It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New exoskeleton developed!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by shadarlocoth
well if it can lift 300 lb off of the users back then 300 pounds of gear/ammo/weapons/armor might come in handy on the battle field.


^^^ Truck / tank.



I could see a Heavy weapons oporator being added to a platoon inplace of one of the m16's. Not really that heavy a weapong but big enought to do a little more damage like a 50cal chain gun or somthing but most of the weight would be used for armor.


^^^ Tank. (EDIT: I should add, a machine gun is not a practical gun to tote around no matter how much muscle you have. It is simply more effective to fire from a stationary position or a mobile vehicle.)



I could just see a shell/gernade/somthing explode next to a guy in the suit and nocks him down or tosses him around then then after that he gets up and keeps on fighting becuase all the armor he as on stoped all the fragments from taring him to bits...


I can't. Any exoskeleton-like enclosure would be nowhere near a tank or even a Jeep with a .50 cal mount in terms of damage absorption or delivery.



Also if it could stop small arms fire would be very handy also. Not talking about stoping tank rounds or RPG just small arms. But the mobiltiy and speed would be a real factor in its effective ness. If a trooper can move around with 300 lb of armor and weapons like a grunt with out one holding 120 lb of gear then you would have a winner...


It is not only weight that burdens a soldier. Speaking strictly about weapons and ammo, what's the difference between 300 lbs and 50 lbs on a person? If a commander is sending troops so far out from a station or outpost that they need 300 lbs of ammo to make the journey, then that commander should rethink his position in the military.

If we're talking about carrying equipment to set up a station or outpost, then a truck can handle that job much better than a single man with a large backpack.

I see no practical military application for these things. I see limitless applications for empowering people with disabilities and other barriers to mobility.

Zip

[edit on 6/15/2005 by Zipdot]


I think posters are thinking in a fantasy type cartoon way, like redefining the military, and giving everybody laser swords, and they jump around and throw trees and stuff. Your thinking realistic.




posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
(EDIT: I should add, a machine gun is not a practical gun to tote around no matter how much muscle you have. It is simply more effective to fire from a stationary position or a mobile vehicle.)



Excuse me?

Why then are squad based tactics in the US military built around the SAW? This is nonsense. Ever since WWI the most effective infantry based weapon has been the machine gun.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Oh, I really must get me one of these. This is going to be the hottest thing since the Segway.



[edit on 05/6/15 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
(EDIT: I should add, a machine gun is not a practical gun to tote around no matter how much muscle you have. It is simply more effective to fire from a stationary position or a mobile vehicle.)



Have you never heard of the M-60 machine gun?



Of course, you would be speaking of heavy machine guns, which are crew-served weapons. I really don't see these things changing the face of the battlefield for a long time to come. I think we will sooner see the infantry on Segways before we see this idea reinvent the infantry.


[edit on 05/6/15 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Why then are squad based tactics in the US military built around the SAW? This is nonsense. Ever since WWI the most effective infantry based weapon has been the machine gun.


Perhaps these two articles will shed some light on the subject.

www.mca-marines.org...

www.mca-marines.org...



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I heard rumors of exoskeletons being developed for some freaky cyborg soldier concepts, anyone familiar with Halo's Master Chief, MGS's Cyborg Ninja or simply Robocop would get a good idea what they are planning.

if indeed the black government is 40 years ahead of us, who knows what they have, but that's a big if...

Battlefield applications would possibly for recovery crews to tip over a vehicle, mine clearing and maybe even for some heavy fire support roles.

Civil applications have already been mentioned, perhaps one day, those exoskelletons will be part of our everyday undergarments and we would be all super strong



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Obviously I am well aware of squads being based around BARs, SAWs, etc., and what I was referring to was the idea that with an exoskeleton like this, the whole damn squad would NOT be dual-wielding these:



(Stationary.)

That is why I specifically mentioned the qualifier that they are effectively used from *STATIONARY* positions. Advance, set up gun, shoot, advance - as opposed to advance while shooting, advance while shooting.

Your response makes it seem as though you think I was saying that machine guns have no place in modern warfare or something...



(Stationary.)

You will also note the other qualifier that I used - "effective." While Full Metal Jacket was a good movie, Animal Mother wouldn't hit a damn thing firing a machine gun from the hip at such a distance...

In any case, as someone noted above, there is debate over the effectiveness of machine guns versus assault rifles anyways, with respect to other tools available to combatants, including vehicles.

Zip

[edit on 6/15/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
While Full Metal Jacket was a good movie, Animal Mother wouldn't hit a damn thing firing a machine gun from the hip at such a distance...



You can consider that photo a "file photo." It's on my hard drive, so I didn't have to go searching the internet for another picture. If you remember the movie, Animal Mother used his M-60 for suppressing fire in that scene to good effect. He didn't need to hit anyone to accomplish that task. However, the picture does illustrate just how mobile the M-60 can be. Perhaps you would prefer this picture:



[edit on 05/6/15 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Hehe, yes, well, I am aware that Mother wasn't actually supposed to hit anything, but I thought I wouldn't mention it for effect.

I think we're both well aware of what each other means, though, but just in case, I'll one up you with a younger girl shooting from a stationary position.




The gun has a tripod for a reason, and I never said that it can't be carried from position to position. "Tote" was a bad word choice on my part, because in actuality, they are best for "toting," as opposed to "wielding."

Zip



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Ah, the Browning .30 cal machine gun. Probably, somewhere, in some third-world nation, someone is standing guard with one of those.

www.vietnam-war.info...

lynnart.net...

www.quarterbore.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   


Hopefully the people making this are working for the US

[edit on 16-6-2005 by Soul_Contagious]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join