Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Really full body armor

  (+5, -18)(+5, -18)(+5, -18)
(+5, -18)
  [vote for,

Start with a titanium frame that is to fit around a soldiers torso. The frame extends up and out to the point where the soldiers mouth and chin are covered. It also covers the back of the head. On the inside put a cushy material for comfort, next a layer of Kevlar followed by a layer of ceramic composite, finally a layer of armor rated steel. This armor shell would extend out over the shoulders where it would be connected to the arm protection part of the suit. Full protection would extend down past the elbow. A thick multi layered plate on the outer sides of the arm would extend past the back of the elbow. The final piece of this set would be the helmet which would fit down inside of the lip shell. The lip that extends up to cover the mouth.

Do a search on full body armor. You get some lame chest protection. Modern body armor still lets you get your arm shot off or a bullet through the neck. Plus it offers no side body protection. Soldier is standing shooting and takes one in the side.

Bring up weight. I will say that the knights of old wore complete body armor and they were the bad asses of the time. Why you say? because of their armor. Plus the sword.

Knights of old wore full body armor to protect against flying steel. Modern soldiers should do the same, because most injuries are caused by shrapnel, which can be stopped by good armor.

Antegrity, Dec 01 2005

The Battle of Agincourt http://www.geocitie...court/AgBattle.html
English archery's finest hour [oneoffdave, Dec 01 2005]

Troy Hurtubise http://en.wikipedia...wiki/Troy_Hurtubise
Even good against little cute bears. [skinflaps, Dec 05 2005]


       //Modern body armor still lets you get your arm shot off or a bullet through the neck.// It also allows the wearer the ability to move.
fridge duck, Dec 01 2005

       //Knights of old wore full body armor to protect against flying steel.//
Widely known to exist, then?
angel, Dec 01 2005

       //I will say that the knights of old wore complete body armor and they were the badasses of the time.// They were good in hand to hand combat against other kinghts and unarmoured serfs, however they did come unstuck against archers armed with longbows [link]. They also suffered terribly when fighting on anything but firm ground.
oneoffdave, Dec 01 2005

       // Soldier is standing shooting // Well, that's his first mistake right there. He should be minimizing his own target area before he tries to plug someone else. What an idiot. No wonder he got shot.   

       Are all those stories true, the ones about soldiers refusing to wear helmets because it affected their hearing?
moomintroll, Dec 01 2005

       It stands to reason that if 'Knights of Old' could wear full body armour and move about in it, modern materials could be used to make something similar that will be lighter/more flexible/safer etc.. You may end up looking like a HALO soldier tho :)
stestagg, Dec 01 2005

       The flaw in your analogy is that even full suits of armour would be light enough to allow the wearer to move. Layers of titanium, kevlar, ceramics and steel would probably render movement to be somewhat arduous, if not entirely impossible.
hidden truths, Dec 01 2005

       A tank. All this armour and more, plus a great big cannon on the top.
zen_tom, Dec 01 2005

       Nice idea but obviously no background reading done. [oneoffdave]is correct - knights of old were undone by longbows which could pierce their plate steel. They also fatigued quickly if unhorsed due to the phenomenal weight of their armour.

Now multiply the speed of the flying metal and apply compensatory multiplication to the thickness of your armour. If the soldier can still stand up, let alone move, you've had a result. In addition, remember that explosives are present on modern battlefields as well - making your soldiers invulnerable to bullets is of little use if they are as easy to bazooka as bungalows.
DocBrown, Dec 01 2005

       Didn't work 500 years ago, won't work now. For the reasons given above.
DrCurry, Dec 01 2005

       [zen_tom] Right. Except this idea is new, in that there is no cannon, and the propulsion (if any) is human powered.
sophocles, Dec 01 2005

       Why would this have to have human powered propulsion? The only way to make it work would be to have assisting hydraulics, I think.   

       Imagine a fully armored extra large looking suit of armor running towards you at 45 mph.
Zimmy, Dec 01 2005

       No, no, no.   

