Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You are still better off with an agile LMG, you have one LMG per section because the other soldiers carry the ammo, and an assault rifle is more 'versatile' while the single LMG does the heavy work.

Waldo power armour is a bad idea, exoskeletons for ammo loaders and logistic staff is a much better idea, better yet if it is combined with an NBC hardsuit with aircon. However that is as far as strength boosting power armour should go right now.

If you do as you are suggesting you are letting the OPFOR play a game of 'Where's Waldo?'. Which will be easy to play because it is the guy who cant take cover easily or crouch behind what cover he finds effectively.

Soldiers don’t just run around and shoot though. Exoskeleton load assist could help with assisting foot patrols, deep recon, carrying heavy advanced observation kit, etc.

Not every mission is a stealth mission. If stealth doesn't matter, then a big set of power armor could be useful.

I thought Tom Cruise's military groundhog day film was a better take on power armour. The rationale there was to turn conscripts into competent troops with minimal training, but they shied away from space marine power armour style ideas.

Back in the real world helping soldiers is a lot about power generation, sensors and systems and the all important load management. Afghan has resulted in a tsunami of musculoskeletal problems. People were simply carrying too much weight and there is limited avenues to reduce this without losing capabilities that are currently unthinkable.

The practical solutions that in trials or limited use now are I think a far better indication of where things are going in the next 5 years.
Here is an Australian paper discussing this.
https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/documents/DSTO-TN-1051.pdf

A more browsing friendly US article.
https://www.army-technology.com/features/us-army-exoskeletons/

And finally an example of the very simple changes you can make. I.e. a couple of sticks.
https://newatlas.com/passive-exoskeleton-transfers-pack-weight/38895/

The_Real_Chris wrote:
People were simply carrying too much weight and there is limited avenues to reduce this without losing capabilities that are currently unthinkable.

Honestly we really need to cut down on the kit soldiers are carrying. Too much "necessary" stuff that the soldier should not be carrying himself, but rather should be carried by a vehicle at all times unless there is a direct need for it right now. You don't need to carry your NVDs unless it is dark out for example. Carrying 150-200lbs of gear is twice what it should be.

Hopefully all those robots that DARPA has been testing actually get deployed at some point so each squad can dump everything on it and only carry their weapons, body armor, spare ammo, and maybe a little food and water.

It is extremely hard to drop stuff. I have done this exercise many times. Even hygiene kits and the like are being dropped which stores up problems. With the body armour, weapon, light ammo load (90-120 rounds), belt rations and water there isn't much weight left, especially with the distribution of kit from guys like the ECM bloke who can't carry his gear in addition to the rig. And that is before you get into mission specific equipment. The extreme conditions in Afghan and Iraq were another factor with water requirements way up.

So you start to drop extra bits like the mouseholing gear and hope you don't need to escape in an urban area or try and move under heavy fire. Drop the night vision and batteries and hope the patrol doesn't get delayed anywhere. Drop the extra battery and hope the patrol doesn't extend or you can keep the radio off for extended periods. Drop the IED detection gear and hope the area isn't mined. And so on.

I believe that’s the big driver behind the Boston Dynamics robo-dogs; you can load them up with all the extra gear, supplies, etc. to free up your troops and it’s small and mobile enough that it can follow them anywhere they need to go. (Good dog!)

The_Real_Chris wrote:
It is extremely hard to drop stuff. I have done this exercise many times. Even hygiene kits and the like are being dropped which stores up problems. With the body armour, weapon, light ammo load (90-120 rounds), belt rations and water there isn't much weight left, especially with the distribution of kit from guys like the ECM bloke who can't carry his gear in addition to the rig. And that is before you get into mission specific equipment. The extreme conditions in Afghan and Iraq were another factor with water requirements way up.

