Soldiers were replaceable and training time was short.The lack of resources for every soldier because you need more resources in other areas (ships, aircraft, vehicles, tanks). ![]() Now you have to ask why they did not give them: How is that not true? There were always some protective measures to give additional protection to the soldiers, giving them a greater chance of survival. The first is soldiers that have extended the stock to provide the 1 foot length of pull, and the other is soldiers that have the buttstock fully collapsed and haven’t extended it for whatever reason, bulk not being one of them. That said, collapsing buttstocks have added a wrinkle in that now you get two situations, both provided by your images. There is a reason for this, that is the length of the arm. The important detail, length of pull, has stayed the same, approximately 1 foot. Technically true, only because the trigger is no longer on the buttstock, but has been moved to under the reciever of the rifle. It is logical that in the future it will be even shorter if the thickness of the body armor grows. ![]() The bulk prevents you from crossing your arms to the other side of your body, which means you cannot fire accurately.Īside: The modern military is actually less tolerent to bulk than mideval militaries, as in the mideval period, you held your 2-handed weapons (except the polearms, but those weren’t used by the heavily armoured folks) in the middle of your body, rather than on one side like modern militaries do.īack to the point: once everything is said and done the actual armour that gets used in warfare stays about the same for bulkiness, the materials used just get stronger and lighterĪs well as weapons are changing over the past 100 years and if you look at how short stock arms have now and what they had before. You cannot hold a rifle in one of those suits. However, the military will not equip every soldier with that level of protection because it is too bulky. There are reports of EOD techs from Iraq getting shot with sniper rifles and not knowing it because of how well protected they are. ![]() The best armour that currently exists for a soldier that they can wear in the field are those suits that bomb techs wear. If a soldier cannot fight, they are not helping your cause. Maintaining combat ability is the most crucial thing. While I cannot tell you exactly what future armour will be made of, the design of armour has stayed very consistent throughout history: give the most amount of protection possible with current material technology while minimizing weight and bulk and maintaining combat ability. As far as it is evident, in the last ~20 years the body armor has evolved greatly and it is impossible to predict how it will look in 30 to 50 years. This is just a history of body armor in the last 100 years.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |