Dragon Skin and its effectiveness?

Which conveniently, is when the guy in the second floor of the house with an RPK is laying into you like the SOB that he is, while you sit behind a car waiting for the lucky shot to rip through sheet metal and fabric and tear right into you. 

Eugh. Simplicity has gone out the window for whatever the tech desk thinks works best. Who coincidentally, are guys who've never been shot at themselves. 

Destichado said:

There was something VERY fishy going on with the Army's test.  They used a damaged armor and would not reveal how it was damaged, they said the ceramics delaminated and bullets went through like paper (!) but would not allow the armor to be inspected by the manufacturers, all personnel involved in conducting the test were not allowed to reveal or comment on any testing methods used during the test...  It's BAD.

Click to expand...

Well, there's two things the military need to look at which generally aren't made public for obvious reasons. The first is the cost of the unit itself. Obviously if it's not cost effective to equip a unit with something then it's out of the Window (reminds me of the RAF - first lecture pilots got was the "we value the plane more than you" spiel ). The second is how much maintenance the equipment requires, and how much it deteriorates without maintenance. Unless you're the British MOD, it's no good equipping your soldiers with something they're going to struggle to keep in working order under battlefield conditions.
Finally, you never want to reveal the testing methods used; if you test your body armour to destruction, then announce that it's great against everything but X, Y and Z what do you reckon the other side are going to be bringing to the next fight?

Grunwalder is right though, body armour is going the way of the bayonet - most deaths these days are from explosives of some form, not bullets. If you're going into something like Iraq it's the improvised bombs which you need to worry about, if you're up against a more 'standard' foe it's the smart artillery or NBC weapons which get you. I'd guess actually having someone shooting at you with an AK would be something of a relief really - it means they're not really trying to kill you

Archonsod said:

Grunwalder is right though, body armour is going the way of the bayonet - most deaths these days are from explosives of some form, not bullets. If you're going into something like Iraq it's the improvised bombs which you need to worry about, if you're up against a more 'standard' foe it's the smart artillery or NBC weapons which get you. I'd guess actually having someone shooting at you with an AK would be something of a relief really - it means they're not really trying to kill you

Click to expand...

Good and well up until that.

Never been shot at, have you?

The other big worry in your head aside from a bullet tearing into you, is the man in the window's friends busting out the wall of a house thirty yards away, killing and maiming anybody not quite quick enough to turn around.

The stuff in the Middle East is a flavor all to it's own- they seem to be the only group content with extensive laying bombs and blowing themselves up. Not to say others don't, but look at... well, everywhere else. Chechnya, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Africa, what have you. The AK will kill more people before it's time is through than most every other weapon.

Guns are more reliable to begin with- you're looking at what you're shooting. Only thing that is more reliable is sticking two pounds of plastique and some blasting caps in your pocket, and taking a ride on the bus. Thankfully however, not too many people are that keen on their cause.

People shooting once the dust has settled is rare, probably because it's a lot easier to find partisans when they're running about with guns rather than the anonymous people leaving suspicious packages at the bus stop, or slipping a bottle of something noxious into the camp water supply.
Ambush with a gun on the other hand is relatively rare, and poses a host of problems; not least of which is setting up the ambush in the first place. Certainly the British  forces have suffered more casualties from improvised explosives and similar since WW1, in every territory from Ireland to China.

I'd disagree with guns being more effective too. Most partisans aren't experienced troops and generally will come off much worse in a firefight with military forces even before we consider the lack of equipment. With a bomb, the only worry is if it detonates; you don't have to be seen, you don't need to be accurate and you don't even have to know what you're doing beyond pressing a button at the right time. Hide it somewhere nearby (or even under the road), press button when target is next to or on top of the device and you've killed or maimed several targets, and probably wasted a vehicle too. Shoot at them with an AK on the other hand and you might get one or two tops before they take you out, or simply move out of your line of fire.

