| Author |
Message |
|
Christopher H
|
 Posted: Mon 29 Mar, 2010 2:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
If the technology and expense requirements for individualised armour could be met, it makes me wonder if the effort would be allocated instead of improving unmanned vehicles... as they can already carry weapons and have already been surrendered to! An unmanned fighting vehicle on land might be an 'interesting future' that has been realised in hollywood...
|
|
  |
 |
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Mar, 2010 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christopher H wrote: | | If the technology and expense requirements for individualized armour could be met, it makes me wonder if the effort would be allocated instead of improving unmanned vehicles... as they can already carry weapons and have already been surrendered to! An unmanned fighting vehicle on land might be an 'interesting future' that has been realized in Hollywood... |
Well drones in various land, air and sea/undersea versions of varying sizes and missions from almost nanites sized to large war machines: Small ones could act in swarms large ones like unmanned tanks.
Control from remote and safe locations like the current arial drones.
Now mix in A.I. as secondary control or complementary control and a single operator could control multiple machines with tasks to perform, target picking/selecting and let the A.I. handle the fine details i.e. human control of mission and target(s) as well as marking non combatants so that the A.I. could be interdicted from targeting the non combatants and avoid collateral damage. Using pattern and/or face recognition one could mark a long series of targets and at the command the A.I. would " EXECUTE LITERALLY " those marked, be able to keep track of targets it can't immediately shoot but shoot them if re-acquired if they come into view.
Imagine having a target screen and marking a series of legitimate targets in a crowd of innocent civilians and having the A.I. being able to selectively " kill " only the targets with a high probability of not hitting the innocents and minimizing collateral damage.
This all would look like playing a computer game.
Oh, and if the A.I. gets strong enough we could end up with a " Terminator " scenario.   
Human soldiers would still be needed and power armoured soldiers, as in the original Topic, useful as force enhancers in
Close Quarter Combat.
A non technological armed force would be at a tremendous disadvantage, and equal foes with the same capabilities would probably mean a battle of attrition between the " Bots ", " Drones ", Droids " or whatever we want to call them. Man on man warfare would happen if both sides run out of significant numbers of machines. If one side gains the advantage and retains an overwhelming number of " bots " the enemy would have the choices of surrender or destruction.
Anyway, just extrapolating what I think future wars/battles might look like, but one could add even more exotic options like chemical, biological or nightmarish swarms of nanite bots acting like killer bees, piranhas or army ants !
Too much imagination can be a curse at time.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Gottfried P. Doerler
|
| Posted: Tue 30 Mar, 2010 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
i think the race offensive vs defensive armament can`t be won by armour any more.
its hard enough to stop a bullet like .308 / 7,62x51, protecting against bigger calibers like .50 BMG is just impossible without impeding the wearer by excessive weight. (there are also amour penetrating versions of the .50 for use against light armored vehicles - no chance for infantry)
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 30 Mar, 2010 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gottfried P. Doerler wrote: | i think the race offensive vs defensive armament can`t be won by armour any more.
its hard enough to stop a bullet like .308 / 7,62x51, protecting against bigger calibers like .50 BMG is just impossible without impeding the wearer by excessive weight. (there are also amour penetrating versions of the .50 for use against light armored vehicles - no chance for infantry) |
I agree that a .50 BMG would be too much too try to protect from but everything is relative, the powered armour would mean that less than this would mean that pistols, battle rifles would be next to useless so that conventional troops would be forced to carry very heavy machine guns or Barrett like .50 sniper rifles.
The armoured and powered trooper could also be expected to carry weapons capable of threatening other powered troopers so that as with tanks, another armoured powered trooper sort of cancels out his similarly armed opponent.
Powered armour would have it's uses when larger armoured vehicles couldn't operate in close quarters but would be vulnerable to heavy weapons in open combat. Against insurgents armoured troopers would be difficult to stop but not impossible with the right ( heavy to carry ) weapons.
All the other " Bots/drones " possibilities I mentioned in previous post could be better armoured or at least expendable, so armoured suits would be part of a future battle field but not the most important part.
Amour could also be graded in degree.
A) Ordinary troopers with some vitals protected by armour: Basically the current state of affairs .
B) The subject of this Topic using period armour designs to give fuller coverage and with added electronics for communication and situational/command awareness. ( Control of suit temperature to make it wearable in all climates ).
C) Full coverage with NBC protection
D) Powered armour.
E) Small one man tanks. walking tanks ( Star Wars, Avatar )
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Troy G L Williams
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Mar, 2010 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually there is armor for the U.S. soldiers that is similar to armour of past. Notice in the image you have a helmet, gorget, breast plate, pauldrons, breast and back plate, counters, cod piece/tasset, and polyens. The second image shows EOD, full armour, bomb suits. I guess this would be the closest we get to actual "armour".  Most armour of today is designed to stop most small arms and shrapenal, which is a lot of the threat. Mainly your armored vehicle is YOUR armor as a soldier on the ground.
