Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. IX

[Mike_G]

I'm reading a bit about HK 4.6 x 30 and it seems that, similarly to many other small, very fast bullets, it's actually prone to tumbling a lot during penetration, so in fact can be pretty lethal all in all.

Even 5.56 round fired from a rifle tends to be lethal....in a little while.

That's fine if you hit a guy who is a hundred yards away, since his new biggest worry is the hole in his body, and he tends to lie there and bleed and stop shooting at you. In close quarters, the adrenaline and the immediate concern of his enemy being three feet away tends to focus his concentration a bit. People hit at close range with small, fast bullets tend to shoot back or keep running. Even if he falls over five seconds after the fact, he can ruin your day in those five seconds.

This was the whole idea of fragmenting rounds, expanding rounds, hydroshock rounds and so on. The bullet would dump energy in the body or create a bigger wound channel or spit and have a greater chance of damaging something vital and incapacitating. All these things make a round worse at penetrating armor, so as always, everything is a trade off.

[Spiryt]

Even 5.56 round fired from a rifle tends to be lethal....in a little while.

The 5.56 round from a less than hundred yards is very, very lethal, and not "even" or in a "little while" - at least fired from something of at least carbine like barrel.

Long, small bullets traveling at great velocities tend to, obviously, react violently when they change the environment in which they move abruptly.

In many cases, they're just not substantial enough to survive the impact in one piece, and thus:




Compared to way more substantial, a bit slower rifle/ish bullets :

Spoiler

Show

Still destructive, but not quite so.

Bullet has basically low momentum and general substance, so it's prone to spend a lot of energy going trough target. Poor target will of course face the consequences of all that energy being spent.

That was pretty much the story about usage of original M-16 in Vietnam, for example - anything hit square from ~ 100 (when bullet was still very fast) was pretty much dead meat.

Of course it depends too - if bullet had hit soft, 'border' part of the body, where it didn't travel trough that much meat (below 10cm) - it didn't cause quite as traumatic wounds.

I'm pretty sure one can pretty easily find very drastic pictures of some actual poor souls hit by 5.56 or similar small caliber carbine rounds.

So, all in all, someone hit by that won't "keep running". At all.

In case of such bullet from handgun - bullet probably won't behave quite like that in most cases - high velocity is required.

Spoiler

Show

I'm no expert though.

[Raum]

This was the whole idea of fragmenting rounds, expanding rounds, hydroshock rounds and so on. The bullet would dump energy in the body or create a bigger wound channel or spit and have a greater chance of damaging something vital and incapacitating. All these things make a round worse at penetrating armor, so as always, everything is a trade off.

Additionally, the fragmentation and subsequent energy loss helps prevent (or at least mitigate) over penetration. You want to prevent a shot from going through a wall and into your neighbor's house or your daughter's room.

[gkathellar]

Penetration is actually what you want bullets to do, from what I learnt from reading an FBI study on handgun injuries/fatalities. The stuff about bullets expanding, from what the report said, is a popular myth.

It's not a myth, and there are many factors other than expansion at play in a bullet's damage potential. Ideally, you want the round to tumble inside the target's body — and a bullet with too much penetration will just go straight through, without any tumbling.

Body armor greatly improves your chance to survive hits, but it's still best to avoid getting hit as much as possible.

Not to mention that taking a shot to your body armor (especially lighter body armor) can be incredibly painful or jarring, and still lead to bruising or broken bones.

Also, heavy armor generally teaches the enemy to aim for unarmored places, and ballistic armor is no exception. If rifles can't routinely do damage to the torso, people will start practicing their head-shots. That's not a flaw in said armor, just an interesting side-note.

[Beleriphon]

Not to mention that taking a shot to your body armor (especially lighter body armor) can be incredibly painful or jarring, and still lead to bruising or broken bones.

Lets not forget that military grade body armours are also designed to stop the squishy things inside the body from getting cut to ribbons or squishy things by shrapnel from antipersonal munitions.

