Upgrades in modern combat armor?

[amish]

Originally posted by: Geniere
Soldiers operate the SWORDS by remote control, from up to 1,000 meters away.

sounds cool, but couldn't the signal being used be easily scrambled, such as with cell phones and other electronics?

 

[klaviernista]

Originally posted by: amish

Originally posted by: Geniere
Soldiers operate the SWORDS by remote control, from up to 1,000 meters away.

sounds cool, but couldn't the signal being used be easily scrambled, such as with cell phones and other electronics?

yes, but first the enemy would have to know what signal is being used to control the system. Jamming is not as simple as filling the airwaves with lots of low level noise, its sually accomplished by pinpointing a known frequency and broadcasting at high intensity over that band. At least this is how radar jamming typically works.

 

[tweeve2002]

Originally posted by: malak
My question is, why are weapons developed to kill instead of simply immobilize? The biggest reason people are against war is because of death, so why continue to advance tech into new ways of killing?

Actually what what the milatary is doing now...My friend just got out of boot camp and said that they try and wound the enemy instead of killing them. The reason, easy if you wound a guy it takes at least 2 people off the battle field if not three people.

If you kill the guy you take one perosn off the battle field.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: skyking
Yeah, it did not seem right. Really, the energy dissapation is not the huge problem. Otherwise soldiers would be flying all about when they open up full auto
Of course, the acceleration takes place over a few milliseconds as the gasses expand, makeng that push a more gentle shove than the downrange impact on an immovable surface would be.
You'd need a thicker substrate than the current armor, one that will also decellerate the round over X number of milliseconds. It needs to do that, and do it repeatedly. That sounds way too heavy to be of practical use.
?=.5M<V squared>
Mass of a nato 5.56 is ~3.56 grams
Mass of a nato 7.62 is ~9.5 grams

I think that is the correct explanation. The problem is not the kinetic energy of the bullet, it is the impulse; you are trying to stop something wich is carrying a lot of momentum in a short distance=a lot of impulse.
There are only two ways to do this:
1) Wear something REALLY hard which the bullet can not penetrate
2) Gradually slow down the bullet using a layer-on-layer techique, as far as I know this is how kevlar wests work.

 

[newmenu]

the answer seems simple to me. force field. a force field can stop or dramatically hinder a slug, shrapnel, or or any other projectile. its chemical, biological, and psychological warfare that will be the way of the future. and dont tell me force fields are imposible. they exhist and will be standard trooper gear as soon as the technology to store and or produce great abounts of energy with a small enough module is affordably developed. for now thier only for the ultra elite where cost it of no consequence.

 

[tinyabs]

Maybe tiny active radar bullets will. I wonder how cheap and feasible it it.

Bullets are deformable so it will slam onto the armor. Being hard doesn't deflect the bullets.

 

[Gibsons]

and dont tell me force fields are imposible

Okay.

they exhist and will be standard trooper gear as soon as the technology to store and or produce great abounts of energy with a small enough module is affordably developed

Do you have a reference, link or citation describing these force fields?

Bullets are deformable so it will slam onto the armor. Being hard doesn't deflect the bullets.

Well, the point is to stop the bullet from going through human flesh, whether deflecting or just stopping. The choice of materials there seems to be fabrics with extremely high tensile strength (kevlar, zylon, or other exotic fibers) or extremely hard and lightwieght materials (ceramics like boron carbide, silicon carbide). The problem with fibers being that they are deformable and can be bypassed by sharp bits of shrapnel (flechettes), while the ceramics are stiff (costing mobility) and fairly brittle (might not work so well after the first hit). Most modern armor is a combination of both. Seems to work okay from what I've read, up to about .30 cal rifle rounds.

But all this assumes they hit the armor.... One thing that hasn't been discussed is the importance of location. Currently we put body armor over the torso and leave the rest pretty much exposed. To take the most extreme problem, it's difficult to imagine something that can make a hand bullet proof and still allow some usefull freedom of movement.

 

[imported_Darthan]

The basic problem with body armor is that you need so much of it. A gun barrel can use denser and stronger materials (metals) than body armor because the soldier doesn't have to be covered in it. As long as gun barrels can use more or tougher materials (per unit i.e. thicker adamantium in the gun barrel than all over the soldier) the gun can tolerate higher pressures and thus you can put more propellant behind the bullet and more energy into it than you can absorb with the body armor.

Also, the reason it is easy (relatively) for a soldier to absorb recoil from an M16 is that he/she does it over 1/4 of a second and across a few square inches of shoulder. Thus the force at any given point is manageable although you can certainly bruise yourself shooting. The target's body armor has to stop a bullet in less than a 1/1000 of a second and over an area of no more than 1/4 of an inch. There is then tremendous force over that tiny area and time. Kevlar armor uses this principle by stopping the bullet over a short distance and thus extending the decceleration time and thus the decreasing the force of the impact.

