Of powered armor, mechs and feasibility.

[Night_stalker]

Sniper rifles are known for long range accuracy, take the Barrett for example. It fires a .50 slug at distances up to 5,906 feet or 1,800 meters away. I think that could do some damage to either a mech or suit of powered armor.

[Purple]

The problem is that at short range they are about as useful as a nuclear hand grenade.

In modern warfare, most firefights happen within ranges of 300m.
A heavy sniper will always lack the rate of fire to be truly effective in such close range combat. So unless you expect those power armored heavy infantry to march along an open field that conveniently starts 2000 meters away from you so that you can pick them off at your leisure you will not be able to hold ground with it.
Especially if said heavy infantry is armed with a machine gun or god forbid heavier equipment.

That is why modern armies have abandoned the rifle in favor of the assault rifle.


Yes, a sniper will be effective but it will hardly replace the assault rifle.
And a heavy grenade launcher (or in this case a 20mm hand canon) might be your best bet for close quarters combat vs these things.

[Norade]

I have to admit that would render most Powered armor useless, and would make a lot of mechs very scared of the footsloggers.

Well, actually not. That's because infantry wears armor today, even though it is ineffective to many weapons.

If power armor can be made considerably cheap (a few tens of thousands of dollars), and soldiers can be better protected with them than without, while being able to carry more and walk faster from longer distances, them I would imagine that all armies would give power armor as standard equipment.

I don't think most militaries will when places like the US can't even get rid of an outdated assault rifle due to cost constraints and the bottleneck of actually getting enough new weapons to fill its needs. It would be even worse trying to get powered armor for everybody. Difficulty wise it would be like getting each soldier his own vehicle.

[Norade]

The problem is that at short range they are about as useful as a nuclear hand grenade.

In modern warfare, most firefights happen within ranges of 300m.
A heavy sniper will always lack the rate of fire to be truly effective in such close range combat. So unless you expect those power armored heavy infantry to march along an open field that conveniently starts 2000 meters away from you so that you can pick them off at your leisure you will not be able to hold ground with it.
Especially if said heavy infantry is armed with a machine gun or god forbid heavier equipment.

That is why modern armies have abandoned the rifle in favor of the assault rifle.


Yes, a sniper will be effective but it will hardly replace the assault rifle.
And a heavy grenade launcher (or in this case a 20mm hand canon) might be your best bet for close quarters combat vs these things.

What about the XM-25 system being discussed in the Off-Topic form? That would be the perfect anti-PA weapon.

[adam_grif]

Not in Airburst, but if you loaded a mag of HEAT or something, yeah it would ruin a conceivable PA's day. But better that 1 man in a fireteam has the capability to kill you than all of them, right?

[Norade]

Not in Airburst, but if you loaded a mag of HEAT or something, yeah it would ruin a conceivable PA's day. But better that 1 man in a fireteam has the capability to kill you than all of them, right?

Who are you responding to?

[adam_grif]

What about the XM-25 system being discussed in the Off-Topic form? That would be the perfect anti-PA weapon.

You.

[Norade]

What about the XM-25 system being discussed in the Off-Topic form? That would be the perfect anti-PA weapon.

You.

Yeah, obviously you would need a new round for the weapon, but the system and laser designator would make it great at nailing weak points in armor. Of course this would likely be a crew served weapons and the rest of the team would need to rely on grenades to defeat armor. That or bring back an FN-FAL type weapon and make a dedicated AP round for it. I can't see equipping special weapons to squads just to deal with PA unless your enemy fielded only PA though.

[castlebravo]

But on the other hand, we have affordable, hand-held weapons today that were designed to go through tanks' armour, why should an exoskeleton be such a hurdle?

Thing is, those weapons were designed to hit tanks, not man-sized targets. If you can't take out an entire squad of infantry by shooting a shell into the group and massacring them with the blast and shrapnel, but instead you have to hit every soldier with a HEAT round, infantry suddendly becomes an order of magnitude more potent. A power armored squad becomes extremely hard to kill, even if it can't shrug off any particularly heavy weapons.

The feasibility and cost/benefit of armoring every soldier such is of course debatable.

Still haven't figured out how power armor protects against concussion. A Javelin near miss is going to ruin your day. Even a 40mm HE near miss is probably going to ring your bell pretty good. A fully hermetically sealed suit with high resistance to overpressure is probably not practical any time soon.