 Attachment: 15.34 KB
U.S. Soldier
Attachment: 32.6 KB
EOD Military and Civilian
v/r,
Troy Williams
"It’s merely a flesh wound." -Monty Python and the Holy Grail
|
|
|
|
|
|
Juan Cocinas
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Apr, 2010 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just saw a news item about boron carbide t-shirts. Combine the third-hardest element with carbon threads (burned cotton weave) and you get a thin, flexible layer of some very tough stuff. Layer this with kevlar and teflon-coated ceramic alloy plate and we might just have a winner folks!
"Resist your time- take a foothold outside it." Lord Acton
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Apr, 2010 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Amour could also be graded in degree.
A) Ordinary troopers with some vitals protected by armour: Basically the current state of affairs .
B) The subject of this Topic using period armour designs to give fuller coverage and with added electronics for communication and situational/command awareness. ( Control of suit temperature to make it wearable in all climates ).
C) Full coverage with NBC protection
D) Powered armour.
E) Small one man tanks. walking tanks ( Star Wars, Avatar ) |
You forgot one degree: helmet-only or completely unarmored troopers, which are still useful for long-range light infantry missions far away from sophisticated friendly supply infrastructures. Unarmored troops are also often the best choice for manning (or attacking) extensive underground or urban defense systems for the simple reason that they don't have much bulk that wouldn't let them crawl or wiggle through narrow holes and small passages!
And of course, if your country is not one of the industrial giants, why bother? No attempt to entirely replace the simple foot-slogging grunt has succeeded since the dawn of warfare and I don't think light infantry will ever become obsolete as long as humans continue to make war against each other.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Apr, 2010 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes I did start with armour use but assumed that minimally or not armoured at all soldiers would still be used i.e. just the helmet.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Walter S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alex L Rubey
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Aug, 2012 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Lyon wrote: | | It is simple really: modern jacketed bullets have hugely higher energy transfer and penetration compared to the ball that original armours might have had to withstand, so modern bullets will just punch neat holes through any material you can make thin enough to retain the movement required of full harness. This is also why modern armours are multilayered and thick, hence only the head and torso are usually protected; the other alternative is somethng like the bomb disposal people wear, but they can barely move in it all. |
actually to the contrary i have found a light strong alloy that can take a 7.62mm nato round with ease, so i'd expect a suit of armor to take headlines in the years to come
Alex R
|
|
 |
|
|
Alex L Rubey
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Aug, 2012 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nat Lamb wrote: | | Jonathan Atkin wrote: | | ...t! Its a neat concept but it would ony be viable in my opinion if it were powered. For instance something along the lines of BattleTech's elemental suits or starship troopers armor but that's not going to happen anytime soon unfortunately. |
actually you can use a materiell that i shall not name, that when introduced to a small electrical charge, will contract
Not sure what the rules of link posting are on this forum, but if you do a quick google search for "Raytheon" and "xos" or "exoskeleton", you will find a current project to make a feasible suit of powered armour. Not sure about the timeline, but it is interesting to note that the catching point is the power source, not the suit itself. |
.
Alex R
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex L Rubey wrote: | | actually to the contrary i have found a light strong alloy that can take a 7.62mm nato round with ease, so i'd expect a suit of armor to take headlines in the years to come |
so what is this magical alloy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph Grinly
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Aug, 2012 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They do make modern suits of armour..they call them "Tanks" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Aug, 2012 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
regarding not being able to stop bullets without being too heavy
| Quote: | i think the race offensive vs defensive armament can`t be won by armour any more.
its hard enough to stop a bullet like .308 / 7,62x51, protecting against bigger calibers like .50 BMG is just impossible without impeding the wearer by excessive weight. (there are also amour penetrating versions of the .50 for use against light armored vehicles - no chance for infantry) |
that is also precisely why the knights continually dropped more and more of their harness as the pieces protecting the vitals got heavier and heavier during the course of the 16th century andas wepons like the forked rest musket became the standard infantry firearm and the guns in general hjust got stronger
troy G williams: what you describe there actualy sounds like a pikemans armour from the renaissance period. or a knights half armour.
not only that one design of greek hoplite breastplate with groin plates also unbcannily represents experimental german steel armour from ww1
but personally im just waiting for the day that we evolve to this level personally,
and also just because you cant stop a 50BMG doesnt mean that a lot of armour is useless i mean a full harness wasnt supoer tough and hick all around the body (although i get the feeling noone denies this either)
Attachment: 17.4 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Smith
Location: Central CA Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Aug, 2012 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben P. wrote: |
The problem with Dragonskin is that the scales tend to pile up around the abdomen so while your guts and kidneys are doing fine your chest is exposed, besides a Modular Tactical Vest with the Ceramic reinforcements will stop 7.62 AP IIRC.
|
The problem with ceramic plates is their multi-hit capability. They are light, and have impressive stopping results for their weight, but once they absorb a few impacts and break apart, their effectiveness is severely reduced.
