Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

It just seems to me that we spend a lot on how to blow the crap out of things in ever more inventive ways.

We never research "defense," and we certainly don't for the individual soldier. This goes double for anything we actually put into practice in the field.

I realize armor is heavy and restricts mobility, both when you wear it and when you carry it, but how can this problem just be unsolvable? Hell, knights used to wear full plate. Carry it around on packmules if you've gotta.... That's a bit of an over dramatization, but this can't be just undoable, can it?
Really, our guys are getting blown the crap out of by IEDs... improvised explosive devices.... So Chemistry sets and fertilizer bombs? That's what's messing us up? Can't do jack about it?

I just don't understand why we don't have:
1.) Better personalized body armor
2.) Widespread use of armored personnel carries that can take hits from IEDs
3.) Semi portable steel frame fortifications that could either be assembled or airdropped. 
4.) Anti RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade) systems. A la Aegis or phalanx fire for small group use. 

I guess I'm just not understanding this.

[DJ]

Why is this in life advice?

[Truean]

Why is this in life advice?

Honestly because I'm multitasking and thought I hit "general discussion," which is the form right above life advice. Sorry. Moving....

[Aklyon]

It just seems to me that we spend a lot on how to blow the crap out of things in ever more inventive ways.

We never research "defense,"

You don't need defense if they get exploded before they can attack you. /nothelping

[LoSboccacc]

there is a lot of defensive research,

but it's currently unfocused. so you get sniper detection systems, bomb defusing robots, missile interception systems, that kind of small advancement.

the problem is, there is not a threat to drive scientific advancement.

military were for example mildly interested in radar and it saw low advancement until aircrafts became a real threat, then its research flourished.

don't worry, you'll see great advancements as soon as there is a real threat. it's simply not effective to spend in defense if you don't know what to defend next. at this stage, we'll see only early prototypes and feasibility studies, just to have some of everything ready as a base to start off should a technology become important.

[Virex]

They're working on it, why do you think most Kevlar-based armor is slowly being phased out in favor of better materials?

I just don't understand why we don't have:
1.) Better personalized body armor

That's being worked on. The problem right now is that anti-explosive gear is useless versus bullets and vice-versa,

2.) Widespread use of armored personnel carries that can take hits from IEDs

I thought they already did this? Moot point anyway, because doubling the explosive power of an IED is trivial, but doubling the explosion a vehicle can survive isn't.

3.) Semi portable steel frame fortifications that could either be assembled or airdropped. 

Hint, this isn't the 14th century. An RPG is going to blow the hell out of any fortification that could be airdropped. Bunkers are used instead but they take an engineer corpse to put up and don't protect people who're out in the field.

4.) Anti RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade) systems. A la Aegis or phalanx fire for small group use. 

Problem here is the speed and accuracy needed. An RPG is going at the speed of sound and coming from a less than a mile away. the system has less than 3 seconds to identify, target and destroy the RPG (it takes 4 seconds for the RPG to reach the target, but the last part of the flight the system won't be able to track the rocket in most circumstances due to the high relative speed). There are CWIS systems being deployed on ships, but they have the advantage that engagement ranges in sea battles are longer, tracking is easier if there's no interference from the ground and a whole ship to drive the system. there is also the problem of multiple shots being fired in rapid succession...

[Vector]

... Corps, not corpse.

But I'm with you on this one and following to watch.

There's also been developments in a sort of cyborgy muscle-suity thing of late, to enhance trivial muscle movements and make soldiers that much more effectively strong.  However, it is really fucking heavy and really fucking expensive.

[Virex]

... Corps, not corpse.

But I'm with you on this one and following to watch.

There's also been developments in a sort of cyborgy muscle-suity thing of late, to enhance trivial muscle movements and make soldiers that much more effectively strong.  However, it is really fucking heavy and really fucking expensive.

And it doesn't make people any harder to kill. I thought those muscle suits were meant for the engineer corpse and maintenance workers anyway? A soldier would have to drag a diesel generator around to power it...

[devek]

Weapons vs armor always results in armor losing.

You can't protect a soldier from bombs and bullets. All we can do is protect vital areas from small arms fire and shrapnel, but don't think a helmet will stop a rifle round or a homemade bomb going off in your face. Guys with basic machine shops and chemistry are making roadside bombs that are strong enough to flatten tanks, war sucks.

