[TeddyGraham]

I am surprised that nobody has pointed out the fact that it with modern warfare being what it is, it would be quite hard to camouflage your troop while they are carrying a massive shield, not to mention mobility. Pretty hard to set up an ambush when your men are lugging around shields, cursing and banging them against eachother.

This post has been edited by TeddyGraham: 27 February 2009 - 06:53 PM

[TeddyGraham]

A question i have been wondering for a while about the bow, and arrows, is that the romans and english used bows, and way over here in north america, the natives had the same weapon. Coincidence?

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

TeddyGraham, on Feb 27 2009, 10:51 AM, said:

A question i have been wondering for a while about the bow, and arrows, is that the romans and english used bows, and way over here in north america, the natives had the same weapon. Coincidence?

I'd have to look it up, but I would assume that the technology existed before the first people migrated to North America.

[amphibian]

TeddyGraham, on Feb 27 2009, 01:49 PM, said:

I am surprised that nobody has pointed out the fact that it with modern warfare being what it is, it would be quite hard to camouflage your troop while they are carrying a massive shield, not to mention mobility. Pretty hard to set up an ambush when your men are lugging around shields, cursing and banging them against eachother.

The problem with modern/urban warfare ambushes (with personnel) isn't being quiet - it's getting people there on a timely basis. Small unit ambushes keep getting scaled up and up and delayed until the logistics/ass-covering can be worked out. By that time, the target's gone and the ambush is useless.

Some people use cruise missiles, airstrikes, IEDs and Predators for ambushes. I believe that airstrikes are mostly counterproductive in Iraq and Afghanistan though (an opinion, not a statement of fact).

Plus the weapons are so lethal and portable that you're better off moving quickly, shooting accurately and taking cover behind a building than lugging around a shield.

And as far as bows go, cavemen had them. So yes, the technology existed before migration to North/South America.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 27 February 2009 - 07:33 PM

[Soulessdreamer]

TeddyGraham, on Feb 28 2009, 07:51 AM, said:

A question i have been wondering for a while about the bow, and arrows, is that the romans and english used bows, and way over here in north america, the natives had the same weapon. Coincidence?

the americas were settled by proto asains walking across the land bridge that became baring straight.

Pacific Islanders and austrailian aboriginies (sp?) are the only primitive cultures not to develop some form of bow and arrow

TTFN

[Ursus]

I want to add a little something on the bow vs firearm issue. I have a fair bit of experience with both archery and guns and there is a huge difference in the learning curve. At times i bring friends to the shooting range and any old idiot can get good scores on targets pretty much on their first go. Archery is another issue entirely, it takes years of regular practice to become 'good' at hitting a specific target at range. Arrow storms are nice but when thats not applicable the archers are fodder.

There is another problem with bows that also must be taken into account. Modern longbows are often in the 40-50 pound range. This is reasonably comfortable and you get a second or two of full draw to aim if you want before you'll have to release. In medieval times bows were commonly in the 100-120pound range and could vary to well over 150 for english longbows to achieve sufficient range and penetration (based on archeological finds). Allright we might be talking about hardworking farmboys but thats over twice or even thrice the draw of what a normal adult today is comfortable with. With a 150 pound bow your arms will be dead after three shots, long before anyone actually start doing nasty stuff to you. Interestingly i have heard that skeletons at old battle sites can be identified as archers fairly easily by their worn-down shoulders and arm joints.
If you took someone off the streets they could neither aim nor even tension a bow. With a firearm you could show someone where the black funny-smelling stuff went one or two times and then they'd be ready to go kill stuff. Bulky guns also often had a supporting stick to take the weight when aiming.

The bottom line and my hypothesis is that when you are fighting with bow's you'll soon run out of archers, when using firearms you could draft some of the local scum in the prison cells and have a brand new army on the morning after the battle.

edit: also you might argue that everyone and their granny's had at least three hunting bows each and hunted with them daily for dinner. In fact hunting with bows in europe was reserved the nobles and the poachers. Lowly people used snares and sticks. Yes, sticks. As i understand it they were used to hit small prey animals over the head with, literally.

This post has been edited by Ursus: 12 March 2009 - 12:44 AM

[Hetan]

Malaclypse posting as Hetan- can't be bothered to log.

