NationStates Jolt Archive

I remember that the Spanish during colonial times had riflemen that had knights armor, they wore metal armor from head to toe which gave them an advantage and made them more resilient to enemy musket fire. I was wondering how come we didn't perserve the idea of heavyily armored footmen? We have the tech to make light but powerful metal, and if thats too heavy we know how to make portable shields which are used in riots. In fact I be that if every allied soldier during D-Day had those kinds of shields or their equivalent for that given time period (probably a large iron shield with a small slit for seeing when under cover) then the amount of casualties would have been way lower than it was. Also I bet if my idea for a combat suit were used in Iraq terrorists would be hopeless.

Every US marine should get a metal protective suit that has rubber insides that portects him from the outside with an electric shock going through it so the need for hand to hand become minimal, the suit will be bio, radiation and gas proofed and will have be upgradeable by all of today's high tech gadgets, it'll have night vision in the head piece. Hey it may seem expensive but if at least a thousand years ago people can raise armies of millions with full armor (troops cost money back then too) then the Us should be able to give each marine such a suit provided the provider isn't a ridicualasly greedy ass who overprices everything.

If that idea can't happen I am still confident we can give each marine bullet sheilds, if we can have nearly every city have police with those then we can have marines have those that way in a firefight they're less likey to be gunned down.

Thoughts?

A couple of reasons, mainly though too heavy and too restrictive.

We can come up with something to stop bullets, but the stuff tends to be very heavy for forces that rely on quick movement and speed (Since no one lines up and charges any more), and it tends to restrict movement too much once you bulk it up enough against enemy fire.

Plate armor pretty much went obsolete when crossbows were developed. It's just not strong enough to stop a straight rifle shot, and it seriously hampers the mobility of the wearer. In a fairly sick way, it would have been funny to watch allied troops struggling on the muddy beaches of normandy in heavy armor and carrying riot shields while getting chopped down by machine gun fire and mortars.

A couple of reasons, mainly though too heavy and too restrictive.

We can come up with something to stop bullets, but the stuff tends to be very heavy for forces that rely on quick movement and speed (Since no one lines up and charges any more), and it tends to restrict movement too much once you bulk it up enough against enemy fire.

Yes but the armor would protect him making him resistant to attacks, also in missions where enemy infantry must be cleared out or troops must advance but there are tons of infantry in the way this would be helpful. Ever see the anime Wolf Brigade?

Plate armor pretty much went obsolete when crossbows were developed. It's just not strong enough to stop a straight rifle shot, and it seriously hampers the mobility of the wearer. In a fairly sick way, it would have been funny to watch allied troops struggling on the muddy beaches of normandy in heavy armor and carrying riot shields while getting chopped down by machine gun fire and mortars.

Nut the armor would stop the bullets, only mortars would claim many casualties.

Some of the rifles can shoot through six inches of steel. Any idea how much that would way?

Some of the rifles can shoot through six inches of steel. Any idea how much that would way?

Did the Nazis on Normandy have those?

Did the Nazis on Normandy have those?

Is it currently 1944?

If not, I fail to see the point of your question.

Modern weaponry makes armor such as you describe not only impractical, but suicidal.

Some of the rifles can shoot through six inches of steel. Any idea how much that would way?


no they can't.

Is it currently 1944?

If not, I fail to see the point of your question.

Modern weaponry makes armor such as you describe not only impractical, but suicidal.

My point is the armor would have reduced casualties in Normandy and not much armor would be needed since nazi bullets would be hopeless against the allie's armor.

Did the Nazis on Normandy have those?

During WWII it was still common for soldiers to have high powered rifles as their standard weaponry. Germans carried 7.92mm bolt-action rifles with and effective range of over 800 meters. The same round was used in their machine guns. You're going to need hell of a lot of armor to stop that round, more than you're gonna want when you're sinking knee-deep into mud.

Speaking of muddy terrain, you might wanna freshen your memory of the Battle of Agincourt.

During WWII it was still common for soldiers to have high powered rifles as their standard weaponry. Germans carried 7.92mm bolt-action rifles with and effective range of over 800 meters. The same round was used in their machine guns. You're going to need hell of a lot of armor to stop that round, more than you're gonna want when you're sinking knee-deep into mud.

Speaking of muddy terrain, you might wanna freshen your memory of the Battle of Agincourt.

What about portable shields then?

no they can't.
Then the Discovery Channel lies!:gundge:

What about portable shields then?

Same problems. Heavy, cumbersome, and just not enough against modern military weaponry.

Then the Discovery Channel lies!:gundge:

Yes it does. Frequently.

If you are interested - which I am sure you are not - you can look up Prandlt's flat punch problem. 'Splains it all.

which I am sure you are not

You know me too well.

But, I shall do it out of spite.

EDIT:Perhaps you know me too well...

You know me too well.

But, I shall do it out of spite.

EDIT:Perhaps you know me too well...

Only geotechnical engineers are really interested in that kind of thing.

Yes but the armor would protect him making him resistant to attacks, also in missions where enemy infantry must be cleared out or troops must advance but there are tons of infantry in the way this would be helpful. Ever see the anime Wolf Brigade?
It makes him a sitting target for bigger guns to pound on till they either destroy said armor or find the chink.

Honestly though, there's very little battles waged where you have massed infantry. An amphebious assult maybe, but then you REALLY don't want that extra weight.

Now if we ever manage to develop working powerarmor, like a hardsuit, that might be a different story. But a knightly suit right now would be more a liability than anything else.

Only geotechnical engineers are really interested in that kind of thing.
Crap, I hope that is the kinda thing that shows up in year three or four, ya know when all the different disciplines separate and start to specialize.

Plate armor pretty much went obsolete when crossbows were developed. It's just not strong enough to stop a straight rifle shot, and it seriously hampers the mobility of the wearer. In a fairly sick way, it would have been funny to watch allied troops struggling on the muddy beaches of normandy in heavy armor and carrying riot shields while getting chopped down by machine gun fire and mortars.

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Armor/Zeitbilder%20-%20Armor%20001.jpg

Not quite.

Not quite.

The question however, is whether they were any good at turning minnie balls. Much less rifle cartridges.

As I understand it, modern ballistic vests can have ceramic bonded armor plates slotted into the vests to stop rifle caliber rounds, but they need replacing after two or three impacts because they fracture. I doubt anything comfortable to wear would have greater bullet stopping capacity than that.

ok, well back at normandy, if the allies had siuts, the more advance germans, would probally have them already... so really it would not have made such a big difference.

The question however, is whether they were any good at turning minnie balls. Much less rifle cartridges

That picture is from WW1.

That picture is from WW1.

Well, the horrific casualties from WWI tend to tell me that the armor plate was about as useful as wet tissue paper.

Crap, I hope that is the kinda thing that shows up in year three or four, ya know when all the different disciplines separate and start to specialize.

What's your major?

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it. It all reduces to plug-ins for the purposes of a degree.

There is no vest nor suit of armor that can defend against the RPG-7 launcher or M61 frag grenade.

Bullets are no longer the biggest or most commonly encountered weapon employed against Allied armed forces. These days it's all about the bombs because even though a vest can save your torso you're still going lose your arms and legs and either bleed out or be a cripple for the rest of your life. Your enemies know this, they're not stupid. They will lie, cheat and do anything they can to kill you and everyone and everything you tried to defend.

The whole idea of modern war is to hit your enemy first and kill in the first shot, meaning you shouldn't need all the extra armor, it'd just slow you down and risk you getting hit.

What really needs to be done to reduce the number of American soldiers getting killed abroad is to take to the air more and stay on the ground less. When you're enemy is stuck on the ground and has the best chance of killing you on the ground you don't stay on the ground if you can help it.

What's your major?

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it. It all reduces to plug-ins for the purposes of a degree.
Computer Engineering, but the next year is still a course-set common to all disciplines.

Well, the horrific casualties from WWI tend to tell me that the armor plate was about as useful as wet tissue paper.

The body armour in my original post was only given to elite units within the German army.

Also, Russian body armour from WWII.

