When will China's military be able to challenge the U.S.?

[TorontoNoctis]

I see tons of body armor under the webbing. You think the Dwayne Johnson lookalike there has a physical deformity so his torso sticks out? And the soldier above him has a pocket in the back for a ceramic plate insert! You just found a picture of them with their helmets off.

Either you are blind or you're just a baldfaced liar.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

So what is your point? Troops should not wear body armors in battle fields?

It depends on WHO you are fighting

If you are fighting Russian terrorists who use AK-74, VSS Vintorez, Dragunov Sniper rifle and they have armor penetrating rounds it is better to use no armor.

If you are fighting in Afghanistan where most of the people are using AK-47 or fighting civilians people with hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns armor is good

 

[challenger]

It depends on WHO you are fighting

If you are fighting Russian terrorists who use AK-74, VSS Vintorez, Dragunov Sniper rifle and they have armor penetrating rounds it is better to use no armor.

If you are fighting in Afghanistan where most of the people are using AK-47 or fighting civilians people with hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns armor is good

The first youtube video I posted, shows an Iraqi shooting a US soldier probably using Dragunov, since Iraqi military used to have Dragunov. So a Dragunov round could not penetrate the shield. Otherwise, the soldier would have instantly killed on the spot.

What I see is that in any combat operations, elite troops must use sufficient body armor and ballistic helmets. You don't know what type of guns your enemy is having and which kind of round is coming to hit you. The rest depends on luck.

Body armor should be such that you ensure your body parts expose minimum amount of vulnerability. Now, if China has such ideology that soldiers' lives have no values in battle fields, thats a different story.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

There you go lying again.

Your own wiki source about flak jackets says that flak jackets now refers to advanced body armor with Type III protection with ceramic plates. So your "theory" that soldiers should use no body armor is absolutely wrong, because modern flak jackets are body armor. Even the blackwater mercs in your second pic are using body armor with ceramic plate inserts.

You're just a lair who twists sources to suit your argument. Do the world a favor do not speak of things you know nothing about because if you actually knew anything about ballistics you would be talking about kinetic energy and your own personal experience with firearms. But you don't have any so you're grasping with straws and twisting sources. What a joker

Each USA marine is paid like $5,000 a year

Another lie or pure ignorance. Let me guess you looked up pay grades for enlisted men. Here's a hint that is biweekly, not yearly.

 

[below_freezing]

well, he has a degree in mechanical engineering, i don't know what you have but it doesn't seem to be anything related to finance or physics, going by your previous posts.

 

[challenger]

There you go lying again.

Your own wiki source about flak jackets says that flak jackets now refers to advanced body armor with Type III protection with ceramic plates. So your "theory" that soldiers should use no body armor is absolutely wrong, because modern flak jackets are body armor. Even the blackwater mercs in your second pic are using body armor with ceramic plate inserts.

You're just a lair who twists sources to suit your argument. Do the world a favor do not speak of things you know nothing about because if you actually knew anything about ballistics you would be talking about kinetic energy and your own personal experience with firearms. But you don't have any so you're grasping with straws and twisting sources. What a joker

Kinetic energy, good point. How effective is a body armor that uses PE UD fabric as raw material instead of metal plates?

 

[Chinaownseverything]

There you go lying again.

Your own wiki source about flak jackets says that flak jackets now refers to advanced body armor with Type III protection with ceramic plates. So your "theory" that soldiers should use no body armor is absolutely wrong, because modern flak jackets are body armor. Even the blackwater mercs in your second pic are using body armor with ceramic plate inserts.

You're just a lair who twists sources to suit your argument. Do the world a favor do not speak of things you know nothing about because if you actually knew anything about ballistics you would be talking about kinetic energy and your own personal experience with firearms. But you don't have any so you're grasping with straws and twisting sources. What a joker



Another lie or pure ignorance. Let me guess you looked up pay grades for enlisted men. Here's a hint that is biweekly, not yearly.

These would be considered Flak jackets, light but strong enough to stop strapnel. They are being used.

There would be no point in talking kinetic energy as kinetic energy is not much of a deciding factor, a lighter round with a steel core penetrator will easily pass through more vests than a heavier round. Penetrator and coating are the main things that decide whether a shot will peentrate or not, not kinetic energy.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

well, he has a degree in mechanical engineering, i don't know what you have but it doesn't seem to be anything related to finance or physics, going by your previous posts.

You have a point -- I guess I should not question the credentials of others unless I am willing to reveal my own identity or my own credentials. And it would be meaningless since I'm not an expert at ballistics either. I guess I overreacted. But it's near impossible not to with him -- he uses sources unlike anyone else on the Internet I have ever met, and makes baldfaced lies like saying this or that guy doesn't wear body armor when he clearly does or claiming the salary of a US soldier is 5 thousand dollars. I suppose I could forgive it if he really lives in North Korea or China but he should really know 5 thousand a year is not enough to wipe your *** with not to mention illegal. It is either a baldfaced trolling lie or he lives somewhere dirt poor.

Kinetic energy, good point. How effective is a body armor that uses PE UD fabric as raw material instead of metal plates?

