For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[ARS]

Does modern military helmet actually bulletproof enough to resist firearms to prevent headshot or it's limited to just protecting the head from impact and splinters?

[Jacke]

4 hours ago, ARS said:

Does modern military helmet actually bulletproof enough to resist firearms to prevent headshot or it's limited to just protecting the head from impact and splinters?

Helmets have traditionally protected the skull from blast fragments, not bullets, as even a small frag impacting at a low velocity will do much damage to the brain, while even a small amount of steel or ballistic plastic will stop such frags and spread their impact over a wider area outside the skull.  To stop bullets would require steel plating similar to those used in body armour.  Such a weight on the head would likely be prohibitive.  I think there are some composite designs which aren't too heavy yet can stop pistol rounds.  Rifle rounds are still likely to penetrate.

[kerbiloid]

Titanium segments are used in the local SWAT helmets, but they are a particular case.

And iirc ~40% of WWII battlefield casualties were caused by artillery and thus by slow and lightweight pieces of metal and stone, much weaker than a bullet, but spread around.

Same principle for infantry carriers and self-propelled artillery armor.

And for Hamsters Hammers Humvees.

Edited June 7, 2022 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

22 hours ago, ARS said:

Does modern military helmet actually bulletproof enough to resist firearms to prevent headshot or it's limited to just protecting the head from impact and splinters?

From what I'm seeing in current war-related TGs, quite a few glancing blows. The helmet gets wrecked, of course.

Here's one example I've found. Stopped a 5.45 mm assault rifle round, deflected a 7.62 (x39? x54?) https://t.me/milinfolive/83471 Could be sneaky promotion of aftermarket kit by NII Stali, of course.

Also, Kerbiloid is really understating just how much artillery casualties from fragmentation are today. It's way, way more than 40%. While looking up that post, I've found only this one case of a bullet hit - and a dozen examples of artillery frag.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

42 minutes ago, DDE said:

Kerbiloid is really understating just how much artillery casualties from fragmentation are today. It's way, way more than 40%. While looking up that post, I've found only this one case of a bullet hit - and a dozen examples of artillery frag

Soviet doctrine is extremely fires (arty, whether rocket or gun, mostly - along with some air power) heavy.  Both combatants draw directly from that doctrine.  The result is that the artillery is the primary, rather than the supporting arm and unintentional casualties are common - but as for drawing lessons, any fight between two fires heavy combatants is going to be ugly, with high arty casualties and the concomitant destruction of civil areas and civilian casualties. 

You might compare that with the American adventures and see different results / percentages. 

Edited June 7, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

You might compare that with the American adventures and see different results / percentages. 

For the cost of spent Hellfires and Mavericks, wouldn't it be easier just to hire the enemy rather than attack him, lol?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

For the cost of spent Hellfires and Mavericks, wouldn't it be easier just to hire the enemy rather than attack him, lol?

You ain't lyin! 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

For the cost of spent Hellfires and Mavericks, wouldn't it be easier just to hire the enemy rather than attack him, lol?

 

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

You ain't lyin! 

I thought about this a short time after my quip... 

There is a certain elegance to kerbiloid's suggestion.  Essentially, 'if you have the Power - use it in a less destructive way'. 

The US and Soviets actually did a lot of this during the Cold War.  It's how we ended up with so many pocket dictators scattered around the world. 

The problem is the classic 'Teddy Roosevelt situation':

Quote

... the antitrust suit against Standard Oil that prompted Henry Clay Frick, the steel baron, to complain on behalf of his fellow oligarchs, ''We bought the son of a poodle, and then he didn't stay bought.''

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/06/weekinreview/the-nation-big-time-from-trustbusters-to-trust-trusters.html

Too often you spend the money, but the guy you paid won't stay bought. 

... 

There is a problem in government and military circles that is an extension of the 'Expert Problem'. (The 'Experts' have a deep understanding and knowledge of their field and see ways of using their expertise to solve most problems using their methods - the 'Problem' is twofold: 1, that they are often blind to other solutions outside of their expertise that might be better solutions, and 2, because they are expert at providing the solution they are also inured to the fallout / cost of their solution (if it works - it's worth the price regardless of the cost).

The 'Expert' is also a feature of the post-WWII / Cold War - and we are starting to see the problems of the over-reliance on Experts in big ways (Covid response, for one) - where generalist leaders with a broad knowledge base may have been able to provide a more nuanced approach. 

... 

There are a lot of people who want America to go on Adventures - but we only have one funded and populated group capable of Adventuring: the military.  And when you're a military Expert and your only tool is a hammer... Every problem looks like a nail. 

... 

Too often we see nations sending in their military without a clear-eyed, realistic political end for it to accomplish. 

