Not sure if this is the right place...but is the form-fitting armor worn by Sisters, Howling Banshees, Guardians, etc. practical/workable IRL?

Would an example of form fitting be like the Cyrsis Armor suit?

 LORD_PANTERA wrote:
Would an example of form fitting be like the Cyrsis Armor suit?

I meant IRL. Would modern soldiers, both male and female, be outfitted with form-fitting armor? Power Armor is certainly workable - strength-enhancing, fully-sealed, radiation and environmentally-shielded, self-contained - what I'm inquiring about is what the Sisters and other female warriors wear...armor which emphasized their feminine attributes.

Modern soldiers? No. There's all sorts of practical reasons for it to not be a good idea.

But given several thousand years of material and technological advances, combined with either archais adherance to religious ritual or supreme arrogance in your own abilities, with armour becoming as much a status symbol or a piece of mobile artwork as something to actually protect you in battle? Who knows?

 insaniak wrote:
Modern soldiers? No. There's all sorts of practical reasons for it to not be a good idea.

Which is impractical, form-fitting or powered (sorry, I brought up powered armor in my last post, so I'm a bit confused to which you're referring as impractical)? And the reasons are?

"Emphasising their feminine attributes" - considering how the armour looks like, I can only guess this is referring to the breastplate?

Some people have argued that it would act like a "bullet trap", yet considering how the trajectory of armour piercing ammunition actually works once it hits an object*, and how easily the risks of ricocheting rounds can be reduced (neckguards and reinforced plating on "focal points"), I am withholding my own final judgment and believe that many opinions regarding this subject are resulting more out of hearsay rather than a proper analysis.

*: Armour-piercing ammunition does not simply ricochet off a surface when hitting a steep angle but rather "burrows" into it and doing a slight curve until either penetrating entirely, getting stuck or exiting with reduced kinetic force.
Non-armour piercing ammunition has a much greater chance to ricochet - but obviously also has less tendency to penetrate whatever section of the armour it would be directed at, assuming it doesn't simply fly off into the surrounding environment.

A much greater risk might exist for bladed weapons thrust at this section of the armour, for the blade might indeed be directed towards the "heart" section of the breastplate as if you'd move a knife along a wall.
That being said, in real life people don't usually run around with swords, and even in 40k "bullet traps" are the least of a warrior's concern when facing an opponent with a power sword, for the power field wouldn't care much for this anyways. Chainswords in turn are not thrusted but slashed with, again being a non-issue.

 Lynata wrote:
"Emphasising their feminine attributes" - considering how the armour looks like, I can only guess this is referring to the breastplate?

The rear armor of Howling Banshees is very feminine, at least in DoW II...never seen Imperial Armor from the rear.

A much greater risk might exist for bladed weapons thrust at this section of the armour, for the blade might indeed be directed towards the "heart" section of the breastplate as if you'd move a knife along a wall.
That being said, in real life people don't usually run around with swords, and even in 40k "bullet traps" are the least of a warrior's concern when facing an opponent with a power sword, for the power field wouldn't care much for this anyways. Chainswords in turn are not thrusted but slashed with, again being a non-issue.

No, soldiers don't run around with swords...but they are armed with daggers and other stabbing weapons.

Ideally from a biomechanical major that's worked on experimental "powered armor" for lab project's standpoint, this has actually come up for debate quite a few times. The operator of a suit of armor ideally wants to be as unencumbered as much as possible while balancing protection

Less weight = more free floating and actually less power needed to power the suit but your trade off is potential for lift power and armor protection.

Old school knights in armor and samurai essentailly had their armored suits tailored to their exact specifications. Wear a pair of pants that have been properly tailored feels like a second skin vs baggy cargos which might be tougher, it does make it harder to run.

Armor density and curviture is also a big factor. To stop a .50 bullet like from mondern anti-tank rifles, you need almost 3 inch thick steel. That weighs some 600 lbs for a piece that's about the size of a car door. Even with invention of ceramic plates which weigh a fraction of steel plates, it'd still be really hard to make suits skin tight. You really need something harder than the incomming projectile to properly deflect or defeat the shot and flexible skin tight materials of today simply lack that ability. There's some ideas floating around of using ferromagnetic fluids and state changing materials to help absorb the impact but that is just theoritical right now.

Tadashi wrote:The rear armor of Howling Banshees is very feminine, at least in DoW II...never seen Imperial Armor from the rear.

Good point.

For the Sisters of Battle, I suppose it is a matter of interpretation, as the rears of their official miniatures are always covered by robes (which may or may not have protective capabilities of its own, depending how you'd judge its materials).

The Daemonifuge comic delivered some fanservice in that regard.

Tadashi wrote:No, soldiers don't run around with swords...but they are armed with daggers and other stabbing weapons.

Aye, I even recall having read of a bayonet charge by NATO troops (I think they were British?) in Afghanistan just years ago.
Now, in the age of firearms such situations would occur only rarely, but if it comes down to it, it'd all depend on what the material the armour is made of can endure, and what quality the bladed weapon is of.

Form fitting armor would sound like the sort of thing that private military companies would invest in. Armor tends to change every time it is found to be useless against a certain weapon or hazard, form fitting armor would be a personal taste thing.

 insaniak wrote:
Modern soldiers? No. There's all sorts of practical reasons for it to not be a good idea.

The US armed forces has recently started issuing female-optimized body armor. Not form-fitting as in make it obvious it's a woman but with shorter upper torso plates so the generally smaller women can actually move properly. The general purpose armors made it very difficult for smaller women to ride comfortably in a vehicle, or do some pretty important moves in the field like bend over to pick up a dropped weapon etc.

 sudojoe wrote:


Armor density and curviture is also a big factor. To stop a .50 bullet like from mondern anti-tank rifles, you need almost 3 inch thick steel. That weighs some 600 lbs for a piece that's about the size of a car door. Even with invention of ceramic plates which weigh a fraction of steel plates, it'd still be really hard to make suits skin tight. You really need something harder than the incomming projectile to properly deflect or defeat the shot and flexible skin tight materials of today simply lack that ability. There's some ideas floating around of using ferromagnetic fluids and state changing materials to help absorb the impact but that is just theoritical right now.

What if we apply the 40k version - thick ceramite (ceramic composite analogs which should provide both physical and radiological protection) plates which should be heavy and cumbersome if not for the electrically-motivated metal fiber bundles beneath the armor plating which replicate the effect and design of muscles? Don't know if we can do the latter though...another problem would be the power source and environmental systems. The power cells might be advanced versions of our modern day H-Fuel Cells, but compartmentalizing the environmental systems may prove difficult. The helmet with a personalized sensor suite shouldn't prove too difficult though, it might actually be the easiest part to design. The control interface would also be problematic - I doubt we could replicate or even want to replicate the Black Carapace. Probably something akin to that skinsuit-type interface Amberley Vail was wearing...

Or the Halo version - titanium alloy plating with reflective coating. That one required an AI and cybernetic interface though, and a micro-fusion plant to properly operate...we don't have the capability for either. Not sure how it enhanced strength either.

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. No matter what it's made of armor is a series of thick plates, and it's never going to be thin enough to be skin-tight enough to be sexy. There's just no point in following every curve and detail when you can just make a solid plate instead. Sure, rigid body armor for women might have slightly more space in the chest and wider hips, but that's not really what most people mean by "form fitting".

Now, if the question is "could sufficiently advanced body armor give non-zero protection and still be sexy", then sure, it could. However it would still be inferior in protection to sensible body armor. This might be fine in 40k where you have screaming idiots with chainswords running around and "sensible" was abandoned 30,000 years ago, but in the real world nobody is going to be stupid enough to do it.

 Lynata wrote:
Aye, I even recall having read of a bayonet charge by NATO troops (I think they were British?) in Afghanistan just years ago. Now, in the age of firearms such situations would occur only rarely...

Maybe they were too close or too boxed in for gunfire to be effective...in jungle/urban combat (the Philippine Army trains hard for both) melee combat is just as likely as ranged. I just asked my grandfather - when its up close and personal, guns are useless. Daggers, bayonets, or bolos are more reliable and useful.

