Is powered armor /k/?
Sure, as long as you recognize that it would never IRL make you bulletproof.
>>29474299
Ned Kelly would disagree with you.
Power armor would be great for a futuristic blitzkrieg. A new way to quickly move behind enemy lines and cause some chaos. Plus always nice to be able to move stuff without a forklift.
>>29474299
Make it thick enough and the only things that'll getting through are anti-material weapons. The weight straining the user becomes less of a concern if you have powered servos supporting and moving it.
>>29474357
>bullet resistant armour
nice try mate
>>29474283
Only if it's straight Heinlein and you're on the bounce, Y-rack and all. But also no, because non-viable power source, jamming/hacking/emp, and nothing in our parents basements requires that kind of force escalation.
Force multiplier.
Heavy weapons teams become one or two guys in power armor.
That are now a lot more mobile.
>>29474734
This.
>>29474734
When suddenly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5%C3%9725mm_CBJ is adopted everywhere.
>>29474283
seems like power armor would be orders of magnitude more efficient if they had shoulder weapons, like a 40mm launcher on the right side and a minigun on the left shoulder.
of course, the wearer would still have his weapons but adding shoulder shit would be much better.
>>29475496
How would the person wearing the suit use them? How would they be aimed?
>>29475508
Probably some form of HUD.
>>29475508
it would work best with the exoskeletons we see in Edge of Tomorrow with the little computer.
it would track the shoulder weapons to where the rifle is aimed and then have them fired from the wrist computer.
as for a fallout-style armor?
I really don't know.
>>29474701
>Plus always nice to be able to move stuff without a forklift.
yfw GE was working on this shit with the Army back in the 60's.
>>29475525
Or like a Predator plasma caster. Laser designator in the helmet/mask, motorized mount slaved to laser.
"Power armor" is impractical fantasy fawned over by people who've zero understanding of the complications of warfare beyond loading screens while joining a new server.
>>29475589
care to elaborate?
seems like the only issue would be a power source.
if we don't have some kind of exo/power armor thing by 2050 i'm gonna be pretty disappointed
>PRAISE TALOS
>>29475601
What about maintenance? I could see them being used in very specific operations but using them in combat is fucking retarded. At best they could be used to help defend already fortified positions.
>>29475629
full modular parts.
oh, you blew a arm servo? well take it to the specialist and he'll swap it out.
and then when they died, send them into a company that fully overhauls them like we do with the abrams.
as for FOB/combat maintenance, dip and ripits should be fully acceptable as lubricant.
>>29475640
What if one leg servo breaks in the middle of combat? The entire system is now useless.
>>29475644
you do understand that it's just a suit that the grunt is in, right?
whoever is wearing it will still have their combat armor kit and everything on.
if the system has a catastrophic failure, there is an external rescue release as well as a protocol that will automatically open it and allow the wearer to step out.
ideally there would be some kind of lockout to keep unauthorized users from using the armor if it has to be left on the battlefield.
Odds are powered armor/exoskeletons will be primarily used in a logistics role of moving heavy equipment or loading ordinance onto aircraft.
Like >>29475629 said, once the power problems are resolved the general maintenance issues become obvious. Powered armor will likely be used only by specialized troops in limited circumstances.
>>29475640
>well take it to the specialist and he'll swap it out.
>army can barely keep a steady supply of batteries for nods and radio
>and this nigga thinks Wilson the specialist is just gonna pull an extra arm servo out of his ass because he asked him nicely
dream on
>>29474299
Actually you can be bulletproof, it's just going to be as heavy as tank armor.
>>29475629
>maintenance
here we go again. every fucking thing requires maintenance. tanks require maintenance, therefore they only have limited use lolololo.
Why does /k/ rehash the same shitty argumetns everytime that have been proven wrong time and time again?
>>29474299
oh yeah, it can make you bulletproof.
most likely against .22lr, but hey, bulletproof.
Don't give a shit about potential indestructible soldiers.
If power armor makes you radiation resistant and your heavy ass load out is less heavy I want it.
