Posted on 01/07/2006 3:53:57 PM PST by WillT
I don't suppose they can work just a tad faster?
I forget the name of the author and I forget the name of the book, it was written in the 1960s I believe and it was about soldiers that had armour that was powered, servo motors that kicked in when the soldiers moved,they had computers that aimed their rounds for them and even carried small tatical nukes with them, they could run, jump and move faster than without the armor. Great book. It looks like it is time for fiction to become truth if we keep adding more armor to our soldiers!
Also note that the story is similar for the Hummer and IED armor. You could, metaphorically, turn the Hummer into a Stryker, but at the cost of reduced speed, reduced maneuverability, reduced visibility, and greatly increased logistical needs (fuel, maintenance, parts) -- and Strykers aren't exactly immune to the danger, either.
I read one version of the original story where the headline was something like, "Pentagon Denied Extra Armor For Soldiers." This is a very misleading headline and implies DoD is purposely trying to get soldiers killed out there. I'm sure this follow-up story above - which I give AP credit for doing - will not receive as much fanfare as the original story.
Call me dumb...
Well, go ahead, I'll wait....
But back in my day, I hated wearing body armor... In fact I ''Forgot'' it on a regular basis.
'Course the new stuff weighs about 1/3 as much,
but still, 8 times out of 10, I'd be glad to trade being fast, quiet and comfortable for having a little protection of some areas and being slowed down and uncomfortable.
Depends on the actual mission whether I would wabt more or less body armor.
On another point and probably going to lose millions of $ saying this as someone else will evelope it. Which is fine if it saves one American Warrior's life.
I used to be a welder and had a shield that was almost clear until you sturck an arc and then instantly it wnet dark, these are now normal but 18 years ago it was new stuff.
It was based on light and when this intense light hit the lens it had something inside that reacted so fast that there was no damage to your eyes. A bullet is no where near as fast as light so it would be nice to have body armor made in the same idea as that lens was. As something hits it, it reacts and blocks anything from getting through it.
It is about 2 am here and I can't explain things like I would like to but any welder knows what I am talkng about and it would be great to have it work for body armor too.
I will tell him. :) And we'll keep your son in our prayers, bnelson44. Please tell him there's lots of Alaskans up here who honor and thank him for service!
Sounds good.
A story similar to what you heard was on the radio news earlier today. They made it sound like many upper body type hits would be fatal with the existing armor and the Pentagon was denying the best armor to the Marines.
This is nearly identical to the complaint and resolution of the trench fighters of WW1, about the use of helmets.
The only guy who appreciates the armor is the guy who's life is saved by it.
BUMP!
Starship Troopers...nothing like the movie and much better by all accounts
Yup, that's the one. Mainly of interest for it's scathing social commentary.
The powered armor allowed the wearer to 'bounce' over apartment blocks, and the wearer had low-yield nukes at his disposal. Tanks are mentioned with scorn- 'If somebody tried to attack us with one of those old things, it'd be his last mistake', or words to that effect.
Thinsulate helped change that, actually, and advances in body armor materials and design could imporve efficacy and mobility for our troops as well.
God Bless these brave men (and women) for taking the wind out of the MSM's sails, as well as all else they do.
Just imagine working in dry-cleaner's steam room on a humid July afternoon, while wearing a wool sweater under a heavy leather bomber jacket with all the pockets filled with sand.
"many soldiers say they feel encumbered by the weight and restricted by fabric that does not move as they do..."
"You can slap body armor on all you want, but it's not going to help anything. When it's your time, it's your time," said Suthoff, a platoon leader in the brigade's 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment. "I'd go out with less body armor if I could."
The debate between protection versus mobility has dominated military doctrine since the Middle Ages, when knights wrapped themselves in metal suits for battle, said Capt. Jamey Turner, 35, of Baton Rouge, La., a commander in the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment.
The issue comes up daily on the battlefield in Iraq, and soldiers need to realize there is no such thing as 100 percent protection, he said.
"You've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility," he added. "If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move."
"These guys over here are husbands, sons and daughters. It's understandable people at home would want all the protection in the world for us. But realistically, it just don't work," said Sgt. Paul Hare, 40, of Tucumcari, N.M.
http://labs.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_body_armor;_ylt=AteaIKje4hOL6YHaGzzcrHJ34T0D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2c250NGZwBHNlYwN1aA--
Video of a US soldier surviving a direct hit from a Dragunov-armed Insurgent sniper team. Chest hit- 7.62x54R just leaves a big bruise. I did some digging- the guy is a medic, and he's fine- in spite of the startling footage.
That's not bad armor.
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=73563
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.