...but if it comes down to it, it'd all depend on what the material the armour is made of can endure, and what quality the bladed weapon is of.

Anyway, ceramic composite is supposed to be as effective as metal but only at a fraction of the weight, so I suppose valid factors would include the strength of the dagger/melee weapon's composition against the endurance/durability of the armor plate, the force behind the blow, the angle of the strike, and probably other factors I can't think off.

Tadashi wrote:What if we apply the 40k version - thick ceramite (ceramic composite analogs which should provide both physical and radiological protection) plates which should be heavy and cumbersome if not for the electrically-motivated metal fiber bundles beneath the armor plating which replicate the effect and design of muscles? Don't know if we can do the latter though...

Honestly, I think we are a lot closer to creating fibre bundle muscles rather than some superstrong alloy comparable to ceramite - simply because the former is actual science and the latter is a made-up material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_artificial_muscles
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ferrisdp/pneumatics.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/robo-soldiers-pentagon-to-develop-super-suits-a-459381.html

Tadashi wrote:The control interface would also be problematic - I doubt we could replicate or even want to replicate the Black Carapace. Probably something akin to that skinsuit-type interface Amberley Vail was wearing...

We already have a working control interface for the powered exoskeletons and artificial limbs that already exist today. This isn't science-fiction anymore. The common method seems to be electrodes that register the "signals" our body sends to the muscles and translating them into commands for the machine.
Ironically, with artificial muscles it may be even easier, as the machine just needs to copy these signals 1:1 rather than re-interpreting into commands suitable for servo-controlled joints with limited mobility.

@Lynata

Perhaps RL powered armor would have a mix of MJOLNIR (titanium alloy w/ reflective coating, cybernetic interface with or without AI assistance) and Power Armor (with electrically-motivated fiber bundles for muscles). The sensor suite with HUD interface would be easy to adapt - which leaves advanced fuel cells or miniaturized fusion drive and a compartmentalized environmental system to develop.

Touching on the part where a riggid upper body makes it hard to move, pick up things, etc. I can't help but remember descriptions for medieval (and other warfare melee combat). Stab them in the feet/legs and then bash their heads. For powered armour of the type the Imperium uses (obviously not the Eldar type as described in Path of the Warrior) it would seem that agile manouvres and footwork to protect from tipping over would be hard. While a human may have problem gathering sufficient strength to shift a Space Marine's central point of mass outside the rather small area offered by the feet, I'd imagine that marine on marine un-armed* combat may devolve around who can trip who over.

* or rather where the weapons aren't stabby enough to penetrate the necessarily weaker areas near the joints or abdomen. Unless it's a sergeant (or higher ranked) in which case simply punching his unprotected face would work wonders.

 Tadashi wrote:
Not sure if this is the right place...but is the form-fitting armor worn by Sisters, Howling Banshees, Guardians, etc. practical/workable IRL?

When it comes to the Eldar armour, I'd say very practical. It's all fake-science so just reading their description they seem to have all the benefits of thick kevlar without even the limitations modern hip-hop clothes offer (and obviously it has no issues that kevlar has when it comes to longevity). Seems they've taken Star Trek uniforms and said "this material absorbs blows much better than kevlar, and doesn't even chafe you-know-where!" Aspect Armour is just Guardian mesh with armour plates added where you don't need the armour to bend.

 Mahtamori wrote:
.... it would seem that agile manouvres and footwork to protect from tipping over would be hard.

Not really...the automated systems and nervous interfaces solve that problem.

Have you guys seen Dragon skin? That can stop a full clip of AK rounds at almost point blank range. I know its not form fitting, but if we have the tech to make effective armor (maybe not cost effective) today, how far off can we be from form fitting effective armor?

I think as far as armor for women, what you would see would be a flat breast plate tha angels out over tr breast area and back in towards the stomach. Not a breast plate that individualizes each breast. We're not talking Viking Valkyries here.

I also think you would find (contrary to 80, heav metal magazine and cartoon) that most female warriors of the 40th millennium would probably not be well endowed in the upper region. Unless you worship slaanesh I can't see a set of D's being anything but a hinderance on the battlefield.

Appologies for spelling errors, the iPhone frequently makes them while inhibiting your ability to re-insert the cursor where you want it.

 Tadashi wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
.... it would seem that agile manouvres and footwork to protect from tipping over would be hard.

Not really...the automated systems and nervous interfaces solve that problem.

...which isn't going to solve the problems you face when someone is actively trying to make you fall. Additionally nervous interfaces and automated systems doesn't really help you make a manoeuvre which the armour is designed for you not to make (power armour is a large suit of rigid plates, rigid plates protect better. Period).

Lion - we can't all help it, you know. :p Some girls are just naturally gifted up there no matter how much exercise we do (Although, I say 'we', but I'm not one of them. ^^

Anyway, the Sisters' battle-corsets are silly and if the Imperium was real, they wouldn't wear them. If you look at the artwork, they aren't even part of the armour - they're cloth or leather over the top of something else.

As far as Eldar armour goes, the stuff literally works off hope and good wishes, so they can do what they bleeding well like!

Furyou Miko wrote:Anyway, the Sisters' battle-corsets are silly and if the Imperium was real, they wouldn't wear them. If you look at the artwork, they aren't even part of the armour - they're cloth or leather over the top of something else.

Which is exactly why they are not silly.
Apart from the ornamental role with which you can justify just about anything in a regime like the Imperium, "dust cover" serves to lengthen a suit's lifetime and minimises maintenance. And that's before we assume that this material has protective qualities of its own, reinforcing the underlying plates.

It'd be like calling accessories such as the shemagh or goggle pouches "silly" just because they appear not to protect the soldier directly.

I don't really know, or care. They look nice. The idea of Female warriors is a stretch of the mind itself, so they need something to reassure the gamer that they're actually using models of women.

I think it would be hard to make custom tight fitting armor for every single sister. Seems like sisters all have the same body type and appearance though, haha.

 Tadashi wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Aye, I even recall having read of a bayonet charge by NATO troops (I think they were British?) in Afghanistan just years ago. Now, in the age of firearms such situations would occur only rarely...

Maybe they were too close or too boxed in for gunfire to be effective...

As I recall that was exactly the issue - the Brits got under fire while crossing a water-filled ditch and the enemy were close, under 100 meters away. Raising your head for a look would have been bad, trying to get up to to see a target and aim for it would have been bad. So the guy in charge asked some of his men to fix bayonets and follow him in a charge while the rest then could get up and support them with gunfire.

A Gurkha soldier also got the second-highest British service medal for a bayonet charge in Afghanistan quite recently. 15-20 Taliban attacked his 4-man watchpost, he spent 400 rounds of ammo, 17 grenades and then decided to bayonet charge the remaining enemy because he wanted to take a few more with him before they got to kill his wounded squaddies.

Form fitting also doesn't make sense for the waste area. If you look at medieval armour, it has a beer gut shape to better deflect blows, while a thin waste would be easier to penetrate.

Spetulhu wrote:A Gurkha soldier also got the second-highest British service medal for a bayonet charge in Afghanistan quite recently. 15-20 Taliban attacked his 4-man watchpost, he spent 400 rounds of ammo, 17 grenades and then decided to bayonet charge the remaining enemy because he wanted to take a few more with him before they got to kill his wounded squaddies.

Gurkhas are insane and badass. The stories you hear about them ... sheesh.

Mr Nobody wrote:Form fitting also doesn't make sense for the waste area. If you look at medieval armour, it has a beer gut shape to better deflect blows, while a thin waste would be easier to penetrate.

And then people invented the mace.

The way our tech is developing, I'm pretty sure we'll invent the invul save before better armor saves that approximates imperial standards for thin form fitting armor. bulky armor, we'll get pretty close to imperial standard pretty quickly. Probably power armor as standard for troops in 50-80 yrs.

Field technology is still fairly developing but I forsee some good stuff down the pipeline in the next 20 years.