>>29475682
>a fucking car with a band around its wheels
vs
>a complex and sensitive mechanical system designed to mimic organic self repairing biological machines
Don't even go there. The wear and tear on an exo suit is much greater, and maintenance is much more complicated for all the reasons.
>>29475682
I work in a factory with 6 robotic arms, each with 2 points of articulation, running for 12 hours at a time in an air conditioned environment
On any given day, at least one is down for maintenance and repairs.
That you believe that you could take this technology, give it ten times the POA and run it for weeks at a time in a gritty desert environment without it becoming an abject liability and a maintenance nightmare; suggests to me that you have never worked with machinery more complex than an electric drill.
>>29475699
you have no idea how maintenance intensive early tanks were do you
the wear and tear on an exo suit si not "greater", because it does not fucking exist yet.
you may as well say that deuterium fuel cells would be "too expensive". How the fuck do you know the cost when it only exists in science fiction? You DON'T. You are literally making shit up, unless you are from the future.
>>29475731
>early cars were maintenance intensive and unreliable
"main battle tanks" will NEVER be a thing, i work in a garage repairing cars and those things break down all the time, now imgine how often they will break down if you start strapping on armor and guns onto them so that they weigh tons.
>>29475736
>>29475745
"i want it to be real so bad im just going to ignore reality and pretend that this could be a thing"
>>29475745
>robotic arms
>"early"
They've existed since the 50s, they're a fully developed technology and have been for decades.
>>29475756
>making shit up about how a non-existent technology will have X and Y properties
>complaining that others are making shit up
oh boy.
>>29475756
we're looking at this through todays lens.
realistically this won't be a usable technology by at least 2050 and then it's gonna take like another 15 years for combat, then it will evolve from there.
and by then, who knows?
i figure in the next 30-40 years power armor/exos are very possible.
>>29475736
>you may as well say that deuterium fuel cells would be "too expensive". How the fuck do you know the cost when it only exists in science fiction? You DON'T
Yes I do. Deuterium has to be extracted and distilled from heavy water, whereas a hydrogen cell does the same thing with a substance that naturally occurs literally everywhere. Of course they would be the more expensive option.
>>29475770
Any near future technology will be based on current prototypes.
Unless we are talking 100+ years from now, but then we aren't even discussing the same subject.
>>29475781
I could see them being functional for construction and maintenance by then, but combat readiness is an entire different story.
It isn't just some glorified forklift you can strap a new motor into and be done within the hour. It's a finely calibrated system with a gorillion sensors and sensitive servos. You can't just bolt in a new servo and be done. What the fuck are you going to do when it fails in the middle of combat? You are essentially losing a massive part of your unit when it fails.
Not to mention any AP capability will basically render it useless.
>>29475793
we are talking sci-fic deteurium here which is not the same as irl deuterium
$5 says the same arguments were used for every major military innovation ever...
>>29475644
>What if one leg servo breaks in the middle of combat? The entire system is now useless.
Who says it has to be one solidly contiguous set?
Build it like a medieval armor that you can chuck out individual parts when they don't work.
>>29475811
>Not to mention any AP capability will basically render it useless.
>If it can be killed/destroyed then it's useless.
>>29475469
that isn't better than tungsten 556 or tungsten 762
only reason we don't use more armor piercing ammo is cost.
im just kinda sick of the swedish wundergat meme.
>>29476216
And powered armor is going to be much heavier than medieval plate armor, which typically required a assistance to don and remove.
Read a book you ignorant fuck.
>>29475589
DARPA and the US Army disagree with you
>>29476374
>And powered armor is going to be much heavier than medieval plate armor, which typically required a assistance to don and remove.
and this matters how/why exactly?
>>29475731
are you aware of how many points of articulation the blades on an Apache helicopter have?
Are you aware that we send robots to other planets that are primarily made up of dust, that have temperatures that range from -279 degress to +800 degrees, and expect them to work for days on end, and thats after we lob them across a few million miles of nothingness and drop them onto a planets surface from a few dozen miles up?
you do realize that your shotty maintenence on your old robots isnt representative of what tech is capable of, right?
