Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 22, 2019 at 19:50 comment added Seraphim The rib example was just a way of saying that particularly critical politician would, most likely, make the case that such weapons cause undue suffering. But war is war unfortunately. As for the HESH round. I propose that maybe all ranges of ammunition, from (big) slugs to HEAT rounds could be used depending on doctrine and purpose. With kinetic penatrators for countries with less money or more emphasis on accuracy and HESH for countries aiming for body mass since eventually someone is going to make liquid armour for padding or something similar.
Oct 22, 2019 at 8:55 comment added Demigan I think that the larger caliber would be based on kinetic energy and follow a similar path as tank penetrators would go through. With the way that infantry armor cant be spaced easily without impeding the wearer I think that HESH type rounds would win out over penetrators. A HESH round that causes a shockwave through the supple materials almost directly into your body would rip the bloodvessles and bruise/break bones underneath. Also ribs are one of the fastest regenerating bones in the body (for obvious reasons) that dont guarantee collapsed lungs.
Oct 22, 2019 at 3:04 comment added Seraphim I meant tank, not rank.
Oct 21, 2019 at 22:47 comment added Seraphim Those are points that I haven’t thought of which do make a lot of sense. Although the idea of having my ribs ripping apart my lungs every time I breath is not a pleasant why to go. That also brings up a good question though. How big must the caliber be? I’m thinking around 8 to maybe 12.7mm. Though couldn’t you just make the projectile a dart perhaps? Like what is seen in ranks. Though you would have to aim for weak points.
Oct 21, 2019 at 22:22 comment added Demigan The geneva convention is against weapons that cause undue suffering. How much damage would an explosive bullet do against this armor? You would likely need a miniature shaped charge HEAT round to pull this off. Otherwise you need to fill the bullets with chemicals, base's and acids to burn through the armor. But would this be cost effective? How long does the ammo keep with such chemicals inside? What would mishandling mean if say a transport drove too fast over a rough road or a misfire happens in a gun? Does it add enough to be worth it compared to breaking bones and bloodvessles?
Oct 21, 2019 at 18:04 comment added Seraphim Very good points! The Geneva convention does get in the way of some options (most notably explosive ammunition), but I would be interesting if military’s around the world start side stepping or ignore the convention due to this “super armour”. Also, high caliber bullets could be caseless to increase capacity since material science would be advanced enough I believe.
Oct 21, 2019 at 17:38 history answered Demigan CC BY-SA 4.0