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Weapons/flamethrowers/ROKS-2_2.jpg

Speaking of muddy terrain, you might wanna freshen your memory of the Battle of Agincourt.

Cons
Muddy
Raining
Really steep hill
Longbowmen firing at us
Heavily armoured (thus heavy) cavalry

Pros
We hate the Brits
There are more of us

The French do the stupidest things sometimes.

What really needs to be done to reduce the number of American soldiers getting killed abroad is to take to the air more and stay on the ground less. When you're enemy is stuck on the ground and has the best chance of killing you on the ground you don't stay on the ground if you can help it.

That's not a viable option with occupation roles. Unless your idea of occupation involves flying around dispensing death rather than actually controlling the population.

Computer Engineering, but the next year is still a course-set common to all disciplines.

Nah, then you are fine. You'll never have to worry about this shit. Though to be honest, you'll probably have a boat load of shit I didn't worry about on your plate instead.

Still, there is nothing better than having an engineering degree. It does make you a better person.

The body armour in my original post was only given to elite units within the German army.

Also, Russian body armour from WWII.


I dunno. How effective were those? I don't think they rendered any kind of invulnerability to bullets that SL here wants. Maybe a handful of bullets at best, but I doubt they could stop a hail of them.

Nah, then you are fine. You'll never have to worry about this shit. Though to be honest, you'll probably have a boat load of shit I didn't worry about on your plate instead.

Still, there is nothing better than having an engineering degree. It does make you a better person.
I am going to be only three courses away from a math Major when I am done. Also, i is going to be my new best friend.

What really needs to be done to reduce the number of American soldiers getting killed abroad is to take to the air more and stay on the ground less. When you're enemy is stuck on the ground and has the best chance of killing you on the ground you don't stay on the ground if you can help it.

Unfortunately since we're fighting in large urban areas all those pesky civilians would get in the way of any kind of air support.

I am going to be only three courses away from a math Major when I am done. Also, i is going to be my new best friend.

That thing is no-one's friend. I damn the man who researched quadratic functions that much. (Though it does totally crop up everywhere).

Still, I would really pursue the math thing if you like it. I never did, and I regret not doing it. (It was only a minor with me. :( )

Like I said, we just need to develop hardsuits, get some good looking girls to pilot them, and voila!

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/s/sabers.jpg
;)

I dunno. How effective were those? I don't think they rendered any kind of invulnerability to bullets that SL here wants. Maybe a handful of bullets at best, but I doubt they could stop a hail of them.

In close combat trench fighting that steel plate on your chest could save your life. You have to remember that alot of the fighting that took place up close in WWI was done with clubs, grenades, and pistols.

That thing is no-one's friend. I damn the man who researched quadratic functions that much. (Though it does totally crop up everywhere).

Still, I would really pursue the math thing if you like it. I never did, and I regret not doing it. (It was only a minor with me. :( )
Math is getting less and less fun now that it is at the point of requiring me to do work outside class time to get it. I blame having to show my work in highschool.

In close combat trench fighting that steel plate on your chest could save your life. You have to remember that alot of the fighting that took place up close in WWI was done with clubs, grenades, and pistols.

Fair enough. But SL here is thinking in heavy ranged combat situations. I doubt that would work then.

Math is getting less and less fun now that it is at the point of requiring me to do work outside class time to get it. I blame having to show my work in highschool.

Well it sucks. Then it gets really beautiful again. What can I say? I regret not studying it more.

Anyway, a good grounding in higher math will make you realize how full of shit everyone else is.

Fair enough. But SL here is thinking in heavy ranged combat situations. I doubt that would work then.

I'm aware of what he was thinking of, and quite frankly it would never work in the modern world.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ffw3.htm

I'm aware of what he was thinking of, and quite frankly it would never work in the modern world.

Unless power armor really takes off combined with hardsuits.

Unless power armor really takes off combined with hardsuits.

Like I said, impossible in the modern world. Unless nano technology leads to stronger, lighter materials, and much more efficient batteries then a hardsuit like you see in anime would be impossible to construct with currently available materials.

Like I said, impossible in the modern world. Unless nano technology leads to stronger, lighter materials, and much more efficient batteries then a hardsuit like you see in anime would be impossible to construct with currently available materials.

You might want to talk to DARPA about that :p

I was thinking powered exoskeletons plated with those ceramic/exotic metal armor plates they use to uparmor light vehicles.

I'm of the opinion that we should equip our individual soldiers with explosive reactive armor. It could save their lives.

You might want to talk to DARPA about that :p

I was thinking powered exoskeletons plated with those ceramic/exotic metal armor plates they use to uparmor light vehicles.

You mean the leg thing? I know DARPA has an interest in powered exoskeletons but trying to build one with modern day materials would be exceedingly expensive and impractical because of the limitation of batteries.

Subtle sarcastic commentary, or staggering ignorance?

You never really can tell, can you?

I'm of the opinion that we should equip our individual soldiers with explosive reactive armor. It could save their lives.

Subtle sarcastic commentary, or staggering ignorance?

You never really can tell, can you?

Not on the internet im afraid.

You mean the leg thing? I know DARPA has an interest in powered exoskeletons but trying to build one with modern day materials would be exceedingly expensive and impractical because of the limitation of batteries.

Well, I know Japan is currently ahead in the exoskeleton race. They're still clunky and clumsy, but they do provide significant boosts in total strength and carrying capacity.

Maybe 10, 20 years down the line they'll have streamlined it enough to create working power armor and bolted on proper armor plates.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/roadshow/appraiseit/images/game71/1_lg.jpg

Look at it from the perspecitve of the average infantryman, we have to already carry well over 150 pounds in gear as it is, and the interceptor vests we use add another 15 pounds of restrictive, hot, and ultimately ineffective weight to our gear. Unless you have the SAPI plate inserts in the vests, the interceptor system wont stop much more than a handgun round from over 100 feet away. If powerarmor like Space Marines in 40K have was possible without a massive amount of effort and bio-engineering, then we would have the Emperors chosen among us already, 7 feet tall and acid spitting.

The best bet for infantry armor systems (I personally think) would lie in Dragonskin, which as far as I have been told wont be issued to us until either 2009 or 2010.

On another note relating to 40K....look at the IG. They get the job done with nothing but a bugzapper, flak vests with the WORST armor save imaginable (other thank Orks or 'ranids), and LOTS of tanks and heavy weapons, plus manpower. We could always try that. I've always wondered what it would look like to be near an artillery barrage from a Basalisk battery a click or so off the main line....:eek:

Plate armor pretty much went obsolete when crossbows were developed.

You're greatly mistaken. Plate armour came into it's prime somewhat after the introduction of firearms, well after the appearance of crossbows. Plate armour became popular largely because it was capable of deflecting handgonne, arquebus and arbalest(steel-prodded heavy crossbow) fire, while chain tended to not fair so well.

If you look at armour from the 1600s it was still typically full plate for heavy cavalry, although they abandoned shields and used pistols, most of Western Europe had abandoned lances, but Polish heavy hussars often used them. Riding boots were more common then lower leg armour. Light cavalry usually wore a heavy leather jacket, a breast and back plate and an open-faced helmet.

Infantry had began abandoning armour, although front line pikesmen often wore plate on their upper body and sometimes the tops of their legs. The shot was mostly, except a few high ranking officers, unarmoured.

Actually in WW1 German stormtroopers wore plate armor (see the earlier posted picture for examples). In WW2 some Russian infantry wore a sort of plate armour.

Look at it from the perspecitve of the average infantryman, we have to already carry well over 150 pounds in gear as it is, and the interceptor vests we use add another 15 pounds of restrictive, hot, and ultimately ineffective weight to our gear. Unless you have the SAPI plate inserts in the vests, the interceptor system wont stop much more than a handgun round from over 100 feet away. If powerarmor like Space Marines in 40K have was possible without a massive amount of effort and bio-engineering, then we would have the Emperors chosen among us already, 7 feet tall and acid spitting.

The best bet for infantry armor systems (I personally think) would lie in Dragonskin, which as far as I have been told wont be issued to us until either 2009 or 2010.

