Bullet proof vests in the Chinese military

This thread is going nowhere because you don't have a sufficiently long perspective on the matter.
During the European Middle Ages armor for the knight improved mightily until about 1200 the knights were virtually impregnable. But later knights were killed again on the battlefield and the price paid in mobility for higher protection was too steep. With the replacement of longbow and arquebus by musket before 1600 body armor started to disappear entirely.
A delightful book on this matter was written by Tom Wintringham in 1943 - Weapons and Tactics from Troy to Stalingrad., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, USA 1943, republished 1973 with Col. John Blashford-Snell ISBN 0-14-021522-0
( I have the Penguin edition with the addition of the thoughts of Col. Blashford-Snell - a truly vast difference in quality of thought between the two parts of the book ). See also Tom Wintringham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I read that heavier and better protected armour brought the popularity of using mace as a weapon to transmit impact force past the armour, is there a basis for this?

Originally Posted by no_name

I read that heavier and better protected armour brought the popularity of using mace as a weapon to transmit impact force past the armour, is there a basis for this?

That is absolutely true. You pretty much can't defeat full plate armor with a bladed weapon.

There was a reason knights carried heavy lances and why jausting was considered the top sport during medevil tournaments.

A knight carried a lance for other plated knights while he carried a sword for the poorly or unarmed commoners that made up the bulk of the enemy army.

Maces do indeed help to get around needing to penetrate increasingly thick and though plate by relying on the concussive force to dismount or injure/kill and opponent. It needs to be remembered that full plate is incredibly heavy and a knight may struggle to even rise off the ground on his own if he was dismounted. Even if he did regain his feet, his lack of mobility and being greatly outnumbered would make it all but inevitable that he be dragged down or someone simply slips a short blade through the armour joints to deal him a mortal wound.

For knights, being unseated is almost certainly a death sentence.

But we are getting a little off track.

Something that proponents of modern body armor should bare in mind is the fact that they have thus far only seen widespread use against antiquated AKs and other large cal. weapons. Modern small cal. rounds have inherently superior AP capabilities, and on top of that, the Chinese are now introducing the heavier machine gun rounds as standard with new special AP rounds with hardened steel cores.

I have my doubts about just how effective modern body armor would stack up against modern small cal. AP rounds.

As I have said many times, one of the biggest problems with modern small cal rounds is over-penetration. Modern body armor may well be the perfect answer to the over-penetration problem as the armor would slow and deform a small cal round to produce the kind of wound pattern you would normally associate with larger cal rounds.

Originally Posted by Inst

This system is 32 pounds, which is about the same weight as interceptor with E-Sapi. What's going on?

The majority of the weight in a torso protective system usually comes from the ballistic plates. Everything else is generally kevlar or any other ballistic fabric (and so, the weight from them is usually no different between systems). Discounting the weight from the straps and other 'little' gear, the majority of the weight should again be from the ballistic plates. The choice of material for the plates would affect the weight the most, therefore. Steel plate weighs the most and protects fine if it were HHS (High Hardness Steel), in fact, the best HS (hardened steel) on the market, UHHS (Ultra High Hardness Steel) developed and produced in Sweden, can protect itself from 12.7 x 99 mm rounds with relatively thin plates (IIRC, a 10 mm plate was all that the 12.7 mm round was able to penetrate, and most ballistic plates are about half an inch or 12.7 mm thick, so in theory, a UHHS plate of 12.7 mm thickness should be at least of NIJ level IV protective level). However, steel is still steel and weighs a bunch. Usually, militaries will use ceramics for their plates, to which is usually composed of Boron Carbide or Silicon Carbide, though there's plenty of experimental technologies to talk about later. Those two ceramic compositions weigh roughly the same and protect roughly the same. Concurrently the choice plate material for all modern militaries are ceramic plates of either Boron Carbide or Silicon carbide composition, and so, when you take all of that in totality, the weight of the vest with a plate will be roughly the same, only differing with the size of the wearer.