This brings me back to Ambrose Bierce: 'War is the untying of a political knot with the teeth that would not yield to the tongue.'  The thing to remember about war is that the problem at hand is ultimately a political one.  Political problems should have many solutions - with the hammer or teeth being only one among many. 

Acknowledged - humans are stubborn, and sometimes the best tool for a political problem is the military... But in my opinion it should not be the first tool you bring out, or the one that you use in almost every situation. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[wumpus]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The problem is the classic 'Teddy Roosevelt situation':

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/06/weekinreview/the-nation-big-time-from-trustbusters-to-trust-trusters.html

Too often you spend the money, but the guy you paid won't stay bought. 

The vice presidency was a notoriously forgotten position, and if the oligarchs thought that it was enough to buy Teddy Roosevelt, they were mistaken.   And I don't know what they were thinking putting him one step away from such available power.  He is a man that  single-handedly  started a war (Philippine–American War) while two steps below command of the US Navy (when everybody above him was out, he signed an order to invade the Phillipines in the event of a war with Spain).

 

[Pixophir]

On 2/11/2022 at 11:02 PM, K^2 said:

I wonder if the rounder structures are craters, volcanos, or a mix of both.

This was about surface structures on venus.

The round structures can be interpreteted as the heads of plumes, mantle-upwelling with subduction-like features around them.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2928

Pop science:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/on-venus-tectonics-without-the-plates/

Interesting also in so far as it may be a hint to tectonics on earth before the onset of "modern style" plate tectonics with rigid plates and all that in the Archean.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Pixophir

[magnemoe]

On 6/8/2022 at 12:06 AM, DDE said:

From what I'm seeing in current war-related TGs, quite a few glancing blows. The helmet gets wrecked, of course.

Here's one example I've found. Stopped a 5.45 mm assault rifle round, deflected a 7.62 (x39? x54?) https://t.me/milinfolive/83471 Could be sneaky promotion of aftermarket kit by NII Stali, of course.

Also, Kerbiloid is really understating just how much artillery casualties from fragmentation are today. It's way, way more than 40%. While looking up that post, I've found only this one case of a bullet hit - and a dozen examples of artillery frag.

Yes lots of variations like if hit straight on, the top might be a weaker as its an less likely place to get hit straight on. Helmets has an benefit over body armor that flexibility is not something you want and the only reason to go from the steel to the composite helmets is to protect against 5.45 level impacts as by looking at them they are not significantly lighter than an steel helmet.

The war in Ukraine is very artillery focused, yes its Soviet doctrine but its also an war there none have the air superiority but planes is also AoE from above. 
War on terror was not huge on artillery or air strikes towards us so stopping rifle rounds becomes an priority. 
Its interesting that the US is moving to an larger caliber bullet. Probably as they assume future enemies will have body armor and that with highly trained soldiers with smart targeting computers you prefer to fight at longer range. 

Still its a bit amusing how history repeated itself. In medieval times knights starting wearing breast plates on top of their chain mail to protect against arrows and other piercing weapons, now its ceramic plates over kevlar. 

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Its interesting that the US is moving to an larger caliber bullet. Probably as they assume future enemies will have body armor and that with highly trained soldiers with smart targeting computers you prefer to fight at longer range. 

Jumping mecha with howitzer at backpack and railgun in hands.

[magnemoe]

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Jumping mecha with howitzer at backpack and railgun in hands.

I found it very sad that no fallout moder though of the idea of combining the mini nuke in the game, the pogo stick and the orion pulse nuclear engine and thought. Yes this will integrate like the cheeseburger for fast travel. But then I probably gone so Kerbal Jeb is freaking out. 

Edited June 11, 2022 by magnemoe

[DDE]

27 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Its interesting that the US is moving to an larger caliber bullet. Probably as they assume future enemies will have body armor and that with highly trained soldiers with smart targeting computers you prefer to fight at longer range. 

Interestingly, I don't remember people proposing larger bores as a counter to body armor. I'd heard criticism of the small rounds getting deflected by foliage, though. Ultimately it's your latter idea that drives the change - I vaguely recall an article that claimed GWOT has disproven the basic assumption of infantry combat occurring primarily at below 400 m, hence the clamor for bigger rounds and 7.62x51 mm battle rifles. And I honestly don't think it's a good idea even in a vacuum where new ammunition grows on trees.

Thus far the lesson of the Ukrainian War has been the growing importance of the good old .50 cal (so much so that both sides use them on bipods, and I've seen a DNR militia run an anti-drone drill with a DShKM in anti-air configuration, WWII-style "spider web" sights and all) as well as high-performance sniper rifles. And, yes, of course, anti-tank missiles getting thrown at everything besides tanks, as the old meme goes.