I once contemplated writing a paper about the continuum of weapons technology through the ages with regard to the skill/effort required to make the weapon v. the skill/effort required to deploy the weapon effectively. In rough form, it goes something like this:

Note: I follow the hunting progression in weapons technology. Sure, there are oddities such as Polynesian swords made out of shark's teeth glued to a stick and so on but in hunting and warfare, ranged weapons have always been more important.

rock - no skill to make, very little skill to use.

stick - little to no skill to make, very little skill to use in melee, difficult to use at range.

spear - depends on what one is using as a point (ie. stone or metal-working comes into play with the more advanced versions of this weapon) but by and large, fairly easy to make and easy to use - point and throw, basic eye-hand coordination.

spear-thrower/atlatl- tricky to make, trial and error, but when successful, massive increase in range and power with no appreciable loss of accuracy compared to the spear. Basic eye-hand coordination still serves. Slightly more difficult to use than a spear but the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages. A proper atlatl today competes favourably as a hunting weapon with modern bows, excepting the realm of rate of fire, which is more useful in the realm of warfare since in a hunting situation if you miss your first shot, probably your prey has escaped.

bow- difficult to make, requires a certain degree of specialization in the society that employs them. Easier to use than the atlatl, strangely enough. Better rate of fire, intuitive aiming, can be used in close quarters (ie. dense forest, where a spear-thrower or slinger will encounter problems). Spear-thrower still hits with more power, better range (until modern compound bows appeared, which has made it a contest) and equivalent accuracy. The bow was developed as a weapon of war, imo. The atlatl remains superior as a hunting weapon to this day, provided one takes the time to learn how to use it.

guns - very difficult to make but dead easy to use, aside from the loading procedure, which has become progressively easier through the centuries.

missiles - incredibly difficult to make, but impossibly easy to use. Any braindead idiot can push the button, provided he gets through security. Made easier if said idiot happens to be a head of state

So what do you think? Am I on to something?

edit: regarding shields, it was the Swiss pikemen that rendered them ineffective and thus unpopular unless I miss my guess. Guns mixed with swordsmen did for the pikemen and the rest is history. Shields have almost always been ineffective against guns for a variety of reasons and so they never made a comeback, outside of police riot gear, ie. close combat with unarmed civilians, perhaps with makeshift weapons such as rocks, sticks, molotov cocktails, etc. If the enemy has guns, a shield is a hindrance.

[Nicodimas]

Modern warfare is about speed of troop movements. Well it should be as the gear the troops are wearing in Iraq are serious messing with this. The amount they have carry with them...

The infantrymen does not need an extra 10 pounds of gear. I would rather them have the same weight in bullets.

I am more concerned on the armor where is the powerarmor if anything! I want something straight from Warhammer 40k.

A shield would mess with there pysche too. We want those troops to MOVE foward not hide behind a shield where they can not see anymore....Using cover is far more effective than this.

Modern warfare also guarentees in a combat situation 90% of all people involved in a true firefight will be casulaties.

[Malaclypse]

'Get there first with sufficient force - the trick is in figuring out where 'there' is' - I forget which modern military strategy guru said this, but it's true - mobility is everything in modern warfare.

[Soulessdreamer]

Mobile Infantry FTW

TTFN

[cerveza_fiesta]

I suppose shields in modern warfare (if sufficiently bulletproof) could serve as a temporary bunker. Kinda like the turtle shell thingy that they used to do way back to protect against archer fire. Romans maybe?

I'm not talking about a long protracted fight, but a line of shield carriers could shelter a bunch of other non-shield carriers while moving across open terrain.

Dunno about the practicalities of that, but I'd be damn happy to have a shield to crouch behind if my unit started geting pelted by AK fire or something.

[Traveller]

I'm always surprised at the seeming lack of armour worn by modern soldiers. I would have thought that with the materials technology we have today, soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq would be kitted out in virtually bullet-proof suits by now.

And maybe carry shields that could be linked to form a larger barrier, or be stood behind during a firefight. Something strong enough and light enough could be slung on the back to be carried, adding extra protection.

It must just be a money thing - governments always get criticised for spending too much on the military as it is. Which just results in soldiers sharing kit, and getting killed because they don't even have the standard protective clothing.

I can't believe that what is currently standard is the best that is available.

(And where are the battle robots??!)

[cerveza_fiesta]

Traveller, on Mar 17 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

And maybe carry shields that could be linked to form a larger barrier, or be stood behind during a firefight. Something strong enough and light enough could be slung on the back to be carried, adding extra protection.

kind of in line with what I said above RE: temporary bunker.

For a single soldier it doesn't make a lot of sense, but having them to work as a team to defend other people in your group could work I guess.

[Aptorian]

cerveza_fiesta, on Mar 17 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

I suppose shields in modern warfare (if sufficiently bulletproof) could serve as a temporary bunker. Kinda like the turtle shell thingy that they used to do way back to protect against archer fire. Romans maybe?

I'm not talking about a long protracted fight, but a line of shield carriers could shelter a bunch of other non-shield carriers while moving across open terrain.

Dunno about the practicalities of that, but I'd be damn happy to have a shield to crouch behind if my unit started geting pelted by AK fire or something.

As a stationary or slow moving group they would be too vulnerable to grenades and rockets. When bullets and bigger things are flying through the air your safest bet is ditches and big walls.

But I do think that shield carriers would be usefull in urban warfare. It surprises me that we don't see footage of Marines using shields in the same way you see SWAT and anti-riot troops use them. For storming buildings, making way down a heavily fortified street, etc.

