"Marines in flakjacket" Topic

So two new ranges Gringo 40 and Empress have marines in flak jacket,
The gringo range is specifically for Hue, but the empress is just marines.
Did the marines always keep the flak jacket?
I've always been told the simplistic view that the army didn't use them the marines did, so it's an easy way to tell the difference.

I see most marines did have them at the Sanh, but that was a siege with incoming fire on the base.

But would the marines keep the flak jacket while humping through the jungle?

The Army used Body Armor especially during Hamburger Hill. The USMC and the US Army may have worn Body Armor based on orders of their higher HQ. And the type of mission/patrol.

I don't know if there was a standard rule for both services. But let there be no doubt wearing a flak vest in a jungle environment would really suck !

Most everything I've read the Marines wore flack jackets. When I can
In back in the 80's we still had StaffNco's in the company that were Nam Vets and they told us they wore them all the time. Here is link to a set of photos and most of the Marines are wearing them.

link

Thanks, so I can safely get some flak jacket marines, and use them for outside of Hue scenarios.

The use of the "flack vest" generally is considered to have reduced casualties by @ 25%, IIRC.

I've seen photos of even USN PBR and PCF crews wore them.

My impression is the Marines wore their flak vests more than the US Army.

The Airmobile units I read wore them less or hardly at all, since they operated further from base and had more to carry.

All my data is anecdotal.

Troops operating far from base and carrying food ammo water for several days with little prospect of heavy contact likely did not wear their vests.

Troops operating on patrols with daily resupply in late afternoon and with a higher risk of sniping or booby traps would be more likely to wear their vests.

If you wanted to be scientific about it I would search photos and take account of where the troops are and what they are doing.

I also read somewhere the marines had a heavier and more effective vest than the Army. Anybody else able to confirm or dispel that?

Some of what you posted I believe you are generally correct. But as I pointed out the local unit Cdr[PL, C/Cdr, etc.] could make changes, including the wearing of body armor, etc., based on the situation, etc.

I don't believe the USMC used a different Vest than the ARMY. I have never heard that.

The Army and USMC each had their own version of the flak jacket.

Now that I did not know ! Thanks !

Legion,
I am surprised that the flak jackets would reduce casualties by 25%. Not trying to be jerk but I am just surprised. My understanding was it was only effective against shrapnel. In WW II most combat casualties were caused by artillery but in Vietnam that was not the case; at least for the US. Please tell me more.
Agree it was generally used by both army and marines. I didn't realize the army/marine flak vests were different. The versions might have been but were the differences cosmetic? 79th, do you know?
Thank you both for teaching me.

Joe

I guess the USMC just like being 'special'.

As to effectiveness, -25% CASUALTIES is credible though I think it reduced the non-lethal shrapnel injuries much more than bullet wounds.

From what I remember of the versions of Flak Vest, the USMC were heavier and thicker than the Army's. I don't remember where I got this from. Perhaps a novel/memoir.

- 25% CASUALTIES means not only fatalities. I suppose wounded are counted in there ,too. So that would make sense then.

Again, I was unaware of the USMC having a different "Flak Vest" than the US ARMY. Will have to research that for my own knowledge.

25% CASUALTIES means not only fatalities.

Yes …

Please tell me more.

From my research on US Casualties in Vietnam/SE Asia :

Small Arms – 51% KIA – 16% WIA
Artillery – 36% " – 65% "
Booby Traps/
Mines – 11% " – 15% "
Punji stakes – 0 " – 2% "
Other – 2% " – 2% "

So a quick analysis : Most KIAs from Small Arms/Most WIAs from Artillery …

Locations:

KIA/WIA
39%/14% – Head
19%/7% – Chest
18%/5% – Groin Area
1%/18% – Arms
7%/36% – Legs
16%/20% – Multiple locations

The figures may have been updates but I feel these are generally accurate.

My understanding was it was only effective against shrapnel.

Most body armor will not effectively stop a direct hit from an assault or long rifle round generally. Lower velocity shrapnel and secondary missiles[e.g. rocks, branches, etc.] can be stopped by most body armor. Also today's body armor is generally much better than those used in Vietnam. However, it does not make you "bullet proof" …

Note: Small Arms KIAs in WWII = 32% … Korean War = 33%.
The higher rate of KIAs in Vietnam is with the advent of light weight, high velocity rds. from assault rifles, e.g. AK47s and captured M16s, etc.,.

Legion,
Thank you for the info. I know a little of your background and realize you don't know mine. Suffice to say I am reasonably well versed in flak vests, wound ballistics and the wounds high and low velocity rounds cause. : )
Your casualties for artillery seem high until I thought about rear areas. I was thinking about a firefight. Communist forces rarely had much artillery with which to cause shrapnel during a firefight. they did however mortar rear areas. Still seems high but I could be wrong. Thanks.
Where are you getting the info that flak jackets reduced casualties by25%? That is fascinating to me as I have never read that. In Desert Storm Flak Jackets were felt to increase the lethality of wounds sustained by more than a third ( close to 50% if I recall) because less lethal wounds were not sustained. Still it was not reported as a 33% reduction in wounds sustained. Sorry to bother you but a professional curiosity I suppose.

Some of the artillery casualties could be 'friendly' fire.