The lightest armoring material capable of stopping assault rifle rounds (7.62 x 39, 5.56 x 45, 5.45 x 39, 5.8 x 42, etc) is Polyethylene, and a NIJ level III Polyethylene plate will weigh about 1.6 kg (a steel plate capable of protecting against the same projectiles and of the same dimensions will weigh 3.6 kg while a ceramic SAPI plate which is NIJ level III as well weighs about 2.4 kg if the plate is of the same dimensions).

There's no doubt in my mind, though, that Chinese ballistic plates are probably composed of Boron Carbide, to which is the same armoring material as the SAPI the U.S. use(d). Hence why the vests weigh roughly the same.

If you want a light vest, it will have to be very bare bones minimum. Usually, the U.S. military uses such vests for their Special Forces troops, something about allowing them to move faster. The vests they use aren't really vests at all, they're simply what's called plate carriers, i.e. their only function is to accomodate a ballistic plate (usually a stand alone Ceramic plate, which weighs roughly 3.6 kg and can protect against 7.62x54 ammunition) and hold magazines. There's no kevlar in a plate carrier, and so, saves weight there. Though, without the kevlar, the user risks exposing their body to shrapnel, to which a regular soldier wearing a kevlar vest with ceramic plates would be relatively protected from.

Some comparison via "BulletProofMe.com".

A Covert style plate carrier with a 10"x12" Level IV stand-alone ceramic plate weighs 3.9 kg (3.6 kg plate, 0.3 kg plate carrier).

A Level IIIA Aramid (another strong fabric, akin to kevlar) vest with a 10"x12" Level IV ceramic plate weighs 5 kg (2.7 kg plate, 2.3 kg vest).

Obviously, if you just want to minimize weight, a plate carrier + polyethylene plate combo would be the best, as it would weigh 1.9 kg (1.6 kg plate, 0.3 kg plate carrier).

Oops, I forgot to mention that usually a soldier will have 2 plates :/


On knights though, despite it being only slightly related to the topic, that's actually not entirely true. Knights are warriors by birth, and they have worn their armor since, well, they could fit in it. They are well accustomed to wearing armor and so mobility, for them at least, becomes less of an issue than for someone who had just tried it for a day. The armor the knights wore also grew in not only size but also technology to protect the wearer from danger. Before the end of the armored knight, the English developed a triple layered armor system to which, in modern tests at least, was able to protect the wearer from a flintlock pistol and a crossbow of the same period. Obviously, arms technology soon outpaced armor technology, and only until kevlar was developed was armoring troops brought about again. But the point stands that so long as the armoring technology can keep pace with the arms technology, the armored usually wins (not always though, plenty of examples of that).

Regarding Chinese plates, there's still very little information.

We know that the PAP/SWAT uses HHS plates for their older-generation Guardian God armour, while the PLA's choice is still unknown.

But in terms of armour technology, China seems to be very well on the level of western nations. Here's a Chinese manufacturer specialized in producing Polyethylene plates, capable of stopping 7.62x51 NATO from 16 meter distance:

Bulletproof Vest, Ballistic Vest, Ballistic Helmet - China Body Armor Manufacturers & Suppliers
body armor plate, body armor plate Manufacturer, body armor plate OEM, China body armor plate, body armor plate Supplier, body armor plate Design

They are producing for the export market, and posted a video of philippine police officers testing that plate with very good results:

GAV-PE-03 shot at by M14 - YouTube

All in all, it is to be believed that the PLA, if they really wish so, have access to the best available body armour.

There are certainly advantages to being the world's factory.

American armor, Russian armor, all Made In China! *Bashes body armor set with a wrench.

A cookie for you if you get the reference.

Armageddon.

I understood that the heavy armor with which a knight couldn't raise himself without help was only used during jousting, because being immobile on a battle field was just too dangerous. Any angry peon with a knife could find an opening to dispatch the knight.

Following up on my post, the latest vest the Army uses (at least limitedly) is the SPCS (the Soldier Plate Carrier System). It's essentially a lighter weight IOTV, and has stand-alone protective capabilities against your Mk. 1 shrapnels and 9 mm bullets (not entirely sure about that, but I know the IOTV does at least). Allows for the inserting of 2 plates, front and rear, and to my surprise, I didn't notice the U.S. Army had rolled out a new plate (the XSAPI). The XSAPI plate is 'slightly' heavier than the ESAPI, but is more protective (the info is still secretive, but 'open source documents' state that the XSAPI can shrug off a M993 round which could penetrate an ESAPI). For reference, the various penetration figures I got for it were: 7 mm of High Hardness Armor at 500 m, 16 mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor at 300 m, and this: So it's a pretty hot round!