B21A said:

Destichado said:

I would trust my life to Dragon Skin.  That said, I am already going to be trusting my life to Interceptor, so... *sigh*

In any case, this gradual trend towards increasingly complete body armor is a good thing.  The vest is nice, but it's the neck, groin, thigh and upper/under arm protection that makes walking around a battlefield a survivable prospect.  Now if we can just convince armor designers to stop reinventing the wheel and use historical models for articulation and weight distribution...

Click to expand...

You are obviously a new recruit.  Not that it's a bad thing...you'll learn.  Or you are a senior officer...which makes me sad...because it means you'll never learn.  The neck, groin, thigh, and arms protectors are stupid.  They are hot, heavy, restrict dexterity, decrease mobility, and don't really protect all that much.  Particularly the DAPS (Deltoid and Arm).  Those make no sense to me.  All they are is thin flexible kevlar...like the old flak vests...good for shrapnel...not so good for bullets.  I haven't seen the stats, but somehow, I don't think that the numbers of deaths we've sustained from shrapnel injuries to the shoulder justify the added weight or hindrance in shouldering our weapon.  The groin protector is only slightly less annoying.  The neck and throat guard I can live with....uncomfortable, but doesn't really hinder my ability to fight much. 

Na...in my experiences in combat, the ability to move fast and avoid being hit in the first place is of far greater importance than uparmoring the individual soldier to high hell in a futile attempt to protect them from every possible thing they could conceivably be hit with during a fight.  I'm an infantryman; not a tank.

Click to expand...

Speaking in regards to the equipment we have now, you're undoubtedly right.  From a historical perspective though, not so much.

You do like your vest, right?  Of course, it works.  But remember that in Vietnam the common wisdom was that the quickest way to get killed was to wear a vest.  And it was true, it was just a flack vest; it wouldn't stop a bullet, it made it difficult to move and interfered with weapon handling.  We changed that, we made it work.  Just because the **** don't work now does not mean that the **** can not be MADE to work. 

You're right, I'm so new I'm not even green yet -in the Marines.  But as an armor maker and a historian, I've racked up close to a decade's experience, which gives me a slightly different perspective.  You know what the equipment does and how it works, that's your job; it's one of my jobs to know what it ought to do and find ways to make it work -and then convince you to like it.  Which, I'm sorry to say, in practical purposes means we'll be inflicting new equipment on you from time to time. 

The militaries of the western world are in a transitional phase right now.  For 500 years there has been no such thing as heavy infantry, firearms outmoded the concept.  Developments in body armor, the philosophy of an all-volunteer, highly trained and motivated professional military, and domestic unwillingness to accept casualties as routine are all pushing us back towards heavy infantry again.  It's going to happen (it's already happening) the only question is how many tries it takes us to get it right.

On our first try we're one for four -neck armor worked, rest works for IEDs but is **** for combat.  Noted.  We'll be getting back to you on that. 

I reckon we'll be more likely to see remote control drones taking over rather than heavy infantry. Of course, it'll be the first step in our eventual destruction at the hands of our robotic overlords

Archonsod said:

People shooting once the dust has settled is rare, probably because it's a lot easier to find partisans when they're running about with guns rather than the anonymous people leaving suspicious packages at the bus stop, or slipping a bottle of something noxious into the camp water supply.
Ambush with a gun on the other hand is relatively rare, and poses a host of problems; not least of which is setting up the ambush in the first place. Certainly the British  forces have suffered more casualties from improvised explosives and similar since WW1, in every territory from Ireland to China.

Click to expand...

Says you.

I see that as more a matter of opinion, but I guess we can both say there is bias on both ends.

I've personally never been party to the wars in which the combatants stuff bombs under pipes and rubble and blow it out as you and your comrades walk by.

You have an unfaltering belief in statistics.

I think we see who wins this round, so-to-speak, if even we still disagree.