 Lynata wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:A Gurkha soldier also got the second-highest British service medal for a bayonet charge in Afghanistan quite recently.

Gurkhas are insane and badass. The stories you hear about them ... sheesh.

 Mahtamori wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
.... it would seem that agile manouvres and footwork to protect from tipping over would be hard.

Not really...the automated systems and nervous interfaces solve that problem.

...which isn't going to solve the problems you face when someone is actively trying to make you fall. Additionally nervous interfaces and automated systems doesn't really help you make a manoeuvre which the armour is designed for you not to make (power armour is a large suit of rigid plates, rigid plates protect better. Period).

And yet Astartes and Sisters make it work. Its not the weapons that make the warrior, its the person wielding them.

Tadashi wrote:And yet Astartes and Sisters make it work. Its not the weapons that make the warrior, its the person wielding them.

Granted, anything works in fiction. Looking at Space Marine armour, their massive breastplate would limit arm mobility by a considerable degree.

That being said, I would assume that - with some training - people could get used to it and just start to move differently. Medieval knights grew accustomed to heavy armour as well, after all.

In reality (gosh, that's a strange word to be using in the conversation!) a larger and more bulky suit would allow for more layers of, and more intricate secondary systems and of course, more layers of armour. So form fitting armour would be right out.

 Kaldor wrote:
In reality (gosh, that's a strange word to be using in the conversation!) a larger and more bulky suit would allow for more layers of, and more intricate secondary systems and of course, more layers of armour. So form fitting armour would be right out.

With that said, I think its about time we moved away from the viability of form-fitting armor to the viability of powered armor.

 Lynata wrote:

That being said, I would assume that - with some training - people could get used to it and just start to move differently. Medieval knights grew accustomed to heavy armour as well, after all.

I am inclined to agree.

 Tadashi wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
In reality (gosh, that's a strange word to be using in the conversation!) a larger and more bulky suit would allow for more layers of, and more intricate secondary systems and of course, more layers of armour. So form fitting armour would be right out.

With that said, I think its about time we moved away from the viability of form-fitting armor to the viability of powered armor.

Powered exoskeletons are already a reality, as is body armour.

The only question is, does this incredibly expensive technology have a practical application for us?

 Kaldor wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
In reality (gosh, that's a strange word to be using in the conversation!) a larger and more bulky suit would allow for more layers of, and more intricate secondary systems and of course, more layers of armour. So form fitting armour would be right out.

With that said, I think its about time we moved away from the viability of form-fitting armor to the viability of powered armor.

Powered exoskeletons are already a reality, as is body armour.

The only question is, does this incredibly expensive technology have a practical application for us?

For civilian use, I'd say space construction, heavy-duty labor, work in hazardous environments, assistance for disabled individuals, and probably many other uses. For military use, heavy assault, shock attack, and basically everything Astartes do in 40k and Spartans in Halo.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
In reality (gosh, that's a strange word to be using in the conversation!) a larger and more bulky suit would allow for more layers of, and more intricate secondary systems and of course, more layers of armour. So form fitting armour would be right out.

With that said, I think its about time we moved away from the viability of form-fitting armor to the viability of powered armor.

Powered exoskeletons are already a reality, as is body armour.

The only question is, does this incredibly expensive technology have a practical application for us?

Depends, in an urban combat scenerio where you are in narrow kill zones that are difficult to avoid being immune to small arms fire would be a distinct advantage. it also becomes more practical the larger the conflict.


So in the scenerio of 2 trained armed forces facing each other having some soldiers that are immune to anything short of anti-tank weaponry would definitly be something worth having. If this armor also increases your strength so much the better.

A squad of these guys would be used as line breakers. Using their immunity to small arms fire, they could move accross kill zones to take up firing positions otherwise inaccessable. The increased strength from the suits could also allow them to carry heavier weaponry. So their standard issue armament might be LMGs and they would be able to carry tons of extra ammunition due to the strength boost.

They wouldn't abandon cover, but it would allow them to take greater risks then they otherwise could do.

So basically the Juggernauts from Modern Warfare, it sounds like.

No, those weren't powered and certaintly weren't immune to small arms fire.

More like a large powered exoskeleton wearing plates made of the same material tank armor is made of.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, those weren't powered and certaintly weren't immune to small arms fire.

More like a large powered exoskeleton wearing plates made of the same material tank armor is made of.

ODSTs from Halo and Mobile Infantry from Roughnecks would be closer.

 Tadashi wrote:
For military use, heavy assault, shock attack, and basically everything Astartes do in 40k and Spartans in Halo.

But what is the benefit of the armour? Why spend millions (or billions) on R&D, roll-out, training and deployment when we already have tools to do those jobs? Something like that would maybe have a place in situations like Fallujah, but is it really a good idea to use your extremely limited, expensive and highly trained troops to bust open some piss-ant mud-hut village? When you've already got Marines capable of doing that job?

I just don't see a cost effective application for something like this militarily. Maybe for critical urban missions too dense for AFVs? I dunno.

Thats the point. It wouldn't be a standard issue equipment. It would be for very specific situations. A special forces unit. Used in Urban assaults and for Shock and Awe.

Abrams tanks have little use chasing down Terrorists, yet noone says they are a useless piece of equipment just because their job can be done by footsoldiers.


Soldiers wearing this armor would be heavy shock troops. They would combine the tactical benifits of a tank and a foot soldier. Extremely durable, but also mobile.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats the point. It wouldn't be a standard issue equipment. It would be for very specific situations. A special forces unit. Used in Urban assaults and for Shock and Awe.

That's what ODSTs are in Halo, and that's what they can be IRL too. Spartans may not become reality, but ODSTs can. In fact, I seem to recall one proposal about placing drop pod equipped space stations manned by US marines in orbit from where they can be deployed to hotspots anywhere in the world within minutes of an emergent crisis.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats the point. It wouldn't be a standard issue equipment. It would be for very specific situations. A special forces unit. Used in Urban assaults and for Shock and Awe.

Abrams tanks have little use chasing down Terrorists, yet noone says they are a useless piece of equipment just because their job can be done by footsoldiers.


Soldiers wearing this armor would be heavy shock troops. They would combine the tactical benifits of a tank and a foot soldier. Extremely durable, but also mobile.

We have no need for shock troopers in this day and age. The only use I could see for them would be operating in urban environments that are too dense for AFVs, and that single niche role would hardly justify the monstrous expense of creating such a unit.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats the point. It wouldn't be a standard issue equipment. It would be for very specific situations. A special forces unit. Used in Urban assaults and for Shock and Awe.

Abrams tanks have little use chasing down Terrorists, yet noone says they are a useless piece of equipment just because their job can be done by footsoldiers.


Soldiers wearing this armor would be heavy shock troops. They would combine the tactical benifits of a tank and a foot soldier. Extremely durable, but also mobile.

We have no need for shock troopers in this day and age. The only use I could see for them would be operating in urban environments that are too dense for AFVs, and that single niche role would hardly justify the monstrous expense of creating such a unit.

Actually, most wars these days are fought in urban areas, jungles, and other areas where said AFVs would be useless and power armored-infantry would be most useful - the days of tank warfare ala WWII are long since gone.

 Tadashi wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats the point. It wouldn't be a standard issue equipment. It would be for very specific situations. A special forces unit. Used in Urban assaults and for Shock and Awe.

Abrams tanks have little use chasing down Terrorists, yet noone says they are a useless piece of equipment just because their job can be done by footsoldiers.


Soldiers wearing this armor would be heavy shock troops. They would combine the tactical benifits of a tank and a foot soldier. Extremely durable, but also mobile.

We have no need for shock troopers in this day and age. The only use I could see for them would be operating in urban environments that are too dense for AFVs, and that single niche role would hardly justify the monstrous expense of creating such a unit.

Actually, most wars these days are fought in urban areas, jungles, and other areas where said AFVs would be useless and power armored-infantry would be most useful - the days of tank warfare ala WWII are long since gone.

Bradleys, Abrams, and other AFVs coupled with air support provide all the heavy support the infantry could possibly want. What extra would heavily armoured suits bring to the table, and how would they bring it in a way that made them the most cost effective and practical choice? I just don't see it.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats the point. It wouldn't be a standard issue equipment. It would be for very specific situations. A special forces unit. Used in Urban assaults and for Shock and Awe.

Abrams tanks have little use chasing down Terrorists, yet noone says they are a useless piece of equipment just because their job can be done by footsoldiers.


Soldiers wearing this armor would be heavy shock troops. They would combine the tactical benifits of a tank and a foot soldier. Extremely durable, but also mobile.

We have no need for shock troopers in this day and age. The only use I could see for them would be operating in urban environments that are too dense for AFVs, and that single niche role would hardly justify the monstrous expense of creating such a unit.

Actually, most wars these days are fought in urban areas, jungles, and other areas where said AFVs would be useless and power armored-infantry would be most useful - the days of tank warfare ala WWII are long since gone.

Bradleys, Abrams, and other AFVs coupled with air support provide all the heavy support the infantry could possibly want. What extra would heavily armoured suits bring to the table, and how would they bring it in a way that made them the most cost effective and practical choice? I just don't see it.

Infantry are infinitely more versatile than any vehicle or aircraft. Vietnam, the War on Terror, and countless other shooting wars across the globe have since shown that even infantry with inferior technology and little to no armor or air support can stalemate or even defeat opponents with superior technology and plentiful vehicle/air support. Powered armor represents an upgrade to infantry - mating the infinite versatility of infantry with the firepower and technology of armored vehicles. I suggest you read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. Its political themes aside, it provides a very good (and compared to 40k, more realistic) description of power armored-infantry and their potential effectiveness.

 insaniak wrote:
Modern soldiers? No. There's all sorts of practical reasons for it to not be a good idea.

But given several thousand years of material and technological advances, combined with either archais adherance to religious ritual or supreme arrogance in your own abilities, with armour becoming as much a status symbol or a piece of mobile artwork as something to actually protect you in battle? Who knows?

Actually I would only give it maybe 50 to 100 years tops.

 Tadashi wrote:
Powered armor represents an upgrade to infantry - mating the infinite versatility of infantry with the firepower and technology of armored vehicles. I suggest you read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. Its political themes aside, it provides a very good (and compared to 40k, more realistic) description of power armored-infantry and their potential effectiveness.

War, as I'm sure you're well aware, is an extension of politics and those instances you're referring to (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc) are instances of political pressure, not tactical ability.

There's very little that heavily armoured suits could bring to the table.

I mean, you get an increase in survivability but so what? When you absolutely need to storm a strong point that'd be great but this isn't 1415, and we aren't going once more unto the breach, dear friends. If we need to crack a hard enemy nut, we blow it up with cruise missiles. Or whatever tool is most applicable. We don't need to re-invent the wheel to tackle problems that don't really exist.

A cruise missile is an awfully big stick to break open an anthill.

Also, American politics don't make American tanks any better or worse.

That said, all a heavily armoured suit would bring to the table is more LAWs. As in, when faced with a unit of power-armoured siegebreakers, a competent enemy will go straight for the light anti-tank gear and set mines.

Powered armour may feel light to the wearer, but it's still going to have weight dispersal issues, making it effectively useless in anything other than urban combat in developed countries - anywhere else and you'll just end up with the comical sight of heavy powered armour slipping over constantly in the mud, or sinking into the quagmire that is a battlefield.

This is why I think that if anyone is going to end up equipped with power armour, it'll be SWAT and Riot teams. These guys are horribly vulnerable against armed terrorists and insurgents. Sure, they get military-grade armour and weapons (or at least, that's the main point of SWAT), but as any soldier will tell you, that tactical armour isn't going to stop a short-range burst from your average AR or even a heavy SMG.

 Kaldor wrote:


War, as I'm sure you're well aware, is an extension of politics and those instances you're referring to (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc) are instances of political pressure, not tactical ability.

I tend to agree, but there's little soldiers and their officers can do short of mutiny about where their governments decide to send them.

If we need to crack a hard enemy nut, we blow it up with cruise missiles. Or whatever tool is most applicable. We don't need to re-invent the wheel to tackle problems that don't really exist.

Agreed. But 'modern' wars aren't like WWII where your country destroyed our (I'm a Japanese subject living in the Philippines) and the Germans' strategic assets and figuratively pulped our military. They are wars of attrition and guerilla warfare. Tanks, aircraft, and missiles don't win these wars, men do. The poor, bloody, infantry. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than in WWII, but the USA still lost that war. The USA deployed tanks, ships, aircraft, and missiles alongside infantry across the world in the ongoing War on Terror, but they still can't win. I'm not suggesting powered armor is a war-winner, in fact, I believe that men, not machines win wars, but merely that powered armor could upgrade infantry and make things easier for them to win in battles and wars where vehicles and aircraft don't really make that much of a difference.

 Furyou Miko wrote:


Powered armour may feel light to the wearer, but it's still going to have weight dispersal issues, making it effectively useless in anything other than urban combat in developed countries - anywhere else and you'll just end up with the comical sight of heavy powered armour slipping over constantly in the mud, or sinking into the quagmire that is a battlefield.

Powered armor should have variable components and systems designed for multiple environments - urban, desert, jungle, etc. Otherwise, its versatility is rendered moot. Real life powered armor should augment infantry, not hinder them.

It should, yes. But until someone invents the mass effect field, there's really not all that much you can do about it beyond giving them massive trippy clown-shoes.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
...giving them massive trippy clown-shoes.

Only if you deploy urban-designed powered armor outside of urban areas. Only an idiot would deploy infantry equipped with urban powered armor in a jungle.

EDIT: I envision a wide array of powered armor designed for multiple purposes - desert, jungle, urban, mountain, polar, littoral, or even underwater and space. Or powered armor with modular components, so the core system could be reconfigured easily for variable deployments.

Let me put it another way.

What situations have we come up against, that would have more easily been solved with power armoured infantry, than anything else?

 Kaldor wrote:


What situations have we come up against, that would have more easily been solved with power armoured infantry, than anything else?

Vietnam for one thing, could have been won if the US military had focused on using infantry like a scalpel instead of like a hammer ala WWII. After all, Starship Troopers (the novel) was based on observations from that war - Heinlein came up with powered armor as a solution to the problems encountered by US troops during the war. The War on Terror - less ships and other equipment/hardware would be expended if power armored-infantry would have been used to cut out terrorist strongholds instead of just bombing them from the air with missiles and drones. Those strongholds are meant to hold against air attack you know.

Besides, power armor need not be deployed for all infantry. Preferably, line infantry get a scaled-down variant, perhaps something similar to the discontinued Land Warrior and the current Future Force Warrior programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Warrior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Force_Warrior

Power armored infantry would ideally be deployed similar to what Heinlein portrayed, as a futuristic air cavalry or ODST-style Special Ops who strike hard and fast from orbit to destroy the objective with unstoppable force and then be evacuated by air.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it doesn't make any sense at all. No matter what it's made of armor is a series of thick plates, and it's never going to be thin enough to be skin-tight enough to be sexy. There's just no point in following every curve and detail when you can just make a solid plate instead. Sure, rigid body armor for women might have slightly more space in the chest and wider hips, but that's not really what most people mean by "form fitting".

Now, if the question is "could sufficiently advanced body armor give non-zero protection and still be sexy", then sure, it could. However it would still be inferior in protection to sensible body armor. This might be fine in 40k where you have screaming idiots with chainswords running around and "sensible" was abandoned 30,000 years ago, but in the real world nobody is going to be stupid enough to do it.

Theirs always somebody stupid enough to do anything. Why do you think redneck's die in such weird ways

 wowsmash wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it doesn't make any sense at all. No matter what it's made of armor is a series of thick plates, and it's never going to be thin enough to be skin-tight enough to be sexy. There's just no point in following every curve and detail when you can just make a solid plate instead. Sure, rigid body armor for women might have slightly more space in the chest and wider hips, but that's not really what most people mean by "form fitting".

