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

Originally posted by pheonix358

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

edit on 20/11/2012 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)

I think your info is majorly not right, 1. AK-47/AKM/74/74Ms/101-103 are designed to shoot soilders not Hummers/helecopters, and there is NOT body armor in the U.S. Mil that can stop ANY of the AK's.

2. The People of Gaza have very little weapons, thats the only real reason the IDF wins, you sound like you believe these lies on CNN that tries to make it seem as if there is thousands of Gaza fighters armed with AK's but the better tactics and weapons of the IDF is what has always kept the IDF winning.

3. The Irainians have a well trained well armed ground force, the only way the IDF/U.S. Military will fight them is using nukes/chemical weapons, which I believe is what is on the table.

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

... there is NOT body armor in the U.S. Mil that can stop ANY of the AK's.

Not quite true. The issued interceptor armours front and back plates are rated to stop multiple hits up to 7.62 NATO. The soft armour won't though.

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

... there is NOT body armor in the U.S. Mil that can stop ANY of the AK's.

Not quite true. The issued interceptor armours front and back plates are rated to stop multiple hits up to 7.62 NATO. The soft armour won't though.

edit on 5-12-2012 by PaddyInf because: (no reason given)

Interceptor can NOT, even the designer of it says Dragonskin body armor is better: www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

... there is NOT body armor in the U.S. Mil that can stop ANY of the AK's.

Not quite true. The issued interceptor armours front and back plates are rated to stop multiple hits up to 7.62 NATO. The soft armour won't though.

edit on 5-12-2012 by PaddyInf because: (no reason given)

Interceptor can NOT, even the designer of it says Dragonskin body armor is better: www.youtube.com...

Where on that vid did it demonstrate that interceptor does not stop 7.62mm? The front and back plates are rated at level IV+ which means that it exceeds the NIJ requirements for level IV ballistic protection. This means that each plate will stop at least 6 hits from AP rifle rounds NIJ ballistic testing (see sections 2.5 and 4.1.2.2 for testing requirements for level IV armour). I have personally seen interceptor stop 7.62 short in Afghanistan. Dragonskin is also only rated to level III as opposed to Interceptors level IV.

If you take a look at any of the the results of the considerably more in depth comparative tests Dragonskin fails many of the most basic tests required, mainly in high heat. The 'scales' of the armour are prone to falling off when the temperature rises above 40C (which is the norm in any middle east deployment). It also weighes nearly twice as much as an equally sized set of Interceptor (47.5lb vs 28lbs) as well as being thicker by almost a quarter (1.7-1.9" vs

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

... there is NOT body armor in the U.S. Mil that can stop ANY of the AK's.

Where on that vid did it demonstrate that interceptor does not stop 7.62mm? The front and back plates are rated at level IV+ which means that it exceeds the NIJ requirements for level IV ballistic protection. This means that each plate will stop at least 6 hits from AP rifle rounds NIJ ballistic testing (see sections 2.5 and 4.1.2.2 for testing requirements for level IV armour). I have personally seen interceptor stop 7.62 short in Afghanistan. Dragonskin is also only rated to level III as opposed to Interceptors level IV.

Watch the video again start at 2:00 minutes and see the designer of "Interceptor" himself testify to it. www.youtube.com..., DagonSkin has level 5: www.youtube.com...

If you take a look at any of the the results of the considerably more in depth comparative tests Dragonskin fails many of the most basic tests required, mainly in high heat. The 'scales' of the armour are prone to falling off when the temperature rises above 40C (which is the norm in any middle east deployment). It also weighes nearly twice as much as an equally sized set of Interceptor (47.5lb vs 28lbs) as well as being thicker by almost a quarter (1.7-1.9" vs

OK mate.

I missed the Interceptor creators bit. My mistake.

However the weight issue - From your source

AMI level III plates are fabricated using an outer 3 millimeters (0.12 in) MARS steel layer bonded to a compressed Dyneema backing, with a linex coating for spall reduction, resulting in a total plate thickness of approximately 1 inch (25 mm). AMI level III 12 inches (300 mm) × 14.5 inches (370 mm) plates weigh about 10 lb (4.5 kg) and 10 inches (250 mm) × 12 inches (300 mm) plates are about 9 lb (4.1 kg).

