Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #120 - deathlordgusta (05/26/2012) [-]
i wonder if armies will be investing money in power armors (hal 5) anytime soon(?) since they use missiles sometimes use missiles that cost about the same amount of money. i'm sure there are plenty of uses for power armors i the military.
User avatar #216 to #120 - sevensixtwo (05/26/2012) [-]
i had just thought of this... a happy medium between powered armor and natural strength? not quite a full body Iron Man suit, but servo-propelled joints, similar to medical braces, that amplify force. instead of having a single large battery pack, distribute the power cells throughout the structural framework, and you would sacrafice the weight with added strength. you could icrease the firepower of a squad with a soldier wearing this armor, and he could have a larger weapon and ammunition capacities- similar to a squad designated marksman, he would have the high-recoil weapon that would jar a normal soldier but with recoil compensators he can be more accurate with sustained fire. army motto- accuracy by volume. lol but also think about the de-moralization factor of that soldier- he would be marked as a tarket, but definitley scary for the enemy.
#128 to #120 - anon (05/26/2012) [-]
Power armor, and powered exosekeltons are not the solution, lightweight gear is.
Put a man out in the **** , carrying his own weight in gear by the aid of a power suit, then he runs the risk of getting ****** if that equipment gets ****** up. And there's no way to make it ********** .
Lightweight materials are a much more time-worthy cause. If my pack only weighs 40 pounds, then my pack only weighs 40 pounds. The enemy/environment can't **** that up for me.
User avatar #130 to #128 - deathlordgusta (05/26/2012) [-]
(i love discussing this) yes, as i mentioned below there are two big problems with the power armor, but about energy supply, what would be best? fuel cells use rare metals, primairy cells have to be replaced constantly, secundairy cells don't have as much 'capacity' as primairy, and a combustion engine would weigh too much.
User avatar #142 to #130 - pornzmon (05/26/2012) [-]
Power armor is not the solution. the anon has the right idea. The purpose of infantry is to be able to go almost anywhere. But if you give them power armor, no matter how strong it is, you decrease their flexibility. you weigh them down and more often than not slow them down. Not to mention that the extra weight of the power armor would drag them down in some types of terrain, (e.g. swamps, deserts, mountains). not to mention the crapload of maintenance and supplies and manpower that it would take to keep one running
tl:dr basically you turn them into walking tanks, and while that sounds awesome, tanks have a limited area where they can go and require a ******* of maintenance that isn't worth it.
User avatar #149 to #142 - deathlordgusta (05/26/2012) [-]
yes i thought about how the power armor could make you 'sink' in certain types of terrain.
well, how about just a small group of soldiers who use power armors in situations that agility is not quite relevant? for special missions?
User avatar #166 to #149 - pornzmon (05/26/2012) [-]
no the power armor might make you sink in mud or thhose sortsd of terrian, but I meant it would be diffucult climbing up mountains and in desert the armor would undoubtedly fail horribly from the sand getting everywhere.
Any mission where agility isn't relevant can be completed by a mounted infantry squadron, an attack helicopter, or a tank.
User avatar #188 to #166 - localbees (05/26/2012) [-]
Not only would mud and desert pose a problem, but what about bridges and floors?
Depending on how heavy said power armor is, you might run the risk of falling through lightweight structures.
#184 to #166 - anon (05/26/2012) [-]
I think what deathlordgusta meant was in the event of say, Urban combat? Say you need to clear a building, leveling it isn't an option, and there's tangos on every floor? Put a few dudes in power armor through the door. Bulletproof and mechanically powered to move at a decent speed.
User avatar #224 to #184 - MrTurdTastic (05/26/2012) [-]
Thats what Fragmentation and Stun grenades are for. throw, enemy is disoriented/dead, go in, clear out remainder.
User avatar #192 to #184 - pornzmon (05/26/2012) [-]
that wouldn't work because the machinery would probably be bulky, especially with the armor and hinder movement in close quarters.
User avatar #194 to #192 - pornzmon (05/26/2012) [-]
and as local bees said, " you might run the risk of falling through lightweight structures"
#138 to #130 - anon (05/26/2012) [-]
If you insist on power armor, then here's what you need.
Firstly, you aren't going to find a lightweight power source that isn't made out of some rare material. Asking for more would just be silly, and something not in this world.
In a current-day armor, I'd suggest carbon-fiber batteries. In a future setting, plasma cells are where it's at.
But like I said, machines are not perfect. They can't be. There will always be some way for them to fail. Parts will wear out, batteries will die, circuits will short, and that's just a few of the issues on the machine's side, let alone all the user-based problems.
The solution lies in either the weight the soldiers carry, or the soldiers carrying the weight. They'll find a super-soldier serum long before energy suits are a viable option.