[/quote] I'd disagree with guns being more effective too. Most partisans aren't experienced troops and generally will come off much worse in a firefight with military forces even before we consider the lack of equipment. With a bomb, the only worry is if it detonates; you don't have to be seen, you don't need to be accurate and you don't even have to know what you're doing beyond pressing a button at the right time. Hide it somewhere nearby (or even under the road), press button when target is next to or on top of the device and you've killed or maimed several targets, and probably wasted a vehicle too. Shoot at them with an AK on the other hand and you might get one or two tops before they take you out, or simply move out of your line of fire.
[/quote]

Says you again.

How many of those bombs are never used, and just sit there moldering for years upon years because nobody walked by the bomb.

And I'm not referring to Partisans only. Or Partisans fighting a western country's army. It could just be militia fighting militia. And those are always unpleasant fights, where the number of AK's usually determines the victor. Or in a western army fighting another western [or modern, if you prefer] army.

In the Persian Gulf War, one of my biggest fears, along with many others, was that the Iraqi army would actually have a backbone hidden out in the desert somewhere. I didn't like tank battles one bit. Medina Ridge was unpleasant, and I really didn't want to see what would happen to all those ground-pounders if RepG forces had the gall to stick it out.

As for the last line, you must have no idea how disconcerting it has to have a machine gun open up on you from a side street or an alley. Nobody shoots, everybody runs. 'Professional' soldiery goes out the window in an ambush.

Though once more, this is personal experience vs. whatever the fellows in the Records departments say.

Explosives like the kind used in the middle east is only effective in urban areas, with roads, where you can reasonably predict where the enemy will be within a matter of meters. They are almost entirely useless in open country unless you plan on laying thousands of mines indescriminately.

These explosives are also only effective in a defensive or guerrilla style war of attrition. There is no way you can use explosives to go on the offensive and take territory away from the enemy. And it will not project you from an ambush unless you plan on killing yourself and your entire squad. Explosives are a poor choice for close-quarters combat.

Explosives are also one-time only weapons. After it's used, it must be replaced, and it has a very limited range. If there is a column of enemy advancing on you, an explosive trap will kill the first couple of them, but then it's gone. Place a machinegun position there though, and you can hold that ground until you run out of ammo, and you won't if you can resupply the mg nest.

Explosives are an effective tool in your military arsenal, but it will not replace the bullet, and hence body armor will always be desirable.

allthesedamnnamesaretaken said:

These explosives are also only effective in a defensive or guerrilla style war of attrition. There is no way you can use explosives to go on the offensive and take territory away from the enemy. And it will not project you from an ambush unless you plan on killing yourself and your entire squad. Explosives are a poor choice for close-quarters combat.

Click to expand...

What do you think artillery and airstrikes are?

I was refering to the IEDs as used by iraqi insurrgents

Well, IED's are a specific type of weapon which of course are only going to be effective in Guerilla style combat, because that's what they're 'designed' for. It's like criticising a submarine for being worse than a tank in mountain warfare.

Archonsod said:

Well, IED's are a specific type of weapon which of course are only going to be effective in Guerilla style combat, because that's what they're 'designed' for. It's like criticising a submarine for being worse than a tank in mountain warfare.

Click to expand...

Archonsod said:

Well, IED's are a specific type of weapon which of course are only going to be effective in Guerilla style combat, because that's what they're 'designed' for. It's like criticising a submarine for being worse than a tank in mountain warfare.

Click to expand...

I was refuting your claim that body armor is going the way of the bayonet because most deaths are caused by explosives. You cited the iraqi conflict and the IEDs. I'm merely pointing out that these IEDs are only effective in these limited cirumstances because of the asymetrical nature of the conflict and that in an all out conventional war, such as house to house fighting in WW2 Stalingrad, you will need guns and body armor will give your troops an edge in close quarters combat.