Not sure what your powered armor is going to do when it runs up against a 25mm chain gun firing DU AP. A modern IFV is going to have better fire control, better armor protection, and better weaponry than your powered armor. This will always be the case. Offensively, your powered armor won't really be able to carry anything that an unpowered infantryman can't. He'll just be able to carry more of it.

The benefit of power, such as it is, is increased load outs allowing infantry to carry more stuff, and maybe increasing the all-aspect protection to be proof against small arms. But without significant increases in defensive technology than outpace advances in offensive technology, powered armor will still be vulnerable to pretty much everything that a level IV vest + carrier is vulnerable to today (.50 cal API and up). Your first "man-portable" lasers or rail guns might have large power requirements that force them to be carried in powered suits.

[Ritterin Sophia]

That or bring back an FN-FAL type weapon and make a dedicated AP round for it.

First of all any service rifle that uses a full-sized rifle cartridge is called a battle rifle.

Two, what do you mean 'bring back':
Mk14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle
G3A3
HK417
SG 542
Mk17 SCAR-H
That's just NATO battle rifles still in use, the FAL and other BRs are still in use with dozens of armies.
Oh and for AP, which one? M61 AP or M948 Saboted Light AP?

[adam_grif]

The fact that it abbreviates to SLAP makes it impossible for me to take the M948 seriously.

[Scorpion]

Yes a grenadier may be more mobile, but a squad with a Barrett can use the rifle against both regular infantrymen and a mech without being wasteful. A 40mm 'nade is not intended to be wasted on 1 solider, but a whole squad.

Well, you don't actually need a penetrating hit to disable power armour.

In the late 80's, it was assumed that you needed a direct artillery hit on a tank to knock it out, but battlefield reports showed discrepancies in that matter. So, they made a few test and they found out that, although they couldn't penetrate the tanks armour, shrapnel caused by artillery bombardment could mission kill tanks, by destroying fragile components such as tracks, view ports and even disabling the main gun.

So, the same could happen with powered armour: 40mm grenades may not be able to penetrate, but they could slash or jam several components, resulting in a mobility kill.

Besides, another advantage of the Barret in the grenades vs. heavy rifles as PA-killers debate is the arched trajectory of the 40mm, which would make it more difficult to use; and the fack that it's a goddamn grenade, which would leave troops using it helpless in CQB.

[Norade]

That or bring back an FN-FAL type weapon and make a dedicated AP round for it.

First of all any service rifle that uses a full-sized rifle cartridge is called a battle rifle.

Two, what do you mean 'bring back':
Mk14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle
G3A3
HK417
SG 542
Mk17 SCAR-H
That's just NATO battle rifles still in use, the FAL and other BRs are still in use with dozens of armies.
Oh and for AP, which one? M61 AP or M948 Saboted Light AP?

I was more meaning bring it back into a more common role as a mainline weapon again. I was also unaware that the rounds to defeat such armor was still around. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Raxmei]

Besides, another advantage of the Barret in the grenades vs. heavy rifles as PA-killers debate is the arched trajectory of the 40mm, which would make it more difficult to use; and the fack that it's a goddamn grenade, which would leave troops using it helpless in CQB.

A five foot long rifle isn't exactly the optimal weapon for CQB either. A future grenade launching system for individuals would probably have a rifle or carbine attached. A number of those have been showing up lately.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I was more meaning bring it back into a more common role as a mainline weapon again. I was also unaware that the rounds to defeat such armor was still around. Thanks for pointing that out.

Unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen. The only way that's happening is if combat comes back out of the urban sprawl and out onto the plains and hills again and that's only going to happen when NATO, NATO allies, Russia, and China stop having overwhelming conventional warmaking capacities. Said urban sprawls aren't going to be very conducive to any kind of reasonable power armor that would require AP capacities anyhow.

[Norade]

I was more meaning bring it back into a more common role as a mainline weapon again. I was also unaware that the rounds to defeat such armor was still around. Thanks for pointing that out.

Unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen. The only way that's happening is if combat comes back out of the urban sprawl and out onto the plains and hills again and that's only going to happen when NATO, NATO allies, Russia, and China stop having overwhelming conventional warmaking capacities. Said urban sprawls aren't going to be very conducive to any kind of reasonable power armor that would require AP capacities anyhow.