Type III armour is noted as being designed to stop up to a NATO 7.62x51mm round, while Type IV is noted to stop up to a .30-06 AP round.

As an aside since the Pentagon is looking to replace Interceptor armour, what kind of armours might be worthwhile investigating. Something with ceramics or imact absorbing gels perhaps?

[The Boz]

I'd say the Dragon Skin is pretty interesting. Multiple discs form a multilayered protection similar to that of scale armor. Too early to tell, and its surrounded by controversy.

[Beleriphon]

I'd say the Dragon Skin is pretty interesting. Multiple discs form a multilayered protection similar to that of scale armor. Too early to tell, and its surrounded by controversy.

I was reading about that, looks interesting but the fact that it seems to consistently fail tests is telling of something. The main complaint that I could find was that the disks will warp or separate in environments that are too hot.

[Mathis]

Does anyone know how effective modern day body armour such as the Interceptor type is at stopping melee weapons? Here I mean knives, but also swords, axes and maybe even spears. If anyone knows, how does it compare to for example a steel breastplate, or a suit of chain armour? I mean, it's designed to stop high-velocity piercing attacks, but would it also do well against powerful slashing and hacking? I know the force of the blow from the attack itself would still be dangerous, but would an attack from such a melee weapon be able to penetrate the body armour?

[The Boz]

Depends on type. Knives, axes, arrows and spears will pretty much ignore Type I armors. Due to their momentum and edge, I'd be surprised if Type I, II or III body armor was at all effective against an axe or a sword.
I've heard rumours that in China they are trained to use crossbows as means of penetrating up to Type II body armor without any risk of overpenetration.

[Beleriphon]

Depends on type. Knives, axes, arrows and spears will pretty much ignore Type I armors. Due to their momentum and edge, I'd be surprised if Type I, II or III body armor was at all effective against an axe or a sword.
I've heard rumours that in China they are trained to use crossbows as means of penetrating up to Type II body armor without any risk of overpenetration.

I'd question whether a crossbow has sufficient energy to penetrate Type II armour, Type II-A maybe but full Type II has a pretty heavy chest plate. That thing will stop a 9mm AP or .357 Magnum round.

I'd think that most body armours will stop a knife or sword, even an axe blade. At least anything that somebody would be using currently as a weapon. I don't think it would be fun to be on the receiving end of taking a fire axe to Type III ballistic vest's chest plate, but I'd think it would be a survivable attack.

The main issue with most modern body armours is that they are designed to stop bullets, which means they tend only provide armour in places where bullets are likely to kill you. This usually means the torso and neck. Most of the armour provides no coverage for the arms or even shoulders.

[The Boz]

I'd question whether a crossbow has sufficient energy to penetrate Type II armour, Type II-A maybe but full Type II has a pretty heavy chest plate. That thing will stop a 9mm AP or .357 Magnum round.

The way I understand it, it's all about the increased mass of an arrow with a smaller, non-deforming penetration point.

I'd think that most body armours will stop a knife or sword, even an axe blade. At least anything that somebody would be using currently as a weapon. I don't think it would be fun to be on the receiving end of taking a fire axe to Type III ballistic vest's chest plate, but I'd think it would be a survivable attack.

I remember that in a chemical engineering class a few years ago the professor was demonstrating the physical properties of two different types of kevlar by using a hunting knife. The hard, rigid kevlar used in helmets did fine as far as stabbing and cutting went, showed only a nick, but the fabric type used in bulletproof vests did nothing to stop the knife stabbing or cutting through it. Stab vests work quite differently than bulletproof vests, and quite a specific type of protection is required to safeguard against slashing and stabbing melee weapons. As for the heavier weapons such as an axe or a sword, once it hits the rigid portion of a Type II vest, it will deflect/slide along the plate until it finds the end of it. A hit on the side will be turned either towards the hip or towards the armpit (assuming that the side even has a plate, and many Type IIs don't), a hit square in the chest will end up cutting either the throat or the groin, or it can find a place in the chest between the plates (even if the plates are normally overlapping, it can cut/slide between them). Or it will cut into the plate slightly, not move at all, and break stuff inside the body. This is preferrable, but axes will still retain their killing or disabling power.
And these were just attacks against the body. Limbs are still as vulnerable as ever, and cutting one open can be just as deadly.

