f13.net

It's not like the gunners are trying to pick up chicks, I would select goofy or dead anyday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/09/wus09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/09/ixnewsnew.html

Those fuckers have seen one too many anime like Appleseed. Inelegant?

Please.

Those look like light weight versions of the suits EOD wears.  Inelegent, cumbersome, heavy and hot.

(http://www.specwargear.com/images/armor&vest-EOD%20suit-4.jpg)

(http://tn5.deviantart.com/300W/i/2002/47/8/7/Useless.gif)

My license plate reads O 2 B A MOD.

I bet they joke about the suits being goofy, right up until they survive a landmine up the backside.

They are watercooled so what is there to complain about.  That picture on the right makes him look like he's tethered to the truck.

Yea, to complain that a suit made for warfare looks goofy as a soldier sounds retarded at best. Who gives a fuck if you're not picking up chics left and right when you're riding your humvee in a war zone.

It's a balance act, you can have great armour, but shitty mobility.  As long as the gunner doesn't have to dismount, which would be unusual (Big Gulp would know more, I've been out way to long), it might be okay.  Tankers have had the cooling system in place for a while if I remember, it was cooled water that is pumped up against the skin, and could keep you cool even in NBC conditions.

Some EOD wear those suits, some don't, we didn't as combat engineers, we actually took off our steel pots when messing with most mines.  Later on with the new Kevlar helmets and vests we had to get used to wearing them when doing mine operations.  Our Air Force EOD didn't wear those suits that often either, usually when it was some really bat shit stuff, most of the time they would just pick up the left over suit case at the air port, take it to the range, and blow underwear a mile high :D

Umm, inability to move?

Seriously, have you ever worn the standard vests we wear with the all the additional ceramic plates, the side protection, etc?  That's about the upper limit of protection/mobility.  This looks far, far more cumbersome than that.  Yeah, it'll protect you from an explosion which has it's upside, but it won't do jack for you when you're trying to swivel your weapon quickly, and it also appears to destroy any peripheral vision you may have.  Those are important things when you're a gunner.

As much as we'd like to come up with a technical solution to all our protection woes, this ain't it.  It's just impractical.  I admire the attempt, but the execution looks to be lacking to me.

ETA:  Jimbo also addressed the issue of dismounting.  Most of the time you really won't dismount your vehicle if you're assigned as a gunner, just like the driver won't leave his vehicle.  Of course, that's in an ideal world.  If I had to get out of a vehicle quickly I sure as hell wouldn't want to be wearing that suit.

It seems like it comes down to a question of deaths caused by shrapnel vs. deaths prevented by being unencumbered and able to move around quickly.

Since I'm not Neo and therefore not very good at dodging shrapnel and/or bullets, I think I'd prefer to have the armor.  That's just me, though.

Good luck getting your ass under cover, being observant of the environment around you, and staying non-exhausted while wearing a 100 pound suit in addition to that nifty water cooling system, weapon, and ammunition.

I'll stick with the turtle shell and k-pot, thanks.

I suspect there's something better. Probably deemed too expensive for the average soldier though.

That's why it needs to be self-propelled, and have jump jets and shit.   :evil:

Yes! And a soda maker, built in electric wheel chair and aimbot!  :lol:

Dude, hacks are for gheys.

A) Why are soldiers complaining about the goofiness? Because they are 18-20 year old kids. They are in a fucking desert 1000's of miles from home dealing with temperatures reaching 120+ daily during the summer. They are going to bitch.

B) You know the really shitty problem with all this? If they had done as we had asked none of this would have been necessary. IEDs wouldnt be happening and I wouldnt have had to escort two coffins home.  You want to know why there are fucking IEDs all over Iraq? Because Rumsfeld and Bush are both two of the dumbest fucking twats to ever hold public office!

1. Prior to the invasion we told them we would need more troops for the occupation than the actual combat against Saddam's forces. Instead they said bullshit and ignored us.

2. We told them not to dismantle the Iraqi military. They said bullshit and ignored us.

3. We told them to put US or coalition troops to guard former Iraqi military bases FULL of arms, ammunition, ordinance, rockets, artillery rounds, air dropped bombs, etc etc. Cheney said, "Bullshit. Using troops to guard Halliburton, my former company, convoy's is more important." and ignored us.

4. So what did the insurgents do? They went around to ALL those former bases using pick up trucks and gathered up the Chinese rockets, the Russian mortars, the 155mm artillery shells and the 500lb. air droppable bombs and used them against us!  99.999% of all IEDs in Iraq are made from 122 and 155mm artillery rounds pillaged off former Iraqi bases. Munitions that we could have and SHOULD have kept out of the insurgent hands in the first FUCKING PLACE!

