Science Breakthrough: Plate Armor is Heavy

[Kargathia]

It turns out that it is simply easier to poke a hole in something than it is to keep it from happening.

Or as somebody once famously worded it after his assassination attempt failed: "They have to get lucky every time, we have to get lucky just once".

You're still thinking one step behind reality right now. The problem is not how fast you can get your toys around, the problem is that in the internet age Clausewitz is more viable than ever.

They don't need to win their war on the battlefield when the weakest part of the US military is public opinion.

Public opinion didn't stop the deployments from happening in the first place. Public opinion did not save the lives of an estimated 1 million Iraqi citizens. Sure, public opinion will eventually end this war just as public opinion ended countless other conflicts before the age of the internet. But I would point out that manipulating the opinion of the masses is something people do on both sides of the equation.

And, while I do not often agree with using military power to resolve a problem (a realization I came to after being in the military), I can recognize the value of having a more mobile force. Better to show up in a week with a division of strykers than in a month with a division of Abrams. The fundamental problem that was "solved" by the Stryker was simply that there was no middle ground between heavy units (Armor and Mechanized infantry) and light units (light infantry such as airborne units). What you could get in a hurry wasn't much in the grand scheme of things and the big things take a long time to show up. Thus why there was a months long buildup in the middle east before the first gulf war and this second attempt (though there were political reasons that exacerbated the first).

Public opinion always was a powerful influence on war, but since the Vietnam war one thing quite dramatically changed: whether you're winning the war on the field is almost irrelevant. Technically both Vietnam and Afghanistan are soundly being won, but in both cases the war for public opinion is being lost as the enemy just won't stop fighting.

But to get closer to the original topic: there is quite a bit of an analogy between the development of the Stryker, and the role of cavalry in late medieval times, and all the way up to the Napoleontic wars.
The closest equivalent would be that of the lancers, who quite successfully traded the protection armor offered for mobility, speed, and economic effectivity.

 

[GraveeKing]

How useful to know.....
So where's the article on scientists researching the most useless shit ever instead of finding cures for cancer, STDs or just genetically coding my cat so it's floofier?

 

[Capt MacGregor]

SCIENCE!!!

 

[TornadoADV]

You're still thinking one step behind reality right now. The problem is not how fast you can get your toys around, the problem is that in the internet age Clausewitz is more viable than ever.

They don't need to win their war on the battlefield when the weakest part of the US military is public opinion.

Public opinion didn't stop the deployments from happening in the first place. Public opinion did not save the lives of an estimated 1 million Iraqi citizens. Sure, public opinion will eventually end this war just as public opinion ended countless other conflicts before the age of the internet. But I would point out that manipulating the opinion of the masses is something people do on both sides of the equation.

And, while I do not often agree with using military power to resolve a problem (a realization I came to after being in the military), I can recognize the value of having a more mobile force. Better to show up in a week with a division of strykers than in a month with a division of Abrams. The fundamental problem that was "solved" by the Stryker was simply that there was no middle ground between heavy units (Armor and Mechanized infantry) and light units (light infantry such as airborne units). What you could get in a hurry wasn't much in the grand scheme of things and the big things take a long time to show up. Thus why there was a months long buildup in the middle east before the first gulf war and this second attempt (though there were political reasons that exacerbated the first).

I would of massively preferred the M8 MGS over the Stryker anyday. The Stryker doesn't seem to be being used as the mobile cav it's meant to act as when it's tethered to the main manuevering force. That is to say, we are fighting World War 2 with Digital Age technology. The only force that seems to have changed in the that matter is the Air Force. But the Battlespace concept of interconnected combat units seems to finally be filtering down into our armoured forces, even if Land Warrior seems to have fallen on it's face for Infantry forces.

But as far as the Abrams goes, it goes the furtherest in addressing the typical issues of mobile tank warfare. the Leopard 2A6 may be easier on logistics, but I'll pick the Abrams over it every single time.

 

[SilentBobsThoughts]

NO SHIT SHERLOCK.




Seriously, today makes me super cringey to say I'm British :/ First the Americanism thread now this ><

 

[Savber]

Heavy armor leads to lesser mobility due to heavier weight.

