[BloodEagle]

-small enough to not increase target profile notably
-not hinder normal movement and concealment at all
-offer enough increase in the soldier's physical abilities to be of any use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_5

As for the armor portion of the arguement....

http://www.liquidmetal.com/technology/default.asp

[Kosh]

Today's main battle tanks can easily be destroyed by light RPGs and other similar war head class weaponry.

Um, no.

[Flaser]

Today's main battle tanks can easily be destroyed by light RPGs and other similar war head class weaponry.

Um, no.

Um...yes.

Under the right circumstances. Like being an idiot and bringing the tank into a built-up area.

The only case where the tank is almost impossible to kill is a full frontal assault on the tank's part...
...which happens to be what they were designed for.

[Mefustae]

Um...yes.

Under the right circumstances. Like being an idiot and bringing the tank into a built-up area.

Even then, you'd be hard pressed to do anything more than scratch a modern MBT with a "light RPG" or similar weapons. I've seen photos of the damage an RPG-7 can do to an M1A2, and all you get is maybe a neat little hole in the armour that more often than not doesn't even slow the tank down, let alone knock it out completely.

[Unknown Target]

Generally the only way to kill a tank with a light RPG is to get under it (yea right) or high enough above it so as to shoot down on it. You pretty much can give up about killing it from the side though, unless you manage a lucky hit on the treads.

[Wanderer]

Modern MBT(s) have been penetrated via frontal armor (with ERA) hit in Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29 .

[Mefustae]

Modern MBT(s) have been penetrated via frontal armor (with ERA) hit in Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29 .

Yeah, with the most advanced RPG out there. A far sight from the aforementioned 'light RPGs and other similar war head class weaponry' that can supposedly easily destroy modern MBTs.

[Wanderer]

Ah.. missed that

Yeah... with light RPG its a tad desperate. Still remember the weapons training in the army with the venerable M72 LAW. Trainer, while showing a pic of MBT headed your way: 'Now, this looks real bad. Just hide.', tank from the side: 'Nope, still not good enough.', tank from behind or when viewing from elevated position (ie. seeing the top): 'Now we are talking. And remember, shoot and scoot.'.

But those smaller ones are in any case earmarked for armored vehicles and APCs.

[NGTM-1R]

You're all missing a very vital point, and the one that is perhaps most germane to this discussion. Personal armor is not, in general, designed to stop direct fire from high-quality weapons. Modern personal armor was intially developed for and still serves the primary purpose of stopping much less powerful but equally dangerous to life and limb shell fragments.

Things like artillery shells, mortar rounds, grenades, and other explosives, these do not kill by blast effect (it is surprisingly difficult to kill someone not in an enclosed space with just blast effects) but by shrapnel. This is much easier to stop, in general, then a high-velocity rifle bullet. And such a suit could make it possible for the first time to provide genuine full-body protection against shrapnel without seriously encumbering the wearer, which would dramatically cut down on casualities in any given situation. So yes, there is a genuine military benefit to be had here.

[TrashMan]

Shooting a human foot soldier with a rocket launcher. Ain't as easy as it sounds. As the other guy won't stand still in the middle of a clearing for you to shoot.

Especially if this armor makes him faster than a normal human. The extra protection will require you to make a direct hit with a missile to kill him.

[Wanderer]

Shooting a human foot soldier with a rocket launcher. Ain't as easy as it sounds. As the other guy won't stand still in the middle of a clearing for you to shoot.

Especially if this armor makes him faster than a normal human. The extra protection will require you to make a direct hit with a missile to kill him.

True but with modern technology i seriously doubt the suit would be small, fast or nimble. Actually i believe it to be quite the opposite on three counts.

For example - as discussed already earlier - how would the armor be powered? Direct cable feed probably is out of the question.. though idea of troopers doing house searches hoping to find power sockets for the armors has some appeal . Battery power given that modern batteries are both bulky and heavy doesn't sound too good either making the armor either too heavy or too short duration to be any real use. Engines that would power such mass wouldn't exactly be pocket size either and as an added bonus would need fuel tanks (what ever the fuel would be).

