Genetically engineered supertroops and power armor illogical

[Sarevok]

The UNSC can make starships yet would go broke if they tried to make more widespread powered armor ? Man Halo economics never made any sense.

[Broomstick]

On the other hand, women don't make up 50% of combat pilots. If someone tells me that's not a coincidence and that there is in fact some disproportionately-guy thing that contributes to good combat piloting, I'm not going to argue the case one way or the other. It's not my ball game, and that's all I'm saying.

Women aren't 50% of pilots as a whole. In general aviation we're 1 in 20, in commercial civilian aviation about 1 in 12. I don't know what the ratio is in the military but it's probably equally lopsided. Apparently, there is a gender-based thing that relates to interest in being a pilot. If we have few women combat pilots a larger effect may be that, until very recently, women weren't permitted to be combat pilots. Not until 1993 were women permitted to be in that role at all, it wasn't that long ago.

For some reason (I have my theories) few women seem interested in being pilots. However, those that do become pilots perform at the same level as men. It's not that women don't make "good combat pilots" it's that the job doesn't appeal to as many women as men. It's like saying there's some disproportionately gal-thing that contributes to good nurses, that's why nursing is so dominated by women - the statement completely ignores all other factors besides competence. Nonsense, men are just as good at nursing as women, but for various reasons fewer men enter the profession.

Except that the Air Force has pretty much always had more qualified people interested in flying than they have pilots slots, and since they lifted restrictions on women they've doubled their candidate pool. There is no shortage of wannabe Top Guns.

This much is true. On the other hand, they really do want to optimize their candidates for things like learning ability, eyesight, coordination, and so on... factors other than physical size. Height isn't the only thing they're looking for.

The tighter the size restriction, the more otherwise best-of-the-best candidates you disqualify. The marginal improvement in making pilots a little shorter would have to offset all the really good potential candidates you didn't take because they're now an inch too tall.

Well, it used to be that if you didn't have perfect vision you were barred from being an Air Force pilot - that has changed in the era of LASIK. It used to be if you were female you were barred from being a combat pilot - that has also changed. Further back just being black would keep you from being a pilot in the Army Air Corps (another thing that changed). Clearly, the military has never had a problem with drawing lines about who is and isn't a candidate for flight school. When they have ample candidates some of the criteria can become pretty arbitrary. The learning ability, eyesight, coordination, and other factors needed for pilots are common enough they can be choosy. If they only need 10% of the candidate pool to fulfill their quotas then chopping off the ends of the height bell curve is not a problem - in fact, it's a way to whittle down the pool you eventually choose from.

Think about it. In any other business where you have far more applicants than positions, you still want to hire the very top-scoring candidates of the available pool.

The pool of "top scoring candidates" is still greater in number than the open pilot slots. They can afford to be as choosy as they like.

The more you restrict the pool (with things like height limits) the more otherwise top-tier candidates you disqualify. Many of them will be replaced by people whose eyesight, test scores, coordination, or whatever weren't as good... but who still passed the test and have the advantage of not being too tall.

Nope, that's not the way it's working - the number of people who want to be Air Force pilots really is that much greater than the number of actual pilots needed.

So the Air Force's cockpit size standards are probably, I'd think, set by a compromise between making the cockpit smaller and not eliminating too big a chunk of their potential recruits, forcing them to settle for second-best candidates because they arbitrarily imposed a very rare requirement on people in pre-selection.

Cockpit size is based on the adult male average height, and the range is actually skewed to shorter rather than taller. Average US male height is, depending on who you ask, between 5 foot 9 and 5 foot 10. So the Air Force's height range has "average height" as the upper limit. They're already skewed towards shorter. While there is, no doubt, some wiggle room (I'm sure there are USAF pilots at 5 foot 11) if you're 6 foot 4 it doesn't matter how good a pilot you are, you won't be flying for the US Air Force, at least not as combat pilot - they might have more leniency in things like transport airplanes, or they might not. I don't really know. This is, of course, consistent with your statement that there is some compromise between physical ideal and other characteristics, but shows that physical traits do have some weight.

