|
Post by bluetrain on May 6, 2018 10:41:21 GMT
I'd say that for a cutting stroke, either chopping or slashing, the chest area is not a likely target. Instead, the target would more likely be the neck, head and limbs. So the question is then, how much protection do those places have on the body. Some flak jackets have standing collars but no more than two or three inches and a downward cut could easily bypass the protection, provided the enemy cooperated and stood still. Practically any helmet beyond a bike helmet would protect the head. That is, most of the head but not the face. Japanese swordsmanship focused on a downward cut, so helmets were fairly elaborate as a consequence. Anyway, a typical bulletproof vest as worn by policemen has no neck protection and except in the winter, arms and legs have little protection in the way of clothing. But who gets in fights in the winter?
For a thrusting weapon, though, I'd say that most flak jackets are sufficient protection.
For other military gear a soldier is likely to be wearing, it would be hit or miss, in a manner of speaking. He would be wearing all sorts of pouches that would give good protection to the waist area and the braces/webbing/harness would also give some protection to the shoulders. This is all assuming you can get close enough.
|
|
|
Post by verc on Jun 6, 2019 8:01:58 GMT
A modern US soldier is more or less a cuirassier who wears a space magic plastic helmet and a space magic brick cuirass instead of steel...and he doesnt ride a horse, either.
Youre not getting through the chest or helmet with a sword, regardless of whether it's cut or thrust. Treat him like a cuirassier:
Cut to the cheeks, snipe wrists, cut his leading leg.
If anything, it'd even be easier to make these cuts on a modern soldier than on a napoleonic cuirassier, given that the modern soldier is wearing nylon-cotton instead of thicker wool as his base uniform.
|
|