Body Armour

PanzerBob · #1 April 11th, 2008, 02:13 AM

Given how "casualities" are represented, Mobhack is correct at this scale of simulation.

Body Armour as used and even in the future, only means that more troops will survive, it will not make super soldiers. Even if a Vest can withstand high powered military bullets (and as mentioned some of the new stuff coming out can.) The effects of an attack with small arms and lets say grenades will still make men combat ineffective.

The primary bonus for body armor as used is HOPEFULLY less injuries and death. I have read and experianced that body armor has a disadvantage of being clumsy. Some complaints along those lines have been made. This too is being worked on as the technology is improved. It is a heck of a trade off though to have to decide on in the meantime!!

Wdll · #2 April 11th, 2008, 05:01 AM

I know, in theory, I would rather wear one than not lol.

Suhiir · #3 April 11th, 2008, 02:48 PM

The big problem with body armor is weight and cost.
Sure, there's stuff out there that can stop anything short of a nuke, but even the US Army can't afford to buy it for general issue.
That and the classic weight problem.
it seems that very few people that haven't been a mud grunt themselves really appreciate that adding an extra 20-40 pounds of high-tech body armor to their load just ain't gonna work.

Marcello · #4 April 11th, 2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Suhiir said:
The big problem with body armor is weight and cost.
Sure, there's stuff out there that can stop anything short of a nuke, but even the US Army can't afford to buy it for general issue.
That and the classic weight problem.
it seems that very few people that haven't been a mud grunt themselves really appreciate that adding an extra 20-40 pounds of high-tech body armor to their load just ain't gonna work.

As far as I know Interceptor has been a standard issue in Iraq for quite some time. There were shortage issues in the early years of the war, just like it happened for armored cars but eventually production caught up. Now interceptor,like the up armored HMMWVs, may not be the absolute best but it is good enough and has been available in quantity for some time.
The cost issue: given all the money which is spent training, recruiting etc. an american soldier issuing everyone deployed a set of body armor that stops AK rounds and the like is no big deal. It was not possible/practical/economic some years ago but now it is (IIRC it took some advances in composite materials technology during the early 90's).
The weight issue: like all things it comes down to trade offs; additional weight limits your mobility, the armor traps the heat etc. No doubt there may be times and circumstances where it is not worth. But at least in Iraq it seems to be deemed worthwhile most of the time and vehicles are used extensively anyway, it is not like troops have to climb mountains or march 20 Km in the jungle.

Marcello · #5 April 11th, 2008, 05:53 PM

On a purely anedocte basis it seems that you can get shot at with an AK-47 and if the bullet hits the hard plates you can get away with minor bruises and be still combat effective, but this of course is only a fraction of the possible cases. The soldier who gets shot both in the arm and in the chest is still a casualty for example even if he is much better off than it would have been otherwise.

rfisher · #6 April 22nd, 2008, 05:27 PM

Looks like weighty armour won't be a problem much longer!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351399.stm

Suhiir · #7 April 24th, 2008, 10:44 PM

It was bound to happen sooner or later.
I suspect the big stumbling block for them will be whatever they use to power them. I can't imagine any battery would last long enough to be worthwhile.

Marcello · #8 April 25th, 2008, 04:13 AM

Quote:

rfisher said:
Looks like weighty armour won't be a problem much longer!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351399.stm

Not so fast. For a start developing these unarmored exoskeletons into powered armor will still take some time, probably several years. Then even once that happens you will not be able to turn everyone into the Mobile Infantry. Money issue aside it seems to me that a soldier fitted with such thing will not have the same set of abilities that a regular infantryman has. He will be much better protected and equipped. But he will be also bulkier and much heavier. This means he may not be able to go in the same places a normal soldier, even with body armor, can go. He will be also more resource intensive to keep in the field, meaning a further increase in the tail to teeth ratio, which may not be desiderable in some scenarios.
I could see some units being equipped with that, but not something everyone can be issued with like a bulletproof vest.