Israeli Company Creates Nano-Armor

Izeickl writes "According to IsraCast, an Israeli company has created materials made of inorganic fullerene-like nanostructures (IFs) which have amazing shock absorbing properties. During preliminary tests, these materials, which are five times stronger than steel, have successfully resisted to steel projectiles generating pressures as high as 250 tons per square centimeter. These materials could be incorporated in "nanoarmors" able to protect soldiers or police forces within three years."

Comments

OMG THIS IS TOTALLY UT2004!

[SauroNlord]

I can't wait to grab my rocket launcher.

Re:OMG THIS IS TOTALLY UT2004!

[DigiShaman]

Wait, so your saying we can rocket-jump with these?

Re:OMG THIS IS TOTALLY UT2004!

[ctishman]

I'm saying that when you're ready, you won't have to.

Re:OMG THIS IS TOTALLY UT2004!

[RichardX]

But I WILL be able to though, right?

Re:OMG THIS IS TOTALLY UT2004!

[LifesABeach]

No amount of armor can defend you against an obnoxious voice that refuses to be patient.

Getting your point across.

[Anonymous Coward]

"During preliminary tests, these materials, which are five times stronger than steel, have successfully resisted to steel projectiles generating pressures as high as 250 tons per square centimeter."

How about teflon-coated bullets? Or armor-piercing shells?

Re:Getting your point across.

[damian cosmas]

...or bullets made of the same ultra-strong material?

Re:Getting your point across.

[Sensible Clod]

Well, bullets made of the same stuff wouldn't be very heavy, so maybe you mean bullets coated with it...still, an interesting question.

Re:Getting your point across.

[damian cosmas]

Tungsten sulfide is actually less dense (~7 g/cm^3) than lead (~11 g/cm^3), so bullets made of that material would likely be lighter than ordinary lead bullets.

Re:Getting your point across.

[damian cosmas]

ugh... sent my reply before I was done. Wouldn't a lighter bullet give you *more* muzzle velocity which, coupled with a stronger material, would give you better armor piercing ability?

Re:Getting your point across.

[Sensible Clod]

Good question. My guess is that they'd both impact with the same force at 1 foot from the muzzle, assuming that they both have the same amount of powder (which means power) behind them; however, the lighter one would lose speed (and energy) more quickly because of its having lower density, but the same aerodynamic cross-section, so the heavier one would be more effective at long range.

Your point about velocity is taken, though, since delivering the same number of Joules in less time can make a difference in how well the impactee material holds up.

Re:Getting your point across.

[EdipisReks]

How about teflon-coated bullets?

teflon is applied to bullets to cut down on lead dust at firing ranges. it has about as much effect on armor piercing ability as dipping the bullets in chicken blood.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Z34107]

One of Newton's laws is that Force = Mass * Acceleration. Rearrange this a bit and you get acceleration = force / mass. Decrease the weight/mass of the bullet and it will travel/accelerate faster. Hence, a lighter bullet could actually be good.

(Yes, mass is not the same as weight - weight is a function of mass and gravity. However, they are pretty much interchangeable with a constant gravity, like on Earth where I presume the bullets would be fired.)

Re:Getting your point across.

[ls -la]

more muzzle velocity, yes. better armor piercing ability, not likely.

As a physics major, let me explain my understanding of firearms:
I believe the bullets would (all else being equal) receive the same kinetic energy (1/2*m*v^2), so if the bullet was half the mass, it would go sqrt(2) times as fast. At least at the end of the muzzle. After that (and to a lesser extent, before) air resistance affects the bullet proportional to v^2. Since v^2 is twice as large for the smaller bullett, the force would be twice as large, and due to the lower mass, the lighter bullet would decelerate much quicker (starting at 4x). This is a rather complex differential equation (because of the square), but what's likely to happen is that at any large distance, the lighter bullett will probably hit the target moving slower.

Now, when the bullet impacts the target I believe it's the pressure that actually does the damage. Pressure is force per unit area, and the areas would be the same (although here the analysis could possibly fail, if the lighter bullet held a pointier shape for longer). At point-blank range (or ignoring air resistance) and treating the force the target exerts as spring-like (probably good approximation for armor), the force needed to stop the bullets would be the same on each bullet (because the energy is the same so they would deform the target the same amount). Factoring air resistance back in, the lighter bullet will reach the target with less energy, and so exert less pressure. If the lighter bullet doesn't deform, it's possible that the pressure would be greater, dealing more damage.

Conclusions:
1. A lighter bullet will hit the target at a slower velocity.
2. Assuming the same deformation upon impact, the lighter bullet will deal less damage.
3. If the heavy bullet deforms and the light doesn't, the light one *might* do more damage.

This is my best guess, but it's possible I made a mistake somewhere.

Re:Getting your point across.

[MoralHazard]

Your point about velocity is taken, though, since delivering the same number of Joules in less time can make a difference in how well the impactee material holds up.

An often-overlooked point about ballistics. How quickly and efficiently the projectile's energy is transferred into the target is a huge determining factor in how damaging it is. If you shoot someone with a .44 magnum and the lead bullet flies through the torso and out the other side, you're not getting the most efficient impact possible, because the slug hasn't transferred all of its energy into the target (it still has enough KE left to fly out the exit wound). If the bullet were aluminum, for instance, it would have less mass and more velocity, AND it would probably stop in the target, thereby causing more trauma.

Re:Getting your point across.

[MBraynard]

You are smarter than me on this subject, but doesn't the shape of the bullet also come into play? I have a 10mm. When I go to the range I use cheap standard bullets, but when I load it for home defense, it's hollow point. Goes in with a centimeter, comes out with a decimeter.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Rangsk]

I could be wrong, but here are my thoughts.

At the same velocity, two bullets of the same size/shape have the same drag on them due to air regardless of mass. Drag increases by the square of the velocity.

No matter what the mass of the bullet, the gun is going to impart the same force onto it. As you stated, a = f/m and so the lighter bullet will end up experiencing more drag than a heavier bullet (due to drag increasing as v^2).

However, E = mv^2 / 2, and a heavier bullet will gain less velocity in general and so less energy.

It's basically a balance between the drag equation and the energy equation. For a given force of a gun, shape of a bullet, and distance of the target, you could probably calculate the exact desired mass of the bullet for the biggest impact. Speaking of impact, the density of the bullet would also change impact time, which could change the behavior of the bullet as well (less impact time = more damage). It's an interesting problem, but I'm sure it's been solved already by smarter people than I :)

Re:Getting your point across.

[PakProtector]

When I go to the range I use cheap standard bullets, but when I load it for home defense, it's hollow point. Goes in with a centimeter, comes out with a decimeter.

Sir, I suggest you Trademark that phrase and enter Bullet Manufacturing.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Rolo Tomasi]

What about teflon coated bullets dipped in chicken blood, though?

Re:Getting your point across.

[ozmanjusri]

it has about as much effect on armor piercing ability as dipping the bullets in chicken blood.

Sort of. Teflon is applied to slugs with hardened cores to prevent the cores damaging the barrel of the weapon. Its not the teflon which makes them armor piercing, its the hardened core.

Re:Getting your point across.

[DigiShaman]

A few quotes to back you up.

"There is a myth of "cop killer bullets" that can penetrate body armour and then expand to kill the officer wearing it. This is pure fantasy. A bullet can be designed to penetrate armour or it can be designed to expand in soft tissue. It CANNOT do both. The "teflon" coating on the much maligned Black Talon ammunition is simply an aid to reducing barrel fouling in the handgun. It does nothing to enhance the bullet's ability to penetrate body armour. Many hunting bullets are coated with different compounds these days." http://www.nfa.ca/for-journalists/ammunition-and-i ts-components.html

"Armour piercing bullets are a specific design which incorporates a hard steel or tungsten carbide penetrator inside the bullet's core. Only ammunition with this hard penetrator design is considered to be armour piercing. When the bullet impacts armour, it begins to flatten. As the nose flattens, the hard penetrator continues forward into the armoured surface while being supported by the bullet as it continues to flatten.

Armour Piercing bullets do not explode, fragment or do any of the things you might see in a Hollywood movie. They are a simple kinetic energy penetrator. AP bullets are mainly found in military ammunition." http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/162/76/

And yes, I feel like being a Karma Whore today.

Re:Getting your point across.