On another note relating to 40K....look at the IG. They get the job done with nothing but a bugzapper, flak vests with the WORST armor save imaginable (other thank Orks or 'ranids), and LOTS of tanks and heavy weapons, plus manpower. We could always try that. I've always wondered what it would look like to be near an artillery barrage from a Basalisk battery a click or so off the main line....:eek:
Why do you say "we" and "us" as if you're a grunt?

http://www.superdickery.com/images/misc/morbo.jpg

ARMOUR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

http://www.superdickery.com/images/misc/morbo.jpg

ARMOUR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Way to go morbo!

just load a rifle with Armor-Piercing bullets , i leave it up to you to work out for yourself

just load a rifle with Armor-Piercing bullets , i leave it up to you to work out for yourselfOr drop a few howitzer shells on them. A little known fact is that artillery accounted for the majority of casualties in the last World War.

Why do you say "we" and "us" as if you're a grunt?

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Post of the day!

Or drop a few howitzer shells on them. A little known fact is that artillery accounted for the majority of casualties in the last World War.

you can't run when one lands right on top of you can you

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Post of the day!

How so?

How so?

Because I seriously doubt our Marine friend is or has been in the military.

(probably a large iron shield with a small slit for seeing when under cover) then the amount of casualties would have been way lower than it was. Also I bet if my idea for a combat suit were used in Iraq terrorists would be hopeless.

Every US marine should get a metal protective suit that has rubber insides that portects him from the outside with an electric shock going through it so the need for hand to hand become minimal, the suit will be bio, radiation and gas proofed and will have be upgradeable by all of today's high tech gadgets, it'll have night vision in the head piece. Hey it may seem expensive but if at least a thousand years ago people can raise armies of millions with full armor (troops cost money back then too) then the Us should be able to give each marine such a suit provided the provider isn't a ridicualasly greedy ass who overprices everything.

A single AK round will punch through over an inch of steel. Then, in order to be treated, the medic must remove all that friggin armor to reach the wound. Snipers would orgasm seeing a slow moving force coated in armor because their rounds will probably go through both sides of the armor. The others will move so damn slow there would be no way to retreive their fallen comrad, and even if they could how are they gonna drag him out of the line of fire?

If it was practical, don't you think we'd still be wearing knightly armor and riding around on horse with an M16. While we're instituting useless military stratagies let's start using mechas.

Because I seriously doubt our Marine friend is or has been in the military.

You mean USMC? Meh, I don't know.

Though you have to wonder why he needs it spelt out to him that when someone uses we and us in reference to a group of people they consider themselves included in that group.

You mean USMC? Meh, I don't know.

Though you have to wonder why he needs it spelt out to him that when someone uses we and us in reference to a group of people they consider themselves included in that group.

Indeed x2.

Anyway coming to the point of armour.

In 4g warfare mobility is your friend. Being able to react/adapt quickly to a fast moving and hostile environment is key to success.

All armour does is give a false sense of security.

Or drop a few howitzer shells on them. A little known fact is that artillery accounted for the majority of casualties in the last World War.

Indeed. One of the German artillery regiments was rechristened the 48 & 1/2th because of persistently firing short.
Friendly fire was very common in those days on both sides, this also happened with the chemical warfare when the wind decided to blow the stuff back in their faces... :headbang:

Or drop a few howitzer shells on them. A little known fact is that artillery accounted for the majority of casualties in the last World War.

Actually, axis genocide policies accounted for the vast majority of casualties in WWII. (And I am not talking about the holocaust).

Actually, axis genocide policies accounted for the vast majority of casualties in WWII. (And I am not talking about the holocaust).

The Holocaust was not an exclusive Jewish tragedy.

Hitlers genocidal policies included a number of indigenous populations, the 'disabled' and people with divergent political views.

Some of the rifles can shoot through six inches of steel. Any idea how much that would way?

Armor isn't steel anymore. It's composite ceramic.

Some, like the more recent armor, can resist .50 BMG rounds - rounds that would go through the aluminum or steel armor on older armored personnel carriers.

So we have the spectre of US troops who, if hit in the torso, at most get wounded, and most of the time, aren't even knocked down.

That's why the opposition uses high explosives - it's suicide to get in a gun battle with US troops when they have armor and you're in your shorts.

My point is the armor would have reduced casualties in Normandy and not much armor would be needed since nazi bullets would be hopeless against the allie's armor.

No it wouldn't. Every single landing craft that let the troops off a bit far from the beach, or was hit by artillery or countless other factors, would have dropped dozens of deadweighted soldiers into the water, to their deaths.

No it wouldn't. Every single landing craft that let the troops off a bit far from the beach, or was hit by artillery or countless other factors, would have dropped dozens of deadweighted soldiers into the water, to their deaths.Good to see someones thinking with their head and not with their...well you get the idea. ;)

Some, like the more recent armor, can resist .50 BMG rounds - rounds that would go through the aluminum or steel armor on older armored personnel carriers.

So we have the spectre of US troops who, if hit in the torso, at most get wounded, and most of the time, aren't even knocked down.


If you get hit by a .50 BMG, even if your armor holds, you are definitly going down. The best armor in the world can't do shit to momentum, and Lord help you if it hits your head and snaps your neck back. Why do you think hitting your plate-wearing opponent with a big heavy smasher like a mace became all the rage in Medieval Europe?

Well, I have seen some flak jackets bouncing 9 mm rounds. Perhaps not an AK47 round, but taking my chances, I prefer some protection to none.

True, I believe that the german elite troopers in WWI used some kind of shields to protect their snipers (like steel pavises), the problem was that even back then, rifles had the power to punch through them, (I suppose big mausers, sprinfields and the like, large bolt action rifles), or even worst, the bullet would shatter itself and part of the shield, envolving the soldier in a shrapnel rain. In the end, a direct shot with a big gun, like an assault rifle, is going to punch or create shrapnel, no matter the armor. That resumes the points about shields.

And regarding body (torso) armor, well, the current flak vests are enough to protect the soldier from shrapnel, grenades, and small bullets, sure, it is not 100 per cent bulletproof, but I take a little protection in exchange of none.

As far as I know, US troops wear a degree of body armor already. If armor is absolutely worthless, then I guess the helmets and the vests are for decoration, then? To make US grunts look big and menacing? Modern warfare doesn't rely on armor's absolute power, but armor is still in use.

If you get hit by a .50 BMG, even if your armor holds, you are definitly going down. The best armor in the world can't do shit to momentum, and Lord help you if it hits your head and snaps your neck back. Why do you think hitting your plate-wearing opponent with a big heavy smasher like a mace became all the rage in Medieval Europe?

Well, you could also get the "mashed skull inside your helmet", without even spreading blood all over your opponent. It was even cleaner than any other weapon.

Warhammers were the last trend with that. "Your armor is intact, you are jelly on the inside"

No it wouldn't. Every single landing craft that let the troops off a bit far from the beach, or was hit by artillery or countless other factors, would have dropped dozens of deadweighted soldiers into the water, to their deaths.

Case in point being the amphibious tanks of the 741st Armoured Battalion.

Here's your proof that armour really works. This guy gets shot, knocked over, then gets up and runs around behind the Humvee. Everyone may have seen this already, but it does show that armour works very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_kv4p65q3s

what they really need to do is advance the robotics industry so a soldier of the future is a gamer of today. it would be able to take hits without completly taking it out of the fight and chances of any battlefield deaths on our side would be minimal. would also help the shoot or be shot at situation by letting the soldiers take complete control and be able to analyze the situation before shooting.

this is not too far away from reality. it is possible today with advances we have made in robotics recently. something that i have noticed is that almost anything is possible if you are willing to fund it.

what they really need to do is advance the robotics industry so a soldier of the future is a gamer of today. it would be able to take hits without completly taking it out of the fight and chances of any battlefield deaths on our side would be minimal. would also help the shoot or be shot at situation by letting the soldiers take complete control and be able to analyze the situation before shooting.

this is not too far away from reality. it is possible today with advances we have made in robotics recently. something that i have noticed is that almost anything is possible if you are willing to fund it.

