(Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE

[Imp]

Players should note that body armor would have a serious effect in playbalance, making armies with those nearly invincible, Like T-54 x M1 Abrahms(even early ones)

From what I understand would have as much effect on the game as troops wearing a beret or helmet as in none. If lucky & a glancing blow may prevent an injury otherwise just reduces the level of. Reasonable measure of protection vs shrapnel but like helmets that bullets most likely going through it, cost comfort as in weight & climate allowing wearer to operate effectivly all restrict it.
The tank analogy would be decent ammo storage so it does not go bang once penetrated.

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

Well, i've seen somewhere some sort of body armor that can stop an AK-47 shot at close range,and a helmet made of the same material, i wonder if it is true, as nobody seems to know it, but the video and the ak looked real, btw IMP's post made me think, most tanks ammo is stored on the turret, so hull hits are less deadly?(for armor piercing)

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP

Well, i've seen somewhere some sort of body armor that can stop an AK-47 shot at close range,and a helmet made of the same material, i wonder if it is true,
as nobody seems to know it, but the video and the ak looked real,

Some clarifications. Body armor capable of withstanding AK-47 shots not only does exist but has been standard issue for each soldier in the iraqi/afghan theater for years.
The most common type has been the Interceptor body armor: a basic kevlar vest capable of stopping fragments and pistol shots upon which ceramic inserts capable of stopping 7.62x51mm NATO are applied.
What I did not know the last time we discussed this and I still do not know is in what condition one is left after being hit by an AK round. It would appear that typically one can get away with minor bruises and keep fighting but I have only found anedoctes about this, no statistical evidence.
Even if one can get away with an AK hit in the chest there are still several issues to consider:

1) The armor only covers a portion of the body weight/heat/mobility/etc issues usually forbide extending it further.
You get shot/hit in area with no cover or only a lower level of protection, you are still going to be killed of incapacitated.

2) The armor offer only a certain level of protection.
For example if I am not mistaken a PK machine gun (which is to say, a relatively common weapon in places like Iraq/Afghanistan), owing to the more powerful cartridge and longer barrel, has a good chance of piercing even the heaviest armored portion of the vest, at least with some types of ammunition.

3)Further the composite plates performance against repeated hits is worse than that of normal metal armor.

So the bottom line is that body armor is more something that gives an extra chance rather than something that turns a soldier into unstoppable robocop

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP

btw IMP's post made me think, most tanks ammo is stored on the turret, so hull hits are less deadly?(for armor piercing)

The answer is something along the lines of "it depends". I will make some examples.

Leopard 2A4
1) 15 rounds in the turret bustle with blow off panels and armored doors separating them from the crew.
2) 27 rounds in the hull in thin walled racks, perhaps some protection but nothing special.

Leclerc
1) 22 rounds in the turret bustle with blow off panels and armored door separating them from the crew.
2) 18 rounds in the hull in thin walled racks, perhaps some protection but nothing special(if I am not mistaken).

Ariete
42 rounds, all in the hull in thin walled racks, perhaps some protection but nothing special.

And to show what I mean for "thin walled racks, perhaps some protection but nothing special"



Source http://www.ferreamole.it

In general the norm for western MBTs is that of leaving no vulnerable rounds in the turret; beyond this the degree of ammunition protection ranges between the Abrams (maximum) and the Ariete (minimum).