Wow.. that information just blew my mind. -_-

 

[Dyp100]

Pretty sure these studies are mostly BS.

They don't take a lot of things into account.

Also you think having the weight distrabused around your body would be better than all on ya back, but you know, whatever.

Not like I've seen profesionals talk about this or whatever, mmmnope...

 

[BlastedTheWorm]

Stop the fucking presses.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

SCIENTISTS;

DISREGARD ARMOUR FATIGUE.

FIND CURE TO CANCER/ELIXER OF LIFE.

 

[k-ossuburb]

This is good information for people who play Demon's Souls. They knew about this, and you're actually more likely to succeed at the game if you keep your armour to a minimum as it makes dodging a hell of a lot easier. You might think you're safe when you're covered in plate steel, but in that game mobility is king.

 

[Zeema]

oh guys get this the SUN is hot

i should be a Scientist

 

[BSCCollateral]

The thing about the experiment was that the test subjects were probably not USED to the weight of the armour.

The article states that they used four re-enactors, so I'd guess they were probably used to wearing armor.

So, the study was a LITTLE more comprehensive than ensuing media articles let on. The abstract article is here:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/07/15/rspb.2011.0816

Thanks for the link -- it's interesting stuff.

 

[The Epicosity]

Seriously, herpa derp.


Science has failed us.

 

[therandombear]

erm..well..Obvious result is obvious I guess...I do believe I saw a Mythbusters episode about this ages ago..and this is pretty, to use that word again, obvious....Common sense really, that plate armour weighs you down when walking towards the battlefield and making you burn out faster =/

it a was pretty recent one it was chinese armor being compared to paper armor.

Must've been another show then, which is similar to mythbusters...I think they were building some kind of midevial invention which were supposed to transport troops too the battlefield faster since they got exhausted when walking there in armour.

I get easily confused >.<

 

[Xanadu84]

Normally, I'm the one to jump to the defense of the scientist. People will say that such and such is obvious, and I will point out that if the opposite result were had, they would have also called it obvious. Or that there was a real chance that we wouldn't have gotten the obvious result, leading to a huge breakthrough. Or that oversimplifying the results ignores the details that were discovered about WHY we got that result. Or often times, the hypothesis that is mentioned is only a tiny fraction of the data that was gathered. Most of the time, when people complain about a study being pointless, they aren't paying attention, and they don't understand the science. But in this case...I'm having a really hard time defending this study. I really can't see the value that this study adds, or COULD have added, to the topic at hand, and it is kind of an unhelpful topic to begin with.

 

[Denamic]

And that's why soldiers wore chainmail with quilt or leather, or both, underneath.
About as effective as platemail, much less restrictive.

 

[Yelchor]

What I find fascinating is how the crusades in the Middle East could have been even partially successful for the European war machine. Imagine wearing such armaments as described above (likely with other layers underneath made of leather or chainmail), to then be ordered to wander large distances in a climate where over 30 degrees celcius in the shadow was not uncommon. And when you finally arrived you were expected to fight Seljuks, who most likely knew every location of fresh water in the area.

With the invention of the crossbow and longbow heavy armour became more of a hindrance than benefit. It didn't matter if you had practiced and studied the codes of chivalry and skill at arms to perfection, as a kid with a few days training could with a well-placed shot from a crossbow very well end the life of a knight in an instant.

 

[A Free Man]

Wrong, it's not science. Like Martial artists, Knights were trained since their youth in armor. They wore it like a second skin from childhood. I carry a 50 pound pack while hiking long distances, and after a few days, it feels like less than half the weight. People don't understand today the meaning of "bred for battle", but the Knights spent a ridiculous amount of time training to be soldiers. US Marines, on the other hand spend a few months. Try to understand the difference.

So you are saying that the armor weighing up to 110 pounds was not heavy? Sorry, I understand what you are saying but that doesn't really make the research wrong haha.

 

[Knusper]

Fair enough the first 'wave' at Agincourt were on foot but I'm guessing that for the majority of time, knights would go on horses thus removing the problem?

Poor horsies.