[WalksOnDirt]

I'm not certain, but I think with a much lighter bullet that the shock wave from the gunpowder may not expand fast enough to efficiently transfer energy. The lighter bullet may not go very much faster than the heavy one.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about teflon coated bullets dipped in chicken blood, though?

Chicken blood first, then teflon! Otherwise the voodoo falls off and lands on the floor. Don't you know anything about science? ...or voodoo?

Re:Getting your point across.

[sl4shd0rk]

> How about teflon-coated bullets? Or armor-piercing shells?

Or fullerene-like nanostructure bullets.

Re:Getting your point across.

[MoralHazard]

doesn't the shape of the bullet also come into play?

Among other things, yes. The number of variables that influence the behavior of firearms and projectiles is just astounding--it's a HELL of a lot more than caliber, which is usually all the most people think of. There's a reason why ballistics research has its own scholarly journals.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Ringthane]

"How about teflon-coated bullets?"

FWIW:

      The teflon coating found on many armor-piercing rounds for small arms has no effect on the armor-piercing ability of the ammunition. The teflon coat is to protect the barrel from excess wear caused by the hard materials of the projectile. Armor-piercing properties come from the composition of the projectile or from a insert of a harder substance incorporated into the projectile.

Re:Getting your point across.

[todd10k]

How about teflon-coated bullets?

Ya see, alot of people watched "V" back in the 80's and think teflon will help a slug penetrate high grade armor. Its like how people think they understand blackhole physics because they seen "event horizon"

People are idiots.

Re:Getting your point across.

[CAIMLAS]

teflon-coated bullets aren't. They're not armor piercing; they're more fiction than anything, really.

Armor piercing shells will still probably kill people, because shells are big. Armor-piercing bullets, however, are usually steel core lead, I believe.

A bullet is typically roughly a square centimeter in frontal surface area (give or take, yadda yadda), and they do not exert nearly as much pressure as 250 tons per square centimeter. I'm fairly certain of this, as no small arm (ie, personal firearm) can withstand even a fraction of that pressure without going "boom" in a very bad way.

Another thing to consider is the velocity of that incoming pressure, which wasn't really discussed. I think it's probably important, but I don't really know enough about physics to debate it one way or the other. I suspect that a higher velocity on a smaller mass (ie, the same pressure) might well result in something being able to penetrate it.

However, if this stuff were able to be made into completely bulletproof vests (ie, nothing short of an ah64 could penetrate it), then we'd still have people getting shot and dying as a result - though, quite possibly, much more painful deaths. Bruising and internal bleeding can be pretty bad, even if the current armor's ballistic plating stop the bullet, often killing them from something like kidney failure or intestinal rupture.

Re:Getting your point across.

[penguin121]

You are correct for the most part, but you are ignoring one important factor. The amount of powder used is scaled for the size, or mass, of the bullet so it reaches the desired muzzle velocity (which should be on the upper end of what drag makes practical). The heavier bullet will have more energy (and momentum) and therefore be more effective for armor penetration. Its a similiar to the reason uranium (twice the density of lead) is used in anti-tank rounds. Your target velocity can always be achieved by tossing enough explosive behind your round (or bullet) so the real driving factor is density, the heavier it is, the more effective it will be.

Re:Getting your point across.

[imsabbel]

Ah, unit mixup at work.
It doesnt matter what kind of pressure your weapon can stand.
Just think aboutit: if you have a gun with a barrel lenght of 50cm, during which a gas pressure of "x" accelerates the bullet, how much preassure will the bullet project onto a surface if it is forced to stop during a 10cm distance (like outer layer of clothing to center of the hearth...)?

Re:Getting your point across.

[tjstork]

I've heard that teflon coating of bullets makes it easier for them to pass through kevlar fibers.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The primary determinant for how much energy the bullet receives is how long the bullet stays in the barrel, giving the powder time to burn; this is why, for instance, a carbine has a much higher muzzle velocity than a pistol firing the same round. (On the other side of the coin, you could make a pistol chambered for rifle rounds, but it wouldn't be terribly useful; most of the powder would escape from the muzzle and burn up in the air, creating a hell of a muzzle flash but no extra velocity.) So a lighter bullet will have a higher muzzle velocity, but it probably won't be enough higher (increasing as the square root of 1/mass) to give it equivalent energy to a heavier bullet. Barrel length and powder burn speed are the most important factors. Typical rifle rounds are in the 22 to 30 caliber range, while typical handgun rounds are in the 38 to 45 caliber range, and while the rifle bullets are longer, they still run a bit lighter on average than the handgun bullets -- but they have much, much higher muzzle velocity and energy.

You're right about lighter bullets losing velocity faster, of course, but it's not as much a determinant as you might think -- consider the difference between a 7mm rifle round, which is a mid-sized hunting round, and a .45 pistol round, about the biggest practical pistol caliber for most people, which will usually be about half again its weight. Guess which one hits the target harder?

Now, all that being said, deformation on hitting the target is a good thing. (Er, good from the shooter's POV, not the target's ...) One problem with small, fast bullets is that they can go right through the target, leaving a hole almost exactly the size of the bullet*, and not actually doing that much damage. Bullets which deform inside the target dump all their energy right there, and therefore have much more "stopping power." This is one reason, perhaps the primary reason, why the M16, despite having evolved into a pretty reliable weapon over the years since its disastrous first iteration in Vietnam, remains controversial. Many infantrymen, whose lives depend on "one shot, one kill," and medics, who see the results up close and personal (I've been both) believe that our troops would be better served by the older, heavier style of military rifle round. Not necessarily the 7.62 x 51 mm (NATO), which is overkill for anything but a sniper rifle or a machine gun, but say the 7.62 x 39 mm (Warsaw Pact) used in the AK. There's some benefit in being able to carry more ammunition with the smaller rounds ... but more benefit in being sure that the guy on the other end of your sights is going to go down when you hit him.

* Forget all that crap you hear about "cavitation" and "small hole going in, big hole coming out." It's a myth, based on studies of firing bullets into blocks of gelatin which do not behave, in the least, like human (or animal) bodies. If you're looking for a weapon for self-defense, you will always be better off with a bigger bullet, as long as you can handle the weapon. Period. And big slow bullets (e.g., .45 ACP) are about the best single-round choice for self-defense there is, because not only will they take down the target, if you miss they're much less likely to go through three walls and kill your neighbor's toddler. Even better is a short-barreled 16-ga. shotgun.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you want to kill an unarmoured target, your best bet is to have both high energy and high velocity. Any bullet will have a primary, mechanical effect, much like a stab wound. Unless a vital organ is punctured, death will only occur through bleeding or infection. If you can get enough energy to dissipate within the target (which gets easier to achieve the more the bullet deforms), as a secondary effect, hydraulic pressure will cause damage to organs situated further away from the bullet channel (because, as the parent mentioned, innards don't behave like gelatin, which is a good thing when you want to eat what you kill...)
Finally, high velocity rounds (above 800 m/s) can cause neural overload.
This is why modern hunting ammuntion is designed with high, delayed expansion in mind, as well as with high energy with a focus on velocity rather than on sheer bullet mass (unless skin is hard to break, which calls for old style heavy, jacketed bullets, think elephant.)
However, in a war, the wounded are much more of a hassle for the enemy than the dead (unless your enemy is the USA, because of media pressure and ridculous doctrine), which means light, high velocity, jacketed bullets will serve you better in the long run, as long as they're damaging enough to still incapacitate without killing outright.
When it comes to controlling the effect, bullet structure is as important as its mechanical parameters on entry. As for self-defence for civilians, going non-lethal is your best bet to stay free through the aftermath: 12-gauge coarse salt cartridges aren't dead yet.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Archtech]

I don't know about teflon-coated bullets, but if you get hit by an armor-piercing shot (not shell, strictly) the kinetic energy will kill you whether it penetrates your armor or not. Those things will slice clean through 6 inches or more of the strongest steel, and if one didn't penetrate your armor it would simply accelerate your whole body at a lethal rate. There are physical limits to what can reasonably be done to protect a human being who is not sheltered by a vehicle or building.

Re:Getting your point across.

