Full body ballistic armor.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2007-01-18 01:22pm

Godemperor. The ROFLCOPTOR was when we strapped some soldiers to the wings of a chopper (see other thread).

General Brock · Post by **General Brock** » 2007-01-18 11:38pm

Actually, it looks awkward to rest a rifle on the shoulder and arm pieces, never mind looking through a scope with the helmet. Those lights bracketing the head just scream 'shoot here'. Perhaps for specialized sentry work, like at a checkpoint, some other ideas might be useful.

I agree with others who say it is probably too warm; it will also get soaked with perspiration and get funky fast in a real field test. It also looks too awkward to wear into a jiffy biffy.

Even if it does work under photo-op conditions, the normal weaknesses at the neck and armpit are still present, as also pointed out. Its not a sealed suit; it won't do anything to protect the user from a thermobaric RPG. It looks like a pain to maintain as well; probably doesn't have any endurance.

Looks like an idea that has already been tried by better minds with more money, and found wanting.

Major Maxillary · Post by **Major Maxillary** » 2007-01-19 11:16pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:Been over yet? Im purely curious.

My unit is scheduled to deploy later this year. Due to OPSEC I can't tell exactly where, when, how, or in what capacity.

Enforcer Talen wrote:In my exp, just cuz you're used to the thing doesnt mean its comfortable or easy to get around in. Obviously, you are far more mobile then someone who has never tried it before now, but it doesnt mean you can catch the mudj in the dishdasha before he scrambles.

True, A soldier with 150 lbs of assorted crap strapped to him can't really move very fast for very long, but that's why the good lord gave us the smarts to produce a means to get us around quickly, and the ability to deliver death faster (and farther) than they can run.

My point is this; armor is like any other form of heavy clothing. the more you wear it, the lighter it becomes.

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2007-01-20 12:56am

Your pictures are broken.

I'm interested in finding out just how much kit a soldier is required to carry in their normal line of work.

Soldier of Entropy · Post by **Soldier of Entropy** » 2007-01-20 09:58am

Just wondering; why is this in SLAM instead of OT?

Major Maxillary · Post by **Major Maxillary** » 2007-01-20 12:54pm

Hawkwings wrote:Your pictures are broken.

DAMNIT!!!!

okay, I'm not gonna bother uploadignthem again, Here's what they were:

full-armored man-at-arms with greatsword
Roman Legionairred riding a willy's Jeep w/ mounted .30 M1919
PanzerHowitzer 2000
AC117 gunship.

Hawkwings wrote:I'm interested in finding out just how much kit a soldier is required to carry in their normal line of work.

here's what I was issued;

Helmet
x2 1 qt canteens
x2 3 mag pouches w/ grenade pockets
x1 Pistol belt
x1 LBE suspenders
x1 medium ALICE pack
x1 M16A2
x1 Goretex winter suit
x1 Goretex rain suit
x1 poncho
x1 poncho liner
x1 CBRN mask
x1 MOPP suit
x1 pair of gloves w/ several sets of liners
x1 Interceptor vest
x1 M16A2 cleaning kit

and a bunch of other crap that doesn't work like it's supposed to and I can barely fit in my locker.

basically, right now, the amount of crap average soldier carries equals anywhere from half to 75% of his bodyweight.

Airborne, however, can expect to carry weight equal to another soldier on their back.

It's all lightweight gear, but a ton of feathers is still a ton.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2007-01-20 03:52pm

Major Maxillary wrote:
Hawkwings wrote:
Hawkwings wrote:I'm interested in finding out just how much kit a soldier is required to carry in their normal line of work.

here's what I was issued;

Helmet
x2 1 qt canteens
x2 3 mag pouches w/ grenade pockets
x1 Pistol belt
x1 LBE suspenders
x1 medium ALICE pack
x1 M16A2
x1 Goretex winter suit
x1 Goretex rain suit
x1 poncho
x1 poncho liner
x1 CBRN mask
x1 MOPP suit
x1 pair of gloves w/ several sets of liners
x1 Interceptor vest
x1 M16A2 cleaning kit

and a bunch of other crap that doesn't work like it's supposed to and I can barely fit in my locker.

basically, right now, the amount of crap average soldier carries equals anywhere from half to 75% of his bodyweight.

Airborne, however, can expect to carry weight equal to another soldier on their back.

It's all lightweight gear, but a ton of feathers is still a ton.

Learn to leave a lot of that behind, real quick.

Looking at your list, I brought magazines, rifle, and flameretardent gloves on the typical patrol.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-01-20 05:35pm

Soldier of Entropy wrote:Just wondering; why is this in SLAM instead of OT?

Note the title Science, Logic, and Morality. Creating a lightweight plastic that can withstand an elephant gun is certainly part of science.

Soldier of Entropy · Post by **Soldier of Entropy** » 2007-01-20 08:24pm

General Schatten wrote:
Soldier of Entropy wrote:Just wondering; why is this in SLAM instead of OT?
Note the title Science, Logic, and Morality. Creating a lightweight plastic that can withstand an elephant gun is certainly part of science.

Ah, I see. NVM, then.

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2007-01-20 10:38pm

So, out of that kit, how much would a soldier be expected to carry on patrol? How much is the bare minimum required to do your job and be safe?