Now, if the question is "could sufficiently advanced body armor give non-zero protection and still be sexy", then sure, it could. However it would still be inferior in protection to sensible body armor. This might be fine in 40k where you have screaming idiots with chainswords running around and "sensible" was abandoned 30,000 years ago, but in the real world nobody is going to be stupid enough to do it.

Theirs always somebody stupid enough to do anything. Why do you think redneck's die in such weird ways

Another example are nuclear weapons...they spend millions of dollars to build and maintain the things, but they never actually intend to use the them. If Nat Geo is to be believed (from a feature I watched a few years back) the USA has around 2000+ nukes sitting around, the Russians around 6000+, the Chinese around 600+, the Indians and the Pakistanis around 100+ and 50+ respectively...nukes aren't toys to collect, they're powerful weapons. If they don't intend to use them, why build them in the first place? Talk about a waste of money.

I think the issue with form fitting armor is that the science behind making lightweaght, thin, and affordable materials that can actually provide a worthwhile measure of protection is not there yet. The problem with strong armor stems from the benefit of a strong weapon. With a strong weapon you only need to hit your opponent in one spot order to deal damage. An attack on the center mass is typically debilitating at the least. With armor, you need to protect as much as possible but also be able to stop a strong weapon. Most military grade bullets can pass right through the thin steel that was once able to stop a blade. Even then, crossbows were considered a coward's weapon as they require little training (load, point, shoot) and they fire a small bolt with enough speed and mass to pierce all but the thickest/strongest of steel.

Now consider a bullet. An average rifle bullet travels around 650-900 meters per second. Sound travels at around 350 meters per second for comparison reasons. Considering a 7.62x39mm ak47 bullet weighs in at 18.2 grams, that bullet would hit with a force around 16.38 kilograms (~36 lbs) in the surface area of less than 1/8 of an inch. Trying to hold up 36lbs with less than 1/8 of an inch of material is tough to say the least, especially when that weight is spinning. Yes, there are plenty of cheap materials that can stop bullets; unfortunately, making most them into an all encompassing suit would render its wearer unable to move much if at all. As it stands, Dragon-Skin vests (despite being bulky and heavy) are the best we've come up with (to my knowledge) that are even remotely affordable enough for an army to use.

Now assuming we live long enough to produce form-fitting armors that are both affordable and effective, I'd expect they would belong to specialized infantry only (recon, stealth op) as if having thin form-fitting armor helps, having it be a bit thinker armor would be of more use to the lesser-trained general soldiers.

EDIT: typos

I think we're closer to a genuine stealth suit. Way closer than power armor. So we're a ways off from space marines, keep on the look out for imperial assassins, a new special on Nat Geo.

 Tadashi wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:


What situations have we come up against, that would have more easily been solved with power armoured infantry, than anything else?

Vietnam for one thing, could have been won if the US military had focused on using infantry like a scalpel instead of like a hammer ala WWII. After all, Starship Troopers (the novel) was based on observations from that war - Heinlein came up with powered armor as a solution to the problems encountered by US troops during the war. The War on Terror - less ships and other equipment/hardware would be expended if power armored-infantry would have been used to cut out terrorist strongholds instead of just bombing them from the air with missiles and drones. Those strongholds are meant to hold against air attack you know.

There was no way for the USA to win Vietnam, and it had nothing to do with troop abilities. The war was massively unpopular and globally tense. Hence my reference to war being an extension of politics. The USA had to ability to win that war, but it would have been political suicide. It wasn't the vietcong or NVA in Vietnam that defeated the USA. It was the hippies in Washington, and no amount of power armoured troops would have changed that.

And why invent another tool to crack terrorist strongholds in Afghanistan when the tools we already have do the job perfectly well?

 Kaldor wrote:

It wasn't the vietcong or NVA in Vietnam that defeated the USA. It was the hippies in Washington, and no amount of power armoured troops would have changed that.

Your government should have ignored them. I don't like the US Government's policies, but they owe it to all the people who died in WWII to be as ruthless as they were in WWII. By giving in they shamed all their troops who died and all the civilians (on both sides) who died.

And why invent another tool to crack terrorist strongholds in Afghanistan when the tools we already have do the job perfectly well?

Are they really?

Kaldor wrote:What situations have we come up against, that would have more easily been solved with power armoured infantry, than anything else?

Post-war insurgency fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq spring to mind. Like it or not, the way the world has changed means that troops will be put into such situations more often rather than less in the future - and power armoured infantry, aside from the clear message of technological superiority (much more like a Cold War-era Abrams tank, considering that people in Iraq and Afghanistan are well accustomed to Cold War-era Soviet tanks), may provide sufficient protection to support policing and tactical strikes in urban environments with minimalised loss of life (of one's own soldiers), thus also lessening the impact of an ongoing campaign on the population at the "home front".

It's more of a political than a tactical necessity, but the current western lifestyle means that even a single casualty can result in breaking news that see popular opinion change, and since politicians want to get re-elected this may result in a severe backlash for an ongoing military campaign resulting out of shortsightedness ("no more deaths!") rather than thinking ahead ("the reason we went there still exists") and forgetting about the sacrifices already made. These days, popular opinion seems to have a memory of 1-2 weeks and is all too easily manipulated by the media, I think. This will bite the west in the arse some day, if it hasn't already.

Furyou Miko wrote:That said, all a heavily armoured suit would bring to the table is more LAWs. As in, when faced with a unit of power-armoured siegebreakers, a competent enemy will go straight for the light anti-tank gear and set mines.

This is true. I guess the risks could be minimised by next-gen deployment methods, such as dropping them off directly at the entry point by an IFV whose armour can withstand such damage, or directly inserting them via aircraft. The "good" thing about fighting insurgents is that they generally lack modern equipment, and even though some possess advanced weaponry such as tandem-charge grenades which may pierce even the armour of an Abrams tank, most of them still run around with ancient RPG-7's.

I'd expect first generation powered armour to be rather clumsy and large, but still useful inside something like a house. Where I wouldn't generally expect a LAW either.

 Tadashi wrote:
Are they really?

Very much so.

It's finding the bastards and getting there without being spotted that's hard. Blowing them up is the easy part.

Another reason the Vietnam War was lost was the Viet Cong's use of psychological warfare. An 18 year old grunt that's seen his best mate's leg blown off is that much more likely to waste a peasant for failing to point out the traps to his patrol.

Now look at it this way. You and your squad are sat in this house in the middle of an urban warzone. Assuming your enemy has managed to build a decent suit of PA at least good enough to stop lets say, a 7.62x39mm, and a bunch of guys wearing this attack your house. You fire a couple of rounds into these guys and the ping straight off. Now what are you going to say to the people you meet after you've seen these guys that are impervious to most small-arms? Use AT weapons on them? What happens if they encounter a AFV afterwards?

Now imagine that you're some poor guerilla fighter that has a gun that should be in a museum. What are you going to think about these guys that can take a mag to the chest and keep going? You're not going to want to fight anymore are you?

EDIT: Grammar

The effectivness of things like LAWs and RPGs on dudes in PA really depends on how agile the PA suits are.

If they are even capable of moving at 5MPH it would be quite difficult to get any accuracy with man portable anti-tank weapons, especially with any sort of cover around.

Its hard enough to hit a stationary target with a man portable AT weapon, hitting one thats roughly mansized and can move with a decent speed is going to be very hard.

And anything less then a direct hit is going to be useless. The shrapnel will do nothing and the shockwave will need to be very close to do any damage.

What are you going to think about these guys that can take a mag to the chest and keep going? You're not going to want to fight anymore are you?

you dont know much about "motherland" wars do you ? because east of Oder you do fight . doesnt matter what the opponent has , how well he is armed. If you cant get them in armor , you poison water, blow up supply trains , use hidden bombs , you attack them where they sleep , you attack them where they go when they have free time . Also it doesnt matter how good armored the dude is . he will have limited ammo and dudes armed with ak-47 are cheaper then a dude in a power armor , that is without counting development costs , resupply , possible malfuctions etc. just the cost of the armor ,his gun and his ammo . once his out of ammo he is meat can .