[kognate]

You are correct about the lighter bullet problem. This is traditionally solved by using a Sabot and a sub-calibre penetrater.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Afrosheen]

That's not true, and actually, low-mass bullets are preferable for alot of situations. You don't always want a slug that will travel through walls and ricochet off concrete. Example: the FN P90. It uses high velocity, low mass and low weight bullets in the 5.57 size. It doesn't have the 'stopping power' that a 357 magnum does, but it also won't exit walls. Great for home defense, SWAT teams, urban fighting, etc. because it minimizes collateral damage and therefore protects innocents in the public sector from police or paramilitary teams using these weapons in crowded areas. Muzzle velocity has little to do with projectile size/weight and alot to do with barrel design, length and specifically, grain count in the shell itself.

  I could see NATO jumping on some bullets coated with this stuff in an instant.

Re:Getting your point across.

[spike hay]

[i]One of Newton's laws is that Force = Mass * Acceleration. Rearrange this a bit and you get acceleration = force / mass. Decrease the weight/mass of the bullet and it will travel/accelerate faster. Hence, a lighter bullet could actually be good. [/i]

Bullet mass doesn't impact velocity that much. As somebody said previously, it more has to do with barrel length. A heavier bullet exits the barrel at an almost as high speed, but takes more energy from the gases.

Re:Getting your point across.

[brunson]

Though I agree with most of your post, the following:

And big slow bullets (e.g., .45 ACP) are about the best single-round choice for self-defense there is, because not only will they take down the target, if you miss they're much less likely to go through three walls and kill your neighbor's toddler. Even better is a short-barreled 16-ga. shotgun.

I have to take difference with.

Any handgun more powerful than a .22 will easily penetrate six interior walls, as well as a shotgun. That they don't is a myth. Educate yourself at The Box-O-Truth.

I also disagree with your statement that ballistic gel doesn't accurately model human tissue and that cavitation is not a significant effect of a projectile impact. So does practically the entirety of the firearm industry.

Re:Getting your point across.

[M0b1u5]

I suggest you move to a safer town, or country.

Hollow Point bullets for home defence? I'd have no problem convicting you of manslaughter.

Re:Getting your point across.

[justin12345]

Home defense?!? I suppose if your home is in the middle of a battlefield.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Chrontius]

Pardon me while I leech the opinions and data provided by smart people, but damage is done by lead crushing tissue. It matters very little how much tissue is crushed in the first two inches of penetration in jello (representing penetration of skin) but very much how big of a hole you can make in either the brain or a large, blood-bearing organ which will serve to deprive the brain of oxygen. 5.56 NATO is terribly messy with a sufficiently long barrel to impart velocities on the bullet sufficient to cause fragmentation and resulting huge, gaping wounds. Problem is, the M4's barrel is slightly too short to impart these velocities, resulting in a tiny ice-pick like wound channel, which increases slightly at the point which tumbling occurs and the bullet moves to traveling tail-first through a squishy target.

If I can impart a single lesson, *energy transfer is nuts*. It is only damage caused directly or indirectly to the central nervous system that can cause incapacitation.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/
http://www.serbu.com/shorty.htm

Re:Getting your point across.

[Fordiman]

Just being made of the same thing doesn't matter. It's basically like this:

if (projectile.velocity*projectile.mass/projectile.im pact_surface_area/deceleration_time > armor.tensile_strength) die("We're fucked");

So the real question is: will this protect against steel jacketed depleted uranium slugs launched at relativistic velocities from a linear acceleration (gauss) gun?

Assuming no, the best defense would be to increase deceleration time, by allowing the material to stretch, and by making it very padded.

It'd still probably rape you; railguns rawk.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Fordiman]

Also great for naval engine rooms. A lack of penetrating power means it's not going to penetrate your pipes. Meanwhile, it will still wipe the smirk off any stowaway's face.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Fordiman]

Nope. It's a tungsten carbide core what does the dirty work. The teflon coat is just for keeping your gun clean.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Fordiman]

Interesting info: armor piercing bullets are armor piercing becfause they're made of tungsten carbide - you'll note that the same stuff is used in the metal-cutting tools for your dremel. It's hard stuff.

Re:Getting your point across.

[evilneko]

hollowpoint for home defence to prevent the bullet from striking additional targets... I'd acquit.

Re:Getting your point across.

[darkmeridian]

Or the penetrator (usually made of steel instead of lead) of the round is jacketed in copper, which slides off and "lubricates" the transfer of the penetrator through the armor.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Nutria]

Hollow Point bullets for home defence?

Sure.

More stopping power per shot, meaning there's a higher likelihood that any shot would take him down, so you have to shoot less often, meaning there's less likelyhood that 3rd parties could get hit by a stray.

I'd have no problem convicting you of manslaughter.

Hah!!! Double Hah!

Some bad guy is in my house, threatening my family? Black letter and case law are firmly on my side, even if I ventilate him.

Cop: Why'd you shoot him 9 times?
Me: I was sooo nervous, I aimed and just pulled the trigger.

Though, I'd be looking at hard time if I "ventilated him", reloaded, and then really tuned him into hamburger.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Ruff_ilb]

If it were F = MV, then MAYBE, but consider this: Once a bullet is done firing from a gun, it's DONE accelerating towards the target. The only accelleration is going to be in a direction down and against the target. Lighter mass, as you have shown, means more A. So this is bad, not good.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Rangsk]

Wow, you're definitely right. Thanks for pointing that out for me. I knew I was missing something :)

Re:Getting your point across.

[indianajones428]

A bullet can be designed to penetrate armour or it can be designed to expand in soft tissue. It CANNOT do both.

Actually, that's not true, thanks to new blended-metal bullets. From The Armed Forces Journal, (sorry, most reputable source I could find; not even a Wikipedia article about them)

The frangible APLP ammo will bore through steel and other hard targets but will not pass through a human torso, an eight-inch-thick block of artist's clay or even several layers of drywall. Instead of passing through a body, it shatters, creating "untreatable wounds."

"APLP" translating to "armor-piercing limited penetration."

Not that these have been around long enough for Hollywood to be right, just FYI.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Archtech]

I didn't stipulate a handgun or rifle. Armour-piercing shot are fired from anti-tank guns, which have recoil mechanisms and muzzle brakes that absorb the recoil.

Re:Getting your point across.

[swb]

which means light, high velocity, jacketed bullets will serve you better in the long run, as long as they're damaging enough to still incapacitate without killing outright.

My understanding is that a lot of the adoption of intermediate rifle cartridges was driven by studies that showed that most soliders weren't shooting at targets more than 2-300 yards away, so a high-power rifle cartridge like the .30-06 capable of killing a man 500-1000 yards away wasn't necessary.

Once you start scaling down the cartridge, you get a whole host of benefits. Smaller rounds weigh less and you can move more rounds on the battlefield per unit of weight -- more ammo per soldier. Smaller rounds recoil less and can be fired more accurately on full-auto or burst-fire, and can probably be fired more accurately on average by a given soldier as well (one thing that makes U.S. troops so effective is their skilled use of aimed fire).

Wounding the enemy may be the academic battlefied doctrine, but I'm not sure it's the battlefield reality. Dead guys don't get back up and fight, and most weapons aren't designed to wound, but to kill. I don't think B-52 strikes, 30mm cannon, Javeline missles, or M2 machine guns really do much wounding.

As for self-defence for civilians, going non-lethal is your best bet to stay free through the aftermath: 12-gauge coarse salt cartridges aren't dead yet.

I would disagree with this. I've never seen the oft-talked about rock salt shotgun load available comercially. It'd be hell on shotgun bores and chokes, even if they were chromed, and probably completely ineffective against anyone wearing heavy clothing or standing more than 10 feet away. And you DO NOT want to fire a weapon at someone and have them get up. If you shoot someone dead, the police only get to hear your side of the story. If you wound them, they get to tell their side of the story. A man wounded by rock salt WILL find someone to sue you.

Re:Getting your point across.

[mkw87]

Well, bullets made of the same stuff wouldn't be very heavy, so maybe you mean bullets coated with it...still, an interesting question.

This really isn't that much a part of the issue, because the bullets aren't failing to penetrate because they collapse, its because they don't create enough force (pressure is force over an area) to penetrate the 'armor'. Therefore, coating them would not help in terms of penetration unless coating them made the bullet create more force, which it could because if the bullet refuses to mushroom up it could potentially create the same force over a bit (much?) smaller area, which would result in a larger pressure and possible penetration.

Re:Getting your point across.

[wyohman]

Energy transfer is NOT the holy grail of bullet effectiveness. Temporary and permanent wound channels and penetration play a more important role.

Just me?

