Scenario: In a future conflict, one of the BRICS nation's infantry have effectively fielded personal shields, with medium long-term mobility. The logistics of the shield is such a way that every single soldier can carry their own. However you can decide whether all of them do or not.

Now, you are the NATO army trying to defeat them. Therefore, you need a develop a method to circumvent their defense. Condition: Anything short of a practical method won't work. Remember: behind whatever you say, NATO soldiers' lives, effectiveness and overall security are on that.

Condition 2: To set the stage, the most likely scenario is that NATO is going to assail BRICS on their own soil. BRICS country tend to be uneven, bumpy, and sometimes hazardous ground. So take such a terrain as the battleground. While in a static defensive they may not need shields, in a high risk convoy escort situation they definitely will.

Condition 3: While I won't state the design of the new technology or the way it's carried, I will state some of the tactics: Initially, they form U or rainbow shaped lines to make artificial defenses. As for movement and pursuit, they will stay defensive and won't try to agress the enemy if they run away. They do have a certain fight zone that they will extend to. The defenders will only extend that zone if long range enemies are harassing them, and they have a clear, otherwise safe path toward those long range enemies. Otherwise the defenders deal with them last. In the meanwhile however, they will simply hold their shields in the direction of the fire. Note: since the bullet leaves an imprint on the shield, the enemy soldier will know where it's coming from, and be able to coordinate that with his team and take necessary counter measures from there.

Condition 4: The BRICS defenders are equipped in such a way that they have medium distance consistent offensive coverage. For example, they all use standard rifles with high effective range ammunition, but they don't carry snipers or machine guns. As for defensive methods, they are mobile infantry, meaning they use natural cover. They have a medium flak jacket that will stop fragmentation damage of a 40mm grenade. This armor won't stop typical NATO rifle rounds even at long distances. The defenders' shields however have a high armor rating, stopping the equivalent of .30AP at point blank.

Condition 5: You have to state what's your army, what they're bringing on the field, and how they're setting up their attack.

Condition 6: If you decide to use your transports as part of the battle, then the defenders will use their transport's .50 turret, and the anti-vehicle launcher that they have. Their transport's armor doesn't stop .50 green tip. The turret's shield however, being made out of HHA, will at long distances. Note that if your transports are destroyed that you will have no ability to come back from the mission any time soon and will have to continue to deal with whatever's in that country until support arrives. Support will only arrive in greater than 3 days.

One thing: This is NOT limited by any means and is only judged by equivalence in relation. That is by power scaling and net trades. State armies can carry their standard weaponry, and since NATO's armies tend to be more powerful, it's going to be more than likely that their weapons will be stronger than the BRICS army's weapons. However as stated the defender's level of armor still stops what NATO has to bring on the field.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why would today NATO choose to fight with a medieval approach? $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    Oct 12 at 7:08
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Um, you've not told us what the shield does, left open details about how many are carrying it and not specified numbers of other troops, specific terrain, objectives - the whole thing becomes so a "write my scenario for me" question. That's not what we do here. $\endgroup$ Oct 12 at 7:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I can't believe that modern-age and tactics are used for a question involving "personal shields". Unless, of course, they are impenetrable stasis force fields. Are they, @Lawrence? (they'll need to be statis fields, because you'll be dead from the shock of receiving 200g of depleted uranium traveling at 1000m/s, even if the bullet won't penetrate you or your shield. Because that's 200kJ of pure unadulterated kinetic energy - that will throw back a 80kg body at a speed of 50m/s That's like a reverse collision at 180km/h). $\endgroup$ Oct 12 at 8:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This question is weird & confusing in so many ways. $\endgroup$
    – OT-64 SKOT
    Oct 12 at 8:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "You have to state what's your army, what they're bringing on the field, and how they're setting up their attack": Oh, that's easy. The attacking force does not bring anything to any field. Modern armies do not engage in set-piece infantry-against-infantry battles. Such activities went out of fashion more than half a century ago. We have cruise missiles, ICBMs, aviation, UAVs and other such stuff. Even the mini-war fought between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 was not fought on foot. $\endgroup$
    – AlexP
    Oct 12 at 8:14

If you have a target who is so kind to group and cover behind a shield, you don't charge it head down hitting against the shield.

Since it is the XXI century, you call aviation in support and preparation, and have them drop one or more bombs on the nicely grouped target. Alternatively, one or more air carried machine guns, like the one equipped on the A-10 thunderbolt, can also be helpful. If its 45 kN of recoil can slow down the airplane in flight, it would have an interesting effect on whoever tries to use a shield against its bullets.

Once the shielded enemies are turned into minced meat, your infantry can simply walk past them.

  • $\begingroup$ Oh, @L.Dutch, get on with the times, please? :) A-10 thunderbolt? Nowadays the wars are fought and won by drones. $\endgroup$ Oct 12 at 7:50

Give up on the infantry rifles. Use mortars, artillery & any other HE available. You said their jackets can resist up to 40mm grenade launcher fragments, so just use bigger booms. Infantry HE will still be useful. As if they hit the shield. It'll either:

A. Knock whoever's holding the shield on their ass, or

B. Blow a hole through it

Neither of these options are a good idea. If artillery & mortars aren't available & this wouldn't work because of that. Surrender immediately. The enemy will most certainly have it. Any army that thinks it can send it's troops to fight without artillery will fail horribly, & there is nothing you can do will fix that.

(Also this scenario is so incredibly weird for so many reasons.)


Time/proximity fuses

During WW2 one invention was incredibly powerful. The timed or proximity fuse. This is because ordinance hitting the ground aren't incredibly effective. Imagine dropping a big water drop on a flat surface. The droplets it explodes into hit everywhere. Now do the same with any form of fortification, like a wall or trench. Suddenly it's very difficult to hit your target. Even if it's behind the fortification.

Now explode the ordinance in the air, roughly above enemy positions. The deadly shards now much more easily fly into the trenches and over fortifications.

Enemy has shields. You fire over the shields. Explode (directional!) ordinance. A soldier can't defend against all sides. Win every engagement.

What I bring to the field: any standard army. With long range artillery, rocketry, modern tanks and planes to the brim with rockets and even artillery you can decide this battle without ever being seen by the enemy infantry.


With normal tactics and hardware.

Shields have no place in a modern army - in an actual combat setting.

Our bodies are quite fragile - and our offensive weaponry is quite forceful. There is no personal defence against a concussive shell.

Shields may spread impact, they wouldn't stop it. So if a tank round hits you, a shield, no matter its size shape or configuration, doesn't magically make a force go away. A concussive explosive impact would be lethal.

From sending any missiles, air force ordinance (for which there is no defence), then mortars or artillery, or even hand grenades would still be lethal and effective against your infantry shields. The only point of having shields is to give your enemy a bigger target.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.