vests." Troops are issued "body armor." Body armor stops some / most shrapnel. And attenuates most bullets at least a little. But in no practical sense is it "bullet proof" against the kinds of bullets a trooper is likely to face.
As to current Russian practice, I have no clue.
Since we're nitpicking, let's be clear about it. Modern body armor issued to the US Military will stop M2 AP armor piercing 30-06 (7.62 x 63) ammunition containing a steel or tungsten penetrator. That is a serious round well beyond what the enemy commonly uses or even what a soldier is likely to come up against unless engaged by specialized snipers. Nothing is "bullet-proof" as you mention. A round can easily impact a part of the body that is not protected by the vest. But the ESAPI plates inside the armor cover a majority of the front, back and sides of the Soldier and they will stop serious small arms fire, not just shrapnel.
Previous versions were only rated to stop M80 Ball (7.62x51, non armor piercing) ammunition. That is still a formidable round when the enemy is mostly using 7.62x39 Ball ammo.
Body armor issued before that more closely resembles your description. But it hasn't been used for several decades. Even in Somalia, soldiers wore RBA which was rated to stop .30 Cal Ball ammunition.

The soft portion of the armor is only equal to an NIJ Level IIIa rating which will not stop rifle rounds, but it isn't fair to say that the vest cannot stop rounds without the plates, because it is not designed or intended to be worn without the plates.
#4
Old 10-06-2014, 10:13 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Alaska!
Posts: 8,200
According to several sources, not only does Russia issue modern body armor but they are developing something more advanced for 2015. Here are some links for further reading:

http://kitup.military.com/2014/02/ru...-standard.html
http://washingtontimes.com/news/...impr/?page=all
http://defensereview.com/russian...renade-launch/
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130...---Report.html
#5
Old 10-06-2014, 10:18 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Since we're nitpicking, let's be clear about it. ...
Thanks for the updated education. I knew the stuff was pretty good with the plates installed, but I was under the impression many folks didn't wear the plates in many circumstances. And as I understood it the unplated gear was OK against pistols and shrapnel and that was about it.

Thanks again.
#6
Old 10-06-2014, 11:18 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Alaska!
Posts: 8,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
Thanks for the updated education.
That's what we're all here for!
Quote:
I knew the stuff was pretty good with the plates installed, but I was under the impression many folks didn't wear the plates in many circumstances.
This is strictly forbidden. Leaders would be relieved if their Soldiers were operating without plates. Side plates are optional though.

Quote:
And as I understood it the unplated gear was OK against pistols and shrapnel and that was about it.
A bit more than okay. It will stop every common handgun round. The soft portion is tested to withstand the following: ".357 SIG FMJ Flat Nose (FN) bullets with a specified mass of 8.1 g (125 gr) and a velocity of 448 m/s 9.1 m/s (1470ft/s 30 ft/s) and with .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets with a specified mass of 15.6 g (240 gr) and a velocity of 436 m/s 9.1 m/s (1430 ft/s 30 ft/s)" (US Department of Justice Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor, 2008)
pdf: https://google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...76802529,d.cGE It will stop even more than that, but that gives you an idea of the performance criteria. That isn't even the point at which something penetrates, either. To test the armor, it is placed against a clay block. After impact, the crater left in the clay behind the vest is measured. There is a certain allowable depth for the crater to be considered a pass. So a hotter round, or a different bullet altogether could still fail to penetrate, but might cause too big of a dimple in the clay which translates to blunt trauma in the person wearing it. But that's just blunt trauma, not a penetrating gun shot round. The vests are top of the line, state of the art and far superior than flak vests of the past!

