A Comparison of Military and Law Enforcement Body Armour
Robin Orr,
Ben Schram and
Rodney Pope
Additional contact information
Robin Orr: Tactical Research Unit—Bond Institute of Health and Sport; Gold Coast 4226, Australia
Ben Schram: Tactical Research Unit—Bond Institute of Health and Sport; Gold Coast 4226, Australia
Rodney Pope: Tactical Research Unit—Bond Institute of Health and Sport; Gold Coast 4226, Australia
IJERPH, 2018, vol. 15, issue 2, 1-12
Abstract:
Law-enforcement officers increasingly wear body armour for protection; wearing body armour is common practice in military populations. Law-enforcement and military occupational demands are vastly different and military-styled body armour may not be suitable for law-enforcement. This study investigated differences between selected military body armour (MBA: 6.4 kg) and law-enforcement body armour (LEBA: 2.1 kg) in impacts on postural sway, vertical jump, agility, a functional movement screen (FMS), task simulations (vehicle exit; victim recovery), and subjective measures. Ten volunteer police officers (six females, four males) were randomly allocated to one of the designs on each of two days. Body armour type did not significantly affect postural sway, vertical jump, vehicle exit and 5 m sprint times, or victim recovery times. Both armour types increased sway velocity and sway-path length in the final five seconds compared to the first 5 s of a balance task. The MBA was associated with significantly slower times to complete the agility task, poorer FMS total scores, and poorer subjective ratings of performance and comfort. The LEBA was perceived as more comfortable and received more positive performance ratings during the agility test and task simulations. The impacts of MBA and LEBA differed significantly and they should not be considered interchangeable.
Keywords: police; armor; occupational tasks; load; personal protective equipment; army; defense (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)
Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/2/339/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/2/339/ (text/html)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:2:p:339-:d:131913
Access Statistics for this article
IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu
More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().