So you start to drop extra bits like the mouseholing gear and hope you don't need to escape in an urban area or try and move under heavy fire. Drop the night vision and batteries and hope the patrol doesn't get delayed anywhere. Drop the extra battery and hope the patrol doesn't extend or you can keep the radio off for extended periods. Drop the IED detection gear and hope the area isn't mined. And so on.

I'm not saying that a patrol doesn't take that stuff. I'm just saying it should not be carried by the individual soldiers. It should be getting carried on something else. Be that a patrol vehicle or a friendly helper robot. Heck, start using pack horses again! However it is done, soldiers should only be carrying their body armor, weapon+ammo, and no more than 30ish lbs of other gear in their backpack. Everything else that you are carrying "Just in-case" should be stored away in a transport.

Yes, this technically makes individual troops less self-sufficient in the event they got separated from the rest of the group and weren't able to grab anything. However, the benefits of day to day performance, less physical injuries from being overloaded, and better performance in a firefight(because you're not fighting with 150+lbs of gear on your back, most of which is useless in any given situation), etc... should more than compensate for the very rare edge cases where you get caught out without something that you need right now and can't walk over and get it out of a vehicle/cargo robot.

We're overloading troops as if they are going to have to march hundreds of miles for days or weeks without any outside support when they're only going out for a few hours. There is such a thing as too prepared.

And if that was viable, they'd be doing it.
If you introduce pack horses (real or mechanical) then you need to feed and maintain them and they are limited in where they can go.

You can't just have a jeep follow a squad around with all the kit because it'd screw maneuverability.

Most of the stuff they carry isn't needing until it is needed, and it's hard to predict when that'll be or how hard it'd be to resupply at that point.

But at the moment they are using trained soldiers as pack animals, with a knock on impact on combat effectiveness. They need to feed and support those soldiers and fix them up and their knee joints give out due to overload. As with all things it will come down to balance. There will be situations where pack bots can be of great help, and others where they will be a liability.

Herzlos wrote:
And if that was viable, they'd be doing it.

Very very bad thinking. Mental inertia means a lot of good ideas are not tried, and this is then slapped on as an excuse as to why one shouldn't.
Then someone else thinks outside the box and you get screwed.
Just ask the French.

Herzlos wrote:
And if that was viable, they'd be doing it.
If you introduce pack horses (real or mechanical) then you need to feed and maintain them and they are limited in where they can go.

You can't just have a jeep follow a squad around with all the kit because it'd screw maneuverability.

Most of the stuff they carry isn't needing until it is needed, and it's hard to predict when that'll be or how hard it'd be to resupply at that point.

Imagine a robot that could fuel itself with locally sourced plant material and didn't require a robotic specialist to follow it around and keep fixing it up. That is what a horse is, or you could use mules. Potato potato.

Horses can go anywhere a human carrying 150lbs on their back can go. And in the event you couldn't take the horses with you, you can always start carrying it yourself, but till that happens you can let the horse carry your stuff(Muh Flexability!). I mean, this was the normal operating procedure for thousands of years. Its only been very recently that we've suddenly dropped the idea of using pack animals, and honestly it really doesn't seem to be working out all that well.

You would need to be little picky in the horse breed you used. You'd want a breed that is ideal for living off of minimal fodder. For sure not a thoroughbred or western riding horse. Some of the Mongolian breeds would be ideal, or wild caught mustangs used to living in deserts. They can live off very little water or grass for extended periods and such could follow patrols for long distances. Horses really are not limited at all in where they can go if you pick the right breed.

There was a film released on Netflix not long ago called Outside the Wire, which was pretty poor, but one bit that was well done was the robot effects (and if you're into cool SFX it's worth a watch just for that) - specifically the US military designs and also a kind of merc force/eastern European one that appears half way through.
Bringing this back to real life, watching some of the strides made by Boston Dynamics and the like over recent years, which is quite simply astounding, makes me think remote operated units of some sort are surely only a few years away. In fact, with the military budgets of the Pentagon and now the Chinese I would be very surprised if they don't already have stuff in labs. A ground-based drone solves many of the problems inherent in 'armouring' a person in that they are potentially much less vulnerable, can carry a large payload etc. They would be ideal for guard duty or in civilian areas, where soldiers are typically very vulnerable to small-arms fire and just from being stood around in the open.