>>29475644
what if one tank track breaks in the middle of combat? the entire system is now useless
>>29476418
Because it easily destroys your argument of "just take it off in the field" without bringing up the massive weight difference between plate armor and powered armor.
tl;dr read a book you faggot
>>29476229
You could take one down with a hand gun, when you are a slow fat target, yeah, it's useless.
>>29476216
It would need to be recalibrated. You can't just do that in combat.
>>29476444
Tank has sick armor bruv, you can't put sick armor on an exo suit.
>>29475811
>worrying about AP capability against augmented infantry
They're also vulnerable to direct impacts from nuclear weapons, totally useless.
>>29476374
A US Infantryman carries more weight of gear than a plate-armor knight and doesn't have a horse to help.
You are a moron.
>>29476622
You just know the moment these things are introduced AP ammunition in whatever form will become standard issue.
>>29476653
>turd worlders are suddenly going to ditch their AK-pattern rifles and carry around only DShK and 12.7mm single shot water-pipe rifles for a straight upgrade making Halo-guy obsolete.
Do you ever think before you post?
>>29476671
What makes you think we will be fighting sand apes in the future?
>>29476449
>Because it easily destroys your argument of "just take it off in the field" without bringing up the massive weight difference between plate armor and powered armor.
You do realize that as long as you are wearing one set of actuators for one arm you can still dismantle everything except of course for the main power unit feeding that said arm, of course if its designed properly. Medieval plate armor never enhanced a human's strength but actually saps a bit of it so yeah, its your argument that falls flat on its face instead of mine.
>>29475731
>I work in a factory
opinion disregarded
>>29476688
>Liberal arts major feels compelled to bring blue collar workers down to feel secure in his worthless basket-weaving degree
How quaint
>>29475745
yeah, just imagine if they were built on chassis that aren't from a shitty auto maker and operated by people who understand how they work?
your job exists because of cheaply made cars and people being too lazy to do their own work. It doesn't mean you know shit about heavy armor or robotics
>>29476680
Anti-material weapons are significantly larger and heavier. They tend to be vehicle mounted or part of 2-3 man teams. Its going to result in a loss of mobility or firepower and increased expense. You don't just give everyone a Carl Gustav or an AT4 and expect to incur zero disadvantages.
You might imply a switch from assault rifles (and carbines) to battle rifles. Which has its own advantage/disadvantage trade off.
Your argument is like the lasers vs missiles space battle where both sides somehow have unlimited resources and no logistical worry.
>>29476483
>It would need to be recalibrated. You can't just do that in combat.
A suit that needs time-consuming calibration every time its used is not fit for the battlefield. period. Imagine going into battle riding tanks that need a starter cart to power up the engine like airplanes do. If the damn thing powers down you are up shit creek without a paddle inside a glorified bunker then.
>>29474283
Yes. Yes it is.
>>29476756
That's good to know. My last thread got moved to /pol/ for being insufficiently /k/.
>>29476730
That's my entire fucking point.
>>29476756
Yeah in principle, but they're always horrible; like a mechthread lite. You always have people down one side who think its literally impossible for power armor to ever exist and then you have people down the other side who think its ten years away from mass deployment and everyone is going to be invulnerable to any harm as if AP, overpressure and rpgs aren't a thing. Neither side are willing to coalesce so its just pointless waste of boardspace, should be deleted on sight IMO.
>>29476726
>Your argument is like the lasers vs missiles space battle where both sides somehow have unlimited resources and no logistical worry.
So is yours.
>>29476809
So don't build a piece of shit then.
What is so hard to understand about this?
>>29476817
We aren't even close to building something that isn't shit.
I am from the future. Not only will powered armor one day be commonplace, it will be simple enough to niggerrig it . Libtards will want to regulate it because it serves no no practical civilian purpose.
>>29476937
I get the headcage, but why the shoulders? Trying to detonate RPGs early?
>>29476963
Maybe physical impact protection.
>>29476963
Could also help stop melee attacks from permanently damaging the armor.
