Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Cyrax

Infantry Armour and its Evolution.

25 posts in this topic

This is a mix between my thinking out loud, and questions.

 

Number 1) The "Motor Cross" Armour

 

Yesterday I watched StarShip Troopers, and today I watched Terra Nova.

 

In both these, and many films and programs about "future soldiers", they wear a type of body armour.

 

I know that is actually just motor cross armour, or similar. But it got me thinking about why they wear it in films and why soldiers dont wear something similar but "ballistics rated" these days. Is it that kevlar too difficult to mold and shape into close fitting body armour - or is it simply too heavy, and we need to find a new material to use?

 

What we seem to use is either massive a bulky (bomb disposal) or offers torso protection and top of head protection.

 

I read a while ago about military scientists and engineers trying to synthesis "spiders web" on a massive scale to use as armour due to its amazing properties. Not sure what ever came of this though.

 

Number 2) The full body suit

 

Think "Mass Effect" or "Halo". A form fitted suit made up of plates and synthetic material covering most of if not all the body. It will most probably have to be powered from another source (other than just the user) other wise it would be too heavy, unless, again, a new, lighter armour is found. And then there is the power source - are batteries are something we are still struggling to shrink?

 

I mention weight, but then you get career soldiers, special forces and you have them training in this type of gear for months, years even, they would be come accustomed to it, no?

 

Wiki On Powered Exos

 

 

Number 3) The battle suit.

 

Think of the Wolverine from "C+C Tiberium Sun" Tau Battle suits in Warhammer 40k, Avatar battle mechs etc. These are mechs, powered by a single man but usually much larger and packing heavy fire power. Will these replace Humvees in the future?

 

Im just chucking out thoughts. I suppose the future will depend on the type of fighting that is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far as i know we are still a decade away from spliceing the spiders web gene into the place of goats milk gene's and it will most likely not be used without metal plates.

 

Erm as for mech suits well yea probably even longer away i hope so we can have guns again.

( i know i beleive many things most americans do i must be the ultimate human )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think someone will scale down reactive armour so it can reinforce kevlar, that or synthetic rubbers that catch bullets and stop penetration, at worst you get a few broken bones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happend to dragon skin/scale or whatever armour, I saw it somewhere, it looked like it worked well, even against point blank grenades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What happend to dragon skin/scale or whatever armour, I saw it somewhere, it looked like it worked well, even against point blank grenades

 

Still in develpment becasue of the US goverment cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the starship troopers and terra nova armour you have to remember the threat profile is mainly comprised of (very!) angry beasties.

 

When not facing ballistic weaponry the benefits to agility and endurance gained from a lighter armour make it the preferred choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the starship troopers and terra nova armour you have to remember the threat profile is mainly comprised of (very!) angry beasties.

 

When not facing ballistic weaponry the benefits to agility and endurance gained from a lighter armour make it the preferred choice.

 

Good points. I think that the full body armour will be the next step eventually. Fully protecting soldiers would be expensive but obviously the most beneficial idea.

 

Apparently when the challenger 2 battle tank becomes obsolete in the coming decades, the british army does not intend to replace them - the era of large scale open conflict is coming to an end, and they believe the money can be spent elsewhere - on the infantry soldier and their fighting vehicles i hope. the new IFV are already impressive and impervious to a great deal of fire power, but the man doing the room to room clearing and treading on the IED's is where the money needs to go!

 

But then im sure some special forces would argue that lightweight is the way to go - if you are going to get shot at you can either wear body armour and hope they have poor/ good aim, or try and be able to dodge and weave and close with the enemy. In this case, the lightweight starship trooper style armour, customized and optimized for CQB would be better and less restricting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think our troops should dress like storm troopers, no one would mess with us then.

Or alternatively, dress as Spartans and get dropped in by v22 ospreys.