[BloodEagle]

Don't forget to take into account the fact that the soldier would be able to carry loads more than the normal amount in weight.

Those batteries don't seem so heavy anymore, now do they? 

[Herra Tohtori]

For example - as discussed already earlier - how would the armor be powered? Direct cable feed probably is out of the question.. though idea of troopers doing house searches hoping to find power sockets for the armors has some appeal . Battery power given that modern batteries are both bulky and heavy doesn't sound too good either making the armor either too heavy or too short duration to be any real use. Engines that would power such mass wouldn't exactly be pocket size either and as an added bonus would need fuel tanks (what ever the fuel would be).

Nuclear battery?

You know, kinda like those that they put on Pioneer and Voyager and other probes like that? They run for decades. And beta-decaying isotopes can produce electricity directly because beta particles are electrons, which can be captured and used to produce a voltage differential and, consequently, current. So they won't need any kind of heat exchangers and generators either.

The only problem would be making them big enough to provide enough current to run the suit effectively. I don't know how big physically they would need to be, but that's probably the best option compared to others proposed (batteries, combustion engines, fuel cells).


Or perhaps the soldiers would need to have a big back pack that contains a spring. It would be wound before the battle to store a lot of torque, then it would unwind during movement.

[Wanderer]

Don't forget to take into account the fact that the soldier would be able to carry loads more than the normal amount in weight.

Those batteries don't seem so heavy anymore, now do they? 

You need machinery to carry i) the operator, ii) the actual harness, iii) the armor, iv) what ever it uses for power, v) fuel - should it need it, vi) anything you actually it want to carry 'for payload'... AND still have enough endurance to make the armor move for more than couple of minutes.

[BloodEagle]

Don't forget to take into account the fact that the soldier would be able to carry loads more than the normal amount in weight.

Those batteries don't seem so heavy anymore, now do they? 

You need machinery to carry i) the operator, ii) the actual harness, iii) the armor, iv) what ever it uses for power, v) fuel - should it need it, vi) anything you actually it want to carry 'for payload'... AND still have enough endurance to make the armor move for more than couple of minutes.

-small enough to not increase target profile notably
-not hinder normal movement and concealment at all
-offer enough increase in the soldier's physical abilities to be of any use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_5

As for the armor portion of the arguement....

http://www.liquidmetal.com/technology/default.asp

[Mika]

Ah try and collect all the scattered things into a single post...

Yes, according to my understanding the light rocket propelled grenade can penetrate the main battle tank hull if fired from above. Also, the underside of the tank is vulnerable, here you can basically use a mine which uses the same class warhead like light RPG to penetrate the armor. But these were things you all already knew, and are pretty much common knowledge. Then there are several other nice tricks, which depend of the tank model. All of that is about knowing your enemy as they say. Besides, going frontal against any tank is already a stupid thing of the defence, just as taking tanks inside the city from the attackers side. Sometimes these things cannot be avoided and there must be a well thought out plan if that happens.

Regarding the suit, I don't see a way how it could move significantly faster or nimbler than a human. Talk about the power source and weapon load etc. etc. assumes that the ground supports the additional weight. For nuclear batteries, any pilot willing to put up a larger one behind their backs? Added weight from the radiation shielding? And the combat shielding of the power unit?

Regarding the armor, if I recall correctly, as a rule of thumb, a standard hunting rifle bullet can travel through one centimeter of steel. Actually, I looked up some numbers, so standardized surface area of man is about 2m^2, which you need to cover. So, 0.01 m layer of steel on top of man will result in approximately 0.02 cubic meters of steel. Now, specific weight of steel is around 7.9 g/cm^3, or 7900 kgs/m^3 resulting to the weight of  158 kgs. Add in a pilot, about 80 kilograms and then the batteries, the actuactors or servo motors, the support frame, the actual payload, you got the idea. It is lucky if the end result is below 350 kgs. Then talk about athermalization, since all the fancy stuff has to work regardless of the temperature. Usually such materials are much harder to machine, resulting in difficulties in achieving the manufacturing tolerances, which will result in heavier and bulkier structures. Also the lubrication of the joint areas must be taken care of, and I suspect that this will also be a major problem since few joints in human body have rotations only along a single axis. But this is only my opinion of the combat feasibility of that suit.