Anti-rocket/mortar defense could use improvement though, and there is focus on it. It is still asymmetrical in the sense that it requires top of the line technology to defeat weapons that are older than any of us are.

[Vector]

And it doesn't make people any harder to kill. I thought those muscle suits were meant for the engineer corpse and maintenance workers anyway? A soldier would have to drag a diesel generator around to power it...

True, and I'm not sure.  I saw the article in the paper 5-7 years ago, and all I remember thinking at the time was "Cool, mechs."

[RedKing]

And the reason knights faded out of existence, despite still being a 1-on-1 match for anything on land, is that they didn't live long enough to get their pointy stick into the bowmen/gunners/pikemen arrayed against them.

There's sort of a constantly swinging pendulum between protection and mobility. Some weapons are very lethal, even through armor. But they have a narrow field of fire (IED's, RPGs, sniper rifles). Others are very difficult to dodge, but have light penetrating power (small arms fire vs vehicles, grenades).

More armor, less mobility. This is something that troops in Iraq found. When they up-armored Humvees (light, mobile vehicles) against IEDs, it slowed them down and made them more vulnerable to RPG fire.

It's just silly to say we never research defense. Personal body armor today is almost sci-fi like in its capabilities compared to even 10 years ago. Combat fatalities per incident are miniscule compared to what they were in previous wars where infantry generally didn't HAVE armor. Flight crews were usually the ones with body armor, and it was just a flak jacket. There's been all kinds of research into anti-mortar systems. There are armored MRAPs specifically designed for use in IED-prone areas.

The problem? All this shit is expensive. And a weapon to defeat it can be cobbled together with the parts available in the average street market. That's asymmetric warfare for you. And it's not a new problem. The civil militias of the Swiss cantons and the Low Countries fended off royal armies sporting fully-armored knights with little more than repurposed farming implements, and tactics and terrain. The locals in Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty good at using tactics and terrain too. Remember, the Taliban captured most of Afghanistan in the 1990's using a fleet of Toyota pickups. Against warlords who had a crapload of abandoned and captured Soviet tanks and artillery. Turns out, tanks and artillery aren't great assets in a country full of mountains and very few developed roads.

For Iraq, especially urban battlegrounds, it was right to focus on up-armoring. For Afghanistan, it's right to focus on goight light and fast. Speed doesn't save you when you're hemmed in with buildings and potentially taking fire from all directions. Armor doesn't save you when it means you're slogging up a mountainside at a snail's pace and even a blind goatherd can keep you in his crosshairs.

[LoSboccacc]

well, the armor problem is quite moot, and as a side note why are still we using soldiers anyway?

yeah, they have limited use in cleaning house by house in insurgent areas, but that's not what would happen in a real war.

we're still faking it up, being humanitarian and all that, but if/when war will strike, there will be no space for that.

remote controlled tanks and sub orbital artillery are just some of the possibilities. we don't really know what the next threat will be, and spending ton of money on defending from the unknown is pointless. just ask Maginot.

[Virex]

Expenses mainly. A tank is EXPENSIVE, A remote controlled one even more so. And don't get me started on the PRICE of an aircraft.

[Duke 2.0]

And it doesn't make people any harder to kill. I thought those muscle suits were meant for the engineer corpse and maintenance workers anyway? A soldier would have to drag a diesel generator around to power it...

True, and I'm not sure.  I saw the article in the paper 5-7 years ago, and all I remember thinking at the time was "Cool, mechs."

It does open up new doors for body armor if you can carry 150lbs of armor as opposed to the 60lbs soldiers can usually carry. It'll still be a very expensive and cumbersome system that can easily be disabled, so it's not terribly practical at this point, but the option is there.

 Explosive weapons also defy any attempt at making armor as the force would travel through the armor and hurt the wearer. These pressure waves can only be defeated by either having enough distance from it to diffuse apart or have an airtight seal all around that won't deform to it.

 There are laser defense systems in development that can take out an RPG, but they are also very expensive and would require upkeep to make sure the delicate systems would always be able to detect the incoming threat. It provides no protection from IEDs, suicide bombs or multi-pronged attacks.

 Weapons technology has always advanced beyond armor, and there is a lot more room for creativity in that field and now chances of avoiding being shot at altogether with information and tactical technologies in development. Making existing weapons more precise means we can just hit a target with airstrikes instead of sending in troops.

[devek]

I wish they would hurry up and figure out the nature of matter so I can have an overshield.