Shorter people do have an advantage in being pilots. I don't have formal evidence, but I suspect the average pilot is shorter than the average person in any given population group. Certainly, my observation of groups of pilots is that most of them, while certainly in a normal height range, do cluster around the shorter end of normal. I've known 8 or 9 male pilots who are shorter than I am - and I'm either average or just under average height for a US woman. Granted, that's a very informal sampling technique.

[lance]

Or he might suggesting full-body cyborgisation, ala Ghost in the Shell or Appleseed or Battle Angel Alita.

Thats the one, I was making a joke with brain/ghost in a shell.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I rechecked the journal. The funky magic crystal stuff is used in a support system for thier FTL drives, so presumably would be competeing with ship production for materials. Note the Spartan armor we know uses, some kind of special form of said material that can only be manufactured in zero-g and method/materials needed were classified. My guess is the stuff is still highly experimental, which would add to the cost, and that the base material would still be needed for shipbuilding doesn't help. That said, supposedly the biggest cost issue was actually the mini fusion reactor that was needed to power the suit. Are any of thier vehicles fusion powered? If not, I suppose limited production of reactors that are at the bleeding edge of miniturization would be the major limitor of suit production. Why you'd bother using these limited resources in/on what are still squishy infantry in the end, versus a more durable armored vehicle I can't say.

The incident with the guy in the suit going squish, was apparently because they didn't recalibrate the suit (assuming that's possible) from Spartan settings. It sounds like operator error might of had more to due with that incident than the tech.

[dragon]

Are there any uses of power armor in Sci-fi where the soliders using power armor weren't super soliders. I know the users of power armor in Dahak verse were standard military personnel but they all were cybernetically enhanced as part of basic equipment.

[PeZook]

Are there any uses of power armor in Sci-fi where the soliders using power armor weren't super soliders. I know the users of power armor in Dahak verse were standard military personnel but they all were cybernetically enhanced as part of basic equipment.

Starship Troopers, obviously. They were elite, but not supersoldiers by any stretch.

[SeaTrooper]

Shorter people do have an advantage in being pilots. I don't have formal evidence, but I suspect the average pilot is shorter than the average person in any given population group. Certainly, my observation of groups of pilots is that most of them, while certainly in a normal height range, do cluster around the shorter end of normal. I've known 8 or 9 male pilots who are shorter than I am - and I'm either average or just under average height for a US woman. Granted, that's a very informal sampling technique.

There was a docco on SBS a few years back discussing this very subject. Showing trials conducted by the USAF and NASA into resistance to grav-loading, they found that short, round people could naturally take G-forces better. Longer to black out, less tunnel vision and they found it far easier to breath! The taller and/or skinnier you are, the more difficult is was for blood to be pumped to the brain.

My thoughts, at the time, were that Inuit should be advanced up the list

[keen320]

If not, I suppose limited production of reactors that are at the bleeding edge of miniturization would be the major limitor of suit production. Why you'd bother using these limited resources in/on what are still squishy infantry in the end, versus a more durable armored vehicle I can't say.

Well, however stupid it may have been (or maybe it was bribes from the magic-metals industry), it apparently worked. Although they could have saved a lot of money if they just gave the armor to the Chief. All the other Spartans just got glassed in the end anyway.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Shorter people do have an advantage in being pilots. I don't have formal evidence, but I suspect the average pilot is shorter than the average person in any given population group. Certainly, my observation of groups of pilots is that most of them, while certainly in a normal height range, do cluster around the shorter end of normal. I've known 8 or 9 male pilots who are shorter than I am - and I'm either average or just under average height for a US woman. Granted, that's a very informal sampling technique.

There was a docco on SBS a few years back discussing this very subject. Showing trials conducted by the USAF and NASA into resistance to grav-loading, they found that short, round people could naturally take G-forces better. Longer to black out, less tunnel vision and they found it far easier to breath! The taller and/or skinnier you are, the more difficult is was for blood to be pumped to the brain.

My thoughts, at the time, were that Inuit should be advanced up the list

In a more literal sense, some of the best pilots in WWII had no legs, and were the best for much the same reasons.

[Simon_Jester]

Women aren't 50% of pilots as a whole. In general aviation we're 1 in 20, in commercial civilian aviation about 1 in 12. I don't know what the ratio is in the military but it's probably equally lopsided. Apparently, there is a gender-based thing that relates to interest in being a pilot. If we have few women combat pilots a larger effect may be that, until very recently, women weren't permitted to be combat pilots. Not until 1993 were women permitted to be in that role at all, it wasn't that long ago.