[blank89]

I think I would rather it go to the police than the army. Does anyone else agree?

Re:Just me?

[Melfina]

Why limit it to just one? It's not like there's only enough for one or the other. And even still, why would you give it to the police and not the military? The police very rarely have to worry about getting hit with shrapnel, or being bombarded with explosives.

I think it would be awesome for both to have it, but really, our guys in the field are having a hard enough time as it is, they don't need out police force to be better equipped. Especially in times of war.

Re:Just me?

[Rickler]

Hey, life is like gold; less there is the more valuable it is.

Re:Just me?

[MBraynard]

You are a BIGOT! How do you know that the GP is a him or a her - could be a hermaphrodite or an artificial intelligence logging in from a military lab to try and get it's creators killed.

But whatever it is, it's definitly a sick-0 traitor who should be executed.

Re:Just me?

[blank89]

It's true that both parties could use protection, but the defense budget is large enough as it is. Most likely, it would go to soldiers first, and police 5 years from now. Police often lack the basic equipment they need to take care of the better prepared criminals as it is, and it has been that way for a long time.

Re:Just me?

[blank89]

"Lets not give the armor to the people that need it the most, and who are the frontline defenders of our freedom (NO MATTER WHAT COUNTRY)." Actually, the military is thousands of miles away. Whereas the police are the frontline of defense against criminals, people I might actually come into contact with. "Whether or not you agree with the Iraq war is completely irrelevant." When did we drag Iraq into this? "That, or just go somewhere like North Korea and have fun." Yes, I'm aware North Korea wouldn't be a fun place to be. "You, sir (I say this VERY loosely), need to move to a country without a military if you feel this way." I'll take it loosely then. "If you live in a free country, then be happy that your stupid ass was allowed to be born and move on with your life, because your incredible sense of strategy and logic was doing something else when stupidity was creeping into your brain." Wait, so I'm not logical, but I would be less likely to be [allowed to be] born in a free country. This is because my incredible sense of strategy and logic wasn't there when stupidity snuck up on me? Obviously a lack of strategy and logic, and stupidity would be one and the same, so what are you even talking about?

Re:Just me?

[Rolo Tomasi]

who are the frontline defenders of our freedom

Alright, I've heard this sentence a lot ... how in the hell are soldiers occupying a foreign country protecting your freedom? I mean, if the soldiers were stationed in your homeland and a foreign invasion was imminent, that I could understand, but while they're occupying some third world country halfway across the globe? Nope, does not follow.

At least be honest about it and say they're helping you capture and control key resources or keep others from challenging your dominance or something, that sounds a bit more plausible.

Re:Just me?

[h4rm0ny]

I don't much care if it goes to the police or the military, so long as they're still seperate. But have you seen the medieval armour illustration that goes with this? If the material is as light as they say, and as strong as they say, then what's the most logical styling for this stuff? I can see a renaissance in medieval style armours. :) Imagine the police walking along in ultra-light bullet-proof plate-mail. Adds a certain romance, doesn't it?

Of course, escalation means people quickly resort to gas / spray / sonic / blinding weapons. But personally, as soon as the Chinese start knocking off cheap versions of this (it sounds like most of the cost of this stuff will be patent monopoly), I'm going to look so good in my impact-resistant plate-mail.

Re:Just me?

[blank89]

It may be light, but it might get pretty hot in that stuff. :p

Re:Just me?

[Xaositecte]

Being -in- the Military right now, my point of view on this is somewhat different than yours.

You Sick Bastard.

Re:Just me?

[spauldo]

I agree with you to some extent - our troops aren't out "defending our freedom" in iraq right now. I don't have any freedom in iraq, because I live in the U.S. and have never been there (finished my enlistment about the time we started sending troops there).

They are defending our freedom in the sense that they exist and are a very good deterrant. They keep, say, Canada from invading us because Canada knows it couldn't win without extremely significant loss of life, if at all.

So they're not out there defending our freedom - they're right here defending our freedom. I wish more people would realize that before spouting comments like the one you're talking about.

Re:Just me?

[Firethorn]

And modern low profile body armor is already effective against 99% of the firearms criminals use around here.

To wit: Handguns.
Next up Shotguns. level II or even III isn't going to protect you if they're packing slugs, but can be of great benefit against buckshot. Heck, the number of crooks who try to use birdshot is suprising!
Criminals rarely use rifles. So called 'assault weapons' are the rarest of all. Of course, I hear a good amount of confiscations, but not usage.

Meanwhile, over in the desert we have to worry about rifle fire, explosives, etc...

Like what's been said, it's not like the stuff can only be offered to one. It's more likely to become an evolution of kevlar. The military buys a bunch of it, and the cops start buying it, and it ends up becoming cheaper for both.

Re:Just me?

[Guppy06]

Considering the police are some of the loudest proponents of the USA PATRIOT Act, I'm thinking "no." The military hasn't fucked over the citizenry as much as law enforcement in recent years, and that will continue to be so at least so long as the Posse Comitatus Act stands.

Re:Just me?

[Lifewish]

Not really. It's comparatively rare that policemen have to handle anything that Kevlar can't take. The military, on the other hand, get hit by all sorts - shaped charges, for example. When was the last time a police car got hit by a shaped charge?

Re:Just me?

[oldCoder]

Strangely enough, the US troops are defending the Iraqis right to vote. There does seem to be a constitutional democracy birthing over there in Iraq.

After living through Saddam Hussein and the two wars to take him down, a truly ghastly sequence, the Iraqis just weren't scared of the insurgent threats to stop the voting. As far as I can see, they aren't afraid of anything.

Re:Just me?

[Abcd1234]

They keep, say, Canada from invading us because Canada knows it couldn't win without extremely significant loss of life, if at all.

That's actually a very interesting comment which speaks to the psychology of certain individuals. You assume that Canada doesn't invade simply because they don't have a chance to win. IOW, you presume that invading other countries is a foregone conclusion and that a strong military deterrant is the only way to prevent this.

But, did it ever occur to you that Canada doesn't invade simply because it has no good reason to, and number of very good reasons not to (not the least of which would be the crippling of a major trading partner)?

Re:Just me?

[AHumbleOpinion]

I mean, if the soldiers were stationed in your homeland and a foreign invasion was imminent, that I could understand, but while they're occupying some third world country halfway across the globe? Nope, does not follow.

You should avoid a career in strategy. A defensive posture as you suggest is inferior to an offensive strategy that takes the fight to the enemy, denies the enemy the initiative, dictates the terrain to the enemy, ... While there may have been only one or two terrorist training camps in Iraq prior to the invasion Al Queda and other jihadists are certainly there now. Where would they be if Iraq were not such a magnet? They were displaced from Afganistan, we gave them a place to go, we gave their potential recruits a place to go. In the long run we may be better off by drawing them to Iraq for battle than by letting them disperse around the globe and choose the time and place of their attacks (New York, Pennsyvania, Washington DC, Spain, London). Is this fair to the Iraqi's that we use their country as a battlefield in the global war on terror? No. Are all the attacks in Iraq conducted by foreigners and jihadists? No.

It is premature to draw conclusions about Iraq. It will be decades before we can tell if the US invasion made things better or worse. For now, just keep in mind that the political left distorts events to favor their politics just as the political right does.

Re:Just me?

[bagsc]

I would rather it go to those individuals who are actually likely to be shot at with highly penetrating rounds. Why would you want your local government spending that much money on something so expensive when conventional body armor exceeds their needs? Since AKs aren't too prevalent on US streets any more, I think the odds are combat troops and SWAT are going to be the only ones willing to pay the price for this material.

Maybe South African beat cops, but they are a whole different breed.

Re:Just me?

[canadian_right]

A Canadian government that decided to invade ANY country would never get elected again. That party would have just commited political suicide. Invading other countires isn't an option that would even occour to most Canadians as the solution to a problem - even if we had a military that could invade a small third world country.

While I often disagree with the USA's foriegn interventions I must admit that their overwhelming military strength allows Canada to have a rather small (and inexpensive) military and still be safe.

Re:Just me?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease; the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued. Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy. - Sun Tzu

We occupied Iraq, jihadists are coming to us there. We seem to be in agreement with the Tao in this case.

Vietnam was lost because the US fought an enemy on their own ground, where they could defend and hide as a native force.

