Progress, an Armor Topic!

[Commissar D, the Evil]

Sooooo, let's sum up the past 64 years in the development of Armor:

At the end of 1944, we had the Tiger II, 68 tons of armor and a 750 Hp engine, but still vulnerable in some parts to a panzerfaust. Now, in 2008, we have, roughly, 68 tons of M1 Abrams, with a 1500 Hp engine, but still vulnerable in some parts to an RPG, the successor to the panzerfaust.......

And I wrote a long, long time ago about the obvious similarities between an LAV-25 and an Sd. Kfz. 234/1!!!!

Hmmmm...... Progress is weird. Have we made the same "progress" in other areas of ground weaponry??????

The .50 cal. is still soldiering on. So is the MG-42 (in one form or the other).

So, in terms of ground combat, my question is:

DON'T WE STILL LIVE IN A WWII WORLD???????

Bestens,
~D, the EviL

[Commissar D, the Evil]

P.S, what I'm trying to say is, whatever happened to phasers, death rays, "push-button warfare", laser guns and light sabers?

Bestens,
~D, Still a Bit EviL

[sebastian]

we got pînpoint precision bombing,laserguided missiles so there is a form of progress right :-),but like you said the older weapons are still in use i think mainly not only because of their effectivenes,good designs and durability,i think its because there are no other inmprovements of the targets they are suppose to hit,so its no need to build a photon-torpedo if you aint got the enterprise or a klingon warbird to fire it upon,sorry for my poor english,hope i made myself clear and the text is not confusing :-)

Seb

[Commissar D, the Evil]

Hey Seb, you made yourself perfectly clear!

I always get a chuckle when you bi-lingual folk, who usually make perfect sense, apologize for your English to folks who only speak English!

I was just wondering on this topic "How Far have we Really Come" in terms of infantry weapons. I think the answer is, not really far at all!

Very Best,
~D, the EviL

[phylo_roadking]

I was just wondering on this topic "How Far have we Really Come" in terms of infantry weapons. I think the answer is, not really far at all!

Increasingly, however - with modern body armour and modern battlefield surgery and medivac techniques...it's becoming harder to kill a soldier in the field stone dead. A significant number of wound and injury types are now more treatable, and faster.

[Commissar D, the Evil]

True, true Phylo, except that the U.S. is fighting entirely folks without the infrastructure to treat casualties.

I think my point is that 60 plus years later, a fight on the ground hasn't changed much. Sort of like Roman times when fights on the ground didn't change for centuries. So, what is the next breakthrough? Surely man's inventiveness in killing other men hasn't run out of steam......

Bestens,
David

[phylo_roadking]

Simple. Technological progress that makes an individual infantryman "more than human" - real bodyarmour that doesn't just "hinder bullets", but really protects him; self-powered "active camoflage" that makes him proof against the human eye; eventually exoskeletons that give him more-than-human strength and endurance.

Coming the other way - personal weapons need to combine more anti-armour capability with anti-personnel. Grenades for under-barrel launchers need to get smaller yet more hardhitting...and thus magazine-fire not single shot, giving an infantryman his own HE, AT and AP capability without having to swap hands, grab a LAW, etc....

[Commissar D, the Evil]

Hmm......... Active camoflage and better body armor I can see Phylo, but these are two defensive measures--what about the offense. An infantryman with a truly "area saturation" killing power? Something that doesn't depend on lead rounds? Even in sci-fi movies you see troopies aiming at individual targets when they're being fored upon from several positions.

So, what is next? I don't think you can make a gun relying on powder and lead much more efficient than it is now.

What the world needs is a "weapon of mass destruction" that is hand held.

Best,
David

[phylo_roadking]

Modern projectiles can do just SO much damage. Depleted uranium in 5.56? Probably there already by now. I haven't read much lately on discarding sabot rounds, but there was a flurry of experimentation about ten years ago IIRC.

I don't see why an infantryman can't have explosive rounds of some type in wartime. Certainly our miniature engineering skills are up to the job LOL

I wonder what the latest progresses are in explosives? Are the cemtex types the last word as yet on explosive power vs. weight? Or do we have something the size of a rifle round that can give the blast of a handgrenade?

As for the weapons themselves....well, twenty years ago we were experimenting with large-size rail guns. Twenty years? So why don't we have "gauss rifles" now? Or DO we???

What about size of round and range? If we compromise the range of something like a Barnett .50cal...can we produce an grunt-sized weapon with a thirty-round mag that will fire .50cal AND be light enough for him to lug around all day? A projectile THAT size should give the inventive some size to put something in...

[Commissar D, the Evil]

Aww, think out of the box Phylo! What about a weapon that operates on pure sound or laser-light? Something that can incapacitate an entire neighborhood....

Bestens,
David

[statemachine]

Metal Storm.Saw it on one of the tech channels.Awesome potential.

http://www.metalstorm.com

[Rolf Steiner]

I was led to believe that corporations would take over from nationalities and the human instinct for conflict and violence would then be sublimated into a vicious game combining the rougher aspects of motocross, martial arts and hockey, thus eliminating the need for war entirely... where's Jonathan E when you need him? The future ain't what it was!

[phylo_roadking]

Aww, think out of the box Phylo! What about a weapon that operates on pure sound or laser-light?

....and that's

A/ man-portable, INCLUDING power source

B/ doesn't need constant adjustment

C/ isn't fragile...

We are probably several scientific generations away from man-portable energy weapons. The REAL problem isn't the actual propagation of any wave - it's the power source required. Or else an infantryman's combat radious will be limited to the length of extension lead he can drag with him.....

More likely we're looking at a magnification of the damage a "conventional" infantry weapon can do. The first step will be looking at what actually comes out of the barrel, and how that can be made to do more damage to a greater variety of targets. If a slugthrower can punch a hole in a tank - you don't NEED an energy weapon.

Apart from anything else - the munitions can sit on a shelf for x number of years, not require hooking up to the national grid before combat...

[Prit]

My dear Commissar,

The question is not so much 'what' as 'why'.

Projectile weapons are, I agree, unlikely to do more than evolve by increments, but they are cheap, easily manufactured and maintained, and easy to train. It's hard to imagine a replacement that could tick those boxes.

Prit

[AAA]

Yeah,

Theres truth in it.

Most of the world is still using a StG44/Garand hybrid (the good old Ak-47). A panzerfaust derivative (RPG). A bazooka derivative (Carl Gustav). Most of the world (including both the US and Russian military) still doesn't understand blitzkrieg (they think the tanks and airplanes is the whole shmear, instead of auftragstaktik wedded to technology). AT missiles are great, but still not hugely more effective than towed anti-tank guns were in 1940 (and way more expensive), the Panzerhaubitze 2000 looks like an improved Hummel, and the HMMWV is actually inferior to many WWII era armored vehicles. We still use the .50 HMG, the .45 colt, and virtually unchanged 60/81/82/120mm mortars.