[Conners]

Come to think of it, how much use do infantry have in war, these days? I hear there's a lot of soldiers in places, just to watch things. But I also hear that when there's a major conflict nowadays, they just press the button and the drones shoot missiles on the general area.

How important are infantry, in modern day? And what uses do they have?

Are infantry likely to become less necessary over time?

What sci-fi elements would be required, to make Infantry a critical element in battles?

[The Boz]

Come to think of it, how much use do infantry have in war, these days? I hear there's a lot of soldiers in places, just to watch things. But I also hear that when there's a major conflict nowadays, they just press the button and the drones shoot missiles on the general area.

How important are infantry, in modern day? And what uses do they have?

Are infantry likely to become less necessary over time?

What sci-fi elements would be required, to make Infantry a critical element in battles?

If you're not willing to utterly destroy the enemy, their economy, infrastructure and population, there's no going around using infantry.

[Conners]

Infantry are more deadly to those things than missiles...?

[Yora]

Missiles can only destroy what is standing out in the open.
But do defeat an enemy, you need to do a lot more. If you only bomb things to the ground, the enemy troops will go hide and come back out after the planes are gone.
Also, you usually don't want to kill the 99% of civilians who are also present in a city in addition to the few soldiers. And missiles are really expensive. Some of the bigger ones costing over a million dollars.

[The Boz]

Infantry are more deadly to those things than missiles...?

You either misread or I wasn't clear enough.
If your only goal is to completely obliterate your enemy, you can ignore the infantry. Nuke the guy, drown him in missiles and pound him with carpet bombing all day.
However, if you actually want to win a war, infantry is the way to go.

And missiles are really expensive. Some of the bigger ones costing over a million dollars.

That's cheap. Training, equipping and paying a US Marine comes to about half a million dollars, on average, plus something like half a million per year of deployment.

[Yora]

No wonder we have all bancrupted our economies.

[Conners]

Actually, I don't think the military budget is the cause of bankruptcy of late.


Either way, so the consensus is that you need soldiers to conquer a nation, unless your wish is to nuke it.

However, isn't it the case that we won't see any more large-scale infantry battles? Since, after all, if there are a lot of enemies out in the open, in taking cover in some bushes, nowadays it's easy to launch a bunch of tactical bombs down on them?

[Yora]

Even back in World War 2, it was actually quite common to retreat to large cities instead of meeting the enemy in open field battles. Berlin and Stalingrad for example. It was also the reason the allies expected to lose three times more men during the invasion of Japan than they had in the war in Europe and the Pacific combined.

These days, a war starts with about one week of air strikes against anti-air defenses to make way for troop transports, and then you get to fighting in the cities.
Or you have small groups of fighters hiding in the wilderness that only come out for short ambushes and then disappear again. You can't bomb people when you don't know where they are. However, the wars we've seen in the recent decades have usually been among armies with very large disparities in equipment. If neither side has the equipment to bomb anything the size of a truck and bigger at a short notice, things might look quite different.

I have no idea what would happen if you have two modern high-tech armies fighting each other, but currently there is no indication that this would happen within our lifetime.

[Conners]

Don't be so sure. There's always hope for humans, when it comes to interesting wars ...


Been wondering about a plausible way to have melee weapons gratuitously used in a futuristic setting. Armour that is hard to damage with guns, but can be damaged with super melee weapons would be one thing.


On that note... has there been research into ways to improve melee weapons? Like, are they trying to develop those chainsaw blades which Gears of War stole from Warhammer?

[Yora]

Chainsaw bayonets are not going to happen. People are trying very hard to get weapons to become smaller and lighter. Adding a chainsaw would make those things really heavy and difficult to move with.