40 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Still its a bit amusing how history repeated itself. In medieval times knights starting wearing breast plates on top of their chain mail to protect against arrows and other piercing weapons, now its ceramic plates over kevlar. 

In case with European knights, it was more of an evolution. Surcoats over chainmail came into use at around the time of the Crusades, and then someone got the bright idea to turn the surcoat into a plate carrier (it's possible that this was the emulation from exposure to the various Eastern styles of armor). The coat of mail would evolve into the brigandine, and I know of a couple early Soviet bulletproof vests that tried to do without the Kevlar equivalent (SVM) and instead used brigandine-style small metal plates. Ultimately the Kevlar vests are more like the linothorax and other non-metallic forms of armor. Gambesons... survived unchanged, really, the Soviets wore SN-42 breastplates atop vatniks with sleeves cut to produce a legitimate arming doublet.

Chainmail was innovative because it was flexible. The modern equivalent to chainmail seems to have yet to be invented.

[kerbiloid]

12 minutes ago, DDE said:

Interestingly, I don't remember people proposing larger bores as a counter to body armor. I'd heard criticism of the small rounds getting deflected by foliage, though. Ultimately it's your latter idea that drives the change - I vaguely recall an article that claimed GWOT has disproven the basic assumption of infantry combat occurring primarily at below 400 m, hence the clamor for bigger rounds and 7.62x51 mm battle rifles. And I honestly don't think it's a good idea even in a vacuum where new ammunition grows on trees.

They are going to replace 5.56 with 6.8.

https://www.quora.com/Will-the-new-Army-6-8mm-round-greatly-outperform-the-5-56

Also a couple of decades ago they were going to make sniper rifles 8 mm for better ballistix.

[DDE]

36 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Also a couple of decades ago they were going to make sniper rifles 8 mm for better ballistix.

I know. The search for the next accepted sniper bore is still ongoing, with the various Accuracy International types lining their pockets thanks to small shipments of expensive rifle for non-standard bores.

[kerbiloid]

After five decades of discussion, they will accept Barret 12.7 for/against armored exoskeleton.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

20 hours ago, DDE said:

Interestingly, I don't remember people proposing larger bores as a counter to body armor. I'd heard criticism of the small rounds getting deflected by foliage, though. Ultimately it's your latter idea that drives the change - I vaguely recall an article that claimed GWOT has disproven the basic assumption of infantry combat occurring primarily at below 400 m, hence the clamor for bigger rounds and 7.62x51 mm battle rifles. And I honestly don't think it's a good idea even in a vacuum where new ammunition grows on trees

 

20 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

are going to replace 5.56 with 6.8.

https://www.quora.com/Will-the-new-Army-6-8mm-round-greatly-outperform-the-5-56

Also a couple of decades ago they were going to make sniper rifles 8 mm for better ballistix

A lot to unpack.  Short stuff first. 

You are always prepared for the last war by the time you get into the current one. 'Rifle Combat occurring closer than 200m' came about because of the terrain of Vietnam.  USMC updated the M16-A1 to a heavier barreled and more accurate for longer range engagement with the M16-A2. (We like to shoot 500m+ with iron sights).  But Army... Maybe they're not on board with long range precision shooting in the 80s?  Still convinced short range engagements - because data. 

Army does get on board with the A2 for a while... But then Army goes all in on the M4 because it's a cool carbine and you can hang cool stuff on it and look like a Ranger (also "easier to get in and out of vehicles and buildings" ).   Problem was for both of them (starting in 2003 and ~ GWOT) a few things:

1.  that full sized M16-A2 would drop a guy hit in the open (Marines) but the M4 just wounded them (Army).  Army has a lot more people than Marines so it was a big problem.  Reason?  The shorter barrel dropped the chamber pressure drastically reducing the terminal ballistics of the exact same round.  Round did not perform as advertised - leaving a bunch of lightly wounded pixed off guys who still had their own guns. 

2.  The 5.56 round fired from a full sized rifle is great for targets in the open and less than 500m.  Iraq was urban (not in the open) and Afghanistan / Syria had long range engagements at times (800 to 1200m).  Both had mud-brick as a common building materials and rounds would not penetrate walls.  7.62 rifles started coming out of the armories (storage) or new ones being made up (SCAR-17, etc) - but 7.62 is heavy and you cannot carry 180 - 210 rounds per person easily, so you get logistical problems. (Plus, Army = lots of bodies, including shorties so 7.62 (incl recoil) needs to go) 

3.  Body armor tech not only proliferated, it got cheap.  So the plates that protect the US troops are now in everyone's hands (or carriers).  The new stuff will stop 5.56 and 5.45 - so that's not good when the Red Team has plates, too. 