>>29476937
>no practical civilian purpose
>defense
Yeah but not for front line combat. Powered armor could be useful for
>A
fire fighting/disaster relief: Getting people out of burning wreckages and shit would be much easer if each fireman had the strength of 5 and extreme protection relative to weight
>B
Bomb diffusal: obvious reasons
Both of these situations would allow for an external cabled power supply.
>>29477220
>extreme protection relative to weight
I meant relative to how cumbersome it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TALOS_%28uniform%29
TALOS (Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit) is the name given to a robotic exoskeleton[1] that United States Special Operations Command intends to design with the help of universities, laboratories, and the technology industry. The brief for TALOS states that it must be bulletproof, weaponized, have the ability to monitor vitals and give the wearer superhuman strength and perception.[2] The suit would comprise layers of smart material and sensors.[3] The suit may not be intended for an entire squad, but for a lead operator who will breach a door first, to protect them as they are the most vulnerable team operator in that situation.[
Seems reasonable to field it like a bipedal mini tank. First one into the breach.
Retard version would be attempt to fight tanks and shit with it.
>/k/
>new stuff might break more than old stuff
>new stuff is useless, use old stuff
Rinse
Lather
Repeat
Such is life in the Wonderful Place.
Man, you mechtards never quit do you?
>>29477401
Have you cut off your legs and become a wheelchair warrior yet? It's been so many grueling years.
>>29477466
have you taken physics 101 yet?
>>29477118
That's what the police and army are for, silly conservitard. You don't need to protect yourself, Big Brother will protect you.
>>29477466
Could you imagine?
>entire division of wheelchair warriors
>wheelchairs keep going even if the user is wounded
>corpses flying around the battlefield at lightning speed shooting anything that moves
>>29474283
/k/ - Playing Pretend
Oh look another mecha/power armor thread.
>>29477520
Let me know when you can reverse physics then, we'll have something viable.
>>29477531
>it's impossible to make such heavy "tanks" move, THE LAWS OF PHYSICS SAY SO!
>>29477118
There are libtards who want simple ballistic armor banned.
Hell, ballistic vests are considered "dangerous weapons" in Australia.
>>29477540
Yep, actually look at various heavy tanks from WWII. Maus, IS-4M, etc.
>>29477472
>>29477531
Ehmergerd
Dinosaurs didn't exist, evolution is a hoax man
Physics proves it because big walking things are IMPOSSIBLE, even heavy walking things that are actually only human-sized!
>>29477567
anon please those "tanks" only exist in your weaboo fiction, we never developed them because its impossible, they would just sink in the mud!
>>29477520
Look, I'd love to see power armor too but half of those boil down to "the cost of potentially losing one of these expensive sets of equipment outweighs the benefits of fielding them in the first place"
It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's not economical.
>>29477520
>extensive collection of strawman arguments
Someone may need an opiate suppository.
>>29477602
Well how big you want your armor mang? Hydraulics can be small, but you're going to need some inertia dampening ones on the front, armor to sufficiently cover the hardware, but it also needs to be easily accessed. But weight is also an issue. For a supply/mechanic role hell yeah an unarmored lifting suit would be great. In combat you just turned into a walking clusterfuck.
>>29477520
If you are going to make one of these make it shit no both sides and not the most reasonable side.
: ^ )
>>29475589
At some point in history somebody said something like that for just about every major innovation.
>>29477697
>Army doesn't want to pay to replace decade old sidearms or falling apart rifles
>they'll surely pay out of the ass for mecha suits for every soldier made out of the rarest of the rare Earth metals
>>29477637
>"the cost of potentially losing one of these expensive sets of equipment outweighs the benefits of fielding them in the first place"
That describes like, almost every advanced system the US fields.
It also describes the F-22 and F-35.
>>29477642
>those are TOTALLY strawman arguments and not the same arguments that get posted in every thread ever, I SWEAR!
>>29477719
>Army doesn't want to pay to replace decade old sidearms or falling apart rifles
>they will surely spend billions of dollars and decades developing the next generation stealth fighter when we only bomb insurgents in the desert
cool story bro
>>29475699
Mother fucker, what about jet fighters, you fucking mong?