OR dress in power armour and own like Calgar's crew

 

Or do I play too many games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Storm trooper armour is massively impractical, not least because it is bright white. And Spartan Armour is not currently achievable, mostly due to the required power but many things. What else you got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CnC commando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with armour in general pretty much comes down to the peson (or people if it's a tank) inside.

 

The human body is still as fragile and breakable as it was in 1066.

There may come a day when infantry body armour can stop a 155mm howitzer shell.

Will the person survive?

The very sudden impact and violent shockwaves will probably kill them. The person might not even have a bruise on them - but their insides will have taken one hell of a beating. You can see this in tank warfare too - even if you don't get spall (red hot fragments from the inner-skin of the tank) bouncing around, tests done (by our good friends the Aussies) that whilst the armour stopped the round, the people inside (represented by pigs) died from serious internal bleeding - no external wounds.

It's the one reason that I feel power-armour (as much as I love it :lol:) would be utterly useless.

 

(save space, slightly off topic

The Challenger's life span is expected to be about until 2035. With BAE working on various new technologies it doesn't surprise me. Though to say tank warfare is over is a tad on the premature side - many said the tank was useless after WW1. Of all the NATO nations in Afghanistan with combat troops on the ground, we're the only ones who aren't using MBTs. The Canadians were thinking "end of the tank" up until 2006, when they realised that IFVs don't pack the punch (or moral boost) that a 120mm armed 70 tonne tank has.

IFVs will never fully (and shouldn't) replace the tank. They don't have the protection a full tank has, and nor do they have the full armament of a tank. But - and this is the most important factor of all - they put the men inside at risk, more so than an APC. If you want to move men, use an APC. If you want it to fight, use a tank.

FRES should have brought us a family of useful light, medium and heavy weight tanks to supplement our armoury, but due to stupidity on a grand scale at the MOD and Gordon Brown, it hasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i suppose, in theory, it would be better to have a large powerful round tear straight through, like the 7.62 in somalia, for example, rather than try and stop it and suffer blunt force trauma/ internal mushing?

 

And then, why not go with the light armour, as i suggested earlier, if you are going to get shot its going to do damage, why not be a smaller faster target in the first place?

 

And as sci fi as it sounds, our next step should be shielding and the ability to slow or deflect a round, as opposed to outright stop it?

 

Also, thanks for the info on the tanks, i wasnt 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one of the arguments for taking 5.56 over 7.62 was that 5.56 rarely goes through-and-through a human, whereas 7.62 can go clean through somone and not kill them outright (I'm not talking about the 'bezerker' syndrome or 'running amok', or even in Somalia/Serria Leyonne where the locals were drugged out of their eyeballs, but literally the round sailing through the body without hitting bone/organs). Aaand I'm not quite sure where I was heading with that...

 

You have to get that balance of protection and movement.

With the current generation of firearms, the speeds involved (excluding the big high velocity stuff like .50cals) probably isn't enough to cause "instant mush" with someone's organs - but would be enough to break bone. Grenades on the otherhand - perhaps. (of course the easiest thing to do would be flippantly say "don't get spotted!")

 

As for your Sci-fi stuff - in 5 years time, the commanders of Challenger 2s may well be making "power up the forcefield" quotes, as BAE have designed (and it looked pretty useful actually) 2 electrically charged anti-munition devices (ok, forcefields). One charges the armour plates so stuff explodes just before contact, the other projects an electronic charge around that explodes shells in mid air (some feet away from the tank)

 

As for IVFs - they don't know what they are. Not enough room for a proper full squad, not enough firepower to take on tanks, not enough armour to engage tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should probably rename this thread the future of warfare. Evolution of warfare is one of those things that i find rather interesting.

 

I think, like that Ghost Recon game, that sometime in the future, armed robot type things, controlled by a human, will accompany squads. They can safely diffuse IED's, use advanced optics and communication equipment, and be bullet magnets. I say some squads, because obviously they are not suited to every role.

