Can a Carbon Fiber/Kevlar Hull be made bullet Proof?

WW2 S-Boats had minimal armor around engine spaces and command area. Their ability to do 45 knots in a calm or 30 in rough seas kept them out of the bull's eye.

 

Is that the one they just discovered was defective and had a big recall on?

 

This shows that this research is far beyond a individual able to create. You need a large work force of very smart, educated people and lots of facilities to create something to stop bullets, let alone explosives. I thank these people for trying to held save are fighting men and women.

 

"try it one day at the range, you will be surprised." ...I was hoping that he might just try it and put us all out of our misery.......what a load of crap.

 

That's one option, sure.

The other option, related to the OP, is empirical research. Figure out what level of protection you think you need and then start laying up targets. Keep adding layers until the desired results are achieved. All the calculation in the world will give you an approximate answer, but sooner or later it's time to head to the range and start shooting stuff!

 

I don't know. I was reading this thread, got up to whizz and check the mail and the subscription with the article was sitting right there in the box. Found it on the Web and thought you guys would find it interesting.

I served from '67-71 and whenever I see pieces that illuminate how we are equipping our guys with inferior, poorly thought-out products for their safety, it gives me a righteous headache. I saw all kinds of that crap back when and apparently it's still the Méthode du Jour for military suppliers. There's an easy fix, actually. Simply force these dorks to go into the zone wearing the same crap they sell and suddenly, there's a really good reason to make it as good as it can get.

Don't show me a slo-mo movie with an AK round bouncing off a test example, stick your freakin' head in the thing and do a two week, hostile mission with some guys in Afghanistan. If Mr. Manufacturer won't wear it, why should the guys we love?

End rant.

 

At least I found one post I can agree with you.


The OP should research his mental condition (urgent!) and not bother with such premature nonsense.

 

During the period that you served, many of those serving were unwilling draftees, drug use was rampant, and there was great political opposition to the military mission. These factors and probably others led to a very high level of corruption not only in procurement but in other areas of the military as well. Reagan turned that around to a large extend, leaving the US with one of the most professional and well-equipped militaries history, so things are not nearly as bad today as you remember.

The stories that you hear about procurement problems today give a distorted view for several reasons: (1) you only hear about the four or five failures, not the thousands of successes, (2) often the error was not by the supplier but by the military for doing inadequate testing or providing incomplete specs, and (3) the failures are just typical problems of the sort that occur in any industry: over-selling, engineering errors, and manufacturing mistakes, but these things are blown out of proportion for political reasons. No matter who is president, both parties have an incentive to exaggerate these problems because one side want to damage the president (as if he any any involvement in procurment decisions) and the other side wants to demonstrate support for the troops.

Not that these problems are trivial. Given how much the military pays for their stuff, you are entitled to get upset about over-selling, engineering errors, and manufacturing mistakes, but it is far from an epidemic; it is just the normal way that things work on planet Earth. Maybe there is another universe out there where it is possible for something to be perfect. Not this one.

 

Since you're framing this point this way, in what period did you serve? If you served during that same period, perhaps you have a substantive position from which to make these kinds of calls. If you didn't serve, or if you served in another time, maybe you should hold-off on the over generalisations of the fine young men of that period?

I also do not see any connection from the factors you mention as your principal argument that justifies crappy equipment suppliers. Just what connection is there between a draftee and his needs and a conservative businessman and the shoddy products he produces? I don't see one. I do see that each and every citizen has a moral and personal obligation to see that the soldiers they send off to battle, are as well-equipped as they can possibly be. Anything less is criminal.

If you know anything at all about the problems encountered with the use of the M16 in Vietnam, you wouldn't be talking like this. We already had a good rifle in the form of the venerable M14 and then they made all of us exchange our good rifles for absolute, not ready for combat, crap. The result...? Thousands of these weapons were shipped to the front line combat troops and thousands of men died in their first fire fight due to jamming of the weapon in the combat situations of South Vietnam.

Interestingly enough, a much cruder, but much better suited automatic rifle, the AK-47, rarely experienced jamming and it became the preferred weapon of the VC, even when they could pick-up our rifles and ammunition by the truck load after many combat actions.

Yet, this is a problem generated by the soldiers you so callously describe?

Reagan... really, that's your take? It was all about Reagan and not the DoD, or the Amrican public, or any of a thousand watchdog grups including the press. Face it Bud, Reagan was just another politician who moved to the beat of the voting public. If the public wanted better tools and equipment for the military, then it is Reagans job to get it for them.. or he loses his job. Well, unless you looked at his Presidency as a Kingly procession.

Don't kid yourself about how bad equipment is today. Anyone with half a brain knows all about the gear failures during the recent Iraqi War. It's just as rampant as ever and off the cuff answers to sincere questions are not going to get us any closer to a solution.