>>29477870
Last I checked not every soldier gets a jet and a jet (no matter how contrived the receipt is) is a far better purchase than a fleet of up armored wheel chairs.
>>29477873
Get to travel long distances in short amounts of time to a base that is fully equipped to deal with their issues.
>>29476815
Are you under the impression that power armor would be used for standard issue gear for charges over no mans land as soon as they become viable?
Go back to /m/.
>>29476402
Yeah, but clearly >>29475589 MUST know more than the people in DARPA, right?
>>29477902
No, but everyone else and their mother seems to be.
>>29477880
nobody said every soldier would get a suit of power armor.
See, this is why these threads are garbage, people like you come in here with all these assumptions like "the mecha would be HUGE!" "but we didnt say anything about the size..." "NUH UH! MUST BE HUGE! BECAUSE I SAY SO!".
>>29477719
The assumption is this tech is to be built and used by major militaries. What if new tech is actually made by small private firms and most of the best innovations are disregarded for not being the lowest bidder?
What if in the future small scale proxy wars conducted by no name merc groups becomes a standard tactic by large countries? Countries that use their bloated armies as a societal place keeper for mouth breathers and as propaganda to quiet mouth breathing mommies.
The age of the mechsuit mercenary is coming. Private squad sized armies capable of slaughtering a rebellion or overthrowing a puppet dictator.
We have seen several historic periods where warlords in nearly indestructible armor (that cost as much as a house) rule over peasants. Commanding neckbeard foot soldiers from a walking tank while the ammo squires keep him fed sounds right.
Corporate lords with letters of mark conducting proxy operations for international state shells, yes. As a replacement for ground forces and tanks, no. Aint broke/dont fix.
The private market is where this will shine. Just wait and see.
>>29477940
Same thing happens from the other side
You'll have to excuse me for not being able to take any of you seriously when 9 out of 10 mechtards come running in with a laundry list of shit these suits will be capable of despite Newton and physics existing.
>>29477520
>mecha
Now you went full-retard.
>be me
>be in non-US military a decade ago
>lots of debate about whether body armor is viable
>remember people insisting that it would be "too expensive" to give every soldier body armor especially since it would only stop small arms, and wouldn't stop AP rounds anyway
>remember people pointing at our old rifles and saying "the army can't even replace these, there is no way they would give soldiers body armor!"
>fast forward to today
>most 1st world armed forces have given every soldier in a combat role body armor
>its been proven to dramatically reduce casaulties many conflicts all over the world
>remember all those armchair generals insisting that "it would never happen" and "it would be impossible"
>remember this everytime i see a power armor thread
It's like watching history repeat itself.
>>29477958
Yeah, shit like Elysium exo suits or that shit from Black Ops 3 is feasible, it's literally a lifting suit that DARPA is working on now. A full armored power armor suit like from Fallout is a pipe dream.
>>29477965
You'll have to excuse me for not being able to take any of you seriously when 9 out of 10 tanktards come running in with a laundry list of shit these suits will be capable of despite Newton and physics existing.
Stop being retarded, there is NO way you can make a tank move under it's own power with all that weight! PHYSICS SAYS SO!
>>29477975
you know that a decade ago the darpa suit would have been considered a pipe dream right?
but it's not a pipe dream anymore. why?
hint : technological advances.
>>29477981
Are you being retarded on purpose or am I being trolled?
>>29477988
Not really it's called hydraulics. A pretty standard thing. Now, when we can find some unobtanium or magically make steel become weightless then we're getting somewhere.
>>29477989
do you really believe that you can make a 60 ton vehicle move under it's own power and be fast enough to break through the trenches when our current cars can't?
>>29478002
>break through trenches
We bulldozers now?
All this autism. Power armor is shit because all I need is a few Molotov cocktails and some punji pits to fuck it up. Only use is breaching rooms
>>29477998
>hydraulics advanced
woah it's like exactly what i was saying
>>29478019
>a us soldier is shit because all you need is a $100 IED to kill several and a US soldier costs $100k+ to train and equip
quality arguments as usual.
>>29478028
Yeah, now if you can advance so that steel becomes weightless or we find a denser, more practical, cheaper metal then we're set.