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-01-21 01:45am

Hawkwings wrote:So, out of that kit, how much would a soldier be expected to carry on patrol? How much is the bare minimum required to do your job and be safe?

That's a quesiton with no answer. What goes on patrol is HIGHLY dependent upon the environment in which the patrol is mounted. A patrol in Afghanistan is going to have soldiers humping a shit load of cold weather and possibly mountaineering gear wheras in Iraq you are going to load up on extra water. At an ABSOLUTE minimum on patrol you are going to need weapons, ammo, water, some chow, gloves, goggles, helmet, flak jacket, and whatever comm gear you've got.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-01-21 11:45am

Afghanistan is also different because patrols also spend alot of time away from their vehicles due to the terrain so they hump more gear. I've been told by Afghan Vets that they regularly take 100lbs+ of kit with them. Most of it ammo.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-01-21 12:06pm

Enforcer Talen wrote: Learn to leave a lot of that behind, real quick.

Looking at your list, I brought magazines, rifle, and flameretardent gloves on the typical patrol.

No helmet and bulletproof vest?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2007-01-21 12:25pm

salm wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote: Learn to leave a lot of that behind, real quick.

Looking at your list, I brought magazines, rifle, and flameretardent gloves on the typical patrol.
No helmet and bulletproof vest?

I didnt see it on his list

I had flak and kevlar, obviously, and 3 liters of water, and slimjims, and boots, and such. But they werent on his list, so I didnt mention them =p

As Cpl Kendall says, it depends a lot on where you are. My situation was a lot of walking/room clearing, but working from humvees, and expecting to return to base at the end of the day. With quick response teams available most of the time, as well as the mudj avoiding long firefights, you could travel fairly light.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2007-01-22 09:53pm

Have not the Iraqi insurgents started using rpgs against soldiers wearing body armour ? It seems like this huge suit of armour would only offer an easier target for a rpg gunner.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-01-23 12:46am

Sarevok wrote:Have not the Iraqi insurgents started using rpgs against soldiers wearing body armour ? It seems like this huge suit of armour would only offer an easier target for a rpg gunner.

Actually tis is probably the least of the worries in this armor. It doesn' significantly raise the profile of the person wearing (it does raise it but only to a small degree if the pictures hold true) and RPG's especially the older ones with which the majority of the insurgents are equipped are notoriously finiky and thus not in any way ideal to target an individual soldier on the move. Now a humvee, that's a different matter because it has so much larger of a profile and can't change directions as quickly, but as far as the RPG threat against an individual I don't think it would change that dynamic much.

*Edit By much I mean that any reduction in the soldier's mobility will change the dynamic but the suit won't significantly improve the ability to target an individual soldier

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2007-01-23 01:04pm

Sarevok wrote:Have not the Iraqi insurgents started using rpgs against soldiers wearing body armour ? It seems like this huge suit of armour would only offer an easier target for a rpg gunner.

The insurgents I saw liked to shoot and run. Accuracy was rarely a fear with them.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-01-23 01:09pm

As for the scope-helmet issue, if the helmet and suit became standard, could not a scope be developed that "fit" the helmet?

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-01-23 03:47pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:As for the scope-helmet issue, if the helmet and suit became standard, could not a scope be developed that "fit" the helmet?

Wasn't there a project the Army was working on that took a visor and connected it to digital sights on a gun, perhaps that would work?.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2007-01-23 03:52pm

General Schatten wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:As for the scope-helmet issue, if the helmet and suit became standard, could not a scope be developed that "fit" the helmet?
Wasn't there a project the Army was working on that took a visor and connected it to digital sights on a gun, perhaps that would work?.

Our Nightvision goggles and IR scopes did similar, but only at night.

Soldier of Entropy · Post by **Soldier of Entropy** » 2007-01-23 04:41pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:[quote="General Schatten Wasn't there a project the Army was working on that took a visor and connected it to digital sights on a gun, perhaps that would work?.

Our Nightvision goggles and IR scopes did similar, but only at night.[/quote]
Why didn't they just make a day version?

FedRebel · Post by **FedRebel** » 2007-01-23 05:33pm

Soldier of Entropy wrote: Why didn't they just make a day version?

What for?

the NV and IR goggles need'rm because they prevent proper sighting

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-01-23 05:37pm

Soldier of Entropy wrote:
Our Nightvision goggles and IR scopes did similar, but only at night.

Why didn't they just make a day version?[/quote]

Then you have to cart around a day version which is more weight. Your eyes work just fine for the daytime, and you already have a scope. At least the Canadian Forces does, not sure if the US military has scopes as standard equipment.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-01-23 05:39pm

FedRebel wrote:
Soldier of Entropy wrote: Why didn't they just make a day version?
What for?

the NV and IR goggles need'rm because they prevent proper sighting

So you could fire around corners and over obstacles while keeping your body and head out of harms way?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2007-01-23 09:05pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Soldier of Entropy wrote:
Our Nightvision goggles and IR scopes did similar, but only at night.
Why didn't they just make a day version?

Then you have to cart around a day version which is more weight. Your eyes work just fine for the daytime, and you already have a scope. At least the Canadian Forces does, not sure if the US military has scopes as standard equipment.[/quote]

We have 4x scopes which are standard issue - one of our guys bought a personal use high powered scope cuz he liked it.

Firing around corners is a little out of our league just yet.