The PAVN/NLF did have quite a lot of mortars and rockets. The mortars were especially effective when used against bases or NDPs [Night defensive positions]. If the PAVN/NLF were well established in the area they would know the locations of pretty much all likely NDPs and have them measured out so it was probable the first round would land inside the perimeter and cause casualties. In the case of permanent bases they were even easier to target.

A few mortar bombs or rockets would not cause mass casualties, but the steady trickle of WIAs/KIAs sapped morale. Some troops apparently preferred to 'in the field' to on base because they felt more in control of the situation. Again, I recall this from memoirs so not hard data.

Another thing we must not forget is the war was not just against lightly armed guerillas as is often portrayed in movies/TV shows. Main force NLF and PAVN were modern light infantry forces. They had mortars, heavy weapons and if close to the DMZ had conventional artillery and rocket launchers that could reach well into I Corps areas and were largely immune to retaliation. Same goes for situations close to the borders with Laos and Cambodia.

Yes I found this about the US ARMY and USMC flak vests. They were different :

The M-1952 Body Armor was developed during the Korean War by the U.S. Army and continued in use through the Vietnam War years. This was the flak vest most frequently issued to Army personnel during the Vietnam War.

The M-1955 USMC Armored Vest
The USMC M-1951 was upgraded and became the USMC M-1955, used by the Marine Corps in Vietnam. Like the Army vests used in Vietnam, the M-1951 "Marine Vest" was developed during the Korean War …

link

Yes, I agree with what Skarper's post above. Mortars & rockets used by the NVA/VC(PAVN/NLF) were many and used very often. Plus the NVA did have some FA of USSR and/or PRC design.

Thank you both. That makes sense
Legion Didn't realize the two vests were different
Interesting

Joe I can't remember where I got that figure of 25% loss reduction for wearing body armor in Vietnam. But I will continue search. As now I am curious !

Of course with 4 years in ROTC, then almost 11 years on active duty in primarily Infantry units[4 Inf Bns]. With all the courses and classes we took/had to take. All books, journals, etc. I read. I probably heard/read that in those classes, books, etc. ?

I still have my VN era flak jacket and I've tried on my son's modern body armor/SAPI plate. I really don't think you'd be able to move through thick jungle in modern armor. Has anyone done it?

His SAPI plate stopped a 4" piece of shrapnel from a Russian 122mm arty IED. It knocked him down and stuck in the plate, I have it now. Another time an AK round hit the edge of his SAPI plate and fragmented and some pieces got into his chest cavity. My flak jacket would have been worthless. However, the flak jackets give 360-degree protection to the torso against small fragments. His armor didn't have a side plate which would have come in handy when he got hit in the side torso by grenade fragments.

My VN era flak jacket will stop a .22 LR at point blank with only a small dent in it. I think it has fiberglass and ceramic plates. A friend of mine walking point in VN had an AK round ricochet off his flak jacket and it saved his life. It must have been the angle or cheap Chi-Com ammo from an SKS.

Wolfhag

Yes flak jacket/body armor tech certainly has progressed since Vietnam. Thank the Lord !

As I said, never moved thru the jungle with a flak vest of any type but I'm sure it would have sucked !

Body armor has come a long way due to the study of casualties and the development of lighter materials. As you mentioned after it was realized many folks were getting hit through the sides engineers came up with a solution for that. 5 years from now it will even be better. Helmets do have improved greatly. Nothing is easy in heavy jungle !

Yes, we started out with the old "steel pot" then in @ '85 we got the Kevlar. In the ROK, '84-'85, the Light Inf units got the newer Kevlar Vests. The Mech & Tankers … we still used the older ones.

When I was with the 101, '80-'83, we still had the older version, the same we had issued in the ROK in '84.

Regardless moving thru the jungle in any body armor would be "challenging" … Or even moving any distance dismounted in the desert.

In the early 1970's almost all of the Marine Corps infantry web gear, packs, shelter halves, helmet and mortars were WWII design with the M-14 a slight improvement over the M1 Garand.

Hey, does anyone else have a VN era flak jacket? Mine use to fit but I can swear it's shrunk. Has anyone else experienced this shrinking problem?

Wolfhag

I had a full vietnam kit, everything except the actual fatigues(and jungle boots) were original.
It included a flak jacket. But I have no idea if it was marine or army.
But it all got stolen from my basement. (Except the reproduction boots)

The reason modern soldiers don't use plate carriers in jungle or forest is the same as as why the army in Vietnam often didn't.
If you're trekking 20k a day in high humidity the chances of you collapsing and even dying from heatstroke is far higher than the off chance you'd get shoot or hit by shrapnel.

A modern plate carrier is even heavier and tighter than Vietnam era flak jacket.
So it's mostly used when your close to support (vehicles, armor, choppers etc)

You see this clearly in combat pictures today, if they are in Afghanistan or Iraq erc they usually have plate carriers.
If they are in jungles or forest humping along on foot, they aren't wearing them.
If you watch Act of valour you'll see it too. When they are in the jungle they don't have armor. When they are in the city they are wearing it.

When I was an ROTC cadet, '75-'79. For a couple of years we got issued M14s. Before the we were issued M16s.

When they are in the jungle they don't have armor. When they are in the city they are wearing it.

That is a good SOP, generally.