Weapons vs Armor. The see saw of history of the infantry.

Weapons / Armor have always been a see saw of development. I would like this thread to concentrate on only the infantry.

We start with the spear and sword and someone invents a shield. Soon everyone has a shield. Body armor makes incremental advances until the Knight is so well armored that he is difficult to overcome. Enter the long bow. The French Knights twice lost to this weapon.

Enter firearms and the Knight was no more. Ground troops went back to heavy breast plates and were, once again, vulnerable. Eventually even breast plates vanished as the power of firearms increased dramatically.

Looking at warfare today we seem to have come full circle. Many troops now wear body armor that becomes difficult to penetrate. Of course the poorer countries and the freedom fighters can not afford the armor so the battle field is once again ruled by the elite fighting forces.

So how do we overcome these imbalances.

I think that perhaps the AK47 has had its day. It simply does not have the power to defeat modern equivalents of the armored knights of old. Nor can it penetrate even lightly armored vehicles.

I would suggest that we now need the equivalent of the long bow. What would happen if the other side threw away the AKs and replaced them with a weapon that had sufficient kinetic energy to kill without having to penetrate. That would be a 50 caliber sniper rifle.

Imagine if the denizens of Gaza all had 50 caliber sniper rifles. Do you think the IDF would be considering a ground offensive? It would be even deadlier if the 50 calibers fired a single round and then vacated their position. With hundreds of freedom fighters / insurgents using these tactics I think the situation would turn around.

Imagine trying to occupy Iran with these tactics in play. The IED has been tried with very limited effect and a propensity to kill innocents.

With the right ammo a barrage from 50 caliber sniper rifles will bring down many helicopters, especially if you target the rocket pods.

This will happen at some stage.

Comments?

P

Interesting post. S+F. I personally believe that as technology grows, we will see some very interesting weapons come into play. We now use unmanned drones to kill people in other countries as a means of not having human casualties. I believe that weapons using laser technology will be the next form of weaponry - a weapon that never needs to be reloaded and can kill from great distances.

reply to post by Rubicant13


Agreed, and the best defense against said drones. I can't see energy weapons being used by ground troops, battery tech is simply nowhere near ready for that. I can see lasers on the back of pick up trucks though.

Yes finding drones flying high is a problem but the more advanced a military, the less able they are to think of low tech solutions. Vietnam was the war that displayed this very well. Perhaps a system of tracking sound could get you close enough to aim with standard optics. Once in the cross hairs, the targey is doomed. No chance to avoid, no drift, no ballistics to take into account.

Iran seems to be able to bring them down.

P

A steel core fmj 7.62x39 which is the round that the AK uses will pierce an engine block, I have also shot through oak trees 3+ feet in diameter. It will also make short work of a bullet proof vest. The great thing about the AK is with only 15 mins of basic instructions anyone even a child can use an it, and all you need is a shoe lace with some knots pulled through the barrel to clean it. With a 50 cal. it takes a long time and a bunch of practice to learn how to hit anything. If the Palestinians only had those it would be a complete massacre. I understand where your coming from (kind of), your using the wrong comparison. I think a better gun for the Palestinians would be the BAR or Browing Automatic Rifle. Shooting a 30-06 fmj round full auto would do a lot of damge, but only adults could use it.

reply to post by geldib


Thanks for that! Good to have other views. I have used high power rifles in hunting. It does not seem to me any harder to learn than any other weapon. I will state quite clearly that I have never shot a 50 cal. Perhaps all the AKs need scopes. The current situation is about as uneven as you can get. Sort of like Knights attacking pitchfork wielding peasants. How can modern troops go up against 100s of guys armed with the AK and still come out on top?

Am I missing something?

P

How about combining what we already have. Beef up the AK-47 design to fire a .50 CAL round, make it low recoil like the BAR and put a small but powerful scope on it that can be easily be swung away to use the open sights for more rapid target acquisition at closer range. Anti muzzle flip porting would also help.

Now that would be a weapon to contend with.

We Clearly Need Ewoks, and Gungans to defeat the modern armored soldier.

Come at me bro.

Nice idea about the 50cal, I am sure a weapon will come along (like the long bow) that will change the way war is waged, I guess it would have to be cheap, easy to produce, and very simple. however it is worth noting that it did not take long before counter measures where in place to undermine any advantage given by the longbow and I wonder how long that would take in todays age?

reply to post by thoughtsfull


The development of body armor is about as good as it is going to get. The thing with 50Cal is that no matter what the armor, the kinetic energy in the form of a shock wave that transfers through to the body can turn your organs to mush. It does not have to penetrate to kill. Kinetic weapons may be the future to overcome armor.

P

reply to post by pheonix358


I do agree, what I guess I was thinking was that while the likes of the longbow changed the way war was waged vis-a-vi armour, a change in tactics (use of cavalry to pre-empt the use of the longbow ) removed the advantage the longbow gave at that time.

Given that it took 70 odd years (from Crecy to Patay) for the Medieval strategists to come up with a tactic to remove the advantage of the longbow I was wondering how long it would take in todays computer age of simulations etc to develop new tactics to deal with whatever new weapons find their way onto the battlefield, like your 50cal idea.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Granted it is a faster development cycle, but only for the developed countries. The third world is still stuck with a much slower cycle. Guys running around spraying with open sighted with AK47s with a t-shirt for protection is no real match.