I was on the WMD team. We went to several former Iraqi bases during our searches. At one former army base we found 50+ bunkers storing thousands of tons of munitions. We reported it to Baghdad. We returned a month later and the place was cleaned out. We stopped by a local US base and reported this to the commander. Our comment was, "Oh you guys must have gone in and destroyed all that stuff?" His comment was, "Huh? You mean its all gone?"   The insurgents took it all.

Another time we went to a former air base about 30k south of Baghdad. We found tons of 250 to 500lb air droppable bombs. Again we called it in to Baghdad, and this time specifically told them, "If you dont guard this shit someone will take it and use it on MSR Tampa."  (MSR Tampa is the main supply route from Kuwait to Baghdad, a large modern 6 lane highway) Well they ignored us, and two weeks later the insurgents did just as we had suggested. They loaded a 500lb bomb in the back of a pick up truck, drove it onto a bridge on MSR Tampa and blew it up. They managed to stop nearly all supplies coming into Baghdad for two weeks with that single attack.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the fucksticks working for them (like LTG Sanchez who was finally tossed out on his ass) are directly responsible for the lives of the Americans and coalition members lost in Iraq. They are responsible for me having to escort two coffins home.

As Medieval Knights learned, advances in armor technology will always be outstripped by advances in armor-piercing technology.

There was something I read (I thought it was online) years ago that had an account of a medieval battle in it where a discussion on the effectiveness of the armor used by one of the kings knights came up and there was a great quote about how many gunshots, arrows, sword blows and etc... the armor had deflected and the king responded with something like "Verily all we needs must do is victual Sir ... and allow the enemy to lay seige to him while we take the country."

But every now and then armor technology gets ahead of weapons tech and then whoever has it wins.

I just wish I could find the actual quote again.

Those moments are rare throughout history, and as the pace of technology has expanded, so has the time that tech gains predominance grown shorter.

Here are some pictures to illustrate what I said in my post above. Pictre #1 is IED material (mortar and 155mm artillery rounds) at an abandoned Iraqi army base. Picture #2 are the bombs I was saying we found abandoned and that were used to later disrupt MSR Tampa. Picture #3 is what an IED can do to even an armored HMMWV.

Picture #1
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d39/dougd82/DSC00329.jpg)

Picture #2
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d39/dougd82/P5030033.jpg)

Picture #3
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d39/dougd82/M2.jpg)

As a unit safety officer, I have to review all the casualty reports that come in to identify trends that could impact our unit.

There are a METRIC SHITLOAD of gunners dying lately. 

Vehicle accident, no other injuries, minor damage to vehicle.  GUNNER DEAD.

Happening left, right, and center.

I don't know who decided to complain about it, but hey.  If the troops aren't complaining, something must be SERIOUSLY wrong. 

Well in alot of those cases the gunners are to far out of the turrets during vehicle movement. I saw it time and time and time and time again while in Iraq.

During movement most of their upper body is supposed to be lower down in the turrent, allowing the gunner to either A) pull inside in the event of an accident or B) in the event of a roll over he would be forced inside rather than having his upper body caught between the ground and the vehicle. The idea being that as the vehicle rolls over the ground pushes the gunner back down into the turret, instead if to much of their upper body is above the turret rim it just smashes them, which is what is happening.

Instead alot of these guys are standing tall out of the turrets during convoy movement and their NCO's and officers arent doing shit to stop it. I couldnt even begin to count the number of asses I chewed in Iraq about this....daily.

In Samwise's defence, the 'medieval knight' was a fairly dominant force for quite a long time in medieval history. I view the cycle as more of a hurdles race between the two counter technologies; it switches back and forth between weapons > armour, and armour > weapons. After all, the Roman infantry were notoriouly resilient, due in no small part to their segmented armour and large shields (and of course group tactics).

On the other hand, i would not know anything about this gunner armour, apart from agreeing that it does look too cumbersome for combat. As Stray has mentioned, there quite probably are far better alternatives (that spider-silk derived stuff that was developed a few years ago), but having read the stories of soldiers in Iraq and their difficulties in aquiring body sufficient body armour, let alone armoured humvees, this sadly comes as no surprse.

That hummer is barely scratched compared to some footage I've seen. One flipped a good ten times before it hit the ground. Some of those IEDs are massive.

Sky, it all depends on:

#1 the type of charge used- for example using a 122mm or 155mm artillery round, a shaped charge built with Semtex, or an actual manufactured mine.
#2 the position of the IED relative to its target- along the side of the vehicle, underneath or sometimes even hanging in trees.
#3 Lastly how much armor the target vehicle has on it.

For the picture you saw that was a HMMWV that had been given the upgraded armor treatment and that was using a 122mm artillery round as the explosive charge in the IED. The 122's are not particularly effective. However, it was still enough force to blow out the driver's side window which in turn shattered his jaw and fractured his skull. He did live through it though with no permanent injuries sustained.