Its already a reality.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2168669/samsung-shows-robot-sentry

You mean USMC? Meh, I don't know.

Though you have to wonder why he needs it spelt out to him that when someone uses we and us in reference to a group of people they consider themselves included in that group.

I was going to let him say that it is b/c he is a grunt and then I would ask him why he said that he carries 150lbs of gear and then he would say it was a typo and I would say :rolleyes: . And then he would walk away in shame knowing that he is pathetic enough to lie about who he is.

If you get hit by a .50 BMG, even if your armor holds, you are definitly going down. The best armor in the world can't do shit to momentum, and Lord help you if it hits your head and snaps your neck back.

if a bullet is enough to fling you through the air, by all logic, it would fling the person who fired it through the air. Equal and opposite reaction, and all.

(that said, I don't have a clue what a .50 BMG would be fired from, so if it was attached to a tank or something then I guess you'd go nowhere. I still doubt it would cause someone to be flung though.

I was going to let him say that it is b/c he is a grunt and then I would ask him why he said that he carries 150lbs of gear and then he would say it was a typo and I would say :rolleyes: . And then he would walk away in shame knowing that he is pathetic enough to lie about who he is.

So Infantrymen have never carried that much? If you knew your military history you will find that Infantry have always been overburdened with kit.

This could well aid your education -

The Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation by Col S Marshall USA.

Did you know that when your mob hit Grenada the Rangers that were targeting the airport carried between 140 and 160 lbs?

When the Royal Marines hit Port Stanley in the Falklands after marching from San Carlos they were carrying packs that averaged 120.

if a bullet is enough to fling you through the air, by all logic, it would fling the person who fired it through the air. Equal and opposite reaction, and all.

(that said, I don't have a clue what a .50 BMG would be fired from, so if it was attached to a tank or something then I guess you'd go nowhere. I still doubt it would cause someone to be flung though.

Recoil suppression.

if a bullet is enough to fling you through the air, by all logic, it would fling the person who fired it through the air. Equal and opposite reaction, and all.

(that said, I don't have a clue what a .50 BMG would be fired from, so if it was attached to a tank or something then I guess you'd go nowhere. I still doubt it would cause someone to be flung though.

It wouldn't throw you through the air, what he meant was that it would do enough damage to you, even through the heaviest possible armour, that you would end up lying on the ground. A .50 BMG is a very big, very scary round; my personal favourite story about it is this: Walk down to the main square of your town or city. Look around yourself carefully. Nothing you can see will stop a .50 BMG bullet.

As to what it was fired from, the standard culprits are the Browning .50 Caliber Machine Gun, and the Barret .50 Sniper Rifle, both available in a number of models. Oh, and both are considered to be man-portable weapons.

So Infantrymen have never carried that much? If you knew your military history you will find that Infantry have always been overburdened with kit.

This could well aid your education -

The Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation by Col S Marshall USA.

Did you know that when your mob hit Grenada the Rangers that were targeting the airport carried between 140 and 160 lbs?

When the Royal Marines hit Port Stanley in the Falklands after marching from San Carlos they were carrying packs that averaged 120.

His words-"well over 150lbs"

Real life- 90-120lbs for a multiple day patrol or 40-50lbs for a much more typical 6 hour patrol

The only reason that they carried that much was b/c of their extended tenure w/o resupply. That is not reality with main body forces.

if a bullet is enough to fling you through the air, by all logic, it would fling the person who fired it through the air. Equal and opposite reaction, and all.

(that said, I don't have a clue what a .50 BMG would be fired from, so if it was attached to a tank or something then I guess you'd go nowhere. I still doubt it would cause someone to be flung though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG
and cartridge with out the bullet is still big

His words-"well over 150lbs"

Real life- 90-120lbs for a multiple day patrol or 40-50lbs for a much more typical 6 hour patrol

The only reason that they carried that much was b/c of their extended tenure w/o resupply. That is not reality with main body forces.

LOLOL!

Dude...what are the new regs for packs?

LOLOL!

Dude...what are the new regs for packs?

I believe that would hurt OPSEC, but brass has realized that you don't need to pack for 10 days if you are going out for a 1/4 of a day.

Why do you think hitting your plate-wearing opponent with a big heavy smasher like a mace became all the rage in Medieval Europe?

Because flanged maces were some of the few weapons that could punch through armor.

This Armor can stop a grenade...and the guy who made the bear suit is making a Halo-like full body armor that will be mobile and comfortable (and protective of course).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS0pSwdQfbY < --- Grenade Stopping Armor
http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/media_archive/jan-11-2007_a.html
^^^Bear Suit Body Armor

The question however, is whether they were any good at turning minnie balls. Much less rifle cartridges.

AFAIK those armours were rare and only designed to stop shrapnel. Most of the shrapnel wounds probably came from airbursting weapons so helmets may have been the only piece to remain as standard issue circa 1916+ *Waits for people that know a lot about WW1*.

well i just read this and let me just say: is it possible to have an effective military if you are trying to make a fast entry into enemy territory while carrting over 100 pounds of supplies AND armour in mud, sand, or rainforest? Oh, and yes steel can be penetrated by most guns... and todays crossbows even.

I believe that would hurt OPSEC, but brass has realized that you don't need to pack for 10 days if you are going out for a 1/4 of a day.

OPSEC? LOLOL!!!!

Dude...you should be a comedian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG
and cartridge with the bullet still big

Actually, the 50 BMG is unlikely to throw you anywhere if you're hit.

It's a common mistake to believe that the collision involves a perfect exchange of the bullet's entire momentum to the target, even if it strikes armor and fails to penetrate.

It just doesn't work that way with bullets.

You all watch too many movies, where people fly through the air after being hit.

AFAIK those armours were rare and only designed to stop shrapnel. Most of the shrapnel wounds probably came from airbursting weapons so helmets may have been the only piece to remain as standard issue circa 1916+ *Waits for people that know a lot about WW1*.

helmets been around longer then 1916 but you are right about them as standard issue thinks to increased use of heavy artillery

if a bullet is enough to fling you through the air, by all logic, it would fling the person who fired it through the air. Equal and opposite reaction, and all.

(that said, I don't have a clue what a .50 BMG would be fired from, so if it was attached to a tank or something then I guess you'd go nowhere. I still doubt it would cause someone to be flung though.

The problem isn't that you're getting flung through the air. The problem is that you'd be wearing a stiff body armour. Let us say someone weighing cirka 140 kg with gear shot at you. Their recoil might not be much, but when the bullet hits your head (which might weigh, oh, 5 kg), then that's 28 times the recoil.

If we then make the assumption that little energy gets transferred, so all energy goes to your head/neck, then your head could snap back. In a stiff armour, that might not just be uncomfortable but very deadly.

But I digress - I think I've made three or four assumptions already.

oh and if you study physics you can find out that reversing the flow of kinetic energy actually uses less energy than the flying object holds. Reversing it though isnt easy to do.

And bullets can pierce steel so its gonna be very red and bloody in there.

The problem isn't that you're getting flung through the air. The problem is that you'd be wearing a stiff body armour. Let us say someone weighing cirka 140 kg with gear shot at you. Their recoil might not be much, but when the bullet hits your head (which might weigh, oh, 5 kg), then that's 28 times the recoil.

If we then make the assumption that little energy gets transferred, so all energy goes to your head/neck, then your head could snap back. In a stiff armour, that might not just be uncomfortable but very deadly.

But I digress - I think I've made three or four assumptions already.

The momentum exchange in bullets is not perfect. And in movies, it's overrated.

I'll bring the math tomorrow in another thread.

The momentum exchange in bullets is not perfect. And in movies, it's overrated.

I'll bring the math tomorrow in another thread.

I did specify a specific area of the body receiving the bulk of the momentum. An assumption I admitted to (mathematically, it's important to admit assumptions ;) ).

I also did specify that it was more an explanation of the idea of why your neck might snap.

At most, you'll fall down from being knocked out by the force (like the guy in the youtube video).

Ill tell you why the government would never spend the money on something like that. They dont care about losing soldiers to wars, because they can be replace, and its much cheaper then the alternative, fully protective suits.