 

I take it you are not a fan of the IFV? I see their point, quick, mobile relatively moderate/ high fire power and better suited to a more confined, urban environment than a tank.

 

And in a world where Apaches and other combat helicopters can decimate tanks, is there more of a role for the IFV, which are often outfitted with faster firing weapons, are probably cheaper to produce and as mentioned, quicker to move around?

 

The annoying thing is that it is pretty much impossible to know what will happen next, as stuff will evolve depending on what we fight. Whilst in all likeliness that will simply be "insurgents", diplomatic relations could break down with north korea and bam, another out and out war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think hovertanks are the best way to go. i heard of one with air jets that can throw it 15 metres up in the air for three seconds with only slightly less weight than a challenger 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike the IFV/MCV with a passion.

They try to do 2 jobs, and get the worst of each role. You have to remember that your IFV has gone from a metal box carrying troops - to a metal box carrying troops, that's also shooting at you with relatively big guns (30mm autocannons). Suddenly, the IFV becomes a much bigger threat than a normal APC (like the FV432, the M113 as the Yanks used to have)

 

That, and they just don't have the same psychological effect as a tank has. To paraphrase Oddball from Kelly's Heroes, "a tank can give you a hell of a lot of options".

 

Take the Danes in Afghanistan - they've been using their Leo2A6s a lot. With a lot of success. So much so, that on 19 occasions in 2010, we've had to borrow a squadron (3 tanks).

What happens? The Taliban run. They know that if they haven't prepared some huge IED specifically designed for tank busting, they're screwed.

 

Here's a conflict no-one looks at much - Israel. They're using MBTs in a counter insurgency (or occupation depending on your politics, but that's not for here). Their Merekva MBTs are without a doubt one of the most protective combat vehicles around.

Also - their tanks can carry 6 men. They aren't IFVs. They're full blown tanks, which can also carry a unit of men. (But, 6 at the max)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for urban combat, thats a great idea, a tank carrying both protection and being able to deliver troops for an assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no question that any MBT that can carry troops would be a better MBT if it did not have to do so.

 

Likewise for troop carrying vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The troop carrying element is purely an extra - since the Merk has it's engine at the front (giving the driver more protection), the space behind the crew's fighting compartment is vacant, so the designers gave the Merk the capability to carry 4-6 men (or 150 extra rounds of ammo for the 120mm gun). It wasn't initially designed to do that, it was just a happy 'coincidence'. (Also, the Merk has a 'tank-bulance' variant, an ambulance - with a 120mm gun on top...)

 

It makes sense. The troops act like Soviet tank riders, or the Bombey Grenediers of the Commonwealth army in Burma. They protect the tank from threats it might not be able to see (or engage)

 

And something I forgot to talk about from Cyrax's post, re:helicopters

Most modern tanks have inbuilt capabilities to protect them from the apache's (or equivilant nation's gunship) missiles, unless the apache is at very close range.

Everything from chaff, flares, heat exchanges, electronic warfare counter measures (EWCMs) and radar jammers that are used today (the Challenger is covered in these, especially the latter 2) make it difficult for missiles to successfully track the target.

The reason the Apache has been so deadly in Iraq (both Gulf '91 and 2003) and Afghanistan is that the tank they've been used against are 1960's (or 80's in the case of the rarer T-72) lack all of these features.

I'd say the tank still has an important role to play.

 

(I'd like to apologise for taking this so wildly off topic... sorry!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the tank will only last as long as its defences, and its getting more dangerous as some of the higher end soviet gear has just started to filter down so it is a dangerous time to be in a tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well one of the arguments for taking 5.56 over 7.62 was that 5.56 rarely goes through-and-through a human, whereas 7.62 can go clean through somone and not kill them outright (I'm not talking about the 'bezerker' syndrome or 'running amok', or even in Somalia/Serria Leyonne where the locals were drugged out of their eyeballs, but literally the round sailing through the body without hitting bone/organs). Aaand I'm not quite sure where I was heading with that...