Last edited by Bear_Nenno; 10-06-2014 at 11:19 AM.
#7
Old 10-06-2014, 12:10 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,082
They're also the reason there have been far fewer U.S. servicemembers have been killed in combat over the past decade than in similar conflicts in the past.
#8
Old 10-06-2014, 12:38 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: By the Caloosahatchee
Posts: 11,536
I don't know if this is correct, but I've heard that body armor is increasing the number of veterans who are missing limbs. The armor is not causing it per se. It's just that the armor is helping more soldiers to survive attacks like IEDs that tend to remove limbs.
__________________
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Last edited by Hypno-Toad; 10-06-2014 at 12:39 PM.
#9
Old 10-06-2014, 01:19 PM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
They're also the reason there have been far fewer U.S. servicemembers have been killed in combat over the past decade than in similar conflicts in the past.
I'm sure Bear has more stories but I know a guy who took an AK round to the chest while clearing a room and just walked away a little sore. Those plates really do work. Once anyway. But they modern body armor has cut down on individual maneuverability by quite a lot.
#10
Old 10-06-2014, 01:55 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,729
My cousin's stepson was taken down (but not out, so to speak) in Iraq by a bullet to the leg. So I guess snipers are told not to make torso shots.
#11
Old 10-06-2014, 02:11 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: 192.168.0.1
Posts: 9,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger Jeff View Post
My cousin's stepson was taken down (but not out, so to speak) in Iraq by a bullet to the leg. So I guess snipers are told not to make torso shots.
Would make a certain kind of sense, kinda like not firing small anti-tank weapons at the front armor of a tank of you have the option of side or rear shots.
#12
Old 10-06-2014, 02:27 PM
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 2,779
Few people can shoot to that fine degree of judgement in the heat of action, especially when presented with a fleeting target.
#13
Old 10-06-2014, 02:29 PM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger Jeff View Post
My cousin's stepson was taken down (but not out, so to speak) in Iraq by a bullet to the leg. So I guess snipers are told not to make torso shots.
Or more likely he was aiming at the head of the guy next to him. The Iraqi insurgents were notoriously bad shots.
#14
Old 10-06-2014, 02:54 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
This is strictly forbidden. Leaders would be relieved if their Soldiers were operating without plates.
It took me a minute to realize that "relieved" here means "fired" and not "reassured, grateful, relaxed". I had this image of a higher-up getting a casualty report and saying, "Phew, thank god they didn't wear the full armor."

Carry on.
#15
Old 10-06-2014, 02:58 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
Terminology nitpick / education: Nobody, not even the US, issues troops "bullet proof vests." Troops are issued "body armor." Body armor stops some / most shrapnel. And attenuates most bullets at least a little. But in no practical sense is it "bullet proof" against the kinds of bullets a trooper is likely to face.

As to current Russian practice, I have no clue.
Yes I am aware it is called body armor, I thought I would say bullet proof vest so more people knew what I was talking about. If russia gives it's army body armor how come most of the troops seen in combat are not wearing it?
#16
Old 10-06-2014, 03:13 PM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
It took me a minute to realize that "relieved" here means "fired" and not "reassured, grateful, relaxed". I had this image of a higher-up getting a casualty report and saying, "Phew, thank god they didn't wear the full armor."

Carry on.
Sometimes it's hard to translate from Army into English. How can you survive with so few acronyms?
#17
Old 10-06-2014, 10:17 PM
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,562
When did it become fashionable to capitalize the word "soldier"? It's not a proper noun.
#18
Old 10-06-2014, 10:23 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
When did it become fashionable to capitalize the word "soldier"? It's not a proper noun.
When people in the US army branch saw that the Marines got mileage out of it, status and budget-wise.

The 75th Rangers do it too.

