mikael@ped.gu.se (05/31/91)
From: mikael@ped.gu.se When discussing power armour one has to look at what's gained and what's lost. Looking at a standard infantryman you have a fighting unit which is incredibly flexible, able to adapt to any terrain and weather. When required he can carry supplies for a week only requiering a few litres of water a day besides what he carries. He can transport himself up to 30 kilometers per day without any fuelconsumption carrying loads of 30-35 kg (of wich around 10 kg can be weapons and such), and keep doing it for weeks. He has can react quickly to attacks and protect himself by digging in, hiding and running away. He poses a extremly small target almost impossible to detect by any scanning device. He seldom needs repairs and has a self healing capacity, which is impossible to match in any machinery. Last but not least he is cheap (counted in money, but hey, were supposed to be technical not emotional :-) Power armour would force you to give up most of these advantages for a added weapon load of about 10-20 kg. Added protection would be of dubious advantadge, the only thing such armour would protect against effectively is artillery fire, and you would still have to dig in. More protected soldiers have a tendency to expose themselves more which often reduces the effect of the armour. I think the money would be much better spent in developing light infantry carried anti-tank weapons able to penetrate modern armour, leaving heavier weapons to IFVs and tanks, and light body armour. -- Mikael Borgman Gothenburg mikael@ped.gu.se Sweden