StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Option A: Train 100,000 men to high fitness levels, send them out with a battle helmet and maybe a bulletproof vest, rifle etc. to do battle.

Option B: Train 50,000 men hard with weights until they're musclebound bulls, to enable them to wear body armor from their feet to their necks (plus the usual helmet).

Basically, with option B the soldiers are better protected, but you get less of them for the same expenditure of money/resources.

So which would be best?

Body armour can constict movement. How thick would it be?

Depends. For normal Army-based attacks, such as conventional fighting, I'd choose A.

For special operations, I'd choose C.

By body armor, would we be assuming armor that is high-tech: thin and flexible, but very very strong?

A is better. Full coverage body armor is highly restrictive in movement; still won't stop rifle fire at medium ranges and wont save you from 155-shell fire.

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Body armour can constict movement. How thick would it be?

That's why they are built up. The reason they are built up is not to enable them to snap an enemy neck with ease, but to enable them to take the weight of all-over body armor without their movement being too constrained.

4 guys from group-A in a Hummer with a .50cal machinegun can mow through a dozen guys from Group-B in their armor.

Acclamator wrote:

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Body armour can constict movement. How thick would it be?

That's why they are built up. The reason they are built up is not to enable them to snap an enemy neck with ease, but to enable them to take the weight of all-over body armor without their movement being too constrained.

That doesnt follow. There movment is going to be constrained no matter what, you can't make effective armor without it having alot of large ridge parts. The fact that they now have many large ,uscles makes it worse not better.

Acclamator wrote:Option A: Train 100,000 men to high fitness levels, send them out with a battle helmet and maybe a bulletproof vest, rifle etc. to do battle.

Option B: Train 50,000 men hard with weights until they're musclebound bulls, to enable them to wear body armor from their feet to their necks (plus the usual helmet).

Basically, with option B the soldiers are better protected, but you get less of them for the same expenditure of money/resources.

So which would be best?

Option a: More rifles and trained personell on the battlefeild.

Option A.

Sometimes, quantity has a quality all its own!

Option A.

RAM THEM UNTIL THEY GIVE UP!

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Acclamator wrote:

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Body armour can constict movement. How thick would it be?

That's why they are built up. The reason they are built up is not to enable them to snap an enemy neck with ease, but to enable them to take the weight of all-over body armor without their movement being too constrained.

That doesnt follow. There movment is going to be constrained no matter what, you can't make effective armor without it having alot of large ridge parts. The fact that they now have many large ,uscles makes it worse not better.

Actually, if you armored everything but their joints, they wouldn't be constrained much at all. The constaining factor is as a result of rigid or stiff armor running over the joints and acting like a splint to hold them straight. This problem could be got round by encasing only rigid parts of the body (upper arms, lower arms, thighs, calfs/shins, trunk) in solid armor, while joints could be covered by seperate panels, i.e. "knee pads" or "elbow pads".

True, this would allow a lucky shot to nail them in a joint if it came in just right, but it would have to be a very lucky shot.

Also, the quality and strength of body armor is increasing all the time.

Option A.

Could we compare it to the Chinese human waves against UN troops in the Korean War? Without any kind support, of course, just rifles.

Option A wins.

Option A. Body armor doesn't stop rifle fire, and certainly not artillery (which causes some 90% of battlefield casualties).

Option A

If 5.56 isn't enough to kill group B fast, give them 7.62

Acclamator wrote:Option A: Train 100,000 men to high fitness levels, send them out with a battle helmet and maybe a bulletproof vest, rifle etc. to do battle.

Option B: Train 50,000 men hard with weights until they're musclebound bulls, to enable them to wear body armor from their feet to their necks (plus the usual helmet).

Basically, with option B the soldiers are better protected, but you get less of them for the same expenditure of money/resources.

So which would be best?

What is the type and level of training for each group? Is the group in Option A trained to endure long forced marches and then assault an objective? What type of tactical scenario does each group face -- SOSE/SASO/MOUT operatations? Defense? Attack on a prepared defense? Raid? What are the weapon systems and vehicles available to each force? Night vision capabilities?