I could see something like that entering service, as being much more likely than a kind of powered-armour system.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Overread wrote:


Just like I recall watching a program talking about exo-power suits in the army a few years back and they were talking about how its currently basically pointless to even consider it as a battle suit because of any damage or loss of power would result in it being a metal cage holding the soldier at higher risk. However as a loader and supply lifting machine its far more useful for a make shift operations base instead of forklift trucks and the like.

The Russians can, I have heard double sourced rumours about their new armour suits, and it appears they have learned the above lessons western military thinkers are stubbornly avoiding.

Ooh that sounds interesting, have you got any more info?

 Grey Templar wrote:


Imagine a robot that could fuel itself with locally sourced plant material and didn't require a robotic specialist to follow it around and keep fixing it up. That is what a horse is, or you could use mules. Potato potato.

Horses can go anywhere a human carrying 150lbs on their back can go. And in the event you couldn't take the horses with you, you can always start carrying it yourself, but till that happens you can let the horse carry your stuff(Muh Flexability!). I mean, this was the normal operating procedure for thousands of years. Its only been very recently that we've suddenly dropped the idea of using pack animals, and honestly it really doesn't seem to be working out all that well.

It is working extremely well... Compared to horses at any rate. The only army to still use them on mass is the Pakistani (Private 3rd class I believe, meaning during period of martial law they outrank civilians). But even they keep them away from active combat and instead use them for FOB resupply. It turns out mortars, bullets etc at the rate they fly on a modern battlefield doesn't mix well with such creatures which matches their falling out of favour oddly enough. The last on mass use of them was the German army in WW2 and they too kept the horses away from the firefights. If you can keep the gear away from the firefights a quad, jeep, universal carrier, whatever is fine (the Brits started using quads and trailers). The issue is the inability to keep them away from the firefights on a regular basis and stopping them being temping targets once the patrol has split off.

Now dogs are another issue. The cost of maintaining them had meant they were largely extinct from military positions. The effect of Afghan (and lesser extent Iraq) campaigning has been to remind everyone how effective disposable hounds are and for things like jungle warfare they are back on the roster.

Wasn't there at least one unit in the Afgan/Iraqe war that did adapt to using local horses as mounts. I believe they were scout groups and they were using them in mountainous regions where vehicles were unreliable/impractical.


Horses can have a use as can any pack beast within the right terrain and situation. I think the issue with modern armies is that horses are just not diverse enough in modern warfare to be a standard option that the army trains and uses on a regular basis. They are highly situational and in the wrong situation can be as much a liability as a help. Remember horses are flight animals, their instinctive reaction to most dangers is kick and run.

They are also a herd animal, if the herd starts bolting they all start bolting.

Yes training of riders and mounts can help curtail these impacts, but its still there as a risk.



A dog, if it flees won't likely hurt combatants as it does so nor will it carry one off with them.

Yeah, the controllability of a cargo robot is the benefit here. It can’t get scared and run away with the squad kit. Also if things get hairy, you can hit the “home” button with a reasonable chance of it making it back to base without needing supervision.

Easier to repair int he field compared to meatbags as well.

Yes it can get damaged when under fire, but then so can the soldiers.

 Flinty wrote:

Easier to repair int he field compared to meatbags as well..

With the complexity of machines I'd wager its likely about equal. The robot won't flail in pain (but damage in the right area might cause it to spasm or have movement problems); but it will likely be complex enough that repair in the field is likely impractical/impossible. Much like a horse a wounded machine becomes a liability. For the machine its an extra liability as whilst there might be limited to no emotional connection; its a highly expensive bit of hardware that the army likely doesn't want falling into the wrong hands. So suddenly you've a heavy machine you have to retrieve.