Broomstick, for mercy's sake, I DO know the facts, I'm not a complete illiterate, all right?

I am not asserting that "women make inferior combat pilots." If some Air Force general tells me that there is some quality necessary in a combat pilot that is statistically more common among men, though, I cannot prove him wrong.

That is the absolute limit of what I am saying.

Well, it used to be that if you didn't have perfect vision you were barred from being an Air Force pilot - that has changed in the era of LASIK. It used to be if you were female you were barred from being a combat pilot - that has also changed. Further back just being black would keep you from being a pilot in the Army Air Corps (another thing that changed). Clearly, the military has never had a problem with drawing lines about who is and isn't a candidate for flight school. When they have ample candidates some of the criteria can become pretty arbitrary. The learning ability, eyesight, coordination, and other factors needed for pilots are common enough they can be choosy. If they only need 10% of the candidate pool to fulfill their quotas then chopping off the ends of the height bell curve is not a problem - in fact, it's a way to whittle down the pool you eventually choose from.

This is only true if they don't normally try to optimize among their existing pool. If their criterion for eyesight is "better than this standard," they can afford to reduce their candidate pool without compromising on pilot eyesight.

If their criterion is "the best we can get," that's a different story. What if their candidate is an inch too tall but has really great eyesight, learning ability, and coordination? As in, equal to the very best of the candidates they actually do let in?

If all they want is to winnow down the horde of applicants and get acceptable candidates, then that doesn't matter. If they want the best, well, the best out of a hundred thousand applicants are likely to be a better bunch than the best out of fifty thousand applicants. Even if you're only taking the top hundred.

Now, if the differences of ability among those top hundred are effectively zero, it won't matter. I have seldom heard of areas of human endeavour where that's true, though. Even if you're already screening out all but a tiny percentage of candidates as "not good enough," there will still be a 'best' and a 'worst.' And it's bad luck for you if the person who would have been your 'best' gets kicked out for being an inch too tall.

(Or female. Or black. Or from a lower-class family. Or anything else that has ever disqualified someone from joining an air force that has no bearing on the essentials).

Cockpit size is based on the adult male average height, and the range is actually skewed to shorter rather than taller.

Yes, I know this. But as it stands, the high end of the "design height" range overlaps with the top of the bell curve in adult male height in the US. There are a LOT of American adult males who could fit in those cockpits.

If they designed the cockpits for people who were 5'4" to 4'10" instead, only a small percentage of adult males could fit in them. They'd still get good candidates (mostly women, probably), but the problem I describe above would arise.

This is, of course, consistent with your statement that there is some compromise between physical ideal and other characteristics, but shows that physical traits do have some weight.

Naturally.

[Darwin]

Are there any uses of power armor in Sci-fi where the soliders using power armor weren't super soliders.

40k Tau make extensive use of powered battlesuits, but compare unfavorably against the strength and hand-to-hand skills of the average Imperial Guardsman, who themselves are the Unfortunate Fodder of the galaxy.

[Sarevok]

Its been a while since I read my printed 40K table top books. But are not Crysis suits considerably superior to IG units ?

[PeZook]

Its been a while since I read my printed 40K table top books. But are not Crysis suits considerably superior to IG units ?

He meant the Tau inside them are frail, not the suits themselves.

[Purple]

In the case in question. If the Crisis suit mini mecha thing is stupid enough to let unarmored, lightly armed humans zerg rush it, they tend to pick it apart and the pilot gets a nasty end.

[andrewgpaul]

The Imperium also makes significant use of non-enhanced humans in powered armour - the Adepta Sororitas, the Sisters of Battle. I think there's actually more of those than there are Space Marines, but I can't think of anything to back that up.

[dragon]

Speaking of the Adepta Sororitas since cybernetics are common in WH40k are the adepta given any upgrades.

[Serafina]

In the case in question. If the Crisis suit mini mecha thing is stupid enough to let unarmored, lightly armed humans zerg rush it, they tend to pick it apart and the pilot gets a nasty end.

