"One step closer to Heinlein's MI" Topic

Thought this was pretty cool, maybe Knights will be in vogue again?

link

Yeah, very interesting. The balance of mobility vs protection can be tough.

Thanks,

John

Cool. Anything to keep those guys safe is a good thing.

My only concern is with command and control. Being able to see the faces of the guys in your unit is important, I feel.

Maybe for the first guy thru the door?

My only concern is with command and control. Being able to see the faces of the guys in your unit is important, I feel.

Phase 1: armored face mask
Phase 2: personalized image on face mask (photo of Soldier)
Phase 3: digital personalized image on face mask (including PSYOP "war face")

I don't think it will be the same – our brains' ability to discern subtle differences between human faces may not extend to masks.

That said, maybe it will bring back the heraldry of old?

Depending on the situation, command and control won't be a problem as they have been using tech to deal with this for several years already. The squad leader has a micro screen where he can see the relational position of all of his guys. If they go to a face shield like this and command/control is a problem, they just ahve to step up production and usage of this technology.

Don't many modern troops wear full face coverings already? Balaclavas, I think they're called?

I see an issue with using full face covering when doing police actions, which is almost certainly the most likely use of dismounted infantry. Manning checkpoints and doing door to door searches it will be even more alienating for the hapless civilians.

Even wearing sunglasses is an issue.

I can see the value if involved in intensive combat, but the problem is that if the armour is available it will be used even when it does more harm than good IMO.

I don't think it will be the same – our brains' ability to discern subtle differences between human faces may not extend to masks.

Certainly, and the "uncanny valley" phenomenon supports that. I would think that in another few decades, since your helmet will probably have a camera mounted on the inside as well as the outside, projecting an image of your actual face in real time is not a significant challenge.

At that point, modifying the digital image to invoke fear in your opponents is a trivial addition.

Phase 3: digital personalized image on face mask (including PSYOP "war face")

This will be particularly important as battle tactics advance because as we all know, "melee combat" is the (far) future of warfighting ;-)

Seriously, in modern warfare, how often does one come so close to an enemy combatant that a "war face" would even be relevant? And if/when this does happen, isn't the encounter over so quickly that the "war face" would barely even register?

Cheers

w.

Overheating while wearing it is another issue.

Seriously, in modern warfare, how often does one come so close to an enemy combatant that a "war face" would even be relevant? And if/when this does happen, isn't the encounter over so quickly that the "war face" would barely even register?

Mostly likely, but then again, as it would be essentially cost-free, there's no reason not to.

And from the last ten years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd say there are a significant number of situations where being able to manipulate one's appearance either grossly or subtly would be helpful.

"Modern warfare" is not what we imagined in the 80s. It's not all standoff weapons or even drones. There's a lot more close infantry engagements and interactions with "non-combatants" that happen well within the ability for the human eye to recognize facial features, etc.

Manning checkpoints and doing door to door searches it will be even more alienating for the hapless civilians.

That seems to go into the plus column, not the minus one.
These aren't police, they are soldiers.
No one should like them but us. Everyone else should be intimidated by them, or they aren't earning their pay.

I imagine the heat thing is a real issue, but I also have to imagine that since we thought of that in a few seconds, so did they.

As for seeing their faces, I don't know. Is it that important to do while engaged, or is it more important in a pre/post combat situation? They aren't stormtroopers, I imagine people will take them off as soon as possible.

Otherwise, you just adapt to function like Cobra Officers. You get really good at recognizing eyebrows.

"Don't many modern troops wear full face coverings already? Balaclavas, I think they're called?"

Indeed. I wonder how they manage to tell who's who.

Imagine if one of the bad guys dressed the same way as them…

Otherwise, you just adapt to function like Cobra Officers. You get really good at recognizing eyebrows.

LOL

The more I think about this the less I like it. The degree of protection would be marginal – not going to stop a direct hit with a bullet surely? Just good for stopping damage from small fragments – which must be a common problem.

Seeing out is going to be an issue, however you do it, the soldier will lose some situational awareness.

Despite DS6151s comments above, modern day soldiers are more and more expected to operate like police – a job for which they are not trained or especially suited. That's another issue but it is the reality.

If you enter a warzone supposedly as liberators then look and behave like an occupying army you will suffer for it. Mistakes will be made and this will foster resentment. The troops will become the easy target for revenge attacks.

An item like this looks like it will keep troops safe, but I contend it's a marginal improvement and would lead to an increased danger in just the sort of situations they will face.

Soldiers need much more training in 'policing' rather than 'fighting'. There is a case for specialist units IMO. It takes about 3 years to train an infantrymen – right? So another year or two to train them for police actions is unworkable.

