CCNA >> I am not interested in refuting anybody. You wrote, and I quote: "Soldiers in WWII did not have Armor. Even their metal helmets were not going to stop any shrapnel or bullets. All they had were clothes."
I provided links to sources about WWII soldiers which did have and used armour. And not as part of some experiment in some obscure isolated cases. I was not arguing how common it was, neither I discussed its effectiveness. I don't think I know enough to be qualified. But you seems to know more then me...
I was poking you with that statement.
Yes, I mistyped in the first post about saying no one had armor. But really, that statement was effectively true. No troops regularly used armor in WWII in combat, or if they did, not for very long. I studied WWII extensively in the 70's both for academic curiosity and for the Model Building I was doing back then. In all the discussions of Body Armor in WWII, the troops universally pitched the stuff as it was for all intents useless and wearing it was more dangerous than not. Even without the reduced mobility, the stuff was just not comfortable to wear. The weight of the early armor was almost as much as all the other gear combined that they carried. The thickenss of the metal required to stop a combat load bullet made for very heavy armor. They did come up with a relatively light weight armor, but the area covered was small, and the armor was not effective at dealing with most of the stuff flying around on the battlefield. By the time the first skirmishes or battles were over, what was not working for the troops, armor or other kit, was dumped so that either more ammo and other necessary supplies could be carried.