SOV-2000 is made of overlapping approximately 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) × 2 inches (51 mm) ceramic discs encased in a fabric cover. In evaluating the Dragon Skin system, it is important to note that while the external measurements of the Dragon Skin panel are 11.5 inches (290 mm) × 13.5 inches (340 mm), the area of level III coverage provided by the encased ceramic discs is 10 inches (250 mm) × 12 inches (300 mm); the fabric edges are not intended to provide ballistic protection. Weight of the SOV-2000 armor providing 10 inches (250 mm) × 12 inches (300 mm) of level III protection was approximately 5.5 lb (2.5 kg).

The area covered by interceptors plates is much smaller than that covered by the SOV-2000 (dragonskin) covering. Therefore that, area for area the DS weighs less, the actual vest weighs much more due to the increased amount of armour per vest.

As for the test results, they have not been covered up at all

Test results on NBC

Hardly a massive cover up.

Oh and by the way there is no such thing as "level 5" armour. The NIJ armour rating scale only goes up to leve 4. Pinnacle themselves have stated that Dragonskin is rated to level III.

Originally posted by PaddyInf
OK mate.

I missed the Interceptor creators bit. My mistake.

However the weight issue - From your source

AMI level III plates are fabricated using an outer 3 millimeters (0.12 in) MARS steel layer bonded to a compressed Dyneema backing, with a linex coating for spall reduction, resulting in a total plate thickness of approximately 1 inch (25 mm). AMI level III 12 inches (300 mm) × 14.5 inches (370 mm) plates weigh about 10 lb (4.5 kg) and 10 inches (250 mm) × 12 inches (300 mm) plates are about 9 lb (4.1 kg).

SOV-2000 is made of overlapping approximately 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) × 2 inches (51 mm) ceramic discs encased in a fabric cover. In evaluating the Dragon Skin system, it is important to note that while the external measurements of the Dragon Skin panel are 11.5 inches (290 mm) × 13.5 inches (340 mm), the area of level III coverage provided by the encased ceramic discs is 10 inches (250 mm) × 12 inches (300 mm); the fabric edges are not intended to provide ballistic protection. Weight of the SOV-2000 armor providing 10 inches (250 mm) × 12 inches (300 mm) of level III protection was approximately 5.5 lb (2.5 kg).

The area covered by interceptors plates is much smaller than that covered by the SOV-2000 (dragonskin) covering. Therefore that, area for area the DS weighs less, the actual vest weighs much more due to the increased amount of armour per vest.

As for the test results, they have not been covered up at all

Test results on NBC

Hardly a massive cover up.

Oh and by the way there is no such thing as "level 5" armour. The NIJ armour rating scale only goes up to leve 4. Pinnacle themselves have stated that Dragonskin is rated to level III.

edit on 16-12-2012 by PaddyInf because: (no reason given)

Dude you posted D.S. is 45 pounds, it is not.

That NBC repost does NOT show the tests, what we're seeing is words on paper "saying" D.S. failed, that IS what "Pinnacle Armor" was chalenging the U.S. Mil/Gov to show the tests in front of a live audience and on T.V. but the Military will NOT answer Pinnacle back, and that was 5 years ago. Part-1 www.youtube.com...

Part-2 www.youtube.com...

Here's the video showing LEVEL-5: www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ATSWATCHER


If you look at the National Institute of Justice rating system that I posted in my earlier post you will see that there is NO SUCH RATING as level 5. This is a name that is being given to the armour by the maker purely to give the impression to the uninformed that it is something it isn't. In other words no other manufacturer is advertising a level 5 vest because THERE IS NO SUCH OFFICIAL RATING as level 5 - The NIJ rating scale only goes up to 4.

The weight of Dragon Skin armour that I stated was taken from comparison tests as stated in my last post from NBC. It's about halfway down the page under the title "Temperature, weight problem cited".

Just take a look at the thickness of the DS armour vest in your last link compared to the thickness of interceptor. It is virtually bursting out of the outer carrier.