But even this is optimistic, since you also have to stop the shockwave from entering the pilot's body, so there must be some extra cushion or extra room available around pilot's body which will increase the surface area (and weight) of the system. Also, there must be some careful design around the head of the pilot to prevent the pressure wave caused by a direct hit from entering pilots ears or in general, head or spine! Also, how could the eyes of the pilot be protected while retaining the situational awareness? It is not a difficult trick to shoot the pilot in the eye.

It is far more easier and cheaper to develop a rifle or ammunition that will pierce through this armor than to deploy the armor in a combat situation with significant numbers. Actually, I don't even know where it could actually help, not counting hand to hand combat, and even that is a little questionable.

Load carrying then, there it might prove to be useful. While it can double the amount of single man can move, it is usually easier to have two men doing the thing.

Mika

[BloodEagle]

1) Because the HAL-5 uses bio-electric sensors, it is just as fast at interpreting a signal as the human body.

2) I was using it as an example because it's still in the early stages, plus,  it isn't being designed for warfare.

Also, there must be some careful design around the head of the pilot to prevent the pressure wave caused by a direct hit from entering pilots ears or in general, head or spine!

3) You could place a system that sends a copy of the incoming signal at the incoming signal. This is already being done with fighter pilot helmets.

Also, how could the eyes of the pilot be protected while retaining the situational awareness? It is not a difficult trick to shoot the pilot in the eye.

4) I would imagine that within a few years the cost of producing high quality cameras and video screens will be low enough to create a FOV measuring 270 degrees. That should be enough.

It is far more easier and cheaper to develop a rifle or ammunition that will pierce through this armor than to deploy the armor in a combat situation with significant numbers. Actually, I don't even know where it could actually help, not counting hand to hand combat, and even that is a little questionable.

5) I'll give you that one. 

[Admiral_Stones]

This is actually a Anti-Tank Gun - a truly poor and desperate attempt of an anti-tank weapon.

It wasn't that poor considering the opposing armoured vehicles at the time. The weapon was designed in 1939 to partially fill the desperate need of any anti-tank weaponry, since about the only AT weapons available were some odd less or more portable anti-tank cannons. And considering how much more portable it was than a full-fledged AT cannon, and how the shaped charges as anti-tank weapons would be developed by the Germans only later during the war as infantry AT weapons, it wasn't that bad of an effort.

After it stopped being useful against tanks, it was used as a long range heavy sniper rifle, against lightly armoured or non-armoured vehicles and against fortified positions - as well as an anti-aircraft weapon against slow ground attack planes (Sturmoviks).

Winter War

During the Winter War Finland lacked anti-tank weaponry. Only two 20 mm rifles and a few 13.2 mm machine guns made it to the front, where the 13.2 mm machine guns were found to be ineffective and unreliable while the larger 20 mm ones proved successful against Soviet armour. Because of this, Finland finally settled on the 20 mm design and started production. The gun was also widely used in the "Cold Charlie" technique, where the Finns would use a mandequin to pose as an officer sloppily covering himself, Soviet snipers would fire upon it, and the Finns would use the Lahti L-39 to fire at the Soviet sniper.
tches (especially with phosphorus ammunition). It was even able to damage tank turrets and pin them to stop traversal of the cannon.

Users noticed the L-39 was heavy and difficult to move in the battlefield. Even its magazine weighed almost two kilograms more than the Finnish Suomi M-31 SMG. The whole weapon weighed some 50 kilograms and it was usually towed by reindeer or horses. In the field, a two man team was assigned to the gun's use to move and fire it. Some of the rifles were simply abandoned in the heat of battle. They were easy to replace, however. By the end of the war over 1900 of the L39's, manufactured by VKT (Valtion Kivääritehdas, "State Rifle Factory"), had been produced and put in the field.