       "Really full body armor" is the armor you wear after Thanksgiving, when you're overstuffed on turkey and potatoes.
normzone, Dec 01 2005

       I always look forward to a full body amour session
xenzag, Dec 02 2005

       All very well, until shaped-charge small-arms are developed.
Ever seen a bomb-disposal engineer's armour? Ever seen the poor sod trying to walk in it? [-]
[xenzag] :-)
AbsintheWithoutLeave, Dec 02 2005

       Suit does not impede body movement, yes it may be heavy.   

       I dont think you all are getting my comparison. That most injuries are caused my shrapnel (not arrows) which can be stoped by a good set of body armor. Knights trained in their armor and were higly effective. Im not saying that this armor would protect from a 50 cal rifle shot but would protect if a grenade went of in close proximity. Suit would offer blast protection as well as stoping gun rounds.   

       It not invincibility im going for, but a reduction in body injuries.   

       Why even wear body armor? reading all you type.   

       The idea is to standardize a more effective shell of armor for troops.   

       Titanium and kevlar are light materials. How about 1/4 inch thick ceramic and 1/8 inch steel. 250 pounds? I really doubt it. 50-60 pounds mabye. Soldiers wouldnt wear heavy packs, just a supply of ammo and water.   

       "widely known to exist" where does this exist?
Antegrity, Dec 03 2005

       So give the soldier a 4-wheeler ATV, armored of course. Better than a tank since its cheaper & smaller, but still might have trouble on hills.
sninctown, Dec 03 2005

       Standard grunt issue, whats the problem here. I guess I would just fight wars differently.   

       I would be ruthless, and give my troops the best technology available.   

       Of topic anyone seen that israli tank? the merkava it holds 8 infantry thats cool
Antegrity, Dec 03 2005

       \\ I would be ruthless, and give my troops the best technology available\\ A realistic government doesn't. It's a cost thing, there's only so much value placed on a person's life. </rant>   

       For it not to impede body movement, there would have to be some space around the joint areas. This would give an opening which would allow for shrapnel damage anyway.   

       \\where does this exist?\\ [angel] would appear to be generalising somewhat. The over-use of the analogy lends to the suggestion that you are merely looking to reinstate knight armour, rather than coming up with your own based upon the concept.
hidden truths, Dec 03 2005

       //Of topic anyone seen that israli tank? the merkava it holds 8 infantry thats cool// Interesting design, puts the engine at the front - added protection for the crew, possibly, but a single frontal shot could immobilise the vehicle. I guess when the enemy are usually only chucking rocks, that's not much of a problem.
coprocephalous, Dec 05 2005

       You want "Really full body armor?" then contact Troy Hurtubise, link.
skinflaps, Dec 05 2005

       Why do we not supply our soldiers with the best protection we can offer? Maybe it would only prevent one fifth of injuries incurred, but the psychological power that it would give our soldiers knowing that their people are doing everything possible for protection, not to mention how enemy combatants might feel...
Jaman of Sac, Dec 26 2006

       //Of topic anyone seen that israli tank? the merkava it holds 8 infantry thats cool//   

       [tiny rant] No it's not. It really isn't. [/tiny rant]
Trickytracks, Dec 26 2006

       What you are looking for is what every military mind in the world is looking for. The real problem is that right now, a field unit soldier's effectiveness depends greatly on mobility. The materials you are talking about are not really as light as you think they are; what's more, they retain heat quite well. What's more, is that a typical squad is outfitted with more equipment than just guns; someone carries a radio system, another might carry spotting equipment for missles, and two guys are probably carrying a rather large 7.62mm machine gun and spare barrels and ammo. A squad can sometimes be moving almost 1,000 pounds of firepower and equipment from point to point, without a vehicle, in the desert heat for hours on end. Your suit, unless powered and cooled, would get the nation's best soldier's killed in the desert. You CAN make a system that would work, but there are two universities that already have prototype powered walkers armed with mini-guns (remember Terminator 2?) that can carry (I think) around 500 pounds of ammo and some light armor. Wanna revolutionize the armor industry? Figure out MechWarrior or Heavy Gear kinda stuff, cause your idea is science fiction right now anyway.
killjoy57us, Feb 28 2007


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle