plus4chan
ImageboardsRadio
Site Theme...
imageboards
Main FAQ [ baw] [ co / cog / jam / mtv / tek ] [ ck / coc / draw / writ ] [ pco / coq ] [ a / op / pkmn ] [ n ]
Technology

 Posting a reply to post #953
Name
Email
Subject  
Message
File 
Embed  
Password  


File: 127263248932.jpg-(254.82KB, 455x500, tactical-riot-gear.jpg)
953 No.953
Let's talk armor.

I for one believe that there are few cooler things in today's world then riot police.

Expand all images
No.954
File: 127264209532.jpg-(100.76KB, 650x460, combine slavs.jpg)
954

No.955
File: 127264361925.jpg-(66.88KB, 450x450, russian_gas_mask.jpg)
955
>>954
today's Russian gas masks as so inferior to the classic horror gas mask they had.

No.956
That Dragonscale that is ten times better than KEVLAR yet the Military doesn't use it.
Wut iz dis madnes.

No.957
>>956
lol troll

No.958
>>956
that's just a shame.

>>957
I am beginning to have bad feelings about the future of +4.

No.959
>>956
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin_(body_armor)#Military_testing
army claims it's not as good as they say it is. contract was voided.

No.960
>>958
Dragon skin sucks bro, everyone knows it

The ceramic disks were glued in with crap glue from Mexico and it melted in Afghan heat, making the entire thing as worthless to protecting bullets as a standard uniform
Additionally, the glue froze in sub zero temperatures and made the entire thing kind of like ancient armor, impossible to move in

The type of thread used to connect the layers was not kevlar, but a nylon thing which often broke

tl;dr good concept, but that particular product is shit

No.961
>>958
+4 is doomed because people call out trolls

No.962
That's not a troll, it's just Vorked being Vorked.

No.1022
File: 127320387875.jpg-(36.46KB, 360x495, Splintedh.jpg)
1022
>>960
>>kind of like ancient armor, impossible to move in
Hey man, don't knock older Armor. People used to be able to do sommersaults in this shit.

No.1024
>>1022
anyone know how much distance could an average knight cover in one of these? can't be too far.

No.1025
>>1024
The average knight had been trained to maneuver on the battle field since about the time he could stand, so I'd say they could get pretty far.

No.1027
While I am in no way an expert (or even an enthusiast) on armor, I would assume that a sensible designer wouldn't put a soldier on the battlefield in something he couldn't move twenty feet in or wear for more than an hour.

No.1028
Look into the history of armor its actually pretty interesting.

One thing that you notice is how after centuries of innovation, armor developments stagnated for fucking ever.

Also no, those movie armors that are just a clunky mess of plates werent the norm. Much in the way a military tunic isnt standard troop gear.

No.1029
>>1028
>One thing that you notice is how after centuries of innovation, armor developments stagnated for fucking ever.

bullets are really powerful.

>>1027
I dunno. maybe armor that's very specific in purpose. like against high caliber fire. I would have a unit put it on. then charge the sniper/high caliber machine gun and then take it off.

but then I guess that would only apply to slower moving combat.

No.1037
>>1029

The use of guns is overrated, they were pretty much just support or a long time.

No.1039
>>1037
still, after they came up with the matchlock, made enough of an impact to drive the knights in shining armor extinct.

No.1043
File: 127343744185.jpg-(35.11KB, 257x300, 19358-004-EE106B7C.jpg)
1043
>>1039
No, Armor was still featured prominently in warfare for more then another hundred years.

No.1066
File: 127360714334.jpg-(387.22KB, 500x675, hurp.jpg)
1066
>>1028
>One thing that you notice is how after centuries of innovation, armor developments stagnated for fucking ever.

In many places of Europe, espcially Brittian, military tactics in general 'stagnated'. Adopting gunpowder over the bow and abandonment of chariot useage for example didn't occur in many more isolated areas for a long period of time, even after their neighbors and foes adopted them.

Came down to doing what they knew best vs the slow shift of tech advancement. After all, the tech is only as good as the people are skilled at using it.

Anyway, remember the XOS Exoskeleton?:

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-04/building-real-iron-man

Combination exoskeltal hydralic human enhancement and plated armored underbody.

No.1067
>>1066
first, awesome historical war related get.

second, is it just me or is anyone else bored of all these really cool concept weapon designs that are NEVER followed through.

No.1069
>>1067

Some private contractor will build a prototype for some military, and other private contractors will say "hey, why do that when we have a better idea that costs less?" The original idea gets frozen while newer ones get pushed through, etc etc.

Can't say I don't like that self-refreshing system. It's brought a whole lot of wounded soldiers some high quality prostheses.