Mythbusters did a thing about flying back after you get shot. Needless to say it was busted.

Actually, the 50 BMG is unlikely to throw you anywhere if you're hit.

It's a common mistake to believe that the collision involves a perfect exchange of the bullet's entire momentum to the target, even if it strikes armor and fails to penetrate.

It just doesn't work that way with bullets.

You all watch too many movies, where people fly through the air after being hit.

thanks for quoting that i know i had to fix that post after jolt got back up

if a bullet is enough to fling you through the air, by all logic, it would fling the person who fired it through the air. Equal and opposite reaction, and all.

(that said, I don't have a clue what a .50 BMG would be fired from, so if it was attached to a tank or something then I guess you'd go nowhere. I still doubt it would cause someone to be flung though.

I think that some of the the APVs (I think thats the right spelling) have a .50 calibre weapon.

Plate Armour slowly discarded

"Gradually starting in the mid 1500s, one plate element after another was discarded to save weight for foot soldiers, but breast and back plates continued to be used through the entire period of the 1700s through Napoleonic times in many (heavy) European cavalry units, all the way to the early 20th Century. Rifled muskets from about 1750 and later could pierce plate, so cavalry had to be far more mindful of the fire. At the start of World War I the French Cuirassiers, in the thousands, rode out to engage the German Cavalry who likewise used helmets and armour. By that period, the shiny armour plate was covered in dark paint and a canvas wrap covered their elaborate Napoleonic style helmets. Their armour was meant to protect only against sabres and light lances. The cavalry had to beware of high velocity rifles and machine guns like the foot soldiers, who at least had a trench to protect them. Machine gunners in that war also occasionally wore a crude type of heavy armour."
http://www.answers.com/topic/armour


Oh and the U.S army uses armour that absobs impact instead of pushing against it. Tension of steel can break at high speeds, while it can deflect most things at low speeds. But the thing is, bullets cant be stopped with lightweight armour, they can only be slowed down by something that can absorb it, yet not be penetrated.


The US Army has adopted Interceptor Body Armor, however, which uses Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts (E-S.A.P.I) in the chest and back of the armour. Each plate is rated to stop a range of ammunition including 3 hits from a 7.62 AP round at a range of 10 m, though accounts in Iraq and Afghanistan tell of soldiers shot as much as seven times in the chest without penetration.

Plate Armour slowly discarded

"Gradually starting in the mid 1500s, one plate element after another was discarded to save weight for foot soldiers, but breast and back plates continued to be used through the entire period of the 1700s through Napoleonic times in many (heavy) European cavalry units, all the way to the early 20th Century. Rifled muskets from about 1750 and later could pierce plate, so cavalry had to be far more mindful of the fire. At the start of World War I the French Cuirassiers, in the thousands, rode out to engage the German Cavalry who likewise used helmets and armour. By that period, the shiny armour plate was covered in dark paint and a canvas wrap covered their elaborate Napoleonic style helmets. Their armour was meant to protect only against sabres and light lances. The cavalry had to beware of high velocity rifles and machine guns like the foot soldiers, who at least had a trench to protect them. Machine gunners in that war also occasionally wore a crude type of heavy armour."
http://www.answers.com/topic/armour


"Oh and the U.S army uses armour that absobs impact instead of pushing against it. Tension of steel can break at high speeds, while it can deflect most things at low speeds. But the thing is, bullets cant be stopped with lightweight armour, they can only be slowed down by something that can absorb it, yet not be penetrated.


The US Army has adopted Interceptor Body Armor, however, which uses Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts (E-S.A.P.I) in the chest and back of the armour. Each plate is rated to stop a range of ammunition including 3 hits from a 7.62 AP round at a range of 10 m, though accounts in Iraq and Afghanistan tell of soldiers shot as much as seven times in the chest without penetration."

OPSEC? LOLOL!!!!

Dude...you should be a comedian.

The only funny thing here is that you think that we go out on patrol with 120lbs of gear. Only in extremely long missions and from the terminal to your unit.

I think that some of the the APVs (I think thats the right spelling) have a .50 calibre weapon.

APC =Armoured personnel carrier
and yes some do carry the .50 cal

The only funny thing here is that you think that we go out on patrol with 120lbs of gear. Only in extremely long missions and from the terminal to your unit.

Please....post the regs....

helmets been around longer then 1916 but you are right about them as standard issue thinks to increased use of heavy artillery

I know that they have been around for a LONG time I was just saying it was in the first world war that solid (rather than pre WW1 to 1915 or so) helmets came back as a valid piece of standard army equipment because of the large amount of shrapnel head wounds that occurred.

Actually, the 50 BMG is unlikely to throw you anywhere if you're hit.

It's a common mistake to believe that the collision involves a perfect exchange of the bullet's entire momentum to the target, even if it strikes armor and fails to penetrate.

It just doesn't work that way with bullets.

You all watch too many movies, where people fly through the air after being hit.

Thats the main benefit of the .50 calibre round: If you shoot at someone behind reasonable cover (like a thick concrete wall) you stand a very good chance of penetrating that and hitting the person behind it.

I know that they have been around for a LONG time I was just saying it was in the first world war that solid (rather than pre WW1 to 1915 or so) helmets came back as a valid piece of standard army equipment because of the large amount of shrapnel head wounds that occurred.

how many may know that

Please....post the regs....

There is no SOP for it. You bring your basic load of water, ammo and medical and any mission specific items. So basically just an assault pack. If you are going on an extended foot patrol then you might bring up to a 100lbs. Any deeper and it's an OPSEC issue.

Thats the main benefit of the .50 calibre round: If you shoot at someone behind reasonable cover (like a thick concrete wall) you stand a very good chance of penetrating that and hitting the person behind it.

5.56 will go through concrete at a direct angle.

There is no SOP for it. You bring your basic load of water, ammo and medical and any mission specific items. So basically just an assault pack. If you are going on an extended foot patrol then you might bring up to a 100lbs. Any deeper and it's an OPSEC issue.

Yeah its as I figured yet again. You are a wannabe.

Yeah its as I figured yet again. You are a wannabe.

So basically you know that you are wrong?

So basically you know that you are wrong?

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

That is what I expected from you. Nothing more.

how many may know that

?

5.56 will go through concrete at a direct angle.

Is that a nato round?

All I can say is that the .50 round can penetrate a lot and go a long distance due to its size. I am not a huge millitary buff or an employee.

Is that a nato round?Yes sir, that's the standard NATO rifle round.

Is that a nato round?
Yes, and 7.62 will go through concrete at 45 degrees.

Armor is good, but too much armor is counterproductive.
The weight and loss of mobility is simply not worth greater protection.

Current US forces wear enough armor to stop most rounds and shrapnel. What it will not stop is the kind of hit that would kill you anyway even if you were in heavier armor. The concussive effects of a large bomb are enough to kill you even if your shell stays intact. There is even a thermobaric (fuel-air bomb) round for the RPG-7; no body armor is going to protect you from a thermobaric explosion going off nearby.

Not to mention you have the effects of needing to carry around all this armor, reducing your mobility and, in the case of the desert, increasing the risk of heatstroke.

When it comes to advanced warfare, any sufficiently advanced armor can be defeated by advanced weaponry with even greater ease. It is much easier to come up with ways to hurt people than to keep from being hurt. Case in point is the RPG rounds made to defeat main battle tanks with reactive armor. The ubiquitous RPG-7 can use these charges and the RPG-29 is capable of taking on any tank in the world (as the Israelis found out last year). Cheap weapons destroying expensive armor.

Trying to find out if you can produce $4,500,000 (rough guess for an M1A2) tanks faster than your enemy can produce $200 rounds to destroy it is foolhardy. Not a good comparison I admit, but it gets the point across.

One question I have for you diehard war-nerds: does anyone have any info on this? I’m a little curious exactly what it was.

A while back the Marines were apparently looking at a new rifle and did some field testing. It was very high powered since it was developed with being able to go through body armor but since we don’t tend to face armored foes, they had a problem with the bullets just passing right through an unarmored chest. They shot some guys a couple of times but, though it would eventually kill the guy, unless you hit the heart or head you had several seconds where he was still coming at you.