I have to admit, though... 50 kg rifle... Pretty much like NSV 12.7mm machine gun along with the tripod mount and belt box full of rounds.

Having been part of some wonderful exercises concentrationg on how to transport an NSV from a firing position to another (and another, and another...) I would definitely not want to haul this piece of metal around, especially if it wasn't possible to take apart fast to make carrying the parts easier...

And armor piercing is largely obsolete.

No, it isn't obsolete.

It is true in the sense that infantry troops do not use directly piercing ammunition against heavily armoured tanks but instead use different kinds of shaped charges, be it by mine, propelled grenade (recoilless rifles) or anti-tank missile.

Tanks, however, do use armour piercing ammunition against each other, in addition to HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) rounds. These sabot rounds are essentially winged spikes or darts made of depleted uranium, concealed in a shell that fits the tank gun barrel and detaches after exiting the barrel, leaving the heavy, dense spike of death fly freely towards the target at extreme accuracy. The armour piercing effect of the sabot rounds is devastating due to extremely high muzzle velocities and high density and hardness of the sabot material.

And it goes without saying that as body armour becomes more effective, infantry weapons will further specialize on armour penetration. Rifle caliber rounds are already incapable of penetrating modern body armour (although they'll definitely leave a mark).



Aand... to say something about the suits. They might offer better endurance and much better ballistic protection than traditional fibre/ceramic body armour, with better coverage, but even the weakest of AT weapons would be a damn big risk. Getting hit with even an old M72 LAW (or 66 KES 75/88) grenade would cause heavy damage, as that in itself penetrates ~30 cm of panzer steel.

Getting suitable protection even against 12.7 mm sniper rifles would be far-fetched. Hell, even a Dragunov could be a hard one to deal with without making a Michelin man out of kevlar... Which kinda means that to be truly useful for an infantryman, the exoskeleton would need to be:

-small enough to not increase target profile notably
-not hinder normal movement and concealment at all
-offer enough increase in the soldier's physical abilities to be of any use.

Strength doesn't really help much in a modern firefight in itself, as long as you don't get into hand-to-hand fight against the enemy... The main advantage of the suit would be better endurance, better weapon aim (increased stability) and perhaps the most advantageous feature (if possible) would be increased running speed.

Heh, I reaaallly need to get my pseudo-'military knowledge' up-to-date.
Hey, what if they use suits of collapsed molybidium?
Or maybe the pentagon can start to research on particle shields, or even more realistic, a extremly responsive laser cannon shooting AP rounds outa the air.

[Mika]

1) Because the HAL-5 uses bio-electric sensors, it is just as fast at interpreting a signal as the human body.

But this doesn't make it any more nimble or faster than the actual physical capabilities of the pilot! The suit cannot run 60 km/h if the man inside can only go momentarily 30 km/h! It would assume that the suit would need to understand the need of the pilot. If it could do this, the physical capabilities of human would be exceeded and the pilot would not be a pretty sight after the mission (broken bones, stretched joints, pulled muscles and such). The suit cannot fall down or jump much faster than the man itself, otherwise even if suit withstood the impact, the pilot inside would still found his bones broken due to the deceleration he encounters. Improving it would need kind of springs, which would add to the height of the system, and would need to be reasonably long to provide sufficient distance for suitable acceleration that would not break the pilot.

3) You could place a system that sends a copy of the incoming signal at the incoming signal. This is already being done with fighter pilot helmets.

I'm not sure at all if I understood this.

4) I would imagine that within a few years the cost of producing high quality cameras and video screens will be low enough to create a FOV measuring 270 degrees. That should be enough.

I cannot comment this.

Mika

[BloodEagle]

1) I believe the current gear that the standard GI wears weighs around 120 Lbs. So even if it doesn't increase the maximum speed, it would at least decrease the strain on the person wearing it.

----------

2) If two waves of pressure that are identical hit each other, they will cancel each other out.

----------

3) I can't comment on your comment that can't comment on my earlier comment.