Of course you can say the same for any military hardware; though I'd wager most vehicles have a core of functional components which are tough ,but also easier to fix in the field. Plus if you're in any semi-modern region of the world there are likely spare parts around. A robot is way out there at the top end




Of course its all cost and gains. No system is perfect. Furthermore the more something is used the better the support will be for it. Horse, car or walking robot the first ones in use in a region/unit will likely have limited support to if they become a main feature. If robots become commonplace then you'd expect basic repair kits to appear; repair training; upkeep and supplies etc...

Horses can be trained to ignore the sounds of combat, again as they were in the past. Sure, you go find a horse nowadays and don't do any training with it its going to panic under gunfire. But horses that are made used to the sounds will be fine.

Remember that in the past horses have been trained to charge enmass into artillery fire. We could do that again quite easily, just have stables next to a firing range and they'll get numbed to it real quick. If anything, this is easier since we're not even really expecting anybody to fight from horseback. Just use them as pack animals. So they just need to not run away immediately.

Horses are also quite a lot cheaper to maintain than any of the other options. You can't really make a cost argument against horses given the ridiculous amounts that get spent on modern logistics. Most of the military is actually in the logistics train and not on the front line./

Overall, I'd say it would be an even trade-off in terms of problems while gaining a lot of benefit. Its not really any more potential for something to go wrong, its just different kinds of potential problems.

Even a battle trained horse still has a natural flight instinct. I do totally agree that a battle trained horse is a completely different animal to those in eventing and such. Just like a show horse is different to a trail horse etc... What goes into the training and what the horse experiences are, just like humans, going to shape and define it.



From what I can tell logistics has always been the biggest part of any successful army. It gets overlooked in films and computer games and even tabletop (though historical tends to have more of a focus on it and even has models for it). Heck al ot of GW stories and armies don't even seem to have any concept of logistical support; or if its there its very small.

Well, 40k does have the Departmento Munitorum. Which actually has a fairly substantial fleshing out in the Uplifting Primer. Plus the Only War portion of the old FFG rpgs had entire game mechanics around requisitioning stuff.

Even if we can overlook the many problems with donkeys instead of, say, a quad (not least weight, fuel volume, down time, etc), it solves nothing.

You have to laager up your transports whenever it looks hairy and that takes people away from the patrol. So where you had say 8 guys now you have 5 or 6. Sure they aren't as weighed down, but there is a lot less of them...

Oh and the Canadians were sad they had a donkey deserter...
https://www.ctvnews.ca/military-dumps-plan-to-use-donkeys-in-resupply-efforts-1.431129

One thing to consider between today and historical use of pack animals and mounts is that today most people have very limited to no real interaction with such animals.

Even in the countryside of many regions many people might have sat on a pony at a theme park or once or twice as an activity/event or lessons. However in general very few people grow up interacting with them.


So you can wager many in the armed forces are likely the same, you'll get a few who have interacted with them regularly, but the majority who haven't.



So you've not just got to train the animals for battle, you've also got to train the troops as well. Teaching them the basics of body language, interaction, care and upkeep; feeding etc...
~More so if they are expected to operate alone on patrol for many days or longer without support and such.


It's a case where a unit with high animal experience likely can do well, but one with only modest or limited experience might well fail or find the animals more of a burden than a gain.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Even if we can overlook the many problems with donkeys instead of, say, a quad (not least weight, fuel volume, down time, etc), it solves nothing.

You have to laager up your transports whenever it looks hairy and that takes people away from the patrol. So where you had say 8 guys now you have 5 or 6. Sure they aren't as weighed down, but there is a lot less of them...

[donkeysnippage]

Thats a problem when you need to stop pack animals running away, or when you need to stop other people nicking/destroying your ride.

Pack robots can either RTB, or control could be turned over to a remote pilot. Or it just gets left somewhere handy and the patrol doesn't care if it gets nicked or destroyed.

