U.S. Army to Test Body Armor Built Specifically For Women - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;36937345]Armor of any kind is most effective when it's a wall. Angles have a way of undermining the armor by guiding impacts, and impacts guided by breast-shape tend to hit in vital areas.[/QUOTE]You mean a uniformly flat surface, or close to a flat surface, right? I think a middle ground between silly boob molds and the current flat pieces would be good. You'd need about an inch of space where the breasts are to properly relieve them of painful compression. Plus the female torso structure is slightly different than a male's torso, with less broad of shoulders and things like that. Kevlar armor doesn't have the shot-trap effect, and if you're wearing ceramic plates they [i]shatter[/i] anyway. The bullet isn't going to ricochet and be guided towards the lower ribs or sternum, the plate cracks and shatters which absorbs the impact.

[QUOTE=ironman17;36936766]Though boob-bumps in armour might seem like they look stupid, doommarine's statement about form-fitting being comfortable rings true. Fashion is not a high priority on the battlefield; comfort and protection are on higher rungs of the ladder. Uncomfortable squashed boobs don't exactly stop bullets or win skirmishes, y'see. Also, on the subject of armour, I wondered why the modern soldier doesn't wear tough plated armour similar to the age of blade and arrow, and then I remembered it was heavy and weighty; you could probably soak up regular bullets, but you couldn't exactly avoid an RPG in heavy armour; plus most soldiers wear ballistic kevlar stuff, relying on agility and not getting hit as opposed to soaking up hits. If and when hybrid-assisted limb systems become advanced enough, perhaps "armoured infantry" would be a viable thing, with specialists in power armour supporting the traditional "light infantry" that is the model of the modern soldier. The power armour would need to have some semblance of agility, still, since those tanky armoured infantry probably wouldn't last too long if an insurgent fired a HEAT missile or used some other kind of anti-armour explosive.[/QUOTE] You don't need form fitting body armour at all, you need supporting body armour (you also kinda do need to have form fitting to reduce ballistic power, but that's a different thing). Hell pressure against breasts isn't problematic either. Better something is squishing them towards the body, than having them loose. Generally speaking, what armour designed for women should have, is support in areas where men don't need it. Sports bras tend to be relatively tight and are some of the most comfortable pieces of clothing anyone can wear. In part, because they do exactly what they're meant to do. Give support. Essentially the problem I guess with current vests are the cuts as opposed to internal structure. The thing is designed for a male figure (essentially inverted triangle), so it doesn't matter how much you downsize it, it will always have more or less the same problems. Too large shoulders. Too large waste, too small hips. There's probably issues with weight distribution as well. As you'll probably want to have the centre of balance a bit lower for a woman than for a man.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/FXCFv.gif[/IMG]

Armor better suited for female soldiers (workers) to fight imperialist wars for the capitalists, nice.

[QUOTE=Otsegolation;36937434]Er, one size does not fit all. I bet you that first chick is flat chested.[/QUOTE] its like you think they issue the same sized body armour for every male in the army

Who cares about body armor anyway. Don't want to puncture your organs? Well how about we spread that impact with body armor. Yeah, that's better. Now your internal organs are moved around instead.

[QUOTE=Otsegolation;36937711]Who cares about body armor anyway.[/QUOTE] uhh people who get shot at for a living

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;36937571]You'd need about an inch of space where the breasts are to properly relieve them of painful compression.[/QUOTE] I would actually say about 2-3 inches to be able to move your arms right and breath. Maximum squish takes up about an inch at least from the chest and makes it rather uncomfortable to move your arm forward, and hard to breath.

To people talking about how molding individual breasts into armor, plate mail or otherwise, I've heard that the reason that is impractical is because while you have perfect convex boobie shapes on the outer side of the armour, what you have created inside, with the thin piece of metal which separates the boob cups is a wedge shape which, should the person wearing the armor take a blow to the chest, would act like an axe to their sternum.

Who cares about your heart and organs when your boobs won't get hurt.

[QUOTE=Nannak;36937677]Armor better suited for female soldiers (workers) to fight imperialist wars for the capitalists, nice.[/QUOTE] Here is this weeks honorary LULZ FUK DEH US shit poster. Let's all sit around and watch.

This discussion is silly. It's probably just minor adjustments to the size and fit. I doubt there would be much of a visual difference between the male and female versions in the end.

[QUOTE=Blazyd;36937921]Who cares about your heart and organs when your boobs won't get hurt.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure breast bumps won't diminish how protective the armor is.