 

[Calin]

Looking at the older times, I think the battle between the big guns (on battleships) and big armor (also on battleships) has finally ended with the victory of the big gun.
I don't find this kind of battle probable to be won by the armor. It's just that (as was told) creating a bigger gun is easier than creating a bigger armor. (A .50 cal rifle is incomparably more powerful than even an AK-47, so the existance of armors that can protect against smaller callibres will move back onto the battlefield the high caliber rifles.)
However, it doesn't matter too much the body armor while the head is less protected (especially the eyes). An aimed hit will take out someone no matter the body armor they carry.

 

[ajskydiver]

Originally posted by: Darthan

Also, the reason it is easy (relatively) for a soldier to absorb recoil from an M16 is that he/she does it over 1/4 of a second and across a few square inches of shoulder.

Actually, the stock of a M-16 contains a large metal spring from the upper receiver to the end of the stock to absorb the recoil from the bolt...so you're a bit off.

~AJ

Edit: Fixed quote - my bold

 

[Gibsons]

Looking at the older times, I think the battle between the big guns (on battleships) and big armor (also on battleships) has finally ended with the victory of the big gun.

I would say it ended with the victory of the aircraft carrier over the battleship, and/or the guided missile and torpedo over the gun. Modern aircraft carriers are still armored.

On land, the battle is very much still in progress, see tanks with chobham armor and reactive armor vs HEAT and sabot rounds.

It's just that (as was told) creating a bigger gun is easier than creating a bigger armor. (A .50 cal rifle is incomparably more powerful than even an AK-47, so the existance of armors that can protect against smaller callibres will move back onto the battlefield the high caliber rifles.)

I think it's pretty safe to say that the average soldier isn't going to be carrying around a .50 cal rifle anytime in the near future. If anything, combat rifles have gotten less powerful over the last 50 years. In WWII, American infantrymen used 30-06 rifles, muzzle energy of about 2700 ft-lbs. Currently they use the 5.56mm or .223, muzzle energy of about 900 ft-lbs. There's some healthy debate about implementing a new "intermediate" power round, but that's another story.

That said, I still agree with your main premise, if you make a million dollar suit of armor, someone will make a two hundred dollar gun that will defeat it.

 

[Calin]

The gun lost the battle with the aircraft mainly because of range limitation. Big guns are still the cheapest way of sending big payloads against an enemy (as some guns fired payloads over 2000 pounds).
Modern aircraft carriers might have an "armored" deck (enough to resist to a plane crash). However, their overall armor is incomparable to that of the battleships of the "good old days".
I would think that their underwater defense (resistance to mines or torpedoes) is (greatly) improved over the battleships. However, a carrier will never be under the heavy guns fire, so armor is not so much a priority. (especially that armor will confine inside the explosion of a missile that could go thru the armor belt).

 

[imported_Darthan]

Actually, all the energy of recoil is still absorbed by the soldier's shoulder. The spring just serves to spread the energy release out more so that recoil occurs over a quarter of a second instead of an eighth or something like that. Well, I suppose if you made the spring out of the right materials it could convert some of the energy to electric current (using Piezo technology) or heat or something. Hmmm, if that electric current thing could be done it could allow for both reducing recoil and powering electrochemical guns solely from the chemical reaction...

 

[Gibsons]

Actually, all the energy of recoil is still absorbed by the soldier's shoulder. The spring just serves to spread the energy release out more so that recoil occurs over a quarter of a second instead of an eighth or something like that.

Apologies in advance if I screw the math/physics here up, I'm out of practice.

I think you point is correct, but the time is shorter, in the realm of hundredths of a second. I think the formula to figure the time is d = 1/2 (v1 + v2)(t), which would give 1/400 seconds assuming a 1m gun barrel, constant acceleration and 800m/sec muzzle velocity.

Another factor in why it's better to be on the butt-end of a gun rather than the barrel end is the gun won't have the kinetic energy that the bullet does because it has higher mass.

take a 30-06 round, muzzle velocity is about 850 meters/sec and has a mass of roughly 10grams for a momentum of 8500 g*m/sec (not converting units, I'm lazy)

A gun will weigh something like 2.5kg or 2,500grams

Given conservation of momentum, M1V1=M2V2, solve for gun velocity (going backwards) it comes out to about 3.4meters/sec (or negative 3.4 if you want to get picky). It won't really be like that in real life as the gun is coupled to the shooter...

Now figure the kinetic energy (capacity to do work). formula is 1/2 mv^2

Bullet: 0.5 * 10gr * (850)^2 = 3,612,500
Gun: 0.5 * 2,500gr * (3.4)^2 = 14,450

Hopefully I didn't hit a wrong button on the calculator.

