It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pheonix358
Looking at warfare today we seem to have come full circle. Many troops now wear body armor that becomes difficult to penetrate. Of course the poorer countries and the freedom fighters can not afford the armor so the battle field is once again ruled by the elite fighting forces.
I think that perhaps the AK47 has had its day. It simply does not have the power to defeat modern equivalents of the armored knights of old. Nor can it penetrate even lightly armored vehicles.
I would suggest that we now need the equivalent of the long bow. What would happen if the other side threw away the AKs and replaced them with a weapon that had sufficient kinetic energy to kill without having to penetrate. That would be a 50 caliber sniper rifle.
Imagine if the denizens of Gaza all had 50 caliber sniper rifles. Do you think the IDF would be considering a ground offensive? It would be even deadlier if the 50 calibers fired a single round and then vacated their position. With hundreds of freedom fighters / insurgents using these tactics I think the situation would turn around.
Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by roguetechie
1. All armor helps to reduce damage, the round will be slowed and do less damage. The protection against AK47 is more than 1 square foot. It is front and back and covers the center of mass. It prevents many kills. The helmet will deflect some incoming 7.62 rounds and also prevents many kills. If the armor did next to nothing the troops would not be wearing it. I do understand and agree that the armor is not perfect.
3. I agree with much of what you have said. I can train someone in 15 minutes to load, position the body/weapon relationship to take the recoil, then to aim and squeeze the trigger on a 50 cal. Where the round will end up is anyone's guess but then you said that for the AK47. Doesn't seem to be much different really. And if it took two hours instead on 15 minutes, so what? It's not like their on the clock!
4. I agree with some of your points. A modern squad has many advantages including training as a group, communications and air support just to name a few. EFPs, IEDs and other such systems that have had limited success. The major difference seems to be training and yet history shows this to be only partially true. Vietnam and Afghanistan are both examples that show the fallacy of the argument. The US did not win Vietnam, the guys and Gals in black PJs did. The US has not and will not win in Afghanistan. It is different terrain and terrain is critical to warfare.
Originally posted by roguetechie
The Persians have historically been a cagey bunch who have been known to come out with surprises.
Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by pheonix358
Interesting thought that a new weapon should be used to defeat body armor, personal i think the next step would be if a weapon came out , there would be the use of drones , for infantry use. The police use them in hot or bomb situations, why not have a brigade of robots to do the fighting, no one dies, if you lose yours just wait till you new "IRF" that is short Infantry Robotic Fighter is built, say with in an hour. then your back in the fight.