Actually, their enhanced strength, armor and mobility makes them quite capable in close combat - at least against enemies that are not dedicated melee troops or carry proper weapons for it.
As always, you can beat them with the proper usage of heavy artillery barrages

Speaking of the Adepta Sororitas since cybernetics are common in WH40k are the adepta given any upgrades.

Not normally, no. I don't know of any source that says that they despise them, but they do not cut of their arms to replace them with a cybernetic one or the like. They will likely be given replacements in case a limb is lost in battle tough - cause, you know, it helps you to serve the Emperor and smite his foes.

[PeZook]

Uh...you actually need cybernetics to use power armor, so yeah, they're given some enhancements. They're just not genetically modified supersoldiers

[Simon_Jester]

OK, but the enhancements sound like they're more like "we wired a USB port into your brain" and less like "we can rebuild you, make you stronger, faster, better."

In which case I'm not sure they count when we're talking about "supertroops" the way that enhancements to the body's muscles, bones, and the like would.

[DudeGuyMan]

I haven't read every post in the thread, but I'm thinking your ideal sci-fi powered armor soldier would probably look something like a lightweight boxer. Human beings are perfectly capable of being atheltic, agile, and physically explosive at very small sizes.

Assuming the armor is responsive enough that it doesn't artificially limit the wearer's agility, and powerful enough to make the wearer's physical strength irrelevant, I'd go with a ripped little 140 pound Manny Pacquiao type over a giant Clan Elemental style slab of beef any day of the week.

[Simon_Jester]

That does fit in with a lot of what's been said. Emphasis on endurance over strength (something that may or may not apply with boxers) has also been suggested.

The prototypical genetically enhanced supersoldier is the Space Marine; there are a few reasons behind their being so physically large that I can think of, but you're probably right.

[andrewgpaul]

Uh...you actually need cybernetics to use power armor, so yeah, they're given some enhancements. They're just not genetically modified supersoldiers

I don't think you do. Space Marine armour requires direct connections to the wearer's nervous system, so the Marine needs a Black Carapace to use it, but non-Marine armour just uses feedback systems to detect and amplify the wearer's movements - no surgery required.

[Sarevok]

Yes. And real world examples of powered exoskeletons do not require fancy cybernetic implants either. Though it would be useful to have such a tech because it would make the movements much more precise.

[PainRack]

Assuming the armor is responsive enough that it doesn't artificially limit the wearer's agility, and powerful enough to make the wearer's physical strength irrelevant, I'd go with a ripped little 140 pound Manny Pacquiao type over a giant Clan Elemental style slab of beef any day of the week.

So what about tech level? Clan Elementals gained an advantage in their power armour because its stated that they can stand the wear and tear of battle armour deployment better, to the extent that Spheroid infantry couldn't use Elemental armour for extended periods of time.

There has been a lot of retcons along the way though, especially after Dark Age came about.

[[R_H]]

Ok, good discussion. Let's hit the discussions one by one.

1. You need to be strong to use the suit.
Wrong. You need endurance but strength != endurance. Case in point, the gym I go to, you'll find all sorts of meatheads with arms like tree trunks. Are they strong? Sure, but only in a single plane of movement. Ask them to go on a run with you. They'll die in the first five minutes. Why? No endurance. They've been skipping on their cardio. So no, the 90lb weakling look I'm talking about about being physically incapable of living up to the exertion, it's about the physical demands of the suit not requiring you to be built like a gorilla. I think it was one of the WWII reporters who pointed out that the grunts who surprised you as good soldiers weren't the tall, muscular farmboys straight from central casting, it was the wiry little bastards who didn't look like much but had the real endurance.

The meatheads with arms like treetrunks will have strong arms, but what about the rest of their bodies?

Take for example weightlifters (the kind they do at the Olympics) in the sub 94kg weightclasses. They're very strong, both in terms of absolute strength, and relative strength. They may not be able to curl as much as the curl jockies, but there's a very good chance that they're stronger in the compound lifts, which are better indicators of strength than isolation excercises.

As to your saying strength does not equate to endurance, again, it depends. Continuing with the weightlifter example. Lets say weightlifter A can snatch (from the ground to over head) 160kg for a single, this means that A can snatch 10kg all day long.

My point is that it's possible for human beings to be, compared to the average, fucking ridiculously strong, even though they're physically (height, weight) quite small.