Armpit.

This is coolbert:

Interesting program on the nightly news last night about the body armor U.S. troops in Iraq are wearing. This body armor protects the front and back of the torso, and also covers the groin area. It is effective body armor. Can have a kevlar insert placed in a pocket over the chest area for added protection.

These improvised explosive devices [IED] the insurgents are using in Iraq seem to have found a chink in this body armor. As many of these IED's are exploded from roadsides as a convoy passes, the armor is not stopping shrapnel that hits from the side of the body. Soldiers are being hit and killed by shrapnel that hits them in areas where the armor does not cover. On the side of the body and under the arm pit. This type of injury does not mean the body armor is useless or ineffective. The body armor is very protective against the type of missiles [shrapnel, bullets, etc.] flying around the battlefield under normal combat. But these IED's are not within the range of normal combat.

On the news program, it was shown how two combat medics, observing the type and placement of the wounds suffered by American GI's devised an expedient adaption to the body armor to protect against the wounds caused by the IED's. This expedient consisted of removing the groin protection of the armor vest and constructing what I can best describe as a shoulder pad with an armored flap hanging down. This allows for limited protection of the side of the body and the arm pit. Limited protection but adequate protection against the type of wounds that have been killing GI's. So good has been this expedient, the U.S. Army has decided to incorporate this design in the latest batch of newly manufactured body armor.

This type of wounding, in the side or in the armpit, resulting in death, has been seen in the olden past.

During the time of dueling with rapier and dagger, a wounding of the area under the armpit was the most common way to dispatch [kill] an opponent.

Both the rapier and dagger were stabbing weapons, not designed for slashing. And the techniques used by the duelists took this into account. Stabbing a person under the armpit was a common form of attack, resulting in a wound that would generally kill the victim, by either bleeding to death or by having the victim choke on their own blood, if the lungs are pierced. I even believe that Shakespeare mentions such a wounding and death in one of his plays [Romeo and Juliet?].

Another instance of where the arm pit was a target was in medieval times. Men-a-foot were able to confront and defeat armored, mounted knights, knights whose vanquishing usually entailed a stab to the armpit.

Such a combat, however, would be much more difficult and dangerous than a duel between two persons armed with rapier and dagger. A team of men-a-foot, usually four in number, would be armed with one man wielding a dagger, another man wielding a large mallet, and the two other men carrying long poles forked on the end. Such a confrontation between the armored mounted knight and the men-a-foot would normally proceed as follow:

The two men armed with the forked poles would attack simultaneously from either side, attempting to unhorse the knight, wedging the forks of the poles into the knight's body, pushing and prodding.

Once unhorsed, the dismounted knight would then be further attacked by the man wielding the mallet. The knight would be smashed in the helmet with the mallet, stunning and knocking the knight senseless.

Finally, the man armed with the dagger would close in and stab the knight under the armpit, the knight at this point be unhorsed, stunned, and in all probability, laying flat on the ground and defenseless. Death of course, would be slow, bleeding to death or choking on one's own blood!

Only the most resolute, trained, and determined men-a-foot would be capable of dealing with a mounted, armored knight in this manner.

Sometimes the old ways are the best ways!!

[Personal note: An examination of the on-line texts for rapier and dagger show the opponents in a stance as you would expect a modern boxer to assume, side to side.. A cut to the opponent would be almost by definition to be to the side of the body and not to the front. Nonetheless, a stab wound to the side, especially to the arm pit, would almost inevitably be fatal.]

coolbert.