Dave, I only need to hear about one failure, not the four or five you suggest. Do keep in mind that these guys and gals are the children of thousands of families out there and not statistical triage experiments for bean counters. The thousands of successes are to be expected, or would you want there to be some other level of performance that can be so easily explained away.

I have no idea as to your age, or your direct military experience, Dave, but when ONE guy dies because of crappy gear, it transcends any argument you may have regarding, "That's the way things work on planet Earth." This point comes dramatically clear to anyone who has lost a loved one, a close buddy who may have been standing right next to you, or even just a guy who is in another unit across post. It gets even more dramatic when your unit is shredded due to a succession of jammed weapons that were kept as clean as could be while out on a two week long search and destroy sweep through enemy held territory.

If you are going to give me a rifle and a mission, the least you can do is make sure the damn thing will work in the locations where you put my ***. If you give me body armor that won't stop a bb gun round, then yeah, you can expect me to gripe to the press and beg my family to buy one on the open market that can do the job. If you know that I will get hit by IED's and that my vehicle armor is totally substandard, do not send me on missions until you can make it correct. If you know that I'm going to be exposed to atomized particulate matter from spent uranium projectiles, do not, under any circumstances, get me in the area where my future, if I do live through the conflict, is going to be incredibly iffy. Do not douse me with Agent Orange. Do not innoculate me with some experimental drug of choice and not tell me what it is beforehand, so I can refuse, if necessary.

Have I made myself clear on this?

I can't live your reality, but in mine, combat death has been a regular visitor. Please draw your own conclusions and try to stop being so glib about the life of another.

I'm going to refrain from further discussion on this bit of off-topic exchange.

 

"There is only one truth about war - people die"

 

But you provided a very interesting and valid proof of your real identity Chris Ostlind!

You must be thinking we are all as dumb as it can be? I asked you once if you know what stylometry is. You failed, as usual.

Now, that we know at least three identities under which you signup here, what is your dumb reply on that? (you have only dumb replies, the better ones are for the better ones)

No regards, but keen.......

Richard

 

First of all, it is ridiculous to suggest that someone can't make a historical claim without having been directly involved in the events. Second, maybe you don't remember the late 60s/early 70s that well (seems to happen a lot for some reason) but lots of people --not only in the military-- were dropping acid, shooting up, and generally messing up their lives with drugs. Ask anyone who was there and still remembers the period (that is, someone who didn't drop acid). In Vietnam it was worse because the hard drugs were so easy to get.

The confluence of factors seriously damaged the professionalism of the US military and led to corruption and incompetence on the part of military purchasers.

"Well-equipped as they can possibly be" is not an objective criterion. No matter how you equip them, you can always equip them better.

No, that problem was not created by the draftees, but it was created by the military. The suppliers just supplied what the military asked for. Once again, I didn't say that the equipment problems were caused by the draftees, only that the draft contributed to the decrease in professionalism.

Furthermore, you are misusing the word "callously" here. Let me give you an example of a callous description of Vietnam soldiers by a former presidential candidate: "they had personally *****, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human ******** and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam". Now compare this to what I said: "many of those serving were unwilling draftees, drug use was rampant". I take it you can see the difference.

I didn't say it was all about Reagan, I just said that Reagan was the one who did it. If you want to think that he was pressured into doing it by watchdog groups, go ahead. But once again, your memory of the period diverges from mine, and I, for one, never took acid.

Only if you are irrational or understand nothing about engineering. People who understand engineering and think rationally recognize that a zero failure rate is impossible to achieve. You have to consider efficiency, effectiveness, reliability, time to delivery, and cost. You have to make trade offs. You don't have infinite time or infinite resources and even if you did, you couldn't get infinite reliability and infinite effectiveness.

You are trying to substitute emotion for reasoning.

This is completely nuts. We are talking about war, not a sporting event. We can't just delay the season until the new shoulder pads come in. While we are sitting and waiting for new equipment, the enemy is maneuvering, coming up with new strategies, and acquiring better equipment of their own. You have to do the job when the job needs to be done, not when it is safest to do. If soldiering were safe then soldiers would have no need of courage, would they?

None of those have anything to do with military suppliers.

I'm not being glib, I'm being realistic. If you want to live in a fantasy land where it is possible to make life perfect if only all those other guys would try harder, then you are doomed to a life of disappointment.

 

I, John Kerry, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
John Kerry, upon entry into the USN.

I doubt the veracity based upon subsequent actions.

 

"There is only one truth about war - people die"

Simple solution , only send politicians to war with each other.

FF

 

Another quote: "War is usually fought by young boys for old men" - Don't remember who there either.