My physics is too fuzzy to remember what the units are here (newtons or centinewtons or ergs or something), but I think the general point is evident. Other things mentioned (impulse, spreading the energy over a larger surface area) are also important of course.

 

[imported_kouch]

I don't think this discussion should extend to how guns could be made better to combat better armor. I think currently, all we need to figure out is how to stop the ak47 rounds as that is what our enemy has available. they do not have the resources or money to widely supply their ranks or develop mew rifles and weapons. The only reason terrorism has become an issue is the huge surplus of arms from overproduction and distribution during the cold war by the russians and the chinese.

 

[imported_Darthan]

Actually, if you really want to talk about our enemies who are killing our soldiers you need to talk about armoring against bombs, which is hard. If you're close enough no armor in the world will save you unless it is so heavy it can absorb the energy of the blast without subjecting you to ultra rapid acceleration. Of course, then you need to armor against heat, which is also not really possible at this time. The good news is that unless you really are right on top of a bomb the big worry is shrapnel which body armor can defend against since shrapnel and bullets are pretty much the same thing from the armor's point of view.

Really I just think humans are way too good at finding ways to kill each other. Even if we do figure out some ultra force field that can stop a nuke at 10 meters and only weighs 50lbs and is only moderately bulky and clumsy someone will figure out how to make the ultra force field exploder that weighs about 6 ounces and fits in the palm of your hand.

 

[Wadded Beef]

hehe 500lb 7 foot creatures and robots fighting our future wars, maybe todays warcraft3 champions will be tomorrow's generals =]

 

[klaviernista]

Originally posted by: Darthan Even if we do figure out some ultra force field that can stop a nuke at 10 meters and only weighs 50lbs and is only moderately bulky and clumsy

and don;t forget it has to be simple enough to operate that even cleetus the hillbilly can protect himself

 

[dpopiz]

1. the force will always be transfered to body. it's either all within a square cm or so (blade/bullet), up to a few square meters. the only difference is pressure
2. no medival (and probably to this day) armor could stop a sword. The only purpose of medival armor was to slow the blade down a little bit to reduce the likelyhood that it would chop your arm or torso or whatever completely off.

 

[imported_Darthan]

Actually, medieval armor got quite good at stopping swords. Well, at least the rich knight's armor. Most of the army was peasants who were much less well equipped. The reason medieval swords got so big was that they had to apply more force to hurt someone through the armor. Actually, maces were much more effective weapons against those knights because they could just smash you in spite of your armor. That type of armor didn't prevent blunt force trauma very well if you got hit in the head with a mace. Also, you buckle a breastplate or whatever with a mace and smash what was beneath. Europeans couldn't make swords sharp enough to cut that armor (hell, I don't think we could today either, you just can't cut steel plate quickly with only human strength) so they just had to smash it.

 

[Gannon]

This thread makes me shake my head at how un-evolved the human race is. As a species humans have the ability to transcend their warlike nature but most do not because they are caught in their outdated psychology, which forces peaceful people to into arms races and development of weapons to protect themselves from people who are less evolved ethically and psychologically. If we have proved anything, we have proved that peace and ethical evolution is more necessary then anything. Look at the technologies that wouldn't be possible if we did not have peaceful co-existance. This is not to say you stop the development of military technology, but if those resources were focused on energy production and matter control, so that there was enough for everyone. No sane person should have a reason to complain or go to war with someone else if their is abundance of energy and way to make any kind of resources.

 

[Gamingphreek]

You must be one of those people who wore tie die and drove the VW Vans around during the 70's.

Anyways do we have forcefields today?

 

[everman]

The army future warrior program has a lot of this type of stuff. We have fabrics that may seem like a regular shirt/jacket etc, but when impacted with a bullet it tenses up and is bullet resistant. Perhaps more of a civilian armor solution though.

The idea of troops wearing heavily armored suits is not far out there either. Researchers at MIT created a great set of mechanical legs that are worn and let the wearer have a much higher carrying capacity. Energy source will be a limiting factor here. But a soldier could be an armored walking weapons platform with very heavy armor and weaponry. (There is video of this leg unit, very cool. I believe the guy is wearing about 150lbs of equipment without really hindering him much at all)


So imo the main limiting factor now is becoming limited portable (and small form factor) energy sources.

 

[Elios]

well theres you 7' 500lb super solder sounds alot like the space marines in warhammer 40K
Games Workshop

 

[CycloWizard]

The current thrust of body armor is in ceramic-metal composites. Ceramics shatter when hit with a sufficient impact. The act of shattering can absorb an insane amount of energy. This is the same principle that was exploited with kevlar (kevlar has a certain morphology that caused it to rupture when impacted, absorbing energy), though ceramic plates can absorb much more energy. We just sent ~100 such plates to Iraq for testing, no word back yet on how they're doing.