Perhaps you have a poor translation of Sun Tzu but it is the virtuous force, not the native force that has the advantage. Or perhaps you know little of Sun Tzu's teachings beyond out of context quotes. We virtually wiped out the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong were not a virtuous force, as their failure to spark revolution in the Thet offensive demonstrated. When you have a native force that relies on brutality and fear, as in the Viet Cong case, an external force will find natives willing to provide them with intelligence and guides so that the external force will understand the terrain, tactical, and stragic situations. Sun Tzu provides ample lessons regarding defeating a native force on their home ground.

Your understanding of US history is a bit superficial, pop culture like again. The Vietnam war was not lost in Vietnam. It was lost in the US. North Vietnamese general Giap failed in his seige of Khe San, Giap failed in his Thet offensive in that it failed to spark the popular uprising, the Pentagon failed in that through its conduct it lost credibility and the Thet Offensive was erroneously received as a defeat by the US public. Giap's victories occured in the US, not in Vietnam. The US was able to eventually force North Vietnam to accept terms where they recognized the existence of South Vietnam's government and the US left. Later North Vietnam violated this treaty and invaded the South, ironically this was a very conventional invation, heavy armor and all, and would have been defeated had the US provided assistance to South Vietnam. However the political climate in the US prevented such assistance.

Re:Just me?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

At least be honest about it and say they're helping you capture and control key resources or keep others from challenging your dominance or something, that sounds a bit more plausible.

America's freedom is its hegemony. As soon as we start losing battles, people will challenge our status as the sole superpower. Then the UN will make us actually pay for membership (if it doesn't eject us first), a couple of countries will simultaneously extradite Henry Kissinger for war crimes, everyone from honest terrorists to bored schizophrenics will start attacking left and right once they realize another 9/11 is trivially easy, currencies will be unpegged from the dollar and we'll actually have to pay our national debts, someone will declare formal war on the US....

Not that that's a bad thing. I'm sure that by then we'll have citizens' protests and revolts and a more democratic government installed. But at the moment, the only reason we're safe although everyone hates us is that everyone fears us too.

America grew up drinking Manifest Destiny, and it hasn't been weaned yet.

Re:Just me?

[blank89]

You'de be surprised how many AKs are still out there, or worse.

Re:Just me?

[Dr Damage I]

Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease; the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued. Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy. - Sun Tzu

perhaps, but there is a fundamental difference between strategy and tactics. The critical word in your quote is battlefield. Strategy is about who gets to determine where that is. To get the best of both worlds, it is best to seize an objective that the enemy must reclaim, then stand on the defensive.+

Re:Just me?

[afidel]

You bring up an interesting point, how well would this work as a floor lining material for a humvee? Put in a solid liner of this material and stack the sandbags on the floor to absorb the energy of the blast and you might have a vehicle likely to survive many IED's (though not all, they've taken out APC's and tanks with some large burried bombs).

Re:Just me?

[spauldo]

You assume that Canada doesn't invade simply because they don't have a chance to win. IOW, you presume that invading other countries is a foregone conclusion and that a strong military deterrant is the only way to prevent this.

Don't go putting words in my mouth, I just woke up and haven't brushed my teeth yet.

I know as much as anyone that Canada wouldn't invade the U.S. in our current political climate, even if we disbanded the military entirely. They have no reason to, and it would put undue strain on their administration to try to govern us.

I used Canada as an example because they have a modern military and they share a huge border with us. I could just as easily have said Mexico, except I seriously doubt Mexico has any chance at all of beating us in a war. They just don't have the resources.

National security is much like computer security in the sense that you need several layers of it. Diplomacy and good foreign relations are good enough for Canada, but what about Iran or North Korea?

Re:Just me?

[reflective recursion]

After living through Saddam Hussein and the two wars to take him down, a truly ghastly sequence, the Iraqis just weren't scared of the insurgent threats to stop the voting. As far as I can see, they aren't afraid of anything.

If you live in hell already, it definately can't get worse. But I still do not believe the violence was anywhere near what it is today, under Saddam. They are happy now for one reason: food and water. The sanctions really hurt them, and it doesn't help matters that the US destroyed their water, etc. utilities on purpose before leaving the Gulf War.

We have also given them hope. Just for that, many Iraqis will gladly trade true freedom for some sort of US approved "democracy." And put up with extreme violence in the meantime. But they are getting incredibly weary.

But I guarantee you, this democracy will not work out. There are simply too many loose ends, such as what checks and balances do they have? Do they have a judicial system? Legislative system? What about Islam? WHO's Islam? To what degree is the punishment? Who decides the degree of punishment? And then we notice that most Iraqis are voting simply so the US will leave Iraq or to spite the other ethnic groups so they don't come to power.

Yes, it's going to be a never-ending occupation. But I've said that since 2002 and no one was listening then. Only a few are listening now. Let's put the White House optimism in check for a second. First, they said this would be a low-cost operation. Not much more than $50-60 billion, they said. They also said everything would be done in 6 months. Well, that's when Mr. "Mission Accomplished" proclaimed an end to major operations. But they had NO plan for democracy. They never had the idea of bringing democracy to Iraq in the first place. It was a complete afterthought. I don't know if they thought toppling Saddam was enough and everything would work itself out because, hey, we are "liberators!" It's funny because just a day or two ago Vietnam celebrated their liberation and independence from a brutal occupation. That occupation was, of course, the US.

Re:Just me?

[afidel]

I would hardly call the country with the worlds fourth largest standing army third world! Btw if you think that this war secured resources then why the hell has the price of crude doubled since the invasion?

Re:Just me?

[Fordiman]

Don't forget 'needs' us. The UN's got US troops performing all kinds of actions at the moment. Most of the world survives off our technical resources (though that's been changing).

They'll stop needing us soon enough; at which point war will break out.

Re:Just me?

[afidel]

For protecting again slugs you need a level IIIa vest with level IV balistic inserts. My in-law's are both police officers in Ohio and they both wear such vests, I'm not sure how common this is around the country since they are rather heavy and hot but their departments have decided that it is worth it (btw they both work in low crime suburbs so it's not like they need their vests on any regular basis). Reducing the weight of the vests they wear would definitly make their lives a little better, and having the vest work better means I'm less likely to be attending a funeral should they ever need the protection of that vest.

Re:Just me?

[Firethorn]

From what I've heard and read, pretty rare for a non-swat unit. I've worn IIIA/w IV inserts. It is heavy and hot. To the point that it's a fight to get officers to wear them.

In the interests of getting officers to wear them(and because they're cheaper), most only wear levelII or III. It's like arguing about pistol/size caliber for self defense. "The small gun with you is far more effective than the handcannon back home". IE it doesn't matter what it is if you don't have it on you when you need it.

Re:Just me?

[Jim_Callahan]

Seriously, man. If you use phrases like "who's Islam" when you mean "whose Islam" then no one is going to believe you're literate enough to have done the research required to have a meaninful opinion on the subject. I know I don't.

Re:Just me?

[reflective recursion]

Thank you, pedantic spelling Nazi. Instead of ad hominem, try actual criticism. I never said I was perfect.

Your line of reasoning is similar to what one might follow on Slashdot. You use an underscore in your user name. How can anyone possibly trust some idiot who can't find the spacebar? You have a much higher user ID than mine, are you some newbie? etc. etc.

You obviously have beef with what I've said. Refute like a rational person, or keep quiet.

Re:Just me?

[Abcd1234]

Pfft, Iran and North Korea are both far more interested in keeping their own local populations in line, and haven't the resources to mount any sort of offensive against a geographically extended country half the world away across the worlds oceans... about the only possibility is long-range missile attacks, but neither have the launch capability, nor could they develop it without people taking notice *VERY* quickly. As for Mexico, they have the same economic incentives to avoid war as Canada does. Moreover, you're comment about strain on administration applies to all three of your proposed attackers.

Face it, the way the world is right now, the US, specifically, really doesn't need the massive military it possesses. Now, don't get me wrong, some amount of military purely for defensive purposes is, I think, an important thing... there are really crazy people out there. But the US's military is, frankly, pretty darn ridiculous.

Re:Just me?

[spauldo]

Three attackers? When did I say we needed to worry about Mexico? You're putting words in my mouth again.

My original point was that the military protects us by preventing others from attacking us, and the current activities in the middle east have nothing to do with "preserving our freedom". I made no comment on the size requirements of our military. Reread my original post, examine it without making baseless assumptions, and respond to that if you have something to say. Making up stuff to argue with is no different than arguing with yourself, and for that you can leave me out of it.