The majority of deaths are caused by IEDs simply because the political nature of the conflict and the vast divide in military capabilities skews the rules of engagement and gives an advantage to traps and ambushes. In conventional squad on squad battles between more equally matched opponents, both in open field and urban areas, will result in a lot more firearm usage and deaths from bullets. Hence body armor will be vital and here to stay.

allthesedamnnamesaretaken said:

I was refuting your claim that body armor is going the way of the bayonet because most deaths are caused by explosives. You cited the iraqi conflict and the IEDs. I'm merely pointing out that these IEDs are only effective in these limited cirumstances because of the asymetrical nature of the conflict and that in an all out conventional war, such as house to house fighting in WW2 Stalingrad, you will need guns and body armor will give your troops an edge in close quarters combat.

Click to expand...

WW2 is hardly modern combat

Point being, that kind of house to house fighting is obsolete. Why would you bother fighting house to house when modern armaments can obliterate any house you choose while leaving the rest of the street (theoretically) intact?
Iraq is a prime example - prior to the first Gulf War Saddam had a respectable military, which was torn apart from the air before the troops had finished unloading their boats. With modern warfare, the enemy can't engage in conventional firearm combat because as soon as he masses troops he's provided you with a perfect target for an air strike, missile or artillery bombardment; same with entrenched positions. Either he goes guerilla, or the troops spend a few more days back at base while the flyboys turn wherever the enemy thinks he can dig in into a dustbowl. Hence you've got two choices, either hide among the civilian population, or move into terrain where such methods can't be employed such as the mountains (areas traditionally devoid of worthwhile military objectives).

again, you are citing a conflict where the military strength is completely unbalanced. While the trend for most western militaries is increasing operations in an iraqi insurgent type environment, they also need to be prepared to fight a world war 3. Modern NATO arms vs modern Russian ones.  Meaning you may not have total air superiority because both sides are armed to the teeth with the latest AA missiles and are constantly jostling for air dominance. When all your gps, spy and communication satellites have been shot down, it will be a ww2 type conflict. The only difference will be laser/heat guided missiles instead of unguided rockets.

Of course Arch, those armies were quite unbalanced.

If the black market merchants had sold Hussein a couple score MiGs and Yaks, along with the T-72 and T-80 tanks he sold him, your theory goes right out the window.

We were lucky he couldn't hit back in the air.

That's the sole reason he couldn't stand on his own two feet for more than a few months. Believe me, that conflict could have become a slugfest if the conditions were right.

Now take that mix, and throw two armies of modernized might together. Russia and China. The US and China. North Korea and China, North Korea and Russia. India and Pakistan, India and China. Iran and Iraq already had their chance. Turkey and Greece, a conflict that should it ever happen, would end within days, or would morph into a giant, ungainly religious war that would be kicking around for years.

That's where your next major war is, not in some ****-bin private war, backyard brawl. Cut out the nukes, and put it at conventional terms, despite the urge you must have to argue their value as both deterrents or trick cards. Both of those could turn into protracted, ugly brawl. With a month or two, everything professional about the combatants would have been torn to pieces and you'll have an awkward, conventional ground war.

Grunwalder said:

We were lucky he couldn't hit back in the air.

Click to expand...

Saddam did attempt to contest the air, unfortunately the use of stealth bombers to take out his airfields was something he couldn't counter. Nonetheless, he managed to knock a few planes out of the sky before his air force was completely grounded.

With a month or two, everything professional about the combatants would have been torn to pieces and you'll have an awkward, conventional ground war.

Click to expand...

Assuming they unaccountably don't bother going NBC, which I reckon any country with a modern army would do as soon as it looked to be on the ropes. Although I don't see why anyone would bother to be honest, the world economy being what it is I reckon we'll be back to the days of economic warfare rather than military, and by the time that changes I doubt it'll be human infantry on the frontline.

Archonsod said:

Saddam did attempt to contest the air, unfortunately the use of stealth bombers to take out his airfields was something he couldn't counter. Nonetheless, he managed to knock a few planes out of the sky before his air force was completely grounded.