They cannot afford costly armor so a change in weapons and tactics is their only choice. The US moving into Iran would be a very different story as they meet a very determined military force of highly trained and disciplined force.

Never the less, new tactics rather than spray and pray could very well be a game changer. Sure, the US will win in open ground but as Afghanistan has shown, get into cities or mountain terrain and the ball game changes. Sniper tactics of one shot and move whilst armed with 50 cal or similar could be the game changer.

It is not how many of the US are killed, it is what the US citizens will put up with. Vietnam showed how effective this type of campaign can be and with what we have seen on you-tube the US national guard troops can be their own worst enemy.

Taking Iran will have a cost, larger than expected. Holding Iran will come at so high a price that I don't think it will last long. Thousands of highly trained snipers will make a huge difference.

P

reply to post by pheonix358


The body armour that is currently in use is total nonsense in comparison with what is AVAILABLE at the moment. In fact, there are armour systems that have been created that could improve a soldiers chance of keeping a limb after an IED or landmine incident.

Its been referenced here before, but until this system starts getting bought by national military forces all over the planet, Im not going to shut up about it.

Basically theres this Canadian fellow, Troy, who built an armour system which is just absolutely amazing.

There are several videos of him here on this link....Watch as many as you can, because I kid you not, the dude is a freaking genius. Hes like Tony Stark sans the bank account. He builds full suits of armour, despite bankrupting himself periodically, purely because he doesnt want allied forces getting hurt when the materials exist that could prevent it.

www.vice.com...

Further parts to his story are listed below the player window.

When you consider the research that is being done now into artificial muscle fibres, the landwarrior combat communications system, and others, and consider the possibilities by combining these technologies into the suits Troy makes... that would represent a MAJOR jump in infantry armour. I believe its a travesty that Troy has never been asked to design armour for a major world power.

The AK is popular because it is cheap and requires little training also cheap. The cost a 50cal sniper rifle is high as is the training for it. That alone makes any mass use of it by a 3rd world nation impossible. It is not that better weapons and armor are not available it is all about cost even for rich nations.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Nice info and we would all want our troops to have the best. Having said that, getting hit by a 50cal does two types of damage. One is the penetrating injury the other is the shock wave caused by the kinetic energy. If the round does not penetrate due to armor then the entire kinetic force travels through as a killer shock wave.

I am not sure that any armor short of a gundam (sp) style suit would avoid death. We are not yet up to mechwarrior standards. God help us when we do!

P

Originally posted by MrSpad
The AK is popular because it is cheap and requires little training also cheap. The cost a 50cal sniper rifle is high as is the training for it. That alone makes any mass use of it by a 3rd world nation impossible. It is not that better weapons and armor are not available it is all about cost even for rich nations.

I agree completely. Yet I am left with the position that lightly armed, zero armor and minimalistic training leads only to body bags. The problem here, and let's take Iraq as an example, the oil income that Iraq had should have been enough to train and equip the soldiers with near to the best available.

Iran has been forced by sanctions to develop her own weapons and tactics. It will be interesting to see what she has come up with. I don't think that the best she will have is IEDs. For some reason people seem to think that it takes $$$$$ to come up with new tech. It does not. It takes ideas and for that you need dedicated people who love their country and want to protect it. I don't see Iran withstanding the onslaught but by the same token, she will not be a push over either in opening days or in occupation.

P

reply to post by pheonix358


Well thats just the point. Troys ballistic foam based armour type is the level best at reducing hydrostatic shock injury from a round. Of course, his armour does not prevent fifty cal damage, but it is the level best at protecting a body from everything up to an including a twelve gauge shot at point blank, repeatedly. It even prevents penetration after repeated shots to the same area, something no currently used system can boast in truth.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Ok, so it is very very good armor. But it cannot withstand a 50 cal round. That is exactly why you have to go up to 50 cal. It is exactly like a bow and arrow vs a Knight. The Long Bow was developed because there was no known way of creating armor to withstand a yard shaft fired from a long bow.

This is the see saw of development in action. Going up to 50 cal levels the playing field. It is no good whining about the extra training or the extra cost. To win, you must upgrade.

As for cost, as another poster has pointed out, the AK47 could be redesigned, keeping all of it's good features and cost benefits to take the much larger caliber.

Training has to change, yes, but do you want to win or do you send your troops to die. THe only good thing about spray and pray is that heaven knows your coming!

P

Originally posted by happykat39
Beef up the AK-47 design to fire a .50 CAL round, make it low recoil like the BAR

.50cal, low recoil.... that makes no sense!

Now that would be a weapon to contend with.

not really, but it sure would be fun to watch!

reply to post by pheonix358


I quite agree. I just feel very strongly that it should be illegal for a government to send its troops to war in anything less than the most effective armour available. Not the best possible under a certain budget but the very best available. Cost is not an issue. Since currently fifty cal or bust just is not happening, the best armour that a soldier could be sent to battle with, is designed by a guy who built it all himself.

I cannot imagine why the governments of the world wont give this fellow a contract! I really cannot understand it. I mean, one chest armour set from the main manufacturers, which cannot stand repeated shots, walking in, or point blank shots, costs nearly as much as the whole damned Trojan S suit. What the hell is that about ?

reply to post by TrueBrit


It is about who gets the contract and the money. You have to be in the right crowd to get the contracts. Money, money, money. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

P