The best thing I know is very compact automatic guns with special armor piercing rounds. Hand to hand combat is really terribly dangerous, when you can shot, it's always preferable.

[Mathis]

I've fixed a few chainsaws and when I was playing through Gears of War it always annoyed me that they worked so splendidly well without any kind of trouble. I can not imagine those things affixed to a rifle, aiming it would become incredibly difficult without supporting the barrel with some kind of tripod. Then there's the issue of carrying spareparts. The chain and teeth have a nasty habit of wearing down pretty easily, and would require maintenance in just the same way as a regular rifle, adding to the total amount of work an infantryman would have to carry out to keep his weapons in working condition.

It looks awesome, and works well in a fantasy setting. But I honestly doubt any sane weapons developer working for a professional army would build anything like it.

[Spiryt]

Melee weapon that requires a engine is huge no - no, you have clunky, hard to maneuver weapon, that requires fuel, and engine providing the torque can cause the chain link to fly in all directions, if something too non-giving had been hit...

Doesn't have sense.

If melee weapons would make a 'comeback' somehow, it probably would be something completely opposite - some kind of stuff that can cause damage with minimal violent movements and tension involved... Just by touching, instead -something akin to lightsaber, or whatever.

That's obviously even more of a fantasy, at this point.

[Yora]

It looks awesome, and works well in a fantasy setting. But I honestly doubt any sane weapons developer working for a professional army would build anything like it.

Except DARPA.

Oh wait, you said sane.

[Raum]

Even back in World War 2, it was actually quite common to retreat to large cities instead of meeting the enemy in open field battles. Berlin and Stalingrad for example. It was also the reason the allies expected to lose three times more men during the invasion of Japan than they had in the war in Europe and the Pacific combined.

Not quite. Stalingrad was a political decision and a strategic mistake. It should have been cut off and bypassed. Instead, a certain unstable dictator threw away an entire Army on trying to take it in the middle of winter. As for Berlin, the war was essentially over by then. It was simply a matter of pride to go take the capital. That same war saw several cities either surrendered or declared open to avoid destruction while armies still clashed in the field.

As for Japan, islands and mountains both make natural barriers / fortresses. Combine the two and populate it with a culture who views capture as dishonorable and you have a very expensive target.

These days, a war starts with about one week of air strikes against anti-air defenses to make way for troop transports, and then you get to fighting in the cities.
Or you have small groups of fighters hiding in the wilderness that only come out for short ambushes and then disappear again. You can't bomb people when you don't know where they are. However, the wars we've seen in the recent decades have usually been among armies with very large disparities in equipment. If neither side has the equipment to bomb anything the size of a truck and bigger at a short notice, things might look quite different.

Yep, asymmetric warfare has been the norm for the last few decades. Though Iraq's Republican Guard wouldn't have been a pushover if Iraq had anything close to parity in the air.

I have no idea what would happen if you have two modern high-tech armies fighting each other, but currently there is no indication that this would happen within our lifetime.

With the European Union in the process of collapsing, I'm not as optimistic as you appear to be.

But national bankruptcies and EU collapses are probably best left for another forum.

----
Regarding close combat and melee weapons - rumor a few years ago had the Army ceasing to teach bayonet use in basic. This was occurring during the Iraq conflicts. So the questions - was this true and does it mean melee weapons weren't seen as useful even in urban fighting?

[Yora]

Nah, there's nothing to gain by fighting wars in Western Europe and we have a youth that would never pick up a gun to kill each others because some high ups say so. And all the big powers need each other so much, even a cold war would completely destroy everyones own economy as you can't get any more of the goods you need and you have no place to sell your exports.
War between Sweden, Germany, and France seems as likely to me as war between Bavaria and Saxony. Or another civil war in the US. It's like mutually assured destruction, except that we wouldn't even have to shot at each other. Just ignoring each other would devasted our countries. And we don't even dislike each other.
The only reason Europe has troops in wars is because it's in countries that are really far away from us, so we don't have to deal with the aftermath when we leave. Also, we have massive technological superiority.