Kindly feth off from horses, they did nothing wrong and I see no reason to send them to get butchered by gunfire or IEDs. If we insist on killing each other in new and interesting ways, at least keep it to humans maybe? A soldier bleeding from a leg blown off by a mine can find pride and solace in the fact he's dying for his country, a horse is just going to spend it's last minutes on earth in blind panic and pain.

Cronch wrote:
Kindly feth off from horses, they did nothing wrong and I see no reason to send them to get butchered by gunfire or IEDs. If we insist on killing each other in new and interesting ways, at least keep it to humans maybe? A soldier bleeding from a leg blown off by a mine can find pride and solace in the fact he's dying for his country, a horse is just going to spend it's last minutes on earth in blind panic and pain.

On the plus side if its a NATO mission the French troops will be round in a shot.

 Overread wrote:
One thing to consider between today and historical use of pack animals and mounts is that today most people have very limited to no real interaction with such animals.

Even in the countryside of many regions many people might have sat on a pony at a theme park or once or twice as an activity/event or lessons. However in general very few people grow up interacting with them.


So you can wager many in the armed forces are likely the same, you'll get a few who have interacted with them regularly, but the majority who haven't.



So you've not just got to train the animals for battle, you've also got to train the troops as well. Teaching them the basics of body language, interaction, care and upkeep; feeding etc...
~More so if they are expected to operate alone on patrol for many days or longer without support and such.


It's a case where a unit with high animal experience likely can do well, but one with only modest or limited experience might well fail or find the animals more of a burden than a gain.

And you have to train soldiers how to drive and maintain all the vehicles that the military uses. Basic animal husbandry is trivial in comparison. Just because somebody hasn't grown up with animals doesn't mean they can't learn. New recruits joining the army are learning buckets of stuff, taking care of animals and learning how to handle them is not anything major.

Taking care of animals is pretty basic stuff for humans. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:
Kindly feth off from horses, they did nothing wrong and I see no reason to send them to get butchered by gunfire or IEDs. If we insist on killing each other in new and interesting ways, at least keep it to humans maybe? A soldier bleeding from a leg blown off by a mine can find pride and solace in the fact he's dying for his country, a horse is just going to spend it's last minutes on earth in blind panic and pain.

And I'd rather take the risk that horses/mules might get hurt or killed than the certainty that all of our soldiers will develop chronic muscle and skeletal injuries because they're carrying 100 lbs more than they should.

Horses exist as they are today because we bred them to carry stuff, and carrying stuff to war was a big chunk of that. Its far too late to be hand wringing over something that is the only reason that horses still exist. We'd have eaten them into extinction before the last Ice Age otherwise.

My wife loves horses and has been riding and looking after them on a daily basis for over 20-years and yet still has days where they just decide they won’t do what you want them to. Or become lame. Or randomly colic and threaten to die for no reason. The idea that it’s easier to teach a 17-year old squaddie how to deal with that compared to giving him the military equivalent of a smartphone app that tells robo-dog where to go is… optimistic, at best. The military already learnt a similar lesson about 20-years ago; a lot of vehicles, drones, etc. now use a PlayStation controller, because why spend time and effort teaching new recruits how to use a proprietary military design when you can leverage years of previous instincts and learned responses?

And that’s before you get to the fact that a horse or other pack animal will need care and attention 24-7 when in the field, whereas a robot will just sit there 100% inactive, guaranteed, until instructed to operate.

And I'd rather take the risk that horses/mules might get hurt or killed than the certainty that all of our soldiers will develop chronic muscle and skeletal injuries because they're carrying 100 lbs more than they should.

Nah, the more widely known it is that serving leads to crippling health issues the better. Leave the horses and dogs out of it, explode yourself instead of animals if you insist on exploding living things. They did nothing wrong.
Or raise taxes to fund more raytheon toys to circumvene the issue.