Well Chinaowns does have a point, kinetic energy is less important than the type of bullet because service rifles fire at the same muzzle velocity. So perhaps I was rash saying he should have mentioned that in relation to bullets. But shrapnel is random and would not deform the way bullets do with kevlar like protection. Shrapnel can travel an order of magnitude faster than bullets too so kinetic energy finally comes into play. No matter how you cut it metal or ceramic plates would be superior protection against shrapnel. Anyone can very easily turn around Chinaown's "utility" argument by saying terrorists do not have artillery so blackwater mercs or specops wear little body armor do so because they don't worry about artillery.

 

[challenger]

You have a point -- I guess I should not question the credentials of others unless I am willing to reveal my own identity or my own credentials. And it would be meaningless since I'm not an expert at ballistics either. I guess I overreacted. But it's near impossible not to with him -- he uses sources unlike anyone else on the Internet I have ever met, and makes baldfaced lies like saying this or that guy doesn't wear body armor when he clearly does or claiming the salary of a US soldier is 5 thousand dollars. I suppose I could forgive it if he really lives in North Korea or China but he should really know 5 thousand a year is not enough to wipe your *** with not to mention illegal. It is either a baldfaced trolling lie or he lives somewhere dirt poor.



Well Chinaowns does have a point, kinetic energy is less important than the type of bullet because service rifles fire at the same muzzle velocity. So perhaps I was rash saying he should have mentioned that in relation to bullets. But shrapnel is random and would not deform the way bullets do with kevlar like protection. Shrapnel can travel an order of magnitude faster than bullets too so kinetic energy finally comes into play. No matter how you cut it metal or ceramic plates would be superior protection against shrapnel. Anyone can very easily turn around Chinaown's "utility" argument by saying terrorists do not have artillery so blackwater mercs or specops wear little body armor do so because they don't worry about artillery.

Well, organized terrorists do not use artilleries. But in case of Iraq, we see Iraqis using artillery shells as IEDs. And what about grenades?

All said, I still believe body armor is necessary for troops. Say for example, a contingent of paratroopers lands in an enemy territory, now they face bullets, grenades and shells. Body armors determine their survivability.

 

[challenger]

I am sure, the security personnels were not wearing body armors, otherwise, casualties would have been less.

A statement posted late yesterday on the website of the autonomous Xinjiang regional government said the volunteers were on patrol and standing in line when the attacker struck. The statement said five security force members died at the scene, and two others died later in a hospital.

The attack occurred in Yoganqi township, on the outskirts of Aksu city, on the highway linking Urumqi, the Xinjiang capital, to Kashgar in the west, the statement said.

“At 10:30 a.m., the violent criminal rode a motor tricycle and rushed toward a patrolling group, throwing an explosive device and triggering an explosion,’’ the regional government said. It said the attack occurred when the 15-member patrol, led by an assistant police officer, reached a T-junction and lined up there. Several police motorcycles were damaged in the blast, it said.

Bomber attacks patrol, kills 7 in China - The Boston Globe

 

[below_freezing]

i don't think police in the US wear body armor on patrols either.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

Well, organized terrorists do not use artilleries. But in case of Iraq, we see Iraqis using artillery shells as IEDs. And what about grenades?

All said, I still believe body armor is necessary for troops. Say for example, a contingent of paratroopers lands in an enemy territory, now they face bullets, grenades and shells. Body armors determine their survivability.

Well if 90ish percent of the fragments move at the same order of magnitude as a rifle round (well known Vietnam war statistic so modern grenades and shells would be the same or better) then you would need that level of protection or better for real protection against fragments. Chinaowns mentions flak jackets but if he read books he would know that flak jackets provided pitiful protection against grenades. They were mostly a feel good measure and only in modern times has body armor developed to the point where there's real protection against fragments. For example the pictures he showed comes from a site which claims Level IIIA protection for that particular vest. So what is the logic in wearing such pathetic armor in war if it can't even protect against a normal military sidearm or even most fragments? In fact on the same site they sell ceramic plates. Unless he is blind he must have noticed that. What is laughable is one of the last pics he posted has pockets for plates yet he continues to lie and say they aren't necessary.

Nevermind that a flak jacket is not a bulletproof vest. First he claims that flak jackets are sufficient, then when told that modern flak jackets all have pockets for ceramic or steel plates he mentions bulletproof vests which are not designed nor provide protection against fragmentation at all. Fragments would shred bulletproof vests and bulletproof vests are for police, not military. None of the pictures he has posted show soldiers wearing tight fitting police style bulletproof vests but a higher level protection with pockets for plates. Yet he posts a picture of one. So he just keeps moving the goalposts and hopes nobody notices .

 

[siegecrossbow]

Body armor would probably be a hindrance in a hypothetical battle between two nations with up to date assault rifles. I don't recall the Russian troops wearing any body armor when they curbstomped the armor-equipped Georgians in 2008.

There is also something interesting about the design of China's 5.8 mm ammunition. The bullet, according to an expert on CCTV, would actually do more damage if it struck body armor since the bullet is more likely to tumble in the body of the victim if armor is worn (don't think you can walk away from an assault rifle round if you wore nothing though, either ).

 

[CardSharp]

Body armor would probably be a hindrance in a hypothetical battle between two nations with up to date assault rifles. I don't recall the Russian troops wearing any body armor when they curbstomped the armor-equipped Georgians in 2008.

Having air superiority helps

 

[Developereo]

Having air superiority helps

Having space domination helps even more