So now, Army wants a harder hitting round that can retain the short barrel thing they like.  Enter the 6.8.  It penetrates plates, walls and other stuff. 

Vis sniper?  .336 Lapua is pretty dam good. Not doing the math but it's getting close to 8mm.  Does both anti personnel and anti material (so do the .50 and 12.7) without being quite as heavy as the classics.  But for traditional sniper stuff,. 336 is a lot of gun - so likely 7mm(+/-) will be around for a long time. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[DDE]

11 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Vis sniper?  .336 Lapua is pretty dam good. Not doing the math but it's getting close to 8mm.  Does both anti personnel and anti material (so do the .50 and 12.7) without being quite as heavy as the classics.  But for traditional sniper stuff,. 336 is a lot of gun - so likely 7mm(+/-) will be around for a long time.

Omitted from my response, but in the late 'naughts the Russians tried rechambering the SVD into, of all things, the 9.3×64 mm Brenneke.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

the 9.3×64 mm Brenneke

I had to look that one up.  Not a bad choice, given some recommend it as a top two contender for a 'whole world, one gun' game round.  (Anything that can reliably take out elephant, African Buffalo, Salties and Tygre?  Probably a solid choice for a man killer). 

Full disclosure - not a sniper, myself - but did work 'sniper adjacent' for a number of years, listening to those guys and their armorers talk shop... My read on the current direction is that there is a difference between something like the Brenneke and the H&H (good rounds with solid terminal ballistics) and that which makes a good sniper round - where precision and predictability and long range and portability are the most desired features - thus terminal ballistics simply needs to be acceptable and not detract from the others. 

(also edited post above to add 7.62 content) 

Editing again: long range precision rifle fire is a fascinating topic - one where science and human ability mingle.  At the professional level, the weapons are so good that they can be accurately described as 'a system of compromises that minimize limiting factors to accomplish a given task'.  (For a brief period the Army and USMC both looked for a single, modernized rifle to do all sniper missions... But then life /real-world raised its head and intervened) 

This is why, instead of a one-size-fits-all ultimate sniper rifle you get:

Quote

 

A Russian integrally silenced short range urban sniper rifle 200-600m.

A USMC sniper rifle (GP for anti-personnel use) 800-1200m.

An Army sniper rifle (GP for anti-personnel use) 800-1200m.

The .338 Lapua for long range precision rifle fire 1000 - 1800m (easily overpenetrates high-end body armor and performs some anti-matieriel missions) 

The Barret .50, similar to the Lapua but even better at anti-matieriel. 

Etc. Etc. Etc. 

 

 

Every aspect of the construction, add-ons and employment is fascinating.  

Optics choice has exploded recently.  When I started, 10 power was standard.  With the advent of the Barrett and later Lapua, larger higher power optics proliferated.  And later, as snipers found themselves in multi-range engagements, variable optics with 0 - 4, 6,or 8x magnification started popping up. 

And - at least in the Marines, where long range accurate rifle fire is an 'everyone' skill (cooks, truck drivers and repairmen all can hit 500m targets with iron sights) - the line between who is a sniper and who's not is blurred (OK, let's use the word 'designated marksman' to distinguish between the jobs   ) 

Edited June 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Hey - Physics People! 

Torus-hab on a spacecraft question:  is there any difference in the ability of a craft to maneuver that depends upon the orientation of the 'wheel'? 

Most of the time when artists depict a craft with an attendant torus habitat, the axis of rotation is in line with the engines and thrust.  But what would happen if the torus was in line with the direction of travel (axis of rotation perpendicular to thrust) ?  The engines are placed either side of the axis or the ship is built like a bicycle fork (placing the engines centerline but outside of the torus)?

Given approximately the same mass, does orientation of the wheel affect maneuvering in spaaaaaaaace? 

Edited June 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[kerbiloid]

The farther are the rotation axis and the rotation plane from CoM, the greater and non-linearer will be angular acceleration on every maneuver.
This will cause precession of the torus and thus greater friction, tension, and bending forces, which can lead to mechanical damage and to chaotic flying of objects in the rooms, or even a sudden rotation stop and wallbr_eaking of passengers.

Due to huge size of the normal artificial gravity system, any maneuver should be performed very slowly (and ideally AG should be working only in the interplanetary drift mode).

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

AG should be working only in the interplanetary drift mode

I forgot the name - but some Mars Mission series did exactly that.  Makes sense. 

[ARS]

What is the actual advantage and disadvantage of having an arm-mounted sword (as in a full-size sword mounted on the wrist) versus sword that's held normally on the handle?

[DDE]

9 minutes ago, ARS said:

What is the actual advantage and disadvantage of having an arm-mounted sword (as in a full-size sword mounted on the wrist) versus sword that's held normally on the handle?

Let me refer you to this.