HAY GUYS

wvlfpvp · Apr 12, 2007, 03:52 PM

WE SHOULD HIT THEM WITH COWS RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE HA HA.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

.Spartan · Apr 16, 2007, 06:18 AM

WE SHOULD HIT THEM WITH COWS RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE HA HA.

Isnt that India?

That Armor would not really suit well in combat due to view, weight, staring through a glass or whatever material face plate also feeling restricted would impair reaction time and movement (just think of how medieval knights felt wearing all that armor. Standard soldiers carry about 67 pounds. Changing the armor excluding water canteens, etc would still make the armor over 80 pounds which I doubt anyone can carry for long.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Gumby · Local time: Apr 16, 2007, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by .Spartan

Isnt that India?

That Armor would not really suit well in combat due to view, weight, staring through a glass or whatever material face plate also feeling restricted would impair reaction time and movement (just think of how medieval knights felt wearing all that armor. Standard soldiers carry about 67 pounds. Changing the armor excluding water canteens, etc would still make the armor over 80 pounds which I doubt anyone can carry for long.

Yeah India, cow bombs. :X

Standard soldiers only carry 67lbs? That might be true when they are launching an attack and if they only weight 160lbs but the rest of the time 80lbs wouldn't be uncommon for a soldier to carry when you consider how much armor and ammunition they have to carry during forced marches and while out on patrol.
Source 1 Source 2

From all of the soldiers I know that went to Iraq they all said they carried at least 80lbs of gear and in a few cases more than 100lbs (someone who was manning a SAW).

Like I said before, weight really isn't the issue.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

.Spartan · Apr 16, 2007, 02:59 PM

Ok, did you even read what you linked? Weight already is a problem?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Gumby · 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by .Spartan

...would still make the armor over 80 pounds which I doubt anyone can carry for long.

If our soldiers are currently able to fight with that much gear on doesn't that make your statement false, especially when you consider they carry close to twice that for forced marches? I think you under estimate our soldiers. I've been on forced marches before, carrying that much weight isn't a lot of fun BUT it is do-able and for extended periods of time.

I do agree that lighter would be better, you have no idea how light your body feels when running after you carried around 60-70lbs all day long for the last 6 weeks.

When I said weight wasn't the issue I was referring to that guys "Halo" armor. That crap it is made out of just isn't going to be able to withstand rifle caliber ammunition. The creator said he shot it with an "elephant" gun, but those are usually large bore weapons that use low pressure cartridges meaning they travel slower. Military ammunition on the other hand is designed to operate at higher velocities and impact in the smallest section possible, they are also commonly cored with steel rather than lead like most civilian cartridges are so they don't break up upon impact.

Maybe the creator should have marketed the idea to hollywood instead of the military.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?