>>29477975
Well yeah. Current thought is stuck in the past. Metal = armor, armor to heavy.
Wait till we wrap our heads around flexible shear thickened composite plates riding on a reactive air muscle system on an exoframe.
Full suit armor will be mostly air, will pack into a footlocker sized box and repaired in the field with spray cans of rubber.
>>29478039
What does that have to do with your fantasy power armor? It's a niche for only special situations, day/k/are is a thing huh? Quality argument fag
>>29478002
Not him but that's a rather poor example.
WW1 tanks were not even close to 30 tons
All they had was rifle protection and were really slow.
>>29474283
Yes, Power armor and etc are things we talk about on /k/. How it's in fiction and how it is in reality.
My personal opinion is that we will first see exoskeletons on the field in various places where extra strenght, speed and mobility would be needed. After we have seen exoskeletons we will see more armored versions and after that, powerd armor.
I can also add that it may not look like we expect it look like in the future.
Cant really tell how new innovations and technology will be used in the future.
>>29477989
You're pretty retarded, yeah.
Putting a man in a full-body Level 4+ / XSAPI suit is not such an insurmountable challenge that it will never find a place in first-world militaries. DARPA and the Army knows what they're doing, trust us.
>>29477719
>Army doesn't want to pay to replace decade old sidearms or falling apart rifles
>Holds trials and tests for both several times for kicks.
>sticks with current shit over marginal improvements.
>take that knowledge and buy more pt belts
>some fag compares small arms to mechanized armor assets
>doesnt mention early repeaters or Gatling guns
>>29475659
I know this would never, ever, be a thing. But in the Fallout canon, there's an emergency failsafe that completely obliterates the suit and basically glasses it's surroundings. But a little more realistically, the operator should have a failsafe that just fries everything, the electronics, and anything they can to frag the suit.
The only problem is if some fucking idiot grunt manages to activate the failsafe on accident or something. Maybe have it be a remote operation that can be done from a separate location? So even if someone Jacks it and uses it they'll only get so far before it's lights out.
>>29478075
>tanks can't drive therefore there aren't any tanks
Ok, I'm now starting to realize mechtards have mental disabilities. It makes sense really.
>>29477935
The argument never gets far enough along to reach how it would/should be fielded. It's always straight into "IMPOSSIBRU!". You know, like human flight
>>29475496
Shoulder no, because you'd have issues of shooting from cover (difficulty switching shoulders, etc). But have a steadicam style mounting, or arm stabilizers, and maybe.
I think it could be feasible in a couple decades, but by then we'd already have multiple ways to disable them, if we couldn't already.
>>29478063
>WW1 tanks were not even close to 30 tons
??? basically the entirety of british tank models of ww1 were "close to 30 tons", some of them over 30 tons in fact
>>29476402
It should be noted, the first raytheon exoskeletons are likely to go to aircraft/vehicle loaders long before they actually get coated in kevlar and integrated into infantry squads.
>>29478090
No, I'm pretty sure something is very, very *wrong* with you here. Unless you meant to quote this guy?
>>29478002
>>29478132
Ok, different guy, same retardation. My mistake.
>>29478113
I made a mistake in assuming all world war 1 tanks were bellow 30 tons.
But I do hope you got the point I was trying to make?
>>29475469
Which won't even penetrate modern ESAPI plates, let alone the XSAPI plates designed to stop the 7.62x51mm M993 tungsten carbide core AP ammunition that every company that has experimented with powered exoskeletons along with the US Army would use. Your Swedish meme caliber is worthless.
>>29478164
You don't think weapon technology will evolve when armor like that is fielded?
It's always easier to break something than to protect something.
>>29477958
Remember the first combat airplanes where privately owned and operated by high society/royals that saw it as the last chance to ride into battle like days of yore.
This could apply to powered armor too for rich boys wanting some trench cred.
>>29478062
To be fair you can say that about nearly everything in the mil that specialized in any way, equipment or personnel
>>29478109
Thats how the entirety of warfare works. Incremental temporary advantages. Just because something can be countered doesn't mention that countermeasures is available 100% of the time.
>>29478179
Where is that implied in his post? It was about a very specific ammunition type, he didn't say ammunition would suddenly become obsolete
>>29478043
>we will never make better alloys
kek
>>29478155
>in ww1
>someone suggests a 60 ton MBT with a 120mm canon
>people insist it would be impossible
>fast forward to that
>that is what most armed forces are using
>but but it's impossible! physics!
>>29475496
Now we're getting into mini-mech territory.
>>29478179
except that modern MBTs have armor that is still invulnerable to pretty much anything from their front/side arcs.
>>29478063
An armored exoskeleton is the very definition of powered armor. There is no intermediary point; as soon as you strap a significant amount of rifle plates to an exoskeleton for the express purpose of better protecting the squishy person wearing it, it is now considered power armor (as opposed to a bare exo).
Since the TALOS project has already produced working prototypes, it can be said that power armor is already here, it's just not out of the labs yet. The STALKER exos are also by definition power armor, though with how weak they are in all the games they are a bit of a disappointment. Or 9x39 too stronk, either or.
>>29478179
>You don't think weapon technology will evolve when armor like that is fielded?
I never said that, I'm just sick of people going on about that Swedish meme ammunition when it can't even penetrate current ESAPI plates. Yes, there is AP ammunition that will penetrate XSAPI plates, but it's either the $5+ a round 7.62x51mm M948 SLAP or moving to even larger rounds like .338 Lapua if you can't afford the ridiculously expensive M948 SLAP ammo. No matter what type of armor piercing ammo people choose, they will be significantly less effective against a soldier with a powered exoskeleton carrying more rifle plates than they would be against a normal soldier.
>>29478233
>60 ton MBT with a 120mm canon
>MBT
>When light, medium and heavy tanks dont yet exist as in a doctrine and being used.
>120mm canon
>when a 37mm could do the job.
Do you have to that far back in history to try to justify Power armor in the future? Im pretty sure the man from world war 1 would also think it's insane we got mach 2 jets. wooping 200km/h cars. Smart phones. Internet. Silly high amount of food in the western world. 2D cartoon waifus. Nuclear weapons. Drones and etc.
He would say these things are impossible.
>>29475811
>>29476653
>>29476814
>muh AP ammunition
See >>29478246, sure you'll be able to use more powerful AP ammo to punch through the armor, but it's either going to weigh significantly more than current ammo, cost significantly more than current ammo, or a combination of the two.
Fallout's power armor will become reality when we'll be able to make a bulletproof frame.
>>29476937
>No practical civilian use
Heavy lifting, going into high pressure/high risk environments, construction
>>29478404
Yeah not like the first commercial exo frame was built for medical purposes. Its not like a Japanese company started putting them out for the elderly and infirmed for less than a segway.
First power armor will be a neckbeard playing with grannies walker and millsurp innabasement.
Can't wait until bionic limbs are so much more faster and powerful that there is pressure to replace your biologic ones.
It's the future you chose.
>>29478474
>>29478474
>Can't wait
Don't wait, it will never happen.
Because in the case of cybernetic limbs, there is a real problem of the fleshy things they are attached to not being as tough as they are. A mechanical arm that can lift a car sounds nice in theory, but all it would do is pull itself off the user's shoulder socket or his body would simply be crushed under the weight.
The only way to make use of such strength is to replace every single part of the person except for his brain. Not the kind of surgical procedure you'd want to do even in limited numbers. Having an external structure to support this weight (aka an exoskeleton, powered armor) will solve this problem with much less risk.
>>29479265
I want speed and accuracy not strength.
https://youtu.be/bfdHY26E2jc
Stop shilling your shitty game Todd you fucking manlet.
>>29474283
yes. it is the middle segment of a /k/-/m/ venn diagram.
>>29479514
All of which is in a big circle thay says /tg/
I could see power armor ''suits'' being used in many capacities in the future, but combat isn't one of them.
>>29478474
You say that now, but Lets see how much you like wearing a Fanny pack just to carry enough power bars for you robot limbs to work
