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.

 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.