Soldier 2025 - Stormtroopers are becoming reality

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-01 09:03pm

Its just more advertising for tax dollars. You think in a battle anyone really cares if one of the troops is sleep deprived ? What are they going to do, give him a pass?

As for making a helmet bulletproof, I think they need to watch their words.

Id also be curious as to what is gonna power all this gear?

I agree with Wilkens. Something like this is more suited to police work.
If any of it actually becomes reality.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-12-01 11:30pm

If I want to fight a war I'd rather be wearing this:

You can also read about the whole system:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep1998 ... 09117.html

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-01 11:32pm

Land Warrior? Bah, newbie.

I'd rather have Space Marine Power Armor.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-01 11:32pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:If I want to fight a war I'd rather be wearing this:

Ditch the shitty M4 carbine for a full up M16A2 system and then we'll talk...

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-01 11:33pm

MKSheppard wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:If I want to fight a war I'd rather be wearing this:
Ditch the shitty M4 carbine for a full up M16A2 system and then we'll talk...

Or better yet, an OICW...

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-01 11:36pm

I think Land Warrior is gonna have to prove itself in combat before I buy the idea fully. All that shit takes up weight and still needs batteries. Not sure if it will be usefull outside of city fighting.

CmdrWilkens: Are you getting your new cammies soon? One of my friends is getting his soon. They look really different. I like the little Marine Corps emblem every 18 inches or so.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-12-01 11:37pm

MKSheppard wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:If I want to fight a war I'd rather be wearing this:
Ditch the shitty M4 carbine for a full up M16A2 system and then we'll talk...

Lets see who here has actually gotten to play with the full military versions? That's right, now sit down. I'd rather have the -4 because, despite the balance issues, its a superior weapon for mid-range combat AND its lighter. I will take anything that reduces my combat load. Now admittedly most of my fighting would be done as securing a forward rear-area (yes that sounds oxymoronic but ignore that for the time being) and for that the longer range of the -16 would be nice but for most fighting you'll end up close enough that the range difference is nullified.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-12-01 11:38pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote: CmdrWilkens: Are you getting your new cammies soon? One of my friends is getting his soon. They look really different. I like the little Marine Corps emblem every 18 inches or so.

We are suppossed to be geting them this Fiscal Year but with our supply seciton that's iffy. However they did get us the MOLLE gear last year and I like that shit.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-12-01 11:40pm

Evil Sadistic Bastard wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:If I want to fight a war I'd rather be wearing this:
Ditch the shitty M4 carbine for a full up M16A2 system and then we'll talk...
Or better yet, an OICW...

Anything that has half its firepower relying on electronics scares me. The land warrior system's electronics at least won't get you killed if they stop working the OICW's will.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-01 11:40pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote: CmdrWilkens: Are you getting your new cammies soon? One of my friends is getting his soon. They look really different. I like the little Marine Corps emblem every 18 inches or so.

I want to be able to buy a set of them in my local surplus store....but your
stupid USMC bureaucracy won't let me buy a set of stuff our tax dollars
paid to fund....I can understand not selling the "official" USMC set with
the big Eagle, Globe, and Anchor stamped onto the breast, as only
Marines should be able to have that by dint of EARNING it, but what is
the USMC's problem with the sale of non EGA breast-stamped cammies to
civilians?

Oh that's right, the USMC patented the crap by putting little
teeny tiny EGAs all over the shit.

Like a little kid and his batman-themed pyjamas.

This is only marginally stupider than the US Army's black beret crap.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-01 11:41pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:but for most fighting you'll end up close enough that the range difference is nullified.

That reminds me of some SEALS: "We don't need our M-16s! We've got
MP-5s!"

And they promptly got torn to pieces by AK-47 wielding Panamanians.

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-01 11:42pm

MKSheppard wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:but for most fighting you'll end up close enough that the range difference is nullified.
That reminds me of some SEALS: "We don't need our M-16s! We've got
MP-5s!"

And they promptly got torn to pieces by AK-47 wielding Panamanians.

Stupid morons...

But MP5s are best for close-quarters work.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-12-01 11:47pm

MKSheppard wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:but for most fighting you'll end up close enough that the range difference is nullified.
That reminds me of some SEALS: "We don't need our M-16s! We've got
MP-5s!"

And they promptly got torn to pieces by AK-47 wielding Panamanians.

Which means nothing as the effective range on the -4 is still greater than that of the -47 or -74 for that matter.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-01 11:48pm

Oh that's right, the USMC patented the crap by putting little
teeny tiny EGAs all over the shit.

I dont think Marines gave much thought to the private market when making the new cammies. I would not expect them to either.

Dont worry, someone will market something close you can pay overinflated prices for at your local surplus shop which not longer has anything surplus.

I would not be surpised if someone like US CAVALRY puts out something like that.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-01 11:48pm

I like the M4 series for the same reason, and I'm looking forward to the day we get ours. I'm just Reserves now but we're being moved to the top of the reactionlist (we're part of 9th ID which is getting kitted out with the new Strykers).

A buddy of mine was in Korea for two years and they used the "grunt cam" helmet/weapon mounted camera system for patrolling the 'Z-- this was back in 1992. They've been tinkering with it for years and it's about ready for mass issue.

The Israelis have preferred the CAR-15s over the full-length -'2s mor a loooong time; much easier to maneuver in MOUT and in & out of cariers with them.

I think the best system will be a squad of troopies with the M-4s and an OICW and a SAW in support; Stryker providing HMG support. As for the troopie coolant/heater system, that's tops in my book (hey, after a rotation in the NTC desert and two years in butt-cold Colorado...), so's the helmet camera/weapon link, the helmet commo for all... and I'd take that little wrist shooter as a backup or trench weapon, but not as a primary.

Slap on some Kevlar tailor-fitted body armor with reactive cammo and I'd go after Osama with one squad.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-12-01 11:49pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Oh that's right, the USMC patented the crap by putting little
teeny tiny EGAs all over the shit.
I dont think Marines gave much thought to the private market when making the new cammies. I would not expect them to either.

As well we shouldn't. The idea was to make a unique highly combat effective uniform that would be more durable and easier to care for...the civilian market did nto and should NEVER come into any consideration for such.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-01 11:50pm

CmdrWilkens wrote: Which means nothing as the effective range on the -4 is still greater than that of the -47 or -74 for that matter.

It's not as good as the M-16A2 for real rifle work. The energy of the round
bleeds off at an insane rate with the M-4's short barrel.

As for urban combat, don't bother sending marines in if the enemy
holes up in the place. Don't give him a chance to make propaganda
off your dead Marines.

Just send in the robotic drones armed with a M-249 SAW on a flex-mount
and a 5,000 round hopper feeding it.

"Sir, our Robot Drone got shot to pieces!"

"So what, send another one in....at $50k a piece, they're cheaper than
training a new marine, or for his medical bills..."

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-01 11:51pm

As well we shouldn't. The idea was to make a unique highly combat effective uniform that would be more durable and easier to care for...the civilian market did nto and should NEVER come into any consideration for such.

Agreed.

Hehe. And you dont have to starch these ones either from what I hear.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-01 11:53pm

Shep, whether it be forest, jungle, or city, few firefights are going to be beyond 200 m maximum, and even that is a stretch. Anything longer and it'll be a duke-out between MMGs/HMGs...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-01 11:54pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote: I dont think Marines gave much thought to the private market when making the new cammies. I would not expect them to either.

Neither did the Army in the 80s when they came out with
Woodland Cammies. But we can still buy the same stuff,
complete with IR suppressant treatments from the same
suppliers that the military does...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-12-01 11:58pm

MKSheppard wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote: Which means nothing as the effective range on the -4 is still greater than that of the -47 or -74 for that matter.
It's not as good as the M-16A2 for real rifle work. The energy of the round
bleeds off at an insane rate with the M-4's short barrel.

As for urban combat, don't bother sending marines in if the enemy
holes up in the place. Don't give him a chance to make propaganda
off your dead Marines.

Just send in the robotic drones armed with a M-249 SAW on a flex-mount
and a 5,000 round hopper feeding it.

"Sir, our Robot Drone got shot to pieces!"

"So what, send another one in....at $50k a piece, they're cheaper than
training a new marine, or for his medical bills..."

Don't send in anything. Just knock the whole place down with a few well place JDAM's or tank volleys. The US Army does have that 10 inch aircraft project. Now we just need to find a way to add a grenade...

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-12-01 11:58pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
As well we shouldn't. The idea was to make a unique highly combat effective uniform that would be more durable and easier to care for...the civilian market did nto and should NEVER come into any consideration for such.
Agreed.

Hehe. And you dont have to starch these ones either from what I hear.

Nope they are wrinkle free so just throw them in the dryer and shake them out when they emerge. A funny thing is that acording to MCO you are NOT allowed to starch the utilities uniform.

From MCO P1020.34F Section 10104 "Combat Utility Uniforms"

3. The use of starch, sizing and any process that involves dry-cleaning or a steam press will adversely affect the treatments and durability of the uniform and is not authorized. (ALMAR 015/02)

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-02 12:00am

CmdrWilkens wrote: Nope they are wrinkle free so just throw them in the dryer and shake them out when they emerge. A funny thing is that acording to MCO you are NOT allowed to starch the utilities uniform.

Yeah, that destroys the IR suppresant treatment.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-02 12:01am

Sea Skimmer wrote: Don't send in anything. Just knock the whole place down with a few well place JDAM's or tank volleys. The US Army does have that 10 inch aircraft project. Now we just need to find a way to add a grenade...

What if there are civvies in the area? That's why we have to have
options ranging between "Do nothing" And "nuke the site....to be sure"
for military operations.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-12-02 12:06am

MKSheppard wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote: Which means nothing as the effective range on the -4 is still greater than that of the -47 or -74 for that matter.
It's not as good as the M-16A2 for real rifle work. The energy of the round
bleeds off at an insane rate with the M-4's short barrel.

You say short barrel like its an SMG, the -4 still has enough barrel length to have good power though the 200-300m rang which is where you need it. the 5.56 round itself is pretty useless except against uprotected extremities out past that range as the round itself is the cause for most of the bleed since it is so weak. The problem of impact energy at range is with the round not with the weapon

As for urban combat, don't bother sending marines in if the enemy
holes up in the place. Don't give him a chance to make propaganda
off your dead Marines.

Just send in the robotic drones armed with a M-249 SAW on a flex-mount
and a 5,000 round hopper feeding it.

"Sir, our Robot Drone got shot to pieces!"

"So what, send another one in....at $50k a piece, they're cheaper than
training a new marine, or for his medical bills..."

I was going to not dignify that bit of fancy with a response but I suppose I should just point out the obvious that no matter how much we would wish it otherwise it will always take a human, acting on limited knowledge and instinct, at the right time and place to be able to win a good old fight. Marines are trained for such things and its what we do, let the politicians set the goals, the Generals plan the strategy, and the Captains (or Lieutenants) command the troops while the Sargeants lead them.