The product I've been most impressed with for hard armor plates so far is Dyneema (same stuff used to make high-end backpacks and sails for boats). The Dyneema plates that I wear front and back are 10"x12" and sides are 6"x8" will stop multiple hits from 7.62 NATO, 30.06, and 5.56mm. In fact, a few .300 Win mag rounds have been stopped in testing. Surprisingly (or not) 5.56mm in certain flavors is the most difficult to stop. For instance a vest (plates) that will stop 7.62 NATO will often not stop 5.56mm "green tip" (M855).
Underneath my dyneema plates (made by Armored Mobility Inc.), I wear a standard concealment vest of kevlar. Even though both my vest as well as plates are incredibly lightweight compared to their earlier counterparts, the combined weight and bulk reduce maneauverability significantly. I can't imagine trying to fight in a full suit of the stuff (which is why nobody does). My helmet is a PASGT but it is only rated to NIJ Level 2A, if that. Modern MICH helmets offer better protection. I'll try to snap a quick pick of my armor today if I get the chance.
Last edited by D. S. Smith on Wed 22 Aug, 2012 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Wilhelm S.
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Aug, 2012 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is the new helmet put out by Crye. The 3/4 harness is by Tyr.
Attachment: 26.35 KB
Attachment: 38.06 KB
Attachment: 39.78 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Smith
Location: Central CA Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Aug, 2012 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wilhelm, I like that new helmet by Crye! Very medieval looking and seems like it would offer great protection without a huge loss of agility and comfort. Cheek welds with a long gun would be problematic (about like shooting with a gas mask I'd imagine). Any time you start talking about cheek and jaw protection from armor, you're going to give up a lot in weapon stability and sighting. We can't become so focussed on defense that we overly restrict our offensive capability. A long gun (rifle, carbine, shotgun, sub-machinegun, light machinegun, etc), rely heavily on a good cheek weld for stability and accuracy. It's true that IR lasers can be used effectively without a cheek weld when combined with night vision devices, but those vision and sighting devices would be impractical during the day, and even at night they are very restricted in their clarity and field of view.
As promised, here is my armor system. Level IIIA soft kevlar concealment armor underneath with Dyneema hard rifle plates on front, back, and sides, in a carrier. It offers reasonable comfort and agility, while still providing decent protection for vital organs. A common misconception of modern body armor in general, and rifle plates in specific, is that they are designed to protect the entire torso from incoming fire. That is not the case, and would be unwieldy if it were. With advances in training and tools for combat medicine, we've gotten pretty good as an armed society at preventing loss of life suffered from bullet wounds when they hit non-vital areas. With basically every soldier, SWAT operator, etc., now trained and equipped in self-aid and buddy-aid, a lot fewer guys are dying to non-vital area gunshot wounds than in past wars and years. The hard rifle plates are designed solely to keep the organs that would likely cause fairly instant incapacitation if damaged (heart, lungs, etc.) from being penetrated. (the weapon, an MP5 sub-machinegun in this case, is shown to give an idea of dexterity and range of motion while wearing the armor):
And one more fun one for when the zombies come...
PS- sorry for the black shirt. I noticed it makes the armor profile more difficult to see but I didn't realize that until after I'd taken all the photos.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilhelm S.
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Aug, 2012 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
D.S. that's very similar to what I run. Mine is a Mayflower with IIIA soft and multi hit plates. I have a USMC issue MTV but that thing is nasty heavy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Aug, 2012 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gottfried P. Doerler wrote: | i think the race offensive vs defensive armament can`t be won by armour any more.
its hard enough to stop a bullet like .308 / 7,62x51, protecting against bigger calibers like .50 BMG is just impossible without impeding the wearer by excessive weight. (there are also amour penetrating versions of the .50 for use against light armored vehicles - no chance for infantry) |
Quite the opposite, armour is actually becoming competitive again. We went from basically no protection (except steel helmets) in WWII, to flak vests in Vietnam, and now we have body armour that can reliably stop powerful rifle rounds. And the military is currently developing a new helmet that will also protect against rifle rounds.
Armour technology is currently evolving, while bullets have remained fairly stagnant for over a century, and the gap is closing.
Some body armour can now even stop high velocity amour-piercing rounds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjcVGZtM8UI
(Also, keep in mind that the .50 bmg isn't fired from a standard battle rifle, it's an anti-material round, like a 20mm cannon. And it isn't a weapon our troops commonly face, so trying to defend against it isn't really necessary.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Smith
Location: Central CA Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Aug, 2012 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilhelm S. wrote: | | D.S. that's very similar to what I run. Mine is a Mayflower with IIIA soft and multi hit plates. I have a USMC issue MTV but that thing is nasty heavy. |
I've heard good things about the Mayflower plate carrier. It was one of the final two rigs that I was considering when I bought mine. I ended up going with the "PIG" plate carrier from SKD tactical, with MOLLE cumberbund and side plate pockets. I've been very happy with it. But the design of the Mayflower is also well thought out. I'm sure I'd have been happy either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic
