Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

[Zeropoint]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Powered armor, probably - flying powered armor, probably not.

 

You mean, an armored personnel carrier would carry armored personnel?

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Sorry Mark, but you are losing your credibility fast. Your previous post contained links that were in direct opposition to what you said they contained, and this post contains 3 to 4 year old links and the last link you provided is from some fly-by-night site that hasn't even filled out their 'about' page, and call some guy that runs a weekend-warrior surplus store a 'military consultant'.

 

I'll save you from spending your workday researching bad links and typing out multi-quote box replies that are as long as the one above, and even a possible health issue after your emotional last post and let this whole 'I got the last post' iArgument drop. Cheers

 

Just as an observer here, it's fine to disagree, but is it necessary to try and draw blood over a simple what if exercise? You both made some interesting points.

 

 

Also, the M113 was a death trap when it was new. It was twenty years plus out of date in the 80s when I was riding around in one.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Also' date=' the M113 was a death trap when it was new. It was twenty years plus out of date in the 80s when I was riding around in one.[/quote']

 

And, in 30 years, third-tier armies will still be using it (along with BMP-1's).

[Markdoc]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Just as an observer here' date=' it's fine to disagree, but is it necessary to try and draw blood over a simple what if exercise? You both made some interesting points.[/quote']

 

My experience is that when somebody responds with a sad, emotional post like that it's because they have nothing useful to actually reply with. Hey ho. No biggie.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sundog]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

And' date=' in 30 years, third-tier armies will still be using it (along with BMP-1's).[/quote']

 

Yep. Because they can afford them, and it gives them capabilities they would otherwise lack.

Remember, no weapon is ever truly obsolete. A rock can still break a headbone.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Remember, no weapon is ever truly obsolete. A rock can still break a headbone.

 

Ah, yes . . . a lesson the Empire was harshly reminded of on the forest moon of Endor.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Advances in composites and improvements in armor that make the overall weight less while retaining or improving current armored capabilities is another possible futuristic direction.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Advances in composites and improvements in armor that make the overall weight less while retaining or improving current armored capabilities is another possible futuristic direction.

 

Make the armor light (in weight) enough and you might have flying APCs.

[Sociotard]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

In 30 years I'd imagine biowarfare will be more of an issue, as the machinery to make new bugs gets cheaper and smaller and harder to regulate.

 

An APC has to deal with that. Imagine that it gets hit with a batch of modified Ferroplasma that can attack the onboard batteries? The APC of the future has integrated wetware (lymph nodes, essentially) that rapidly screen anything and everything and output recommended countermeasures.

 

Oh, and as a supplement to the first aid options already mentioned, I thought that the current research on suspending dying soldier was fascinating. Just quickly replace the blood with extra cold saline (with a little something extra) and then fix the soldier at the earliest convenience.

[Robot_Nixon]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

My experience is that when somebody responds with a sad, emotional post like that it's because they have nothing useful to actually reply with. Hey ho. No biggie.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Yea, just got tired of you putting in false links and trying to bury them under tons of blah blah blah. Sorry but sad is being a liar, and emotional... well I'll let you bold type your next tearful reply.

[Markdoc]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Yea' date=' just got tired of you putting in false links and trying to bury them under tons of blah blah blah. Sorry but sad is being a liar, and emotional... well I'll let you [b']bold type[/b] your next tearful reply.

 

Kid, you're new here, so we'll cut you some slack. Posters who resort to insults as soon as they have nothing useful to add don't last long. If you disagree with my conclusions, you have several choices.

 

You can say "Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but I just don't agree."

You can look for some facts to back up your opinion.

You can simply refrain from posting.

You can say "I have no facts to support the opinion I just formed, but I've played Gears of War and know all about future military - here's some gratuitous insults". Hint: That last one's not a winning strategy.

 

cheers, Mark

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

What he said.

 

The HERO online community has long prided itself on civil, intelligent, respectful discussion, unlike much of the Internet, which is why so many of us like to spend time here. Taking the opposite tack will likely lead to you being ignored at best, banned at worst.

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Yea' date=' just got tired of you putting in false links and trying to bury them under tons of blah blah blah. Sorry but sad is being a liar, and emotional... well I'll let you [b']bold type[/b] your next tearful reply.

 

I don't know you, so I will understand if you don't want to listen, but please just let it go. I was enjoying this thread, and I don't want to see it go away. I am very uncomfortable trying to be the voice of reason, and I think it's a sign of just how bad this is getting that a joker like me is saying something.

[Markdoc]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

I don't know you' date=' so I will understand if you don't want to listen, but please just let it go. I was enjoying this thread, and I don't want to see it go away. I am very uncomfortable trying to be the voice of reason, and I think it's a sign of just how bad this is getting that a joker like me is saying something.[/quote']

 

 

On an attempt to get back on track, one of the things I didn't suggest - but which comes to mind from the "discussion" about the trend towards new AFVs being heavier is that many of them are designed from the get-go to be modular. By that, I don't just mean a chassis that can be used for different variants, but the assumption that the base configuration will be modifiable for different tasks.

 

In the US's current wars, there's been a rush to uparmor the light/medium troop carriers in use - not just the Stryker but the Humvee and a variety of trucks as well: you all remember the news. The problem is that these vehicles weren't designed to carry the extra armor, so their range and off-road performance suffered. They're trying to address that now with lighter/reactive armor, but the base problem remains. In contrast, the new APCs under development (the GCV, the Puma, the Namer, the K21, the FRES, etc) are all designed from the beginning to come in a light (relatively speaking: none of them are actually light vehicles) configuration, which can be upgraded with extra armor for high intensity situations, without degrading performance too much. Future APCs might well take that approach to a greater extreme: the K21 for example, actually has a base fiberglass body (!) to which external armor of varying weights can be added. The appeal is obvious: it extends the likely life of your APC fleet, while at the same time making them multirole.

 

cheers, Mark

[Wolf]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Good point, they also have been getting more and more into the multi-role capacity (I know since before the 60's), so I should probably say carrying on the multi-role capacity... for example (older) the 113 Chassis was the base for a troop transport, Medical tracked vehicle, Mortar carrier (4.2", then later 120mm), (base frame for the) 577, and so forth. I know when I was in (which pre-dates the Striker in the Army) we had folks looking towards a new IFV that could be used for all those previous stated roles, and AA, MLRS, and a few other roles that I can't remember. There was brief talk about trying to take a Brad and converting it over to a Mortar carrier, but it was scraped for just being a lame/silly idea (the body really wasn't made to be able to remove the top and stick a 120mm tube out of it, with any chance of maneuverability.

[Old Man]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

The current trend toward modularity seems to be an institutionalized acceptance of what inevitably happens to just about any armored platform. The M113 isn't the only vehicle that's had countless variants built on its chassis--in fact I can't think of any armored vehicle that didn't have lots of variants made. Modularity and upgradability is just going to be written into the specs from now on, I think.

[Robot_Nixon]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Kid, you're new here, so we'll cut you some slack. Posters who resort to insults as soon as they have nothing useful to add don't last long. If you disagree with my conclusions, you have several choices.

 

You can say "Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but I just don't agree."

You can look for some facts to back up your opinion.

You can simply refrain from posting.

You can say "I have no facts to support the opinion I just formed, but I've played Gears of War and know all about future military - here's some gratuitous insults". Hint: That last one's not a winning strategy.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I provided my facts, and was having a friendly 'good faith' discussion with you. I made my replies and read your posts.

 

Unfortunately, your links didn't match what you were saying and were only put there to help you continue your argument. But, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and continued the discussion hoping that was just a mistake.

 

Then you followed up with a bigger post with more links and while you seemed to take the time to get them to match your words this time they were old and from poor sources.

 

That's when I realized you were just trolling my friendly 'good faith' discussion. So I dropped it, and that's when you proved you were a troll. "You stop because you have no further point" Troll translation: 'You quit, I win'.

 

If you were having a friendly 'good faith' discussion you would have been more interested in why the tone changed, but since you were trolling you already knew why it changed, and were just happy with the 'troll-win'.

 

if I "resort to insults as soon as they have nothing useful to add", what does that say about someone trying to insult long after the discussion is dropped?

[Old Man]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Hey guys, I'm more interested in the APC discussion than in the who's trolling discussion. Especially if we can relate it to Hero gaming, which we all agree is awesome.

[Egyptoid]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

How about a vigorous mine-detection scanner ?

 

expecially in the days of the IED.

[Wolf]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

The current trend toward modularity seems to be an institutionalized acceptance of what inevitably happens to just about any armored platform. The M113 isn't the only vehicle that's had countless variants built on its chassis--in fact I can't think of any armored vehicle that didn't have lots of variants made. Modularity and upgradability is just going to be written into the specs from now on' date=' I think.[/quote']

 

I realize that, I was just providing an example from what I know a tad more about, not saying the 113 is the definition in modular systems... I know the BMP had quite a few, and as you have said, most, if not all others. I was merely moving along with the conversation, while adding not much more that the small "back up" point to Marcdoc's point.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

 

On an attempt to get back on track,...

 

 

 

Was that an unintentional pun, or should all we be plotting our revenge?

[Old Man]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

I'm sure he didn't mean to tread on your sense of humor like that.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Kid

 

Indication of actual age is where?

 

you're new here

 

July 2008 isn't "new". They may be newer than you (February 2003), but they're not "new" to these boards in general.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Indication of actual age is where?

 

 

 

July 2008 isn't "new". They may be newer than you (February 2003), but they're not "new" to these boards in general.

 

OTOH, he has a whopping 20 posts under his belt as I type this. That's "new" enough for me. Lurking for (at best) two and a half years gets you what, exactly, around here?

[Ragitsu]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

OTOH' date=' he has a whopping [i']20 posts[/i] under his belt as I type this. That's "new" enough for me. Lurking for (at best) two and a half years gets you what, exactly, around here?

 

Post count usually doesn't mean anything. You can observe posters for a good long while while having no/little posts, or you could have 500 posts in a thread consisting of nothing but character/vehicle/monster stats while never paying heed to anything outside that one thread.