Yeah, power armor isn't very likely anyway, but it's good to know how easy it could be to put down if it ever did show up.

[[R_H]]

Besides, another advantage of the Barret in the grenades vs. heavy rifles as PA-killers debate is the arched trajectory of the 40mm, which would make it more difficult to use; and the fack that it's a goddamn grenade, which would leave troops using it helpless in CQB.

HE grenades leave them helpless in CQB? Besides the length issue of the Barrett, as Raxmei already pointed out, there's the weight, and the incredible recoil of the round.

[weemadando]

Easy, just give everyone an XM109 and be done with it. That way it's both a grenade AND a heavy rifle.

[Purple]

Besides, another advantage of the Barret in the grenades vs. heavy rifles as PA-killers debate is the arched trajectory of the 40mm, which would make it more difficult to use; and the fack that it's a goddamn grenade, which would leave troops using it helpless in CQB.

So does the sniper.
And that is why I advocate the XM-29.
Direct fire (non arched) 20mm grenade launcher and a 5.56 carbine all in one.

[Scorpion]

I have to admit that would render most Powered armor useless, and would make a lot of mechs very scared of the footsloggers.

Well, actually not. That's because infantry wears armor today, even though it is ineffective to many weapons.

If power armor can be made considerably cheap (a few tens of thousands of dollars), and soldiers can be better protected with them than without, while being able to carry more and walk faster from longer distances, them I would imagine that all armies would give power armor as standard equipment.

If a conventional light infantry squad faces off against a PA'd squad, and both are capable of dealing damage to each other (let's say the LI squad is armed with Kords and Barrets, for instance), the squad that prevails will be the one that can avoid detection and remain hidden the longest. The human body can lay silent and hide behind rocks, grass and small irregularities on the ground. PA will be noisy and volumous, the exact opposite. Frankly, the only way I see PA working is in assaults to prepared positions, where the elements of camouflage (which are essential inna woods) are not a factor, and where resistance to fire is paramount.

[Night_stalker]

True, unless we find a way of making active camo feasible...

[Shroom Man 777]

The PA can have IR sensors and rip the light infantry to pieces with PA-portable autocannons. But the PA won't exactly be super-armored, and will probably just be as armored and armed as a Humvee. Light infantry can destroy light vehicles as well.

[Scorpion]

I was more meaning bring it back into a more common role as a mainline weapon again. I was also unaware that the rounds to defeat such armor was still around. Thanks for pointing that out.

Unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen. The only way that's happening is if combat comes back out of the urban sprawl and out onto the plains and hills again and that's only going to happen when NATO, NATO allies, Russia, and China stop having overwhelming conventional warmaking capacities. Said urban sprawls aren't going to be very conducive to any kind of reasonable power armor that would require AP capacities anyhow.

Actually, as a result of the experience in Afghanistan, the limitations of the current 5.56mm ammo are becoming painfully obvious. As detailed in this little article by small arms expert Anthony G. Williams (you should really check out his site) right now, US and brittish patrols are being ambushed from a distance up to a Km on the Afghan plains by fighters using Dragunovs or even old Lee-Enfields. Since 5,56mm weapons are woefully inadequate at those distances, they are often forced to use Javelins to engage the Talibans. At 3000+ USD a pop, it ain't cheap. That's one of the reasons why the 6,5 Grendel and 6,8 SPC have atracted quite a following the last few years...

The PA can have IR sensors and rip the light infantry to pieces with PA-portable autocannons.

So what? Light infantry can have IR sensors as well, and no one uses IR in broad daylight. And even discounting that, the Israelis have just developed active camouflage in the IR spectrum!

[Purple]

I see PA being used in the role of Light Tanks and Tankettes.
A squad of Heavy infantry escorting several squads of light infantry and acting as fire support. Likely armed with larger caliber grenade launchers, light auto canons, machine guns or other stuff you usually put on a Humvee. It could be especially useful in urban areas or mountains where you can't regular get vehicles through.

[Shroom Man 777]

Link please?

I'm just saying that with sensors, infantry won't be that invisible. Shit, man, the discussion between light infantry vs. powered armor isn't that much different than light infantry vs. light armored vehicles/Humvees with guns.