Abstract
This study aimed to provide normative data characterising the torsos and breasts of female soldiers and to determine which torso and breast anthropometric measurements contributed to reports of poor body armour fit. Ninety-seven female Australian Army soldiers completed a questionnaire about their experience with current-issue body armour, including perceptions of fit. Participants also attended a single testing session where we took a three-dimensional scan of their breasts and torso and collected several anthropometric measurements to characterise their torso size and shape. Sixteen of the 22 breast and torso measurements collected were significantly related to the perceived fit of current-issue body armour systems. To improve perceptions of fit for female soldiers and, in turn, reduce movement interference, discomfort, and barriers to occupational performance, future body armour systems should cater to the wide range of female breast and torso shapes and sizes.
Highlights
Military body armour functions to protect the vital thoracoabdominal organs of soldiers from ballistic, fragmentation and stab threats (Choi et al, 2016; Laing and Jaffrey, 2019)
This included anthropometric dimensions recommended by the Australian Warfighter Anthropometry Survey (AWAS) as being pertinent to body armour (Edwards et al, 2014) and several additional measurements from AWAS deemed potentially relevant by subject matter experts within the Australian Army
Comparisons of the mean value or mean rank of the torso characteristics among participants who reported that their body armour was “too small” (n = 14; 14%), a “good fit” (n = 30; 31%) or “too large” (n = 53; 55%) are presented in Description of how the measurement was calculated in Geomagic
Summary
Military body armour functions to protect the vital thoracoabdominal organs of soldiers from ballistic, fragmentation and stab threats (Choi et al, 2016; Laing and Jaffrey, 2019). Can introduce integration issues between the human user and the system, as well as present a mass burden (Knapik et al, 2004). These integration issues are amplified if the body armour system is ill-fitting. It is vital that a body armour system (comprising front and rear hard and soft ballistic plates encased in a carrier) interfaces appropriately with a soldier’s torso (i.e., fits correctly) and integrates well with other elements of a soldier’s combat ensemble (Furnell et al, 2017).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