Anywhoot, this new SPCS vest weighs some 2.65 kg for a size medium and a SPCS vest with front and back XSAPI plates along with Side XSAPI plates would weigh 10.63 kg (23.45 lb for us Americans).

This lightweight system is light in comparison to somewhat older (as in, not even a decade ago, we were using these) systems such as the Interceptor Body Armor, which weighed 15 kg (33.1 lb) total.

Of course, if you're curious, that massive weight savings do not come from new technologies, so much as removing additional armoring. The Interceptor Body Armor, in comparison to the "Modular Vest" that our Special Forces use, covers 5.71 sq. m of the body in comparison to the 1.49 sq. m of the body from wearing that modular vest. The Interceptor Body Armor, which, now that I think of it, resembles the intensive armoring practices of European Knights in the Medieval ages, though, it did not take some centuries for the Army to start to phase out overly bulky armoring schemes in preference for lighter ones like the SPCS. In any case, until lighter armoring technologies become realized, this'll be where armoring might stall.

But on the topic though, it seems I am blind. The weight of the Chinese ballistic vest system shown here includes everything it lists (This system consists of two parts, the individual combat comprehensive support system and the individual life comprehensive support system, and serves the functions of defense and protection, self-help and mutual aids, eating and drinking, camping and bivouacking, and many others. Its total weight is only 15 kilograms.) So, it's relatively light, though, it does not make mention specifically of ballistic plates, so that may be where the weight savings come from.

The vest system shown in that news is nothing but the ZTCD06/Type-06 personal armour system, that has been known for years. Only now, as typical of PLA public policy, it has been disclosed.

06

The ZTCD06 itself, is proof against 1.1g shrapnels with the V50 of 530m/s from within 5 meters.
It covers no less than 0.36m² (probably only for the frontal chest-area), weights stand-alone 3.7kg and has a shelf-life of at least 6 years, which means that the first produced copies should run out by this year, which would make a follow on design all more propable (as shown in my previous posts).

The entire system, on the other hand, is named Type 07 OTV, which encompasses the non-armored tactical vest (mostly worn stand-alone without the equally MOLLE-capable armour beneath it) and those different accessoires like pouches, canteen etc.

Originally Posted by delft

I understood that the heavy armor with which a knight couldn't raise himself without help was only used during jousting, because being immobile on a battle field was just too dangerous. Any angry peon with a knife could find an opening to dispatch the knight.

I think jousting might actually have battlefield purpose.

The lance used for jousting were usually made of different wood and empty in the middle to allow easier breakage, the tips were not sharp and and saddles don't have a back barrier to allow easier to fall backwards (minimize impact I injury think). The lances used in war were different and sharp-tipped.

I think Chinese also developed heavy knight like cavalry following the three kingdom period. They used polearms.

Originally Posted by no_name

I think jousting might actually have battlefield purpose.

The lance used for jousting were usually made of different wood and empty in the middle to allow easier breakage, the tips were not sharp and and saddles don't have a back barrier to allow easier to fall backwards (minimize impact I injury think). The lances used in war were different and sharp-tipped.

I think Chinese also developed heavy knight like cavalry following the three kingdom period. They used polearms.

From my short study of Ancient Chinese warfare, that'd seem to be the case. Chinese heavy cavalry were akin to Roman knights, but not on the armoring scale as the Cataphracts.

Jousting is for fighting between heavy cavalry; and the stereotype of heavy armor was in part the result of jousting tournament armor, where the armor emphasized protective capability at all costs. Heavy cavalry armor in general was intended as heavy cavalry armor, not the armor worn by foot soldiers who would have to drag the armor around, whereas knights could use their horse to carry their armor.

My point is that the armor system described in the Chinese news report seemed to only consist of the vest in itself, which was why the 33 pound weight raised eyebrows.