Re:Just me?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Virtuous force? By no definition is US a virtuous force. US invaded Vietnam following French's inability to control the local uprising, which is what caused the creation of Viet Cong in the first place. Americans has killed no less civilians than the North Viewnamese.

Actually French colonialism led to the forming of the Viet Minh. The Viet Cong came later as a guerilla force to overthrow the South Vietnamese government. The US did not invade, we backed the South in a civil war. In the context of Sun Tzu "virtue" is in regards to the welfare of the people, the Viet Cong was not a native virtuous force as the GP suggested. They used murder and intimidation which are tactics Sun Tzu specifically cites as evidence of an absense of virtue.

If you think america is defeated by ignorance of the populance then you are kidding yourselves. Huchiming one said "If I were to lose 10 solders for every 1 American lose. I would still come on top".

Uncle Ho said lots of things but then he signed a treaty pledging to "respect the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Vietnam as recognized by the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Vietnam." At that point we packed up and left, it was 1973. In 1975 the North violated the treaty and invaded the South and we failed to support the South. President Ford had an election coming up and supporting the South would have been too unpopular. So yes, US public opinion, not the North Vietnamese military, was responsible for our failure.

Re:Just me?

[Tzarius]

This is interesting - I have my doubts about this "magnet" theory. The hostile act (invasion and continued occupation) may itself be catalyzing the creation of terrorists. Like your comment about the "virtous force", their cause may receive enough support from the general population to keep the vicious cycle going.

But you are right, the dust will take decades to settle before we can see clearly (by which time I fully expect another 'incident' to come along... but that's just me being cynical).

Re:Just me?

[retards]

They are defending our freedom in the sense that they exist and are a very good deterrant.

Isn't that what the National Guard is for? Marines are trained to kill people in other countries, right? B-52 aren't built to carpet-bomb insurgents in American suburbs, are they now?

The US military is designed to make other countries do what the US wants, or else. If that's the new American definition of freedom, then I guess you would be right.

Re:Just me?

[Abcd1234]

When did I say we needed to worry about Mexico?

Err... right here:

"I could just as easily have said Mexico"

Perhaps you should re-read your own posts... you seem confused.

My original point was that the military protects us by preventing others from attacking us

Right, that they are, to quote, "defending our freedom in the sense that they exist and are a very good deterrant".

But my entire point (which you really seem to be missing) is that this deterrant effect is no longer necessary. Trade relations with the big nations (such as Canada and Mexico, not to mention China, the EU, India, etc) preclude any major wars there... they're simply too interdependant on one another (at least globalization was good for something). And the small nations simply don't have the resources to wage such a war effectively (ironically also a product of globalization), even if the US was largely defenseless.

Re:Just me?

[acsinc]

I don't think these are mutually exclusive options. Besides its seems the army is more likely to run into people with armor piercing muunitions than police

Re:Just me?

[spauldo]

And here's the point where you need to learn not to jump to conclusions, and read the actual content of the message.

"I could just as easily have said Mexico" means that I could have used Mexico instead of Canada in my example. It does not mean that we need to worry about Mexico. Indeed, a couple posts back, I stated that Canada was only an example, and I wasn't saying we needed to worry about them either.

The rest of your argument is fine. I don't agree with you, but at least its on topic to the original point I made.

Re:Just me?

[spauldo]

The National Guard is to protect the state. They do get used as regular military these days, but their main purpose is to act as the state army/air force.

Marines and B-52's exist so that we don't have to fight here. We can take the fight to you.

The first use of the marines (if I remember right) was to invade Tripoli, because they had started attacking our vessels when we refused to pay them not to.

A good example of carpet bombing that wasn't used to just push people around was the bombing we performed on Japan. They attacked us in Pearl Harbor, and then from then on out we took the fight to them.

I won't dispute that they get used to force the will of the U.S. They do. But they also protect us by moving the fight away from the citizens.

Re:Just me?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Like your comment about the "virtous force", their cause may receive enough support from the general population to keep the vicious cycle going.

"Virtuous" has nothing to do with being a local or native, of the same race or culture, etc. It has to do with who has the welfare of the people in mind. With the jihadists killing so many innocent civilians in their attempts to get us or to just terrorize populations supporting a secular government they are not what would fit the "virtuous" definition, quite the opposite. And as Sun Tzu predicts, the abuse of the locals leads to the external force receiving more intelligence and other forms of assistance. I believe the number of tips being received regarding foreigners and other suspected jihadists or Sadaam loyalists has been steadily increasing.

Re:Just me?

[Tzarius]

Indeed, but the waters get murky when you also take into account the incidents committed by Westerners against Iraqis, military and civilian both (such as that video a few weeks ago, of the security consultants shooting other vehicles on the roadway, and the cremation / desecration of bodies by the military). I think I mean to say that the population there may be polarized between two similiarly unwanted groups, and neither is clearly the 'virtous force' to the whole population.

All very complex.

Re:Just me?

[retards]

We can take the fight to you.

But you're not allowed to, it's illegal unless sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council.

A good example of carpet bombing that wasn't used to just push people around was the bombing we performed on Japan.

No, that was forcing your will on Japan. In part, it was retribution for Pearl Harbor, but also a way to stop Japanese expansionism. War would have come with Japan without Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would have deployed it's Pacific fleet to stop the Japanese conquest of south-east Asia, and that's why Japan decided to sink your fleet pre-emptively. It was a gutsy move, but it didn't pay off in the end.

But the bombings of Vietnam, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq (recently) would be better examples of the U.S. imposing it's will on others through the use of ludicrous force, since they are recent and history has not in these cases (yet) been rewritten.

But they also protect us by moving the fight away from the citizens.

In my opinion, long-range weapons do _not_ protect U.S. citizens, rather, they allow the U.S. to use force without the fear of _immediate_ retalation. As the repeated terrorist and non-terrorist (no civilians targeted, for example U.S.S. Cole) attacks on U.S. interests, both in the U.S. and elsewhere show, retribution can come much later. Perhaps Usama bin Laden wouldn't have attacked the U.S. if he had not lost his mind in the proxy-war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. God help you when the children of the last ten years in Iraq grow up. But then again, Iraq will be occupied for longer than you and I shall live.

Recent U.S. military engagements have been ones of unprovoked aggression (Vietnam, Desert Storm, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraqi Freedom) and I really believe this has to do with the introduction of ever more sophisticated warfare machinery that allows the U.S. casualities to stay low and the enemy casualty to be high. Most would argue that this is a good thing, and for the U.S. forces it is. But if, for example, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure there would not have been an invasion. So weapons can be a deterrent, but, paradoxically, only if they aren't used. If the use of sophisticated, long-range weapons on sovereign states are O.K. by you, then I assume you would have seen a massive nuclear strike on the U.S. from Iraq in March 2003 as expected and as a way to "take the fight to you", from an Iraqi point of view? I mean, you _were_ bombing and invading Iraq.

Chances are you think my point of view is typical Euro-trash pacifist naïveté or just plain-old America-bashing, but Americans have not had their homeland reduced to smoking ruble and then occupied by 'liberators' for 60 years and all the while knowing that the 'liberator's' nuclear weapons are pointed at you.

Re:Just me?

[spauldo]

The point about Japan I don't agree with. We had no reason to try to stop their expansionist moves in southeast Asia - in fact, it was WWII that brought us out of our isolationism. We were, up until that bombing, planning on staying out of the war alltogether, with the exception of arms sales and so forth.

As far as attacking being illegal, that depends on the circumstances. If we were attacked, then retaliation would be more than appropriate. Besides, most Americans don't give a rat's ass about the U.N. anyway.

Like I said before, I make no claim that the U.S. doesn't push people around. We most certainly do. And long-range weapons do make it easier for us to do it. That doesn't mean they don't also protect the citizens of the U.S. be relocating the fighting elsewhere. After all, you've had your homeland turned to smoking rubble. We haven't.

Revised Headline:

[king-manic]

"Small company invents something that is vaguely like something we read in a sci-fi book and posted it on slashdot to recieve free press!"

Re:Revised Headline:

[wesley96]

Small company

No wonder they're developing 'nano' stuff.

Re:Revised Headline:

[timeOday]

Yeah, I'm sure all the big-time international arms dealers do their research on slashdot.