I didn’t feel like pressing him for details about when exactly this was or anything – when you have someone who chats about little things like military research, much better to just let conversation flow than asking pointed questions.

?

we got some one who did not know what a .50 cal was so how many would know how long the helmets been around

\.A while back the Marines were apparently looking at a new rifle and did some field testing. It was very high powered since it was developed with being able to go through body armor but since we don’t tend to face armored foes, they had a problem with the bullets just passing right through an unarmored chest. They shot some guys a couple of times but, though it would eventually kill the guy, unless you hit the heart or head you had several seconds where he was still coming at you.

I didn’t feel like pressing him for details about when exactly this was or anything – when you have someone who chats about little things like military research, much better to just let conversation flow than asking pointed questions.
Sounds like BS on a few levels. One, why the fuck would they test it on humans? And two, that's not even a problem for .50cal, how big could they have made it w/o it being a tank?

Sounds like BS on a few levels. One, why the fuck would they test it on humans? And two, that's not even a problem for .50cal, how big could they have made it w/o it being a tank?

All weapon systems get field testing before being put into production.
Once you think you have something for production, you send some out to see if it works under real situations as well as it does back at the proving grounds.

Bulk is not the only way ammunition is different. A small high-velocity round is going to behave differently than a large round. The speed at which the projectile travels is going to have a significant impact (pardon the pun).

Yes but the armor would protect him making him resistant to attacks, also in missions where enemy infantry must be cleared out or troops must advance but there are tons of infantry in the way this would be helpful. Ever see the anime Wolf Brigade?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Dude, that's a cartoon!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/M1-A1_Abrams_1.jpg/800px-M1-A1_Abrams_1.jpg

This is what modern armor looks like.

Sounds like BS on a few levels. One, why the fuck would they test it on humans? And two, that's not even a problem for .50cal, how big could they have made it w/o it being a tank?
He never said they tested it on a human, they obviously used ballistic gel.

"Sounds like BS on a few levels. One, why the fuck would they test it on humans? And two, that's not even a problem for .50cal, how big could they have made it w/o it being a tank?"---USMC leathernecks2

every weapon gets tested on humans. it's called combat. that's where they find out for real what works and what does not.

Yes, and 7.62 will go through concrete at 45 degrees.

Sure, to a depth of around 3 inches. A .50 BMG will punch through up to three feet of standard construction concrete; brick is even less resistant.

the problem with those police riot shields is that they are made of plexiglass. They can deflect bottles, clubs, fists, kicks, and things like that. They however don't do a thing against bullets. And they aren't designed to.

The concept of a bullet shield is unworkable. For it to be strong enough to stop a bullet it would be heavier than a kevlar vest. Not something you can carry on your arm and hold aloft easily enough.

More to point, imagine how you'd carry a shield. on your arm, in front of you. The force of the bullet hitting the shield would snap your arm back so hard it would break your arm, and probably your ribs.

In a strategic sense armor is pretty useless, even if a soldier is hit they will still be badly wounded or crippled if they are not killed, even with armor, this means provision costs in hospital and welfare for a casualty unlikely to see combat again. The best armor, of course, is tactical training, particularly using available cover. Even in a tactical sense armor is useless, because if they are hit in combat they are likely to be incapacitated for the rest of the engagement, and possibly many more, maybe if armor becomes very advanced in a strategic way in reducing casualty ratios it maybe handy, but not now or in the foreseeable future.

IMO the future of combat is as follows, in WWII the mainstream effective tactic emerged of basically having your unit/s with heavy weapons, MG's, mortars and the like, suppressing (fixing) the enemy in position while the assualting units went round the extreme flanks to rout and surround the enemy position and destroy them. In these cases it was the assualting units who were always in the most danger for being so exposed, and suffered the most casualties. In modern combat it has emerged that the heavy weapons units can suppress the enemy in position until close air support can arrive and destroy the enemy position. This ensures that very little of your force is exposed to direct fire and danger of casualties. Their is of course problems with this, in very broad macro-strategic terms, aircraft are damn expensive.

More to point, imagine how you'd carry a shield. on your arm, in front of you. The force of the bullet hitting the shield would snap your arm back so hard it would break your arm, and probably your ribs.

If the shield is heavy enough you have a hard time carrying it, it's got more then enough weight to absorb the shock of the bullet hitting you without knocking your arm back, let alone breaking it.

This is similar to the 'getting knocked back by a bullet' myth. It's just not true.

if a bullet is enough to fling you through the air, by all logic, it would fling the person who fired it through the air. Equal and opposite reaction, and all.

(that said, I don't have a clue what a .50 BMG would be fired from, so if it was attached to a tank or something then I guess you'd go nowhere. I still doubt it would cause someone to be flung though.

.50 BMGs are usually fired out of Barret .50 cals and other anti-material rifles. Most have recoil suppression and other funky methods of dissipating recoil. At 853 meters a second, a .50 BMG round will cause severe impact damage even if it doesn't penetrate.

Modern vests dissipate kinetic energy by spreading it all over the vest, but still give a little at the impact point. Even if a .50 BMG round doesn't punch through, it'll likely have all the effects of being shot including mushed up ribs and lungs if you're hit in the chest.

"The concept of a bullet shield is unworkable. For it to be strong enough to stop a bullet it would be heavier than a kevlar vest. Not something you can carry on your arm and hold aloft easily enough.

More to point, imagine how you'd carry a shield. on your arm, in front of you. The force of the bullet hitting the shield would snap your arm back so hard it would break your arm, and probably your ribs."---Neo Art

it wouldn't break your bones....you happen to be forgetting something....the weight of the shield. there are bulletproof shields, and the very weight of the shield provides protection from the force of the bullet. very useful for say a police force dealing with a criminal or two....not very useful for a full-scale war.

A while back the Marines were apparently looking at a new rifle and did some field testing. It was very high powered since it was developed with being able to go through body armor but since we don’t tend to face armored foes, they had a problem with the bullets just passing right through an unarmored chest. They shot some guys a couple of times but, though it would eventually kill the guy, unless you hit the heart or head you had several seconds where he was still coming at you.

I didn’t feel like pressing him for details about when exactly this was or anything – when you have someone who chats about little things like military research, much better to just let conversation flow than asking pointed questions.

Depends on a few factors. A high velocity solid core round which transfers minimal kinetic energy to the person and his internals has a good chance of going straight through and short of a critical organ location hit, may not even realize that they've been hit.

Sometimes if the damage is done extremely fast, the trauma is insufficient to be felt on impact.

The concept of a bullet shield is unworkable. For it to be strong enough to stop a bullet it would be heavier than a kevlar vest. Not something you can carry on your arm and hold aloft easily enough.

More to point, imagine how you'd carry a shield. on your arm, in front of you. The force of the bullet hitting the shield would snap your arm back so hard it would break your arm, and probably your ribs.

it wouldn't break your bones....you happen to be forgetting something....the weight of the shield. there are bulletproof shields, and the very weight of the shield provides protection from the force of the bullet. very useful for say a police force dealing with a criminal or two....not very useful for a full-scale war.
Anyone else get a mental image of the US military suddenly turning into legions of Captain America?

Anyone else get a mental image of the US military suddenly turning into legions of Captain America?

Not really. I can't speak much for the US army, but I doubt most of them would be happy running into battle wearing tights and external underwear.

it wouldn't break your bones....you happen to be forgetting something....the weight of the shield. there are bulletproof shields, and the very weight of the shield provides protection from the force of the bullet. very useful for say a police force dealing with a criminal or two....not very useful for a full-scale war.

That's my point. Either the shield is:

1) extremely heavy and as such is not practical for fighting

or

2) light enough that the force of the bullet would snap your arm back, even if you could make material light enough and still bulletproof.

Why do you say "we" and "us" as if you're a grunt?

Because I am. U.S. Army thank you very much. 2-14th of the 2nd BCT, 10th Mountain.