Option A. Basic rule of firepower is that relative firepower is equal to the number of units squared (and in this case, the unit is one man). By doubling the men, they've got 4 times the relative firepower over Option B. Although I'm not entirely sure this works on infantry, I've seen it used mostly in aviation.

The Dark wrote:Option A. Basic rule of firepower is that relative firepower is equal to the number of units squared (and in this case, the unit is one man). By doubling the men, they've got 4 times the relative firepower over Option B. Although I'm not entirely sure this works on infantry, I've seen it used mostly in aviation.

It works in infantry, but like aviation is is a very rough rule of thumb.

However in reaility with force this big you'd have artillery and armor. The extra half dozen Corps Artillery brigades group A could man would tilt things overwhelming in its favor

Even if everything but infantry is identical, Option A would still win. Anything bigger than an assault rifle (and usually even that) will kill you no matter what armor you have. Option A outnumbers Option B, which actually has very little additional survivability.

jegs2 wrote:

Acclamator wrote:Option A: Train 100,000 men to high fitness levels, send them out with a battle helmet and maybe a bulletproof vest, rifle etc. to do battle.

Option B: Train 50,000 men hard with weights until they're musclebound bulls, to enable them to wear body armor from their feet to their necks (plus the usual helmet).

Basically, with option B the soldiers are better protected, but you get less of them for the same expenditure of money/resources.

So which would be best?

What is the type and level of training for each group? Is the group in Option A trained to endure long forced marches and then assault an objective? What type of tactical scenario does each group face -- SOSE/SASO/MOUT operatations? Defense? Attack on a prepared defense? Raid? What are the weapon systems and vehicles available to each force? Night vision capabilities?

Fighting ability and training is the same between both; just that group B has the physique of Ah-nold and body armour while group A has flack jackets...

EmperorMing wrote:

jegs2 wrote:

Acclamator wrote:Option A: Train 100,000 men to high fitness levels, send them out with a battle helmet and maybe a bulletproof vest, rifle etc. to do battle.

Option B: Train 50,000 men hard with weights until they're musclebound bulls, to enable them to wear body armor from their feet to their necks (plus the usual helmet).

Basically, with option B the soldiers are better protected, but you get less of them for the same expenditure of money/resources.

So which would be best?

What is the type and level of training for each group? Is the group in Option A trained to endure long forced marches and then assault an objective? What type of tactical scenario does each group face -- SOSE/SASO/MOUT operatations? Defense? Attack on a prepared defense? Raid? What are the weapon systems and vehicles available to each force? Night vision capabilities?

Fighting ability and training is the same between both; just that group B has the physique of Ah-nold and body armour while group A has flack jackets...

Then group B is utterly crushed without a doubt.

The men in heavier body armor are less effective. Does not matter how beefed up they are, its still going to be more constricting.

Besides, what are they gonna do when a Marine LAV-AD is bored because there are no aircraft to shoot at and they become an infantry support vehicle. That gun is gonna tear your guys up.

Any crew served weapon can deal with your up armored infantry.

There is a difference between muscle bound and being fit. Half of what an infintry does is march. Those muscle bound dudes would be puking up their protein shakes 3/4 into their march and probably cover less then half the ground the other group could cover.

Acclamator wrote:

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Body armour can constict movement. How thick would it be?

That's why they are built up. The reason they are built up is not to enable them to snap an enemy neck with ease, but to enable them to take the weight of all-over body armor without their movement being too constrained.

Those mucle bound troops would fair less than those who are just fit. Many factor go into what kind of protection the standard infatry man wear. Weight, durrability, climatic situations, and over all protection from viable weapons the infantry man could expect, and the survivability of said weapons.

5 years ago the Marine Corps still used the standard flack jacket that did not offer protection from rifle fire. It was designed to make shrapnel survivable since it was the cause of a majority of wounds on a battlefield. From what I understand though, currently the Corps is incorperating a new vest that can withstand small arms fire.

Back to topic, the muscle bound troops will over heat in the heavy armor and end up bent over their packs with the Corpsman sticking a thermometer up their ass.

Good point. Head-to-toe full-body armour (as opposed to the traditional torso protection) would not breathe well; their body heat would be mostly trapped inside. The muscle-bound guys would cook themselves like sardines in a tin can, thus further worsening their already inferior long-range endurance.