Well Spec Ops units like SEALs, DELTA, etc. get face to face with the "bad guys" in some cases. I've seen pics of SEALs wearing kevlar ballistic face masks(which have been around for a while) with a skull face painted on them … That could scare the out of some 3rd World dirtbags like you'd find at … say UBL's (former) compound. Coming at you in the dark … striking fear if only for a second or two … and that might be all the edge you need. 3 years to train an infantrymen ? Not really … For Spec Ops types … maybe … Most Spec Ops types are have 2-3 years of service before they were accepted to "try out" for those type units. Of course combat rapidly changes the learning curve … Young men(teenagers), with basic combat trying can become "natural born killers" within a few months of combat. Those that survive the first few contacts … Mastering field craft, survival skills, etc. … And when I say survival skills, I don't mean living in the woods, eating berries, etc. … In combat the most basic survival skill is killing as many of the enemy as possible, as often as possible, to not only save your life, but in some cases more importantly, the guys in your unit … and at the same time accomplish the mission successfully … with the lowest losses to your side as possible. Hopefully a 0 to 10 ratio as a minimum … The term "police action" is an really an "anachronism" … It has no place on a combat unit's mission essential task list … In the Army to "police" an area means to clean it up basically … so if you take it a step further to include the cleaning out and "bagging" the bad guys … I guess that could work then …

Legion 4 elucidates the root of the problem really.

I agree that the armed forces are not suitable for police actions – they are not recruited for that nor trained for that.

But that is what they are often asked to do in the real world. There is some 'fighting' for sure, but far less of it than standing around preventing trouble after the 'battles' are over.

Gear like this helmet/faceguard are certainly appropriate in special forces operations, but not as general issue to infantrymen/artillerymen/tank crewmen standing in as police.

Anyway – getting off topic has been a recent bad habit I should break. I'll leave you to it.

Well I was a Regular Army Grunt Officer for over a decade in my "youth" … "A long long time ago … " So I am a bit set in my ways …

We're going off-topic now, but as a recently "demobilised" infantryman I can tell you that we were trained in the Vietnam era "plaster the hill with artillery and then charge up them" style when we started, but towards the end of our lifespan we were taught the more Iraq/Afghan BUA/policing action.

You can train an infantryman to do more than one job.

You certainly can … and if nothing else infantrymen can adapt to the situation … and I understand even Tankers and Redlegs were doing dismounted patrols in recent conflicts … But IMO … those "police actions" type ops that we are speaking of are more like the old "Cordon and Search", a "kinder gentler version" in most cases for today's situation … as well as Active Patrolling and Setting up Check Points/Strong Points … One of Infantry's primary missions is to hold ground … Active Patrolling, Economy of Force Patrols and Check Points/Strong Pointing is another way to do it …

One of the lessons that will IMO go unlearned from recent police actions gone sour is that personnel recruited and trained for 'big war' cannot do the job without making a hash of it.

They naturally revert to the tactics best suited to ensuring their short term survival – even if this increases their exposure in the long run.

I've never been in any armed service and wouldn't have the courage or other qualities to be effective – so I'm not judging these often young, often under trained soldiers (or marines as they prefer being called).

I'm worried gear like this helmet if overused will be counterproductive. Possibly saving a few lives in the rare firefights, but making it easier for potential terrorists/resistors to dehumanise the troops – and easier for a soldier who cannot be identified to commit a warcrime and thereby incite retaliation.

As other here have said … Anything that improves survivability is a good thing … The other points you mentioned … really not concerns, IMO. The current enemy(s) don't really like us regardless and real war crimes, among US/NATO are very, very, very few and very far between … And I like the Skull Face painted on the Kevlar mask idea … In a firefight, in the short term, you want to be feared … you are predators … hunters … the enemy is nothing but targets …

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Legion 4.

I won't reiterate – we've gone too far off topic already.

If you dont make the short term survival, the long term holds very little interest for you.

One of the reasons you cover your face is so that you cant be identified and single out. Sounds counter-productive, but in a lot of situations it is a very good idea.

For a number of years I worked as "detainee", helping to train young and old soldiers to work in detention camps. I did not actualy train people, I just acted as a detainee. And it is a very good idea to keep your identity hidden as much as yu can from detainees.

Besides, it is not like you are going to go ariund and ask for a date. Unless you have repeated contact witht he same people, very little good comes of being identifiable. As for crimes of all types, very often, particularly in cross racial situations, poeplle will identify the person they acan identify rather than the one actualy that actualy did it.

Happened to a friend of mine. Charged woth rape, not because she thought he had done it, but because he was the only one at the party whos name she could remeber. A year later he was completely cleared, but it was a miserable year and it cost hm a job change he had worked very hard to get.

Owen