 

You have to get that balance of protection and movement.

With the current generation of firearms, the speeds involved (excluding the big high velocity stuff like .50cals) probably isn't enough to cause "instant mush" with someone's organs - but would be enough to break bone. Grenades on the otherhand - perhaps. (of course the easiest thing to do would be flippantly say "don't get spotted!")

 

As for your Sci-fi stuff - in 5 years time, the commanders of Challenger 2s may well be making "power up the forcefield" quotes, as BAE have designed (and it looked pretty useful actually) 2 electrically charged anti-munition devices (ok, forcefields). One charges the armour plates so stuff explodes just before contact, the other projects an electronic charge around that explodes shells in mid air (some feet away from the tank)

 

As for IVFs - they don't know what they are. Not enough room for a proper full squad, not enough firepower to take on tanks, not enough armour to engage tanks.

 

unfortunately i have to disagree with shields, magnetic fields maybe, not shields though, the power needed to survive even 1 shot would be astronomical, and tests done by the americans in 1980's (i'll try to find the article) showed that the feedback caused by the field collapsing basically fried everything electronic and electrical (i'm talking about shields not the forcefield above).

 

i'd personally go along the lines of dampening fields which lessens the impact of the projectile, and theoretically allows faster vehicles/powered armor/aircraft, and allows personnel to survive the harder knocks, possibly even tank shells on "powered armor" (in the loosest sense, more along the lines of a modified ricas with powerpack) without even staggering.

 

and shorter term, micro-laser lasers to detonate larger/slower projectiles (RPG's, 120mm, badly made 7.62mm), might even be able to miniaturize them enough to fit the weapon and sensor on shoulders and helmets, maybe even use that telepathic helmet to make it into a hidden weapon for last ditch situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also will have to dig out the paper but there is some interesting work going on with regards to shield use in space-flight.

 

For small objects (which of course can be devastating at high speeds) one field imparts them with a charge and another causes them to pass harmlessly around the ship rather than smack into it.

 

Similar technology could in theory work with a tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
unfortunately i have to disagree with shields, magnetic fields maybe, not shields though, the power needed to survive even 1 shot would be astronomical, and tests done by the americans in 1980's (i'll try to find the article) showed that the feedback caused by the field collapsing basically fried everything electronic and electrical (i'm talking about shields not the forcefield above).

 

i'd personally go along the lines of dampening fields which lessens the impact of the projectile, and theoretically allows faster vehicles/powered armor/aircraft, and allows personnel to survive the harder knocks, possibly even tank shells on "powered armor" (in the loosest sense, more along the lines of a modified ricas with powerpack) without even staggering.

 

and shorter term, micro-laser lasers to detonate larger/slower projectiles (RPG's, 120mm, badly made 7.62mm), might even be able to miniaturize them enough to fit the weapon and sensor on shoulders and helmets, maybe even use that telepathic helmet to make it into a hidden weapon for last ditch situations.

 

I hadn't heard anything from the charged armour tests since 2008 (started by BAE in 2001), but nothing to say the project was being dropped. At the time I'd only seen tests done on 'hulks' of tanks, rather than an actual combat ready vehicle, but I'd be interested to read that 80's report.

As for the projected field-bubble, at the moment, it only detonates missiles rather than shells, but it's curretly mounted on an FV432 chassis, which is fully mobile. The BAE project was started in 2007, and the telegraph, times and 2 science papers (I can't remember which now) reported last year that the MoD (post defence cuts, the proejct is still getting support) was adding financial support to the project the theory being that should it work, it could be applied to the CVR(T) family in Afghanistan. But it's still early days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

found it, unfortunately it's only in a book, can't find an internet article, "Pan Ballantine's illustrated history of the violent century; Allied Secret Weapons, The War of Science", and my date was wrong sorry, 1958 and then given up 1963.

And missile detonating fields i can understand better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0