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.

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.