Ordinary soldiers don't feel special enough, even after Shinseki gave them their black beret which was supposed to make them feel all special forces-y, so they have to capitalize to turn "soldier" into a proper noun.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 10-06-2014 at 10:27 PM.
#19
Old 10-07-2014, 01:51 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII View Post
Few people can shoot to that fine degree of judgement in the heat of action, especially when presented with a fleeting target.
True, but people laying in ambush have the privilege of having the time to pick their targets and aim at the part they want to shoot at before the balloon goes up.
#20
Old 10-07-2014, 01:53 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by sara20 View Post
Yes I am aware it is called body armor, I thought I would say bullet proof vest so more people knew what I was talking about. If russia gives it's army body armor how come most of the troops seen in combat are not wearing it?
We had flak jackets. They were hot, heavy, and uncomfortable.
#21
Old 10-07-2014, 05:24 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
When did it become fashionable to capitalize the word "soldier"? It's not a proper noun.
And why "troops"? Troopers are members of the cavalry, light horse, or similar. "Troops" are mixed formations. A formation is a regiment, a group, a company or something similar. When did we start getting "5 troops injured" and similar infelicitous expressions?
#22
Old 10-07-2014, 06:40 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Alaska!
Posts: 8,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
When did it become fashionable to capitalize the word "soldier"? It's not a proper noun.
Excellent question! I do it out of habit. Sometimes I notice and go back and correct it. Around 2003, the Army required the word "soldier" to be capitalized in all official correspondence, memos and documents. It was a hollow attempt to give soldiers the respect and importance they deserve. A few years later, the Army mandated that "family" also needs to be capitalized. Around that same time, "civilian" was added to the list if referring to a civilian employee of the Department of the Army.
So now, in accordance with Army Regulation 25-50 Preparing and Managing Correspondence, Army personnel are required to capitalize Soldier, Civilian and Family in all documents, emails, internal communication, and anything else work-related. I don't type the words "civilian" and "family" at work enough for it to have carried over. But I type "soldier" so much that it has become habit to capitalize it. I have to be careful when typing my college essays. At the SDMB, I am less diligent.
#23
Old 10-07-2014, 06:55 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
According to several sources, not only does Russia issue modern body armor but they are developing something more advanced for 2015. Here are some links for further reading:

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130...---Report.html
That says they are getting boron carbide based vests in 2015 which the US army has already been using for years, I don't think the Russian army currently has boron carbide based vests.
#24
Old 10-07-2014, 08:02 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Alaska!
Posts: 8,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by sara20 View Post
That says they are getting boron carbide based vests in 2015 which the US army has already been using for years, I don't think the Russian army currently has boron carbide based vests.
They have the armor already. The Defense Review report says that their Spetsnaz is already wearing it. That 6B43 just isn't standard across the board yet. It looks like the 6B43 is the nano-armor that is being hyped, though. It sounded like they were coming up with something new and more advanced. What the article was actually trying to say is that the 6B43 Nano Armor (with plates made of boron carbide and titanium) is currently used by select units in the Ukraine and should be standard issue by 2015.
I don't have any knowledge of any of it outside those articles, though. And I only skimmed them.
#25
Old 10-07-2014, 09:53 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
And why "troops"? Troopers are members of the cavalry, light horse, or similar. "Troops" are mixed formations. A formation is a regiment, a group, a company or something similar. When did we start getting "5 troops injured" and similar infelicitous expressions?
A "Trooper" or "Troop" is a cavalryman. A cavalry "Troop" is also a formation of 3 cavalry platoons plus the command elements. The infantry equivalent is a "Company". And a cavalry "Squadron" is what the infantry would call a "Battalion".

When did we start getting "5 troops injured"? Probably when reporters got tired of writing/reporting "5 soldiers injured" or "5 G.I.s injured".
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 AM.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: girlfriends masturbating comfortmaker air conditioners malt soft drink hindenburg layout cooking sleeve marine captains plunger detonator weirdest scps zaaz wellness white cheese mold phone greetings funny choad or chode six sided bayonet ramanujan pronunciation how to find out if someone got arrested tonight 1000 island dressing vs russian beta gamma sigma honor society reviews dust covers for furniture how do you pronounce daesh paypal will not let me remove bank account salary expectations email sample what happens if you don't blow your nose how long does oil based paint take to dry channel number for tbs what is a manhattan sandwich