I dunno. How effective were those? I don't think they rendered any kind of invulnerability to bullets that SL here wants. Maybe a handful of bullets at best, but I doubt they could stop a hail of them.
They pinged MP41 rounds at about 120 metres, which was their absolute outside range.

Kind of handier in very close combat situations, which is why they were used a lot in Stalingrad by the Airborne and some Guards formations, but overall, if you were getting confronted with LMG or rifle fire, they weren't entirely useful.



Oh and the thought of D-Day troopers wearing any large scale body armour is fairly ludicrous.

"Only 100m left until the beach, everyone leap out!"
*glug-glug-glug*
"Err... shit"

I remember that the Spanish during colonial times had riflemen that had knights armor, they wore metal armor from head to toe which gave them an advantage and made them more resilient to enemy musket fire. I was wondering how come we didn't perserve the idea of heavyily armored footmen? We have the tech to make light but powerful metal, and if thats too heavy we know how to make portable shields which are used in riots. In fact I be that if every allied soldier during D-Day had those kinds of shields or their equivalent for that given time period (probably a large iron shield with a small slit for seeing when under cover) then the amount of casualties would have been way lower than it was. Also I bet if my idea for a combat suit were used in Iraq terrorists would be hopeless.

Every US marine should get a metal protective suit that has rubber insides that portects him from the outside with an electric shock going through it so the need for hand to hand become minimal, the suit will be bio, radiation and gas proofed and will have be upgradeable by all of today's high tech gadgets, it'll have night vision in the head piece. Hey it may seem expensive but if at least a thousand years ago people can raise armies of millions with full armor (troops cost money back then too) then the Us should be able to give each marine such a suit provided the provider isn't a ridicualasly greedy ass who overprices everything.

If that idea can't happen I am still confident we can give each marine bullet sheilds, if we can have nearly every city have police with those then we can have marines have those that way in a firefight they're less likey to be gunned down.

Thoughts?
I seem to remember the idea already being put into practice, in fact if you look at the threads Eutrusca made, you might just find it.:)

If that idea can't happen I am still confident we can give each marine bullet sheilds, if we can have nearly every city have police with those then we can have marines have those that way in a firefight they're less likey to be gunned down.

Thoughts?
Quick problem with this bit - how are you going to make them practical and ergonomically sound without making it so that the Marines are going to be using single-handed weapons?

If you had some kind of two-handed version with a firing port of some kind, people would simply learn to shoot at those, plus they'd doubtless be utterly unweildy.

What people did in trench warfare in WW1 was make little ports with open-and-close little metal doors for snipers to shoot out of, which worked for a bit, until soldiers manufactured rounds which were blunt at both ends (usually fired backwards, actually) so that spalling was caused on the doors and enemy snipers were given injuries to the face and usually eyes, which ruined their profession.

Hard to imagine that the same wouldn't happen in these circumstances, too.

Armor is good, but too much armor is counterproductive.
The weight and loss of mobility is simply not worth greater protection.

Current US forces wear enough armor to stop most rounds and shrapnel. What it will not stop is the kind of hit that would kill you anyway even if you were in heavier armor. The concussive effects of a large bomb are enough to kill you even if your shell stays intact. There is even a thermobaric (fuel-air bomb) round for the RPG-7; no body armor is going to protect you from a thermobaric explosion going off nearby.

Not to mention you have the effects of needing to carry around all this armor, reducing your mobility and, in the case of the desert, increasing the risk of heatstroke.

When it comes to advanced warfare, any sufficiently advanced armor can be defeated by advanced weaponry with even greater ease. It is much easier to come up with ways to hurt people than to keep from being hurt. Case in point is the RPG rounds made to defeat main battle tanks with reactive armor. The ubiquitous RPG-7 can use these charges and the RPG-29 is capable of taking on any tank in the world (as the Israelis found out last year). Cheap weapons destroying expensive armor.

Trying to find out if you can produce $4,500,000 (rough guess for an M1A2) tanks faster than your enemy can produce $200 rounds to destroy it is foolhardy. Not a good comparison I admit, but it gets the point across.

One question I have for you diehard war-nerds: does anyone have any info on this? I’m a little curious exactly what it was.

A while back the Marines were apparently looking at a new rifle and did some field testing. It was very high powered since it was developed with being able to go through body armor but since we don’t tend to face armored foes, they had a problem with the bullets just passing right through an unarmored chest. They shot some guys a couple of times but, though it would eventually kill the guy, unless you hit the heart or head you had several seconds where he was still coming at you.

I didn’t feel like pressing him for details about when exactly this was or anything – when you have someone who chats about little things like military research, much better to just let conversation flow than asking pointed questions.

the special forces in somalia reported this issue with 5.56 tungsten tipped rounds http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/dec07/default07.asp

about 1/2 - 2/3rds of the way down the page.

Modern armour in a strategic sense is more based around shrapnel and low velocity weapons like rocks and bottles in order to keep the soldier alive so that training and personpower shortages do not come through in future conflicts.

Armor is good, but too much armor is counterproductive.
The weight and loss of mobility is simply not worth greater protection.

Current US forces wear enough armor to stop most rounds and shrapnel. What it will not stop is the kind of hit that would kill you anyway even if you were in heavier armor. The concussive effects of a large bomb are enough to kill you even if your shell stays intact. There is even a thermobaric (fuel-air bomb) round for the RPG-7; no body armor is going to protect you from a thermobaric explosion going off nearby.

Not to mention you have the effects of needing to carry around all this armor, reducing your mobility and, in the case of the desert, increasing the risk of heatstroke.

When it comes to advanced warfare, any sufficiently advanced armor can be defeated by advanced weaponry with even greater ease. It is much easier to come up with ways to hurt people than to keep from being hurt. Case in point is the RPG rounds made to defeat main battle tanks with reactive armor. The ubiquitous RPG-7 can use these charges and the RPG-29 is capable of taking on any tank in the world (as the Israelis found out last year). Cheap weapons destroying expensive armor.

Trying to find out if you can produce $4,500,000 (rough guess for an M1A2) tanks faster than your enemy can produce $200 rounds to destroy it is foolhardy. Not a good comparison I admit, but it gets the point across.

One question I have for you diehard war-nerds: does anyone have any info on this? I’m a little curious exactly what it was.

A while back the Marines were apparently looking at a new rifle and did some field testing. It was very high powered since it was developed with being able to go through body armor but since we don’t tend to face armored foes, they had a problem with the bullets just passing right through an unarmored chest. They shot some guys a couple of times but, though it would eventually kill the guy, unless you hit the heart or head you had several seconds where he was still coming at you.

I didn’t feel like pressing him for details about when exactly this was or anything – when you have someone who chats about little things like military research, much better to just let conversation flow than asking pointed questions.

Yeah...I have heard about this. Supposedly since the round is designed to impact something harder than human tissue and then begin to fragment and tumble when it gets through the armor, there was some trick of something that prevented the rounds from spalling. Suppose its just the fact a bullet deforms a lot less when its hitting a soft target.

If I knew anything about ballistics I would make a more educated answer. My bad. :p

Armour in modern battle, hell, even 90 years ago, steel armours and sheilds would be penetrated like nothing, concidering that then the Lee Enfield and Mauser 98K's bullets fly at about 2,500 feet per second and are 7.62mm-7,92mm in diamiter (approx .30 inch), and they use copper or steel jacketed bullets, the only thing that'd stop it is immencly thick steel, which is one of the reasons tanks came about.

Second off, Kevilar doesn't stop bullets. 5.56 x45 mm NATO (is .223 inch) travels at about 3,000 feet per second and will go streight though most modern body armours.

Third off, even if the armour did stop the bullet, it's still going fast enough to force you off your feet and break the bones the armour is sheilding. The bullet may not kill you, but the broken rib sticking in your lung might.

Fouth, soldiers don't rely on armour, it's coumbersome, heavy, dehydrating, a risk in it's self. What they do rely on is simply not getting hit. Shoot him before he shoots you.

Body armours do have the capibillty to stop, or significatly reduce Semi Jacketed Hollow Points and such, but the army and most other millitia use Full Metal Jackets which go streight though.

And even if the bullet is slowed down, this increases the chance of the bullet "Tumbling", meaning it spinds along the diamiter axis upon entering the body. A horrible mess later and for the 10-20 seconds you're brain's alive, you'd wish you'd not been wearing armour. It's better to go streight though (clean hole), than tumble and richochete though the body (bloody mess everywhere).

These are some of the reasons for the removal of armour in the army, aswell as the sheer cost.

The problem isn't that you're getting flung through the air. The problem is that you'd be wearing a stiff body armour. Let us say someone weighing cirka 140 kg with gear shot at you. Their recoil might not be much, but when the bullet hits your head (which might weigh, oh, 5 kg), then that's 28 times the recoil.

If we then make the assumption that little energy gets transferred, so all energy goes to your head/neck, then your head could snap back. In a stiff armour, that might not just be uncomfortable but very deadly.

But I digress - I think I've made three or four assumptions already.

You also assume that all the energy is transfered to the target. The standard 5.56 will go through your head, so you're not going to fly back like in holywood movies. You're going to land with a thud backward, as you fall backwards on your heels (accounting for stance), as for the recoil throwing the user back, that only applys if the mass of the bullet was equal to that of the shooter. The reason for recoil is because the pressure of compressed gasses in the case, formed when gunpowder (anytype) is burnt force the lightest object the furthest away from it. This only works in the chamber of the gun, if it's out side and goes off you got a small grenade. The bullet is forced out the end of the case and flys out the barrel at high velocities. The recoil is primarly produced when the gasses are formed, the bullet requires a lot of kinetic energy to get it moving in the first place, and the case is forced backwards, because it's got a thick layer of metal stopping it from forcing elsewhere. It also accumlates when the bullet is going down the barrel, as it's a tight fit, (I've had a bullet go off but not reach the end of the barrel and had to force it out with a cleaning rod). The recoil is there for large, but bare in mind, the average shooter weighs 10-12 stones, and the average 7.62mm bullet weighs 100-140 Granes (for example).

Sounds like BS on a few levels. One, why the fuck would they test it on humans? And two, that's not even a problem for .50cal, how big could they have made it w/o it being a tank?


Ok...so here goes.
1: You would test it on humans to see how effective it is in terms of stopping power. You as a, 'Marine,' should appreciate that.

2: I would figure that the .50 round fired from say, a M2B, would be big enough, heavy enough and traveling fast enough, to not tumble and fragment as much as a .223 fired from a M16.

Ok...so here goes.
1: You would test it on humans to see how effective it is in terms of stopping power. You as a, 'Marine,' should appreciate that.

Err...ever heard of ballistics gel? Or ethics?

Armour in modern battle, hell, even 90 years ago, steel armours and sheilds would be penetrated like nothing, concidering that then the Lee Enfield and Mauser 98K's bullets fly at about 2,500 feet per second and are 7.62mm-7,92mm in diamiter (approx .30 inch)
.303, to be precise.
and they use copper or steel jacketed bullets, the only thing that'd stop it is immencly thick steel, which is one of the reasons tanks came about.
Hence also why armour-piercing anti-tank rounds for rifles and machine-guns came about. Although IIRC the whole thing mainly took off in prohibition times, when gangsters used to wear thick silk shirts.
Second off, Kevilar doesn't stop bullets. 5.56 x45 mm NATO (is .223 inch) travels at about 3,000 feet per second and will go streight though most modern body armours.
*the rest of the post*
Indeed. I believe that some jackets were kind of useful in the Vietnam war, but when they stopped using SKS rifles and MP40s and started on the AK47s, it all started going wrong quickly.

Err...ever heard of ballistics gel? Or ethics?
There are several active warzones on the planet, and whilst it's much more ethical indeed to test on ballistics gel, it's not like there are a shortage of people to test ammunition on around the world to get more cheap and accurate tests, is it?

(note : I would certainly support the whole ballistics gel idea, but pragmatically, human testing will occur)

The only good place for personal armor in modern warfare?

Urban warfare.

There are several active warzones on the planet, and whilst it's much more ethical indeed to test on ballistics gel, it's not like there are a shortage of people to test ammunition on around the world to get more cheap and accurate tests, is it?

(note : I would certainly support the whole ballistics gel idea, but pragmatically, human testing will occur)

Field testing is essentially just putting it into service but only for a very small group. No matter what device you are talking about, you want to see how it behaves in the real world before completely switching your entire industry.

Weapons are tested exhaustively in a research facility and then on the proving grounds for simulated situations. No matter how you try to test something on the proving grounds, it is very unwise to throw out your current equipment and replace it with the new stuff that has never seen actual use.

They do not just grab a bunch of people off the street for some laboratory tests. That is tinfoil hat level of thinking. Though I must admit I am highly curious how it is perfectly acceptable to kill someone with gun A but unethical to kill them with gun B. This is like the laser blinders that were canceled because it was unethical due to a chance of permanent eye damage. A small device that could be used in close quarters to temporarily blind an opponent during combat was thus killed because it is abhorrent to damage someone's eyes before you put a few bullets through them. I just don't understand this kind of logic.

They do not just grab a bunch of people off the street for some laboratory tests. That is tinfoil hat level of thinking. Though I must admit I am highly curious how it is perfectly acceptable to kill someone with gun A but unethical to kill them with gun B. This is like the laser blinders that were canceled because it was unethical due to a chance of permanent eye damage. A small device that could be used in close quarters to temporarily blind an opponent during combat was thus killed because it is abhorrent to damage someone's eyes before you put a few bullets through them. I just don't understand this kind of logic.

I'm guessing it's mostly to do with the fact that it's supposed to be a non-lethal thing, similar in principle to stuff like tasers. I mean, you don't see cops with service revolvers and barrel underslung tasers do you?

There are several active warzones on the planet, and whilst it's much more ethical indeed to test on ballistics gel, it's not like there are a shortage of people to test ammunition on around the world to get more cheap and accurate tests, is it?

(note : I would certainly support the whole ballistics gel idea, but pragmatically, human testing will occur)

The US doesn't test weapons on prisoners, which is the only way "human testing" would work.

Dr. Fackler is the researcher in the US for Army Ballistics - he is the premier ballistic researcher for the US military - and he is the same pioneer who standardized methods of researching effectiveness in ballistics gelatin.

He has also written on why live testing would be unethical, immoral, and not provide standardized results that would be scientifically accurate.

Showing your feelings that somehow, we're brutal monster Nazis who test on live subjects?

As said before armor is very heavy and can bog down troops in bad terrain. German Machinegunners used some sort of armor during WWI though. It wasn't all that popular because it was heavy and wasn't of any use against most forms of hostile fire.

There's something to be said for maneuverability, concealment and cover. See, technology is always advancing, and no matter how much armor you stick on a soldier, there'll eventually be something that can punch through it. It's often better just to not get hit, which is hard to do when you're dragging around half a tank on your ass.

That said, imagine how expensive that armor would be.

Err...ever heard of ballistics gel? Or ethics?

Ever heard of field testing?

.303, to be precise.

.303 British (or .303 Enfield, as some Americans call it)
or 7.62x56R
Rimmed case.
2.80Cubic Centimetres (1.10 cubic inches) of modern powder.
The .30 inch Approx was refering to the fact that I'd also refrenced the German 7.92x57mm Mauser, which is .312 (according to my calculator).
Rimmless case taking .30CCs (.12 Cubic Inches) more powder.

I know this information is correct because I own a Lee Enfield (No.4 Mk.I/III) and me father owns a Mauser Model 98K.
(Proof http://carcerscrap.melonbrew.com/lolbob/k98k-2.jpg - Yes, I actually look like that... I also lack pictures of me Lee Enfield.)
Both are excellent rounds.

Anyway, that's off topic.

The best type of armour a soldier can get is something that stops him from being shot at. (Inviso-armour?)
A friend of mine has sugguested (and done the math) a type of armour that doesn't stop bullets, but instead makes them glance off.
I replied with "that sounds about right, but we'd be sending in troops that look like they're from Transformers".