Traveller, on Mar 17 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

I'm always surprised at the seeming lack of armour worn by modern soldiers. I would have thought that with the materials technology we have today, soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq would be kitted out in virtually bullet-proof suits by now.

And maybe carry shields that could be linked to form a larger barrier, or be stood behind during a firefight. Something strong enough and light enough could be slung on the back to be carried, adding extra protection.

It must just be a money thing - governments always get criticised for spending too much on the military as it is. Which just results in soldiers sharing kit, and getting killed because they don't even have the standard protective clothing.

I can't believe that what is currently standard is the best that is available.

(And where are the battle robots??!)

I believe some one, maybe earlier in this thread, remarked that a standard heavy duty west for a marine costs somewhere around 500.000 dollars or more to build. Personally I find this figure ridiculous and I bet it's typical Pentagon spending because private contractors get to set their own price.

But, even though new materials are always being discovered, making a marine bulletproof is not practical. Armor thick enough to take riffle fire and absorb the impact would be heavy as hell and would completely bog down a marine if he was covered from head to toe.

There are robots in use now. Like unmanned aerial vehicles and automatic riffles on tracks. They will fuck you up.

[Traveller]

Dooen't matter if you're a bit slow if the bullets aren't doing anything.

power armor, where's the power armour?!

It would all come to naught if there were Ewoks around, anyway..

[cerveza_fiesta]

My friend that was in afghanistan (canadian military) was talking about little ceramic plates that go into pockets all over his combat suit...about 25lbs worth. I guess they're to dissipate the impact of bullets but I don't know if/how well they work. They're to protect stuff that isn't generally protected by a bulletproof vest like the arms/legs/nuts.

[Aptorian]

About the power armor; someone find that clip of the guy who built a bear proof survival suit.

The thing is insane, it could take a flying log, as thick as a oil drum straight to the chest with no result.

Rodeo probably has one in his truck.

[Soulessdreamer]

Aptorian, on Mar 18 2009, 05:34 AM, said:

As a stationary or slow moving group they would be too vulnerable to grenades and rockets. When bullets and bigger things are flying through the air your safest bet is ditches and big walls.

But I do think that shield carriers would be usefull in urban warfare. It surprises me that we don't see footage of Marines using shields in the same way you see SWAT and anti-riot troops use them. For storming buildings, making way down a heavily fortified street, etc.

Marines standard buliding clearing proceedure is to blow holes in the walls with M-203s rather than use doors. Breaching with a sheild like swat would in most cases be impractical. Swat uses shields to protect themselves from fire as the negotiate. Marines are trained to not let the guy live long enough to get a shot off.

Aptorian, on Mar 18 2009, 05:34 AM, said:

I believe some one, maybe earlier in this thread, remarked that a standard heavy duty west for a marine costs somewhere around 500.000 dollars or more to build. Personally I find this figure ridiculous and I bet it's typical Pentagon spending because private contractors get to set their own price.

The price was for a full body rig (arms, legs, helmet, face mask etc) and replacement sacrafical plates, not just a vest. I was recalling a 10 year old article on British SAS combat rigs.

TTFN

This post has been edited by Soulessdreamer: 19 March 2009 - 05:01 AM

[Cusser]

Traveller, on Mar 17 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

I'm always surprised at the seeming lack of armour worn by modern soldiers. I would have thought that with the materials technology we have today, soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq would be kitted out in virtually bullet-proof suits by now.

Not really, Every bulletproof vestments made are made of non-flexible material, equipping a guy in full kevlar would make him as practical in combat as a medieval knight wearing full plate armor. If one should wear a flexible armour that also needs be bulletproof, it would most likely consist of a strong lightweight material as an outer layer, followed by a high density almost liquid mass (Not completely liquid as this would just run out when the outer layer was breached), followed by a third layer of the same lightweight material.
This multilayered idea is stolen from the Templar knights armour, they wore a light chainmail followed by a layer of bure (i think thats the materials name, thick wollen sort of thing), and then an additional chainmail. This made them practically immune to arrows.

Warfare today is not about taking hits, unless youre placed in some sort of armoured vehicle, its allbout delivering the hit first. Thus the need for full bulletproof suits arent really there, actually if a soldier was meant to take some fire, a shield would be the ideal cover for when your intel/stealth/zerg failed. Holding a shield against multiple major kinetic impacts might not be healthly for your arms though...

[Nicodimas]

Cusser is completely right about delivering the hits first. Also current military doctrine states you send at least three times as many people that they have at them.

Also full armor/shields would probably become pretty nasty when a soldier gets blown up...

An energy shield could be feasible something lightweight think Dune. The Israelis made one for a tank a couple years back that directed energy at incoming RPG's blowing them up before they got to the tank.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 23 April 2009 - 05:03 AM