I can't help but think of stairs when I read this debate. Stairs and marshlands. Power armour may be ideal for urban or jungle warfare, but that's only provided they are light enough to traverse the terrain and capable of gaining grip in rough areas.

If the armour is too heavy per square inch, it will be a death trap simply walking through sufficiently soft terrain (European marshes, tundra, bogs, planks with mines under them, wooden stairs).

Regardless of which, Makumba and The Crusader brings up very good points. One for and one against the need for powered armour.
Essentially, I see a future where such armour can be used tactically to minimize public morale loss (which essentially amounts to body-bags on return flights) but at the same time it's not a marvellous solution for all your warfare problems - they have a very limited application.
For several reasons a powered armour is very poorly used for anything but direct assaults in areas with the right terrain (dense but stable footing) where collateral damage to non-combatant population or infrastructure is not wanted. Every day peacekeeping patrols would simply be costly means of not accomplishing it's objectives (try talking to someone at his house while wearing a huge armour and carrying a large gun and expect him to be cooperative and friendly - defensive and scared yes, friendly no).

And this is where the other form-fitting armour mentioned in the OP comes in. It may not offer the same protection, but if you have a piece of armour which is capable of three glorious things; be comfortable to wear, be able to hide underneath regular fatigues and protect against small arms (I mean really light weapons such as pistols or shotguns, I don't necessarily mean hunting rifles or machine guns). Oh what application they can have. These would be the true masters of warfare for democracies* by forcing the Enemy to use advanced (read: costly and/or bulky) weapons. (Ironically I also foresee this situation creating an environment where there actually is demand for powered armour)

* because, let's face it, only democracies have to worry about public opinion and tends to have a birth rate of less than 2 per woman so you can't throw lives away like they were bullets.

Makumba wrote:

What are you going to think about these guys that can take a mag to the chest and keep going? You're not going to want to fight anymore are you?

you don't know much about "motherland" wars do you? because east of Oder you do fight . doesnt matter what the opponent has , how well he is armed. If you cant get them in armor , you poison water, blow up supply trains , use hidden bombs , you attack them where they sleep , you attack them where they go when they have free time . Also it doesn't matter how good armored the dude is . he will have limited ammo and dudes armed with ak-47 are cheaper then a dude in a power armor , that is without counting development costs , resupply , possible malfunctions etc. just the cost of the armor ,his gun and his ammo . once his out of ammo he is meat can .

But that works both ways. If you use all you're ammo on him and you cannot actually hurt him, you'll both run out. And when you do, He will be better off. Just like he was at the start of the firefight. You may have more ammo or whatever, but if your weapon cannot physically hurt him, all that counts for nothing. That and it's pretty hard to poison water if you're dead and not actually in the water when you are. Any Army can plant bombs and poison water and food. Ultimately, you will lose the will to fight if you. Maybe a couple will stay for some reason. That just makes the job of the PA-wearer easier. Once word spreads that the enemy can field soldiers that you cannot kill, the desertion rate will skyrocket. Plus the Eastern Front was pretty different from most wars. Right from the outset it was a war of annihilation. You had 2 choices: Fight and die or Run and die. Usually faced with these conditions it is a "Then I'll take as many of them down with me as possible" attitude that is adopted.

 The Crusader wrote:

Makumba wrote:

What are you going to think about these guys that can take a mag to the chest and keep going? You're not going to want to fight anymore are you?

you don't know much about "motherland" wars do you? because east of Oder you do fight . doesnt matter what the opponent has , how well he is armed. If you cant get them in armor , you poison water, blow up supply trains , use hidden bombs , you attack them where they sleep , you attack them where they go when they have free time . Also it doesn't matter how good armored the dude is . he will have limited ammo and dudes armed with ak-47 are cheaper then a dude in a power armor , that is without counting development costs , resupply , possible malfunctions etc. just the cost of the armor ,his gun and his ammo . once his out of ammo he is meat can .

But that works both ways.

The problem is, it doesn't work both ways. We (the west) certainly do not lack the ability to kill peasants in Afghanistan. But we don't know where they are. They move a lot, they hide amongst the general population, they don't wear uniforms. But we have large military bases. We can't find them, but they can sure find us. They know where we sleep, they know where we are at all times. Power armour doesn't change that at all.

 Kaldor wrote:

 The Crusader wrote:

Makumba wrote:

What are you going to think about these guys that can take a mag to the chest and keep going? You're not going to want to fight anymore are you?

you don't know much about "motherland" wars do you? because east of Oder you do fight . doesnt matter what the opponent has , how well he is armed. If you cant get them in armor , you poison water, blow up supply trains , use hidden bombs , you attack them where they sleep , you attack them where they go when they have free time . Also it doesn't matter how good armored the dude is . he will have limited ammo and dudes armed with ak-47 are cheaper then a dude in a power armor , that is without counting development costs , resupply , possible malfunctions etc. just the cost of the armor ,his gun and his ammo . once his out of ammo he is meat can .

But that works both ways.

The problem is, it doesn't work both ways. We (the west) certainly do not lack the ability to kill peasants in Afghanistan. But we don't know where they are. They move a lot, they hide amongst the general population, they don't wear uniforms. But we have large military bases. We can't find them, but they can sure find us. They know where we sleep, they know where we are at all times. Power armour doesn't change that at all.

Which is why PA wouldn't be used to fight insurgents, just like tactical nukes arn't used to fight insurgents.

Powered Armor suits would be used in the event of a war between 2 actual military forces. Not for chasing down terrorists, with the possable exception of using the suits to clear underground cave complexs. where they would be very effective as the shock waves from using anti-tank weaponry would be far more likely to kill the user then the actual target, especially at close range.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Powered Armor suits would be used in the event of a war between 2 actual military forces.

Not necessarily. Special Ops would definitely benefit from this and would probably use them widely.

 Tadashi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Powered Armor suits would be used in the event of a war between 2 actual military forces.

Not necessarily. Special Ops would definitely benefit from this and would probably use them widely.

possably, my example of clearing a cave system shows that. I certaintly think it would be Spec Ops units that would recieve the first use of these suits.


They probably wouldn't be great in a stealthy operation, but a lightning strike to secure a target with brute force and then quickly evac would be a viable use.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Powered Armor suits would be used in the event of a war between 2 actual military forces.

Not necessarily. Special Ops would definitely benefit from this and would probably use them widely.

possably, my example of clearing a cave system shows that. I certaintly think it would be Spec Ops units that would recieve the first use of these suits.


They probably wouldn't be great in a stealthy operation, but a lightining strike to secure a target with brute force and then quickly evac would be a viable use.

Agreed. The way the Mobile Infantry from the novel operates springs to mind rather quickly.

EDIT: IIRC, Starship Troopers is one of the few sci-fi novels in the US military's reading list - I'm sure they wouldn't mind taking a few leaves out of the book, such as orbital insertion, a lightning strike with devastating and nigh-unstoppable force, and evacuation by air.

I can imagine the Government not releasing when such armor becomes avaliable. Better for the targets to be completely surprised when they fight you.

Having something thats stepped directly out of a Sci-fi movie and shred your buddies in a hail of bullets will shake even the most hardened soldier.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I can imagine the Government not releasing when such armor becomes avaliable. Better for the targets to be completely surprised when they fight you.

Not immediately, no. But when the victory parade arrives...

I don’t think full out power armor is completely necessary yet

Though the support systems associated with them would benefit current fighters today.

Powered legs, advanced optics/comm., auto tourniquets/pain killers would probably benefit the most of current ground fighters as fatigue, up to date information and effective first aid are pretty high priority.

Though once you start adding up more armor plates to that I would start to wonder about the integrity of stairs and buildings being able to hold up all that weight, especially dilapidated or 3rd world buildings, and the logistical + maintenance issues of such equipment would probably limit its use to only the best of the best of the best.

