How would warfare change if there were new kinds of armor that were to guns as knights armor was to bows
to be specific as heavy as knights armor and taking little to no damage from all but anti tank ammo
would we just devolve back to the medieval era?
The future is air superiority.
you always need boots on the ground though
Doubt,new detection systems and long range sa missiles will obsolete them
I'd assume the use of ranged explosives would be more prevalent. It would still suck to have to use one rocket that could have been used on a tank on one fucker in armor who's been tearing your platoon limb from limb.
I figure the eventual counter to it would be a gauss rifle of some kind.
but having to use a long-range missile every time you see a soldier in armor probably wouldn't be practical
would chem weapons be effective? or can you just add a gas mask and stuff to get around that
Right
Infantry units, airborne, air assault, cavalry units and artillery have no use or place for these, as mostrely heavily on constant mobility in wartime scenarios and arti shouldn't be in a position to be engaged to begin with. In a conventional war, these units will be facing constant light to medium vehicles alongside tanks and anything fielding a caliber .50 and up will have enough energy transfer so that even if they hit and it doesn't penetrate the person inside the armor will be dropped and become a huge pain in the ass for his unit.
What's more is explosions will still burst skulls and innards without shrapnel and then your squad has to try and get a 400 pound suit of armor out of danger.
However FOBs, truckers, local short term patrolling and hard pointing could use these to great effect as in those situations soldiers really only have the choice to stand around and hope no one decides to shoot them.
tl;dr could be used sparingly to strengthen logistic lines and nowhere else
I don't see why the guy couldn't wear biohazard gear under all that armor. Maybe the stuff would be like tanks that are sealed off from the outside in the event of nuclear or biological weapons.
So how are you going to break down the insurgents door at 3:00 in the morning? Hard mode you dont know who the inurgent is or where he lives.
Flying knights?
Can't be shot if you're fast enough to dodge bullets.
In return, faster bullets.
not when you have planes on the ground
the future is thousands of tiny drones swarming the battlefield.
Flying grenades, flying shredders, flying flashbangs, flying guns.
Only thing right now keeping all of this from happening is battery's are not powerfull enough, yet.
that makes sense, but only as an anti-personnel weapon like how chem weapons are used nowdays, once you have ground based drones that replace foot soldiers insect drones become less effective
Would armoured robots not be exactly that?
>would we just devolve back to the medieval era
No, not unless there was also a melee weapon that could defeat the armour. You'd start seeing much bigger guns though.
Blunt force trauma. Very heavy ammunition that would leave an impact and break bones through armor.
>US standard issue in 2030
??????
if you don't know who he is or where he lives then nobody is breaking down his door in the first place
no
breaking through armor takes a lot of energy. this can't be supplied by human strength. we would still use guns.
>not breaking down all the doors everywhere to look for this shitposting user
>kludging more shit onto the AR 'platform' while everyone else has 20mm bullpup recoilless rifles
Yeah, I can see it happening.
Bullets go about as fast as they can right now.
What you need is a way to develop reactive and proactive aiming
>infantry weapons become miniaturized CIWS systems
That's literally aircraft. Earliest fighters were privately funded noblemen since militaries were not that eager about planes and since cavalry had become more or less obsolete the gentry needed a new toy.
>to be specific as heavy as knights armor
This lighter armor would let troops carry even more ammo than they do now. That ammo would be depleted uranium flechetes.
If troops are armoured the "spray .223 everywhere while cowering" meme died hard, and the amount of ammo you're carrying just became a lot less relevant. You're basically saying an MBT covered in BMGs would be the ultimate tank.
any force the bullet impacts with will also be felt on the recoil by the shooter, so it can't be so high as to kill through force to the chest alone or it would also kill its user
back in the day, the best way to kill armored targets was to knock them down and slip a knife in the gaps
>infantry rifles firing .50 cal shaped charges
>massive muzzle brakes
>as much put into reducing felt recoil as possible (long recoil action, reciprocating receiver fixed stock, etc)
we should have already had this, really. and rounds that exploded once inside human flesh.
>muh hague convention
>play fair pls
When the armored target is carrying an LMG, knocking him over and knifing his throat becomes less viable an option.
Only way to deal with it would have to be a rocket launcher. Maybe a well placed grenade in the hopes some flak slips through a chink in the armor or a lucky shot, but do you really want to take that risk when he's bearing down on you with a shotgun and a ka-bar?
How's that working out right now?