User avatar #151 to #138 - deathlordgusta (05/26/2012) [-]
do you mean as in a drug or a genetic material-altering substance?

i'm considerably optimistic about technology, we've come across tonnes of problems and we've solved tonnes of them. sure, we won't be able to make anything perfect, but we can get close.
#178 to #151 - anon (05/26/2012) [-]
Not sure why you were thumbed down...
Either one would work, really. But we're still too far from that, and biology was never really my subject. If I had to guess though, it'd be genetic material-altering substance, simply because they tried and failed with drugs during the Vietnam and Korean conflicts, and ended up giving soldiers **** like PCP.
And it's reasonable to be optimistic with technology. If I'd told someone a hundred years ago that we'd be travelling faster than sound, flying across oceans in planes that hold hundreds of people, or that we'd have devices that could scan your brain and show it working, or hell even just tell them about the internet!... They'd call me nuts. Let alone if I told them the advanced stuff! There is, right now, a female control a robotic arm using a motherboard in her brain. There are machines that are edging closer and closer to the cellular level. There are robots that can move in coordination with each other to build structures, knowing what step to do next by communicating with each other rather than being told the next step...
But really, in some cases, a super machine isn't the answer, and this is one of them. Look into super-lightweight materials. Plastic that's literally lighter than air. Force-responsive gels and foams that can stop bullets and weigh less than kevlar. Advanced science isn't limited to machines.
User avatar #180 to #178 - deathlordgusta (05/26/2012) [-]
i'll read into that.
User avatar #122 to #120 - soggycookies (05/26/2012) [-]
They are, actually. Since the 1960s, the US Army has been developing different systems to help soldier carry more, among other things. To learn more, look up "Powered Exoskeletons". :)
User avatar #124 to #122 - deathlordgusta (05/26/2012) [-]
look up the hal 5.
#121 to #120 - disgruntled [OP](05/26/2012) [-]
There are plenty of problems with "power armor" namely maintenence, electricity and cost. The actual front line units are not very well taken care of. I deployed with no battery cap on my PEQ-16 (laser/light system) and no on/off knob on my night vision. Half the equipment we have doesn't work. I lived in a tiny mud compound (pictured) with no power, an hour away by foot from the nearest other Marines. No roads could reach us. We had to patrol to the nearest position every couple days just to switch out radio batteries. The problem is that they give us more gear than we need. My squad all wanted to patrol in chest rigs. **** body armor. it has its uses, but our situation was only hurt by our body armor. If we could operate how we wanted, it would have only been 20-30 pounds of gear per person rather than 80-100 for an average patrol load. However, we have no choice in the matter. Of the casualties I saw, only one was mildly helped by wearing armor, and he was ****** up enough in his legs that it didn't really matter.
User avatar #126 to #121 - deathlordgusta (05/26/2012) [-]
yes, there are several problems with the power armor, but ignoring the fact that the current power armors have problems with energy supply, they're very useful. your 100 pound gear would only feel like 20 pounds if you'd wear a power armor, you could use heavier weapons and armor without really suffering from it.

another obvious problem with the power armor is that it 'detects' impulses using elektrodes and these are interpretaded by a computer, should this computer be exposed to magnetism, it will completely fail.
User avatar #129 to #126 - disgruntled [OP](05/26/2012) [-]
Technology fails. What actually wins wars is a bunch of pissed off 18-24 year old men with simple machines that spit lead who only want to kill the enemy and keep their friends safe.
User avatar #133 to #129 - deathlordgusta (05/26/2012) [-]
>technology fails
#156 to #133 - anon (05/26/2012) [-]
Well firearms don't require a power supply like a power suit. You just need a basic maintenance kit to clean the rifle and it will work.
User avatar #158 to #156 - deathlordgusta (05/26/2012) [-]
true, it's on a completely different level of technology.
User avatar #135 to #133 - disgruntled [OP](05/26/2012) [-]
Touche, however compared to the technology we have, an M16 is about as technologically advanced as a coffe maker.
User avatar #140 to #135 - deathlordgusta (05/26/2012) [-]
yes but have you ever thought about the potential that the power armor has? it can make you able to wield heavy arms that could easily take out armored vehicles and what not. as soon as the main two problems are solved i wouldn't see a reason not to use them
User avatar #146 to #140 - disgruntled [OP](05/26/2012) [-]
Oh I'm sure one day it will be practical, but for the wars of today, Vietnam era technology is better than what we are forced to carry nowadays.
User avatar #154 to #146 - deathlordgusta (05/26/2012) [-]
ah yes, you gotta love the quality of some of those items.
 Friends (0)