If this stuff is so great, it probably won't be sold on thinkgeek. Got to keep the kids away from the good stuff.

Re:The secret is out!

[EvilJester82]

I could see that happening

Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

This nanoarmor will vastly improve the protection available for nanosoldiers.

Right now we cannot deploy nanosoldiers due to the high risk of being trodden upon. This brings us one step closer to a solution.

Re:Good news

[msbsod]

Federation nanites equiped with nanoarmor fighting Borg nanites

Re:Good news

[werewolf1031]

Dear God, someone please give parent a "+1 Hell Yeah!". :)

Bashing Soak

[Wingie]

Now, if you're not in to White Wolf RPGs: armor has two soak values, a bashing soak for bashing damage like from punches and wooden clubs, and lethal soak to protect from swords and bullets and such. So maybe these armors won't protect against bullets... but anyone wearing them will be invulnerable against fists! Imagine: Chuck Norris wearing a suit of nano-armor, kicking his way through Texas in the name of justice. Or, even better, Vin Diesel in nano-armor plowing through gang headquarters with his bare hands!

Re:Bashing Soak

[Criliric]

But then again, in most fist fight who swings at the metal armour the guy is wearing? you can hit him in the head
And fighting in it?.... armour that solid would be very restrictive for hand to hand combat, you wouldn't get a decent punch really unless it was taylored to let you fight

The problem is...

[wesley96]

The armor may survive, but will the wearer be, too?

Re:The problem is...

[tomstdenis]

useless metric.

Carbon fibre is also "stronger than steel" but pull it in the wrong way and it'll break like glass [which admitedly is usually the point]. What size/weight/type of projectile at what velocity will be stopped. That's useful.

Nice to know your vest will stop a handgun but if a .223 can go right through it, it won't be to useful against a properly armed adversary.

Tom

Re:The problem is...

[Supurcell]

The armor may survive, but will the wearer be, too?

No. As soon as the wearer of such armor is struck, he will instantaneously be transformed into absolute nothingness*. Thus he will no longer be.

*Whether "nothingness" is Void, Null, Cipher, Zero, Nothing, or Jersey is still under debate.

Re:The problem is...

[msbsod]

The author of the cited article did indeed have a problem with units and their interpretation (understanding). For example "km/second" should be km/s (at least there is no "kph"), or "tons/cm2" should be t/cm^2. Anyway, the author also neglected to mention the thickness of the material. A km thick layer of paper will stop a bullet, too.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/
http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/metrsty3.htm
http://www.metric4us.com/

Re:The problem is...

[Melfina]

90% of body armor will not stop an arrow with a pointed head.

The standard bow hunter's bow and arrow has enough force when shot properly to penetrate the walls of an armored car, and the people inside.

It's all about angle, speed, size, weight, and the materials used when considering any armor. No one can be invincible, but they can be properly equipped. How many soldiers have died of arrow wounds in the last 50 years?

Re:The problem is...

[werewolf1031]

The standard bow hunter's bow and arrow has enough force when shot properly to penetrate the walls of an armored car...

I call bullshit. Cite sources please.

Thanks.

Re:The problem is...

[Melfina]

You'll have to go on my word for now. I was involved in a field test a few years ago. We took a standard door off of an armored truck and attempted to put several different types of rounds through it. Most impressive and suprising was the Bow. It all depends on the angle of impact and the distance.

I will have some more worthy sources for you by the end of the night.

*runs off*

Re:The problem is...

[ls -la]

The reason bullets are so dangerous is that they apply enough pressure to break skin (and keep going). If the armor can spread the impact over a reasonable area (the size of a quarter would probably be enough), I think the wearer would survive. Any injuries would be similar to what you see in paintball (primarily bruises).

Re:The problem is...

[KDR_11k]

So that's why Rambo was using a bow?

Re:The problem is...

[werewolf1031]

I will have some more worthy sources for you by the end of the night.

Please do! I live in rural Pennsylvania, where there are a lot of hunters. I don't myself hunt, but having grown up in the area, well let's just say I'm intrigued by the premise of a standard hunter's arrow penetrating the armor of even a light military vehicle.

Re:The problem is...

[joib]

Nice to know your vest will stop a handgun but if a .223 can go right through it, it won't be to useful against a properly armed adversary.


Most modern armies use body armor and helmets even if they don't help against rifle bullets. Why? To protect against shrapnel (which iirc accounts for about 80 % of casualties in full scale warfare). So even if this doesn't protect against rifle bullets, it isn't exactly useless as long as it's an improvement over the standard kevlar stuff.

Re:The problem is...

[Firethorn]

No need for a km...

I've found that about a foot and a half works quite well, at least on handgun bullets
Might need a meter or two for high power rifle, though.

Re:The problem is...

[Firethorn]

That and it's even quieter than 'silenced' firearms, which are still fairly loud.

I've seen some tricks done with things like buckets of sand, where the arrow will penetrate completely through, while bullets are stopped.

Re:The problem is...

[tomstdenis]

I call bullshit. An arrow moves an order of magnitude slower than a .30 round [e.g. comparing 100s of fps to say 2 to 3 thousand fps].

When an .30 round hits the wall it has far more energy than an arrow head. Unless you have some form of supped up compound this is total bullshit. ... my brother was an armor car driver. I've seen the trucks. They're rated to stop .223 and other small arms fire [though they have problems which usually hinder it, like the locks getting stuck in the winter]

Tom

Re:The problem is...

[Helish]

You are forgetting one thing when calculating the energy of the bullet and an arrow. The mass of the arrow is a lot greater then of a bullet, so even tough the bullet might be traveling faster, it has a lot less energy. Think of the difference between M16 and AK47 rounds. AK47 rounds are a lot bigger, they travel slower, but they have a lot more energy.

Re:The problem is...

[tomstdenis]

Um no. A typical razor broadhead is 100 grains. A typical .30 is 180 grains and a .223 is 70.

At best it's twice as heavy. Except the bullet is going 10x the velocity. ...

I'm no physics major but a compact car hitting you at 100km/h will do more damage than a midsize at 10km/h even though the midsize has more mass [which is the word you should be using in this discussion]

Tom

Re:The problem is...

[idonthack]

Whether "nothingness" is Void, Null, Cipher, Zero, Nothing, or Jersey is still under debate.

Despite being there for over a week.
They really need to rotate the polls more often, or at least have them drop off the front page or something.
---
"Man, when the day comes, count me in with the robot smashers." - Anonymous Coward
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

Re:The problem is...

[prurientknave]

fascinating.. so what the NRA says is true apparently guns don't kill people =) shrapnel does

Re:The problem is...

[Melfina]

The materials of both an arrow and a bullet make up a big part of it. Also take into consideration the point of an arrow to the rounded/flat head of a bullet. I am aware of some higher caliber rounds being pointed, as the same with some arrow heads being flat. But the size of the area the force is being distrubuted through makes all the difference.

Re:The problem is...

[tomstdenis]

Dude, you're talking out your ass. Just shut the fuck up.

A broadhead will NOT go through an armor car door when shot from a standard ~70lbs pull compound. And I'm talking a well maintained door as well, e.g. not rusted through or otherwise damaged.

Tom

Re:The problem is...

[Melfina]

Look, I've seen it happen, maybe the door was a piece of shit (it was off of a 'Vets Armored' truck), but I've seen an arrow go through the door of an armored vehical.

*shrugs*

I don't have any proof aside from that, take it as you will.

Call me a skeptic...

[Anonymous Coward]

But I've seen other "incredible" technologies on this website and it seems they're slightly too good to be true. I'm not saying it's entirely vaporware, but they definately highlight only the strengths. Why? At the bottom, they're looking for external funding, complete with company details.

Invest now! 500% returns in the first year! BUY BUY BUY!

Re:Call me a skeptic...

[chhupa_rustam]

Aren't fullerenes ridiculously expensive to manufacture? As in so expensive the entire human race has only (intentionally) managed to produce a few grams? Maybe that's the true vaporware-nature-ness of this "discovery". If I'm not mistaken, a sheet woven from fullerenes would automatically have the sort of strength they're boasting of, simply by virtue of the chemical nature of fullerenes. It's like saying, "ooh, we've created artificial lighting systems out of luminescent bacteria that are 10x longer-lasting than light bulbs. Now we just have to go out and collect enough luminescent bacteria..."

Re:Call me a skeptic...