Some of the technology they use for these IEDs would probably amaze you, things such as lazer triggers to initiate the detonation. 

Do not forget, that the human beeings inside the hummer are a bit more fragile, when it comes to resisting explosive force.

Glad to hear he survived it.

Thanks, but as I ranted earlier in this thread if the powers that be had done their fucking jobs he wouldnt have even been exposed to it.

But again, it wasn't the Roman armor that made them so effective, it was the great group tactics and the discipline to use them. In a one on one fight, yes it would make a big difference. From an army standpoint, not so much if the tactics used are ass.

As Broughden illustrates with his examples of gunners being crushed by flipping Hummers, if the guy is not disciplined to use the vehicle and armor properly, he'll be more prone to death. If the NCO's aren't forcing their soldiers to sit right in the vehicle, discipline (or lack of) will kill.

Medieval knights kept trying to upgrade their armor over the period of the Dark/Middle Ages until by the time of the Renaissance, they were so armoured up, they couldn't move. And they could still be beaten soundly if they grew impetuous and charged out of support range (dicipline and tactics). Focusing on improving armor is a great thing, but it's not as important as training troops correctly.

I would wear a bunny suit if it kept me alive as a gunner. Far as mobility goes, warfare is often a tradeoff between mobility and security.  Can't say if it is worth it to these gunners, but this is often how it goes.

I can understand why military types need to distinguish various types of explosive and what have you, but seriously, for the rest of us, when did 'bomb' stop being a functional word?

edit: Grammar is hard.

(http://www.imille.it/img/dynamic/templates_1/0d7f24a0374f545f0f78bdffc0169fca.jpg)

An improvised explosive device (IED) is normally of local manufacture and is often associated with booby traps. It has all the elements of a mass manufactured mine or booby trap.

Where as the layman's term "bomb" could include IEDs, Vehicle Borne IED's (VBIED), mines, or explosive ordinance (artillery, air dropped, etc.).

Hey, buddy, this is America. All we want is for you to dumb it down to us. Stop with your fancy-pants liberal-backed "educational" posts.  I don't have to learn, it's my Contimatutional right!

Bad, bad Helm.

Seperated at birth:

(http://www.kbtoys.com/g/toys/big/122127B.jpg)New armored body suit.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/05/09/wus09.jpg)Raphael of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

welcome back

The Art of War is really something of a 3-way tug-of-war between Tactics, Armor, and Weaponry.

In Greece vs Persia, the armor and weaponry complements were comparable. The Greeks won with their tactics - The Charge at Marathon and the following Double Encirclement. Also, the Battle of Salamis, where the Greeks trapped the Persian navy within the Straits of Salamis.

At another point in history Armor was king. French Knights during the Hundred Years War were reportedly so laden down with armor that they had to be winched onto their mounts. A heavily armed knight could take many direct blows without even being phased.

Later, Weaponry would come to the forefront. Polearms were developed that could cut through a knight in plate armor, and then through his priceless mount. Crossbows, which required Very little training, could easily take down down a noble in priceless full plate armor with a single bolt. Constantinople, which for hundreds of years had been impenetrable, finally fell to the onslaught of the Turks.

The cycle comes around again in history. The "Americans" are able to occupy the British for far longer than their numbers and supplies should have allowed with "revolutionary" guerrilla tactics. In WWII, the Allies came awfully close to losing the ground battle in Europe and Africa due to the superior armor of the German tanks.

Now, modern western weaponry is seemingly insurmountable. Modern sabot rounds, using depleted Uranium darts, cut through armor like butter; they absolutely embarrass tanks such as the T-72, which were formerly quite formidable tanks. But now, this technology is proving to be not the "be all end all" of modern warfare when it's used against a force that is decentralized, that will not openly fight you, and in some cases has no concern for its own well-being.

If you've ever seen the film Gregory's Girl, Strazos is the guy who says that "40000 tons of cornflakes go under this bridge every day".

That's probably an insult, but your avatar is too damn funny for me to care at this point in time.

Except for when those cunning English longbowmen used their superior archery range and discipline to poke sharp arrers in eyeslits and armor joints.

Well, at the ranges most longbowmen were firing from, they were not aiming for anything in particular. The only reason they were able to get through the Fremch armor was the advent of the bodkin arrowhead.

I think it was mostly superior tactics and exploitation of the arrogance of the enemies. If the french military would have fortified the ardennes instead of telling everybody that it is impossible to get tanks through there the wehrmacht would not have been able to blitz france.

The allies needed a few years to get their act together and until they were able to find counters to the german tactics. That by 1941/40 Hitler was telling his very experienced generals what they should do was also helping very much.