Click to expand...

You should note that yugoslavia shot down a F-117 stealth fighter in the bosnia conflict, just a few years after the first persian gulf war. They were using a new type of wide distributed radar system developed by the chinese. This F117 was shot down by AA artillery, not missiles. That shows you just how vulnerable stealth planes are once their stealth has been negated. Against a more worthy opponent like russia or china, don't expect the US to have air dominace like they enjoy versus deadbeat despotic dictators. It will be an ugly slugfest with high aircraft losses on both sides.

Assuming they unaccountably don't bother going NBC, which I reckon any country with a modern army would do as soon as it looked to be on the ropes. Although I don't see why anyone would bother to be honest, the world economy being what it is I reckon we'll be back to the days of economic warfare rather than military, and by the time that changes I doubt it'll be human infantry on the frontline.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the type of thinking from rumsfeld that got the US in the situation it is in now. He envisioned an iraqi occupation force of just 50,000 men, with overwhelming air superiority to support combat operations and quell uprisings. We all know just how well his plans turned out. the truth is, to gain ground and to hold ground, you need boots on the ground. There is no alternative. US military analysts have tried multiple times after world war 2 to make things like aircraft dog fighting and infantry snipers obsolete, and removed them from training regiments, with disatrous results each time. these things are also here to stay, and so are firearms. You simply cannot have an effective modern army without rifle infantry

And even HITLER himself didn't resort to chemical or biological warfare, even though it was widely used in ww1. He knew that a retaliatory chem or bio attack will wipe out his country. The only countires that WILL use NBC would be despotic regimes that care nothing for their own civilian casualties. The only country in the world I can think of that fits this description now would be north korea. No other country is willing to face total destruction of their civilization. It's one thing to be defeated in a conventional war, it's quite another to convert your entire country's population into corpses.

allthesedamnnamesaretaken said:

Against a more worthy opponent like russia or china, don't expect the US to have air dominace like they enjoy versus deadbeat despotic dictators. It will be an ugly slugfest with high aircraft losses on both sides.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't assume they would, however I'd also assume they were sensible enough to gain air superiority before they even though about deploying ground forces. Also note that you don't need aircraft to contest it, it's merely cheaper. You could simply destroy the runways using cruise missiles or similar guided ordnance if necessary.

He envisioned an iraqi occupation force of just 50,000 men, with overwhelming air superiority to support combat operations and quell uprisings. We all know just how well his plans turned out.

Click to expand...

Well yeah, he planned an occupation force. Anyone with sense would eliminate the local population, not attempt to control them. Trying to hold any country after you've just overthrown their government is doomed to failure, unless you break the back of the civilian population.

You simply cannot have an effective modern army without rifle infantry

Click to expand...

Add ebola to the water supply and there's unlikely to be anyone left to contest the ground. Or you could just nuke the place, though I doubt you'd want to hold the ground afterwards.

He knew that a retaliatory chem or bio attack will wipe out his country.

Click to expand...

Wrong on two counts. Hitler had an active biological weapons program (anthrax based mainly), and his reasons given for not deploying chemical weapons were made plain in Mein Kampf, namely that he believed such weapons to be inhumane. Also worth pointing out that chemical weapon deployment hadn't actually moved on since WW1, and they were only marginally effective against trenches. It's a bit pointless deploying mustard gas when the enemy can simply walk around the funny yellow cloud.

It's one thing to be defeated in a conventional war, it's quite another to convert your entire country's population into corpses.

Click to expand...

Both amount to pretty much the same thing ...

Whoa. Are we coming back to the subject? We should probably make a War! sticky or something, looks like you people have a lot to share.

Anyway, if a new and better armor is in production, the government should acquire it as fast as possible.
Failure to do so indicates disregard for their soldiers' lives, high-strung lack of an ability to prioritize, or corruption.

But I suppose that pretty much sums up the US Army...