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;36938288]I'm pretty sure breast bumps won't diminish how protective the armor is.[/QUOTE] They do. They're structural weak-points, they add unnecessary surface area and the excessively curved surface does not distribute impact effectively, either shattering or deflecting a bullet along the curve (and into the wearer's chest.) The seams are also very weak points, as impact is focused along the seam exclusively, likely allowing a bullet to penetrate the armor. Breast-molds are entirely impractical with modern ballistic armor for the same reasons as medieval molded armor would have been impractical for Joan of Arc. When being attacked with a bladed weapon, the curves do not deflect the weapon, but rather guide it either up or down directly toward a seam in the armor (which is a very weak point). It would actually make stabbing an opponent through the heart EASIER of their armor is curved. Ballistic armor would guide bullets on the same principle, focusing the force of impact rather than absorbing it. [editline]25th July 2012[/editline] Not to mention the molded armor you people seem so keen on would not allow for the wearer to be using supportive garments underneath. And if a woman with any considerable bust for specially molded armor to even be a prospect, she would NEED to be wearing supportive garments otherwise anything so much as running would become painful after a short period of time. ITT gamers have no idea how breasts work. this is what ballistic armor looks like on a woman: [img]http://www.bigredhair.com/mp/MP2.jpg[/img] I don't know how the fuck anyone thinks more obvious tits are going to help in that equation. It's a warzone, not spring break. Despite all the talk in this thread, comfort has NEVER been a top concern for military outfitters. Ask anyone who's ever worn a MOPP suit in a [I]desert country.[/I]

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;36938288]I'm pretty sure breast bumps won't diminish how protective the armor is.[/QUOTE] lankist i can't believe you are actually arguing about breast bumps

dude i can argue about anything. I have an eidetic memory when it comes to the eclectic research I do. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] also i know lots of words

[QUOTE=Rhenae;36937732]I would actually say about 2-3 inches to be able to move your arms right and breath. Maximum squish takes up about an inch at least from the chest and makes it rather uncomfortable to move your arm forward, and hard to breath.[/QUOTE]I should have said an extra inch, there's about that currently in vests. Just enough to keep from total compression and allow for the breasts to be adequately supported. Maybe something adjustable, but a ballistic plate still goes somewhere in there so no matter what's done, that's going to be the deciding factor. Current manufacturing methods [i]would[/i] allow a slightly convex shape (if viewed from the side, the plates are already convex to match the curve of the ribcage) for the breasts. That would, however, complicate support issues, as the load wouldn't "hang" from the shoulders and rest against the torso properly. Kevlar is easy to work with, but a ceramic armor plate is about ten to twenty pounds, and if it doesn't sit right it'll be really uncomfortable and probably unsafe if it stops a round.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36938418]They do. They're structural weak-points, they add unnecessary surface area and the excessively curved surface does not distribute impact effectively, either shattering or deflecting a bullet along the curve (and into the wearer's chest.) The seams are also very weak points, as impact is focused along the seam exclusively, likely allowing a bullet to penetrate the armor. Breast-molds are entirely impractical with modern ballistic armor for the same reasons as medieval molded armor would have been impractical for Joan of Arc. When being attacked with a bladed weapon, the curves do not deflect the weapon, but rather guide it either up or down directly toward a seam in the armor (which is a very weak point). It would actually make stabbing an opponent through the heart EASIER of their armor is curved. Ballistic armor would guide bullets on the same principle, focusing the force of impact rather than absorbing it. [editline]25th July 2012[/editline] Not to mention the molded armor you people seem so keen on would not allow for the wearer to be using supportive garments underneath. And if a woman with any considerable bust for specially molded armor to even be a prospect, she would NEED to be wearing supportive garments otherwise anything so much as running would become painful after a short period of time. ITT gamers have no idea how breasts work. this is what ballistic armor looks like on a woman: [img]http://www.bigredhair.com/mp/MP2.jpg[/img] I don't know how the fuck anyone thinks more obvious tits are going to help in that equation. It's a warzone, not spring break. Despite all the talk in this thread, comfort has NEVER been a top concern for military outfitters. Ask anyone who's ever worn a MOPP suit in a [I]desert country.[/I][/QUOTE] Congrads you win the argument. You don't get a prize.

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;36939370]Congrads you win the argument. You don't get a prize.[/QUOTE] The satisfaction he gets from knowing he's right is all Lankist ever needs.