No.1071
im still amazed the XM25 is being finalised

No.1073
File: 127369619473.jpg-(748.14KB, 1300x1129, Battlesuit Komodo.jpg)
1073

No.1075
I want to go on record as saying that the first military powered armour will be a 'soft' undersuit of muscle-fibre-like material, with external armour plates. Articulated 'hard' exoskeletons won't come til later.

No.1078
  >>1075
I say you have already been disproved.

though you might argue the definition of "power armor"

No.1079
>>1078

robo backpacks =/= armour

No.1080
File: 127377142345.jpg-(39.39KB, 533x306, HAL- IronMan -XOS.jpg)
1080
Left - Japanese invention

Center - Iron Man

Right - American invention

No.1081
>>1080
they don't seem all that different. problem just seems to be lack of arc reactor tech.

No.1082
>>1079
It would probably be trivial to put some plating on it to wrap around the user's body.

No.1083
>>1081

Plus HAL is intended to be a commercial/medical product while XOS is fully intended to be used for military. You never really know, but I'm guessing HAL's not built to be nearly as abuse-proof.

No.1088
>>1078
This: >>1079
I'll take you up on your offer of arguing the definition of "power armor" by stating that by the phrase 'power armor' I mean a system of armor, conformal to the human body that is self-propelled, or augments the propulsive capacity of the wearer to a degree such that their carrying capacity is enhanced by the system, not degraded. HULC certainly fulfils the second requirement.

Additionally, I will concede the argument when such a system passes the field trials of a state military force and is distributed to it's general infantry.

No.1090
>>1088
I agree to that definition and concede my argument.

No.1093
>>1081
One is smaller, lighter and doesn't need a gigantic umbilical to function

No.1153
been thinking about power-armors and came to a big question: even if we ignore weight, does a material exist that will stop assault rifle fire AND still be flexible enough for a person to wear?

No.1157
File: 127429117930.jpg-(61.95KB, 1196x498, Parker Selfridge.jpg)
1157
>>1153

No.1158
File: 127429406731.jpg-(72.26KB, 470x470, bismuth.jpg)
1158
>>1153
>what-do-you-think-the-troops-are-wearing-now.jpg

No.1159
>>1158
as much as I gathered modern armors shatter like plates when stopping a bullet, in assault rifle fire I meant a few bursts.

No.1160
>>1153
I answer your question with another: is cost also a consideration?

Because if so, no. If not, well, would you like a list?

No.1162
>>1160
just one material would be enough.

No.1163
>>1162
Non newtonian fluids coupled with high strength fibers could stop assault rifle rounds (5.57 to 7.62) dead in their tracks

Hell, if you want cheap, a simple bathroom tile with some sticky tape on the far end has enough tensile strength to stop a 9mm slug

No.1164
>>1163
>tensile
I'm an idiot, please rape my face

I was thinking of kevlar as I wrote that, substitute it for compressive

No.1166
>>1160
Tiny, monocrystalline steel loops connected into microscopically fine chainmail.

No.1168
>>1163
>Non newtonian fluids
wouldn't those just leak out?

No.1169
>>1168
Maybe if you were holding them in an inverted cup

No.1170
>>1169
Even then it would take days

No.1171
>>1168
They could be packaged in small bubbles, laid over a tear resistant base material. Think bubble wrap injected with cornstarch solution. The wrap might even be layered once or twice.

Of course, that would still leave gaps wherever you took a round (and fuckhuge bruises).

No.1172
>>1171
well I guess that can be solved by overlapping the pockets.

No.1681
  It looks like the Human Universal Load Carrier has been cleared for live testing in 2011.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10703219

"But Kosh. This just helps them pick stuff up and move it around. That isn't armor."

You're right. But it IS the future 'structure' of armor. Think about it: If these lifting structures pass as something that does give a viable non-hindering advantage to soldiers in the field?

The next time they're deployed they won't be used to carry just supplies. They'll be deployed as the support structure for armor that can protect against automatic weapons, something very difficult to achieve without reducing movement and visibility.

No.1682
>>1681
>200 lbs.
that's like a browning heavy machine gun loaded with 120 rounds.

I wonder if it also helps in taking the recoil.

No.1687
File: 127977216793.jpg-(25.59KB, 315x450, 823693-spacemarinewh_super.jpg)
1687
An alternative that no one seems to be considering: rather than making the armor lighter, or giving it an internal propulsion system, why not make the troops stronger via steroids and/or genetic engineering?

No.1691
>>1687
because that makes them bigger targets and most soldiers won't do that voluntarily. modern warfare is all about trying to hit something and trying not to get hit your self.



Main FAQ [ baw] [ co / cog / jam / mtv / tek ] [ ck / coc / draw / writ ] [ pco / coq ] [ a / op / pkmn ] [ n ]
0.025308847427368 (0.03 seconds )