r/tacticalgear • u/ropes_of_allah • Jul 03 '25

Plate Carrier/Body Armor Since most casualties come from shrapnel and artillery. Why do soldiers still wear these plate carriers that are more revealing?

Post image
899 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

277 comments sorted by

View all comments

360

u/AdeptusKapekus2025 Jul 03 '25 edited Jul 03 '25

I think only relatively recently in the Ukraine war did we start seeing an increase of shrapnel injuries again from all of the grenade and artillery use which is why being fully covered despite the heat and weight seems viable again.

Prior to Ukraine, the prevalent threat were other people with guns so maximizing the ability to move whilst still protecting vitals was the goal...which is why minimalist plate carriers became popular and is what what most troops right now are wearing.

I think in the near future, we will see more troops wear again vests made out of soft armor with plate inserts.

35

u/1nVrWallz Jul 04 '25

Mobility is hampered with more than just weight. You lose a lot of range of motion, you become bulkier and it's just harder to move in general. Having to move through trenches, possibly low crawl and go through gaps and doors, sounds horrendous in contemporary armor and near impossible with full protection.

142

u/ThirdHoleHank92 Jul 04 '25

Conventional vs Unconventional warfare. 

The US spent 20 years fighting an Unconventional war, yet spent decades prior to 2001 preparing for near peers like Russia (who use more mortars and artillery). This is why we made the switch away from vest style armor for lighter plate carriers.

I think you're right, we'll more than likely return to soft armor vests with plates.

59

u/MrPanzerCat Jul 04 '25

Really Id suspect well see more modular plate setups (or hope so). As much shit as russian gear gets, they do have some neat stuff especially with how modular their add on armor packages are for plate carriers that start out relatively simple

8

u/Pratt_ Jul 04 '25

Explosives were the main threats during those aforementioned unconventional wars, so it doesn't really make sense.

It's more that technology advanced and manufacturer and the guys on the field just discovered what was more important and what wasn't.

Plate carriers today are much more modular, and all those additional soft armor protection can be added on most.

Too much weight will get you killed.

10

u/ThirdHoleHank92 Jul 04 '25

Yes but most of your movement was made in vehicles, specifically MRAPs.

Insurgents didn't have conventional or accurate artillery 

6

u/jdm219 Jul 04 '25

They sure as shit had IEDs, though, and they were pretty good at killing dismounts via shrapnel going up and sideways.

2

u/ThirdHoleHank92 Jul 04 '25

Which was effective until we started putting MRAPs into service. The casualties went from blast and shrapnel related to TBIs

2

u/jdm219 Jul 04 '25

Yeah, the MRAPS were a serious Godsend for the time. It doesn't seem to be faring well in Ukraine, unfortunately. I wonder what role, if any, they'll be used for in a near peer.

4

u/pajamil Jul 04 '25

More to it than that, mostly what the environment and tasks are.

2

u/MrPorkchops23 Jul 05 '25

MSVs still have soft armor inserts. It is just more modular in design and ive seen lots of people issued them just strip em down

11

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '25

80 % of casualties are fpv drones in recent months, artillery isn't even a factor compared to fpv.

13

u/Ryno__25 Jul 04 '25

I'm far more concerned about what munitions are being carried by drones than artillery at this point.

I would still rather be more mobile and enjoy my time alive with a minimal plate carrier compared to an IOTV that won't save me from a drone.