 Lynata wrote:

Tadashi wrote:No, soldiers don't run around with swords...but they are armed with daggers and other stabbing weapons.

Aye, I even recall having read of a bayonet charge by NATO troops (I think they were British?) in Afghanistan just years ago.
Now, in the age of firearms such situations would occur only rarely, but if it comes down to it, it'd all depend on what the material the armour is made of can endure, and what quality the bladed weapon is of.

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8252974.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-19755107

3 in a Decade, and the US Army decided training soldiers with pugil sticks was more important.

 Desubot wrote:
... the logistical + maintenance issues of such equipment would probably limit its use to only the best of the best of the best.

Two words - Special Ops. I think we can all agree that only Special Ops would use full powered armor.

We are kinda on the backswing of the weapon/armor development pendulum. Armor gets better, then Weapons get better to compensate, as a result armor eventually gets improved. and an endless cycle with armor and weapons trading places at the forefront of the tech curve.

 Tadashi wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
... the logistical + maintenance issues of such equipment would probably limit its use to only the best of the best of the best.

Two words - Special Ops. I think we can all agree that only Special Ops would use full powered armor.

Special Ops forces are already kind of the equivilent of Heavy Shock troops, giving them something more suited to that role would make complete sense.

So the same unit could concievabley be used as an infiltration unit to destroy targets behind lines as well as a unit tasked with taking out enemy hard points on the front line.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Powered Armor suits would be used in the event of a war between 2 actual military forces. Not for chasing down terrorists, with the possable exception of using the suits to clear underground cave complexs. where they would be very effective as the shock waves from using anti-tank weaponry would be far more likely to kill the user then the actual target, especially at close range.

An actual war between two militaries is just going to be countries trading missiles until one side surrenders. Wars of conquest died out long ago, it's much cheaper and easier to just buy the things we need. Spending billions of dollars developing a tool to solve an imaginary problem doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Powered Armor suits would be used in the event of a war between 2 actual military forces. Not for chasing down terrorists, with the possable exception of using the suits to clear underground cave complexs. where they would be very effective as the shock waves from using anti-tank weaponry would be far more likely to kill the user then the actual target, especially at close range.

An actual war between two militaries is just going to be countries trading missiles until one side surrenders. Wars of conquest died out long ago, it's much cheaper and easier to just buy the things we need. Spending billions of dollars developing a tool to solve an imaginary problem doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Before WWII, many people thought 'war was a thing of the past'. Well, Japan and Germany showed them otherwise.

More importantly, even if it doesn't sound like a good idea to you, you're not the one who makes that decision. Furthermore, firing missiles and launching air strikes don't win wars - if that were the case, the War on Terror would have been over years ago.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Powered Armor suits would be used in the event of a war between 2 actual military forces. Not for chasing down terrorists, with the possable exception of using the suits to clear underground cave complexs. where they would be very effective as the shock waves from using anti-tank weaponry would be far more likely to kill the user then the actual target, especially at close range.

An actual war between two militaries is just going to be countries trading missiles until one side surrenders. Wars of conquest died out long ago, it's much cheaper and easier to just buy the things we need. Spending billions of dollars developing a tool to solve an imaginary problem doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

War between 2 modern militarys will not be missiles traded back and forth. Nuclear missiles are a mutual annhilation scenerio, so no country is going to use them unless they are certain they won't be counter annhilated.

The only missiles traded back and forth will be Cruise missiles, and those will simply be in the context of a larger ground war.

 Grey Templar wrote:

The only missiles traded back and forth will be Cruise missiles, and those will simply be in the context of a larger ground war.

You put as many aircraft in the air as you like, and launch all the missiles in the world, but if you can't put men on the ground in the right place and in the right time, you can't win a war.

 Tadashi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

The only missiles traded back and forth will be Cruise missiles, and those will simply be in the context of a larger ground war.

You put as many aircraft in the air as you like, and launch all the missiles in the world, but if you can't put men on the ground in the right place and in the right time, you can't win a war.

Aircraft and Missiles are also expensive. A ground war is cheaper then an Air war.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

The only missiles traded back and forth will be Cruise missiles, and those will simply be in the context of a larger ground war.

You put as many aircraft in the air as you like, and launch all the missiles in the world, but if you can't put men on the ground in the right place and in the right time, you can't win a war.

Aircraft and Missiles are also expensive. A ground war is cheaper then an Air war.

Indeed. Except in casualties...and that's where Future Force Warrior and prospectively-developed powered armor come in.

I think people get too focused on casualties. Not that they arn't a bad thing, but people honestly should expect them in war.

Whats worse? Winning a war with horrendous casualties or engaging in a war and stopping because of the lives lost?

To stop a war because of casualties makes those who did die die in vain. To run from a conflict is to dishonor the soldiers that gave their lives in the conflict. Its the ultimate expression of cowardice. Those soldiers gave their lives desiring victory, to not gain that victory wastes their blood.

 Grey Templar wrote:


To stop a war because of casualties makes those who did die die in vain. To run from a conflict is to dishonor the soldiers that gave their lives in the conflict. Its the ultimate expression of cowardice. Those soldiers gave their lives desiring victory, to not gain that victory wastes their blood.

That's why I get irritated when the US Government goes on about Human Rights and other BS but get evasive when the time comes to drop the hammer. They shame not just their soldiers and civilians who died - everyone they killed to become the world's number one superpower (WWII springs to mind rather quickly) and the ones who die or get killed in the current conflicts are also shamed by the USA failing to show the ruthlessness they displayed to achieve their current position.

 Tadashi wrote:
Before WWII, many people thought 'war was a thing of the past'. Well, Japan and Germany showed them otherwise.

More importantly, even if it doesn't sound like a good idea to you, you're not the one who makes that decision. Furthermore, firing missiles and launching air strikes don't win wars - if that were the case, the War on Terror would have been over years ago.

What would anyone have to gain by going to war against another developed nation? Why bother spending billions of dollars on a tool to solve an imaginary problem? And while missiles and airstrikes are only a portion of the whole spectrum of war, using them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure brought the Japanese to heel.

War, as I keep saying, it an extension of politics. When looking at another developed nation, the question must be asked "What do I want that nation to do?" and the next question is "How do I get them to do it?"

The answer is almost never going to be "Put men with guns in their cities and make them do it".

 Kaldor wrote:


What would anyone have to gain by going to war against another developed nation? Why bother spending billions of dollars on a tool to solve an imaginary problem? And while missiles and airstrikes are only a portion of the whole spectrum of war, using them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure brought the Japanese to heel.

Only because our Navy was destroyed, and our Army trapped in China. If you had done that while the IJN and IJA were at full strength, Japan would not have surrendered. On the other side of the world, Allied armies had to fight all the way across Europe to bring Nazi Germany to heel - bombing our strategic assets alone would not have won the war.

War, as I keep saying, it an extension of politics. When looking at another developed nation, the question must be asked "What do I want that nation to do?" and the next question is "How do I get them to do it?"

The answer is almost never going to be "Put men with guns in their cities and make them do it".

Strange...lots of troops in the Middle East and they still do as they please. The US tries to be diplomatic with China, but the Chinese still do as they please.

 Tadashi wrote:
Strange...lots of troops in the Middle East and they still do as they please. The US tries to be diplomatic with China, but the Chinese still do as they please.

Well, yes. Lots of troops in the middle east, and no results. I though you said that boots on the ground won wars? Why haven't we won then?

Because there is no centralised leadership, and no clear definitions of 'winning'. There's no one to issue a surrender, no one to negotiate with. And no amount of power armoured troops are going to help in that type of conflict. They'll still just attack us while we sleep, ambush our patrols, and be almost impossible to catch.

The questions remain pertinent: What do I want the other guys to do, and how do I get them to do it?