As for Japan, islands and mountains both make natural barriers / fortresses. Combine the two and populate it with a culture who views capture as dishonorable and you have a very expensive target.

That's what I meant. It would be close to impossible to fight out in open fields in Japan. Even outside of the actual cities, you would have a nightmare of maintaining support lines and keeping all your flanks covered.

[Traab]

Yep, asymmetric warfare has been the norm for the last few decades. Though Iraq's Republican Guard wouldn't have been a pushover if Iraq had anything close to parity in the air.

Because noone in their right mind wants to fight a war against an equal or near equal opponent. There are exceptions, like say, rebels trying to overthrow their incumbent leader, which is a semi common thing throughout history, but in general, countries dont like to fight other countries that can actually put up a real struggle, its not cost effective. Even fighting a near equal opponent is bad because it weakens your side too much to defeat them, leaving you open to someone else wanting to attack.

[fusilier]

Are infantry likely to become less necessary over time?

There has been something of a debate in this area for some time. Ever since the introduction of mechanization to the battlefield, tanks and planes, so since World War One, there has been a question of whether or not infantry are still relevant. In World War One, an obvious argument would be that they were too exposed to artillery and machine guns on the modern battlefield.

Nevertheless, the fact seems to be that infantry are still relevant. And air strikes alone are too limited. Air strikes basically project power and threaten a weaker opponent (100 years ago, a naval bombardment would be a similar event). No war has been successfully fought without the use of ground forces and infantry. Perhaps that will change, but in about 100 years of development it hasn't yet.

Note, that I'm not saying that air strikes (or naval bombardments) aren't useful as a preparatory measure to an invasion, and they can have other tactical and strategical uses -- but in terms of waging full out war, they are too limited by themselves.

[Traab]

There has been something of a debate in this area for some time. Ever since the introduction of mechanization to the battlefield, tanks and planes, so since World War One, there has been a question of whether or not infantry are still relevant. In World War One, an obvious argument would be that they were too exposed to artillery and machine guns on the modern battlefield.

Nevertheless, the fact seems to be that infantry are still relevant. And air strikes alone are too limited. Air strikes basically project power and threaten a weaker opponent (100 years ago, a naval bombardment would be a similar event). No war has been successfully fought without the use of ground forces and infantry. Perhaps that will change, but in about 100 years of development it hasn't yet.

Note, that I'm not saying that air strikes (or naval bombardments) aren't useful as a preparatory measure to an invasion, and they can have other tactical and strategical uses -- but in terms of waging full out war, they are too limited by themselves.

I agree to an extent, you need infantry, unless your goal is to reduce your enemy to glass. Air strikes and naval bombardments/blockades are critical features in modern warfare though, air strikes in particular because they have a much less limited range in general. Air superiority means you can take out strategic targets behind enemy lines, harass any formations of troops or armor on the ground, destroy any supply lines, etc etc etc. Air strikes are there to break the backs of the defenses and allow your infantry to march in and take over with far greater ease than they would otherwise. Honestly, I cant think of a single branch of military that isnt highly useful and even critical to a modern day war effort. Maybe back in the middle ages you could field an army of a single type like cavalry and still achieve some solid success, now though, you need the full monty or else you are left vulnerable.

[DrewID]

Maybe back in the middle ages you could field an army of a single type like cavalry and still achieve some solid success, now though, you need the full monty or else you are left vulnerable.

Actually, I read a grad school paper by a friend that addressed the idea that military strategy was stagnant during the Middle Ages. His paper's premise was that what developed (or to a certain extent re-developed) over the course of that time period was the idea of, and eventually the necessity of, combined arms. By the Late Middle Ages, certainly by the Renaissance, you needed infantry, cavalry, and missile troops, or you were pretty were going to loose to someone else who had all three (utterly overwhelming numbers aside).

DrewID