It's a very rare situation where putting soldiers in their country is the best way to get anyone to do anything. If we want oil from Iraq, it's a lot cheaper and easier to buy it than invade them and take it. If we want Libya to surrender to it's rebelling population, we just sanction some airstrikes and it's done. It's all about cost and rewards, risk management, long term benefits, so on and so forth. It's all very complex, but the end result is that taking the time to develop powered armour with military applications would be a colossal misuse of resources.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:
Before WWII, many people thought 'war was a thing of the past'. Well, Japan and Germany showed them otherwise.

More importantly, even if it doesn't sound like a good idea to you, you're not the one who makes that decision. Furthermore, firing missiles and launching air strikes don't win wars - if that were the case, the War on Terror would have been over years ago.

What would anyone have to gain by going to war against another developed nation? Why bother spending billions of dollars on a tool to solve an imaginary problem? And while missiles and airstrikes are only a portion of the whole spectrum of war, using them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure brought the Japanese to heel.

War, as I keep saying, it an extension of politics. When looking at another developed nation, the question must be asked "What do I want that nation to do?" and the next question is "How do I get them to do it?"

The answer is almost never going to be "Put men with guns in their cities and make them do it".

Because they have something the other wants.

Tax Revenue, natural resources, etc...


If something is in your land it will be cheaper then if you import the same item from out of the area. It is very benificial to turn something into a domestic product then to import it.

Oil is an excellent example. Importing oil is more expensive then drilling it yourself.

Most Spec Ops teams work on KISS principles, I doubt that any team, be it SEALS, SAS, SBS etc, would want powered armour.

Hi visibility units that work on the threat, eg SWAT would probably want such an item, as their typical opponents, eg criminals, do not have access to the necessary hardware to stand up to such suits and so are more likely to surrender than fight.

Aircraft and missile may not win you wars, but enough of them can make your opponent lose.

I agree with Khaldor, use the resources to develop rapid insertion techniques and improve vehicle abilities, benefit the many rather than the one.

Cheers

Andrew

 Grey Templar wrote:
The effectivness of things like LAWs and RPGs on dudes in PA really depends on how agile the PA suits are.

But the suits will surely weigh enough to trigger simple anti-tank mines - that would vaporize the guy who stepped on it and probably take out a few of his squad mates too. Satchel charges, molotov cocktails and such are even easier to make. In a bind just throw a bundle of industrial explosives at the guy.

Another thing to try would be those off-site AT mines that trigger by remote control or wire and send a shaped charge into the side of your poor vehicle. Tripwire launchers on those and bye bye PA trooper.

True, a suit will probably exert more ground pressure then a tank would, but then the danger isn't any greater then anti-personel mines are to regular foot soldiers. Mines didn't make either tanks or footsoldiers invalid.

Mines are also a very static defense. usually used for area denial.


They are actually quite often placed right out in the open. burying any quantity of mines takes alot of work. It also requires proper substrate to bury them, asphalt isn't exactly ideal.

And unlike a tank, and guy in PA could actually pick his way through a minefield gingerly. Something a vehicle cannot do.



PA can also go places vehicles cannot. A suit could climb an area of really rocky terrain where no humvee could go. This would be useful if the area was also unsafe for airsupport or other methods of providing ordinance to troops on the ground.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:
Strange...lots of troops in the Middle East and they still do as they please. The US tries to be diplomatic with China, but the Chinese still do as they please.

Well, yes. Lots of troops in the middle east, and no results. I though you said that boots on the ground won wars? Why haven't we won then?
.

But you've also bombed the Tora Bora mountains out of existence. Firepower will only take you so far. Eventually you're going to come across someone that a cruise missile cannot reach or cannot be fired at because it could start a war (Like the assasination of Osama Bin Laden) and they're going to be heavily armed enough to make a surgical strike too bloody without PA. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. We will never win a Guerilla war because we keep approaching it like it's a war of conquest.

Look, let me make this clear before we continue. I'm not saying we equip line infantry with powered armor, firstly because its expensive, and secondly its wasted on them. We equip Special Ops with powered armor - they have more use for it. They may not use it all the time, but its use in certain situations would be far more effective than bombing the hell out of a certain area.

 The Crusader wrote:
We will never win a Guerilla war because we keep approaching it like it's a war of conquest.

Patience is the key to winning (or simply enduring) a guerilla war. Unfortunately, while the US military certainly has patience, the US government does not. That's why they lost Vietnam, and might give way in the War on Terror (which I sincerely hope they do not). By contrast, thanks to the patience of the government of my mother's country, the Philippines has no inclination to give up and lose the war on communist rebels/muslim separatists that has been raging for decades.

just some food for thought, yes power armoured suits would be expensive, but factor in the cost of training a Modern Infantry soldier (food, transport, training time, rounds down range, Infantry now vs the infantry of WW1 and WW2 is a lot more of a technical trade then cannon fodder with a rifle back then etc) that adds up to A LOT of money, in the current operational environment where we are fighting an enemy that relies on ambushes/IED's, powered armour would protect that investmest.

While there is a time and place for overwhelming force and armoured units, due to the terrain (and im just speaking from afghan exp i dont know about Iraq) it is difficult and in fact more dangerous at times to use vehicles due to canalizing terrain and IED's, and in some locales (such as the green zone in the arghandab river valley NW kandahar city) it is impossible to get vehicles everywhere. Powered armour would allow infantry to engage and rapidly + aggresively react to insurgent ambushes (for those that have been down range, how many times did you pin them in place with small arms fire and use mortars, arty and air support?). While it works it also causes in some instances collateral damage. Power armour would enable the infantryman to close with and destroy them (right now its not always preferable to close with them as they may be drawing you into an IED) without having to use as much air/arty support (reducing the likelihood of civilian collateral damage)

Additionally look at soldier loads, LMG/GPMG gunners are carrying upwards of 100 pound loads (basic load!), rifleman alone carry upwards 60-70+ pounds of total kit (this is without patrolpacks, just armour, ammo, water, comms, med supplies etc). Throw in complex terrain such as afghanistan where in some places we are jumping mud walls every 20-50m in grape fields and that increases the fun (im 27 years old and have been in the military since I was 18 and I have knees like a 40 year old now lol), outfitting soldiers with powered armour would decrease the stress on joints (and resulting knee surgeries/physio recovery) and prolong the service of a lot more experienced members.

Grunt21 wrote:
just some food for thought, yes power armoured suits would be expensive, but factor in the cost of training a Modern Infantry soldier (food, transport, training time, rounds down range, Infantry now vs the infantry of WW1 and WW2 is a lot more of a technical trade then cannon fodder with a rifle back then etc) that adds up to A LOT of money, in the current operational environment where we are fighting an enemy that relies on ambushes/IED's, powered armour would protect that investmest.

While there is a time and place for overwhelming force and armoured units, due to the terrain (and im just speaking from afghan exp i dont know about Iraq) it is difficult and in fact more dangerous at times to use vehicles due to canalizing terrain and IED's, and in some locales (such as the green zone in the arghandab river valley NW kandahar city) it is impossible to get vehicles everywhere. Powered armour would allow infantry to engage and rapidly + aggresively react to insurgent ambushes (for those that have been down range, how many times did you pin them in place with small arms fire and use mortars, arty and air support?). While it works it also causes in some instances collateral damage. Power armour would enable the infantryman to close with and destroy them (right now its not always preferable to close with them as they may be drawing you into an IED) without having to use as much air/arty support (reducing the likelihood of civilian collateral damage)

Additionally look at soldier loads, LMG/GPMG gunners are carrying upwards of 100 pound loads (basic load!), rifleman alone carry upwards 60-70+ pounds of total kit (this is without patrolpacks, just armour, ammo, water, comms, med supplies etc). Throw in complex terrain such as afghanistan where in some places we are jumping mud walls every 20-50m in grape fields and that increases the fun (im 27 years old and have been in the military since I was 18 and I have knees like a 40 year old now lol), outfitting soldiers with powered armour would decrease the stress on joints (and resulting knee surgeries/physio recovery) and prolong the service of a lot more experienced members.

THIS. Powered armor wouldn't replace armor/aircraft - its supposed to upgrade infantry and make them more useful/competitive on the modern battlefield.