[Greslin]

I doubt this one belongs in the same category as Uncle Bob's Wacky Tinfoil Time Machine And Cappuccino Maker. Some seriously interesting things are happening in the field of nanostructured materials these days; an announcement like this doesn't surprise me in the least.

I did some work not long ago with a speciality chemical research firm in New York that develops nano ceramic composites for demanding performance environments (aircraft braking systems, Space Shuttle heat shielding, etc.). They played a big role in this summer's Discovery repair kit deployment. Anyway, I had a chance to learn quite a bit about the tech then.. more or less, it's about reducing nano component size to the point where there's a much greater ratio of surface to mass, which allows the particles to bind together much more tightly. Done right, the resulting material is very light and durable as hell. The New York company is currently getting themselves leveraged into motorcycle and automotive braking markets with this stuff.

Now these armor guys don't sound like they're doing quite the same thing. But I certainly wouldn't blow it off as vaporware. Nanotech isn't sci-fi; most of the cutting-edge work in the field right now is happening in superdurable materials. This fits right in line with where the entire field is at today. If this isn't for real, you can rest assured that the real thing is coming any day now, and that it'll look pretty much exactly like this.

Re:Sometimes seems

[Namronorman]

Selling them to governments sounds scary, selling them to private citizens sounds scary. It's a shame we live in a world where such wonderful technology (there are other GOOD should be obvious uses for things such as this) seems scary no matter who you give it to unless it's Batman.

Maybe we should just all get a pair and beat on each other until we get bored and move on to something better, or resort to bio/chem/nuclear warfare!

Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be able to keep my ipod scratch free.

Re:Finally...

[Wyatt Earp]

Check this stuff out...

http://www.theinvisibleshield.com/

Works like a charm on my Nano.

Re:Finally...

[fwr]

No, you're looking for a LiquidMetal case.

Re:Finally...

[Superfarstucker]

I concur, a bit of the PITA to apply though. Their lifetime guarantee is no bullshit either. My nano's screen cracked so I had to send it in to apple to get it replaced and they sent me a new shield. Just make sure you register it.

Digg.com vs. Slashdot?

[Scorillo47]

This specific story made me realize something on digg vs. shashdot comparisons. Usually digg.com is a good source for early news, something that Slashdot ceased to be some time ago. I go more frequently to digg.com these days to get the latest cool news.

As an example, I saw this story a few days ago on digg.com (eight days ago, to be more exact).

http://www.digg.com/technology/Nano-armor_-_Protec ting_the_soldiers_of_tomorrow

But here is the interesting fact: the story barely got any diggs, even though I found it out as a very interesting story. But here on Slashdot, the story makes the first page, thankfully... So interesting stories have better changes to show up on Slashdot after all!

Is it Chemical proof?

[Keith McClary]

What if the bad guys start using White Phosphorous or Depleted Uranium?

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[st0rmshad0w]

Yes, but unfortunately, water soluble. Dry clean only.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[Wilson_6500]

If it gets to the point where the "bad guys" have enough capital to invest in significant supplies of ammo of that sort, then they will probably also have a capital somewhere that we can turn into glass for them. Now, I don't know the first thing about the cost of that kind of ammo, but I have to think that it's a little harder to come by than your vanilla bullet.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depeleted Uranium is used because it is:

A) Of comparable density to tungsten
B) Easier to work with than tungsten
C) Far cheaper than iridium or ozmium, which are denser.
D) Self-sharpens instead of mushrooming (like tungsten does) when it passes through steel.

Recently hippie groups have begun to call DU and WP "chemical" weapons on the grounds that DU is a toxic heavy metal and white phosphorus is a poison if injested.

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that the World Health Organization doesnt think DU is dangerous at all (unless your the one being shot at) and WP in a military application dosent kill by poisoning but rather by *burning people alive*.

So yeah, DU is used for density, economy, workability and self-sharpening and is categorically not a chemical weapon.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[MoralHazard]

Whether the armor can resist WP or DP has nothing to do with its chemical sensitivities. "Chemical proof"? What is that supposed to mean, anyway.

Depleted Uranium rounds have efficacy because uranium is extremely hard, strong, and dense. A DU round at a given velocity carries more kinetic energy than a projectile of the same volume and velocity that's made of steel or lead, so it hurts more when it hits. Since it's hard, it doesn't deform easily when it hits, and so more of the KE is transferred into the target more quickly, which increases the peak pressure of the impact substantially. And since we're talking about a strong, hard material, instead of something that's brittle, it also won't dissipate energy by shattering.

There is a secondary effect of DU projectiles where the intense pressure of impact converts into a lot of thermal energy very quickly, which raises the temperature at the impact site to a few thousand degrees. This causes the uranium at the leading edge of the projectile to vaporize and oxidize (which releases even more heat). The effect on steel armor plating is to punch a hole and spew plamsa-temperature, gaseous uranium oxide into the interior of the target, which is pretty much an instant kill (tank crew dies horribly, fuel and ammo explode, et cetera). Coincidentally, this is also why DU rounds are bad for the environment--all that vaporized uranium oxide gets scattered around the battlefield, which can be toxic.

BUT... the secondary effect of DU won't manifest unless you're talking about an extremely high velocity round (like an APFSDS antitank round), AND it's hitting thick steel armor. This would never occur in a situation involving personal body armor, because a projectile with that kind of velocity would tear right through the front and out the back without transferring much energy to the target. Unless you're wearing an inch-thick steel plate on your chest and happen to take an antitank round.

WP is a completely different story. WP is just an incendiary, like napalm or gasoline. Sure, it burns a lot hotter, but resisting its effects is just about resisting heat. It has nothing to do with chemical sensitivities.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[werewolf1031]

...you can fit more weight and energy into a physically smaller and stronger round.

True. However, what really makes depleted uranium munitions exceptional for inflicting damage against hardened targets is that they "flare" on contact, so you essentially have an incendiary armor-piercing round, such as the PGU-14B 30mm round fired by the 19-foot-long GAU-8A Avenger autocannon nested within the fuselage the U.S. Army's A-10 Thunderbolt II (commonly called by the nickname "Warthog"). I've seen archival test footage of the GAU-8 Avenger ripping apart a test target (typically one of the old retired M-60 tanks), and it's pretty impressive that "an oversized machinegun" can rip apart a fully armored tank*.

*Note: Said tank had only conventional steel armor, not the ablative variety, but still...

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[timeOday]

DU is one thing, but phosphorus rounds are WWI technology.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[jeti]

I think the bad guys have done this repeatedly.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[darth_zeth]

Depleted uranium is not a chemical weapon. It is used because extremely dense materials penetrate armor better.

White Phosphorous is not really a chemical weapon either. A few people have been saying it is lately, so that they can say "The US is using chemical weapons! They are using WMDs!" Sort of like how China accused us of using "Chemical weapons" in North Korea... when in fact we were using tear gas to smoke NKs out of bunkers in lieu of out and out killing them. It's a political motivated definition making "chemical weapons" into what Orwell called "meaningless words".

Chemical weapons are things like Nerve Agents (VX and Sarin), Blister agents (mustard gas), and choking agents (Phosgene). Depleted uranium and white phosphorous don't fit into these categories.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[Stanneh]

Someone didnt see the italian documentary showing the streets of iraq littered with burnt out melted bodies. it lookes exactly like the pic's shown of what saddam apparently done to the kurds

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[h4rm0ny]

Recently hippie groups have begun to call DU and WP "chemical" weapons on the grounds that DU is a toxic heavy metal and white phosphorus is a poison if injested.

Is that why people object to them both? I thought it was because depleted uranium is as toxic as lead and may well be having long-term health effects on the soldiers who have to use these munitions (as well as having scattered over 300 tonnes of it around kuwait. And the White Phosphorus less for the risk that it might poison someone if they ate it, but more for the fact that it burns the flesh right off your body, just like napalm.

Interestingly the US government defined White Phosphorus as an illegal weapon due to the hideous manner in which it kills people. Now you can call them hippies if you want, but I think many "hippies" would object. Sadly, it's now been proved that US forces have used White Phosphorus intentionally as a weapon. And you can bet that they would have been the first to decry its use if it had been used by Iraqis.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[darth_zeth]

I could show you pictures of people hit with .50 caliber bullets or rockets or explosive shells or JDAM bombs. It will be gruesome.

But they are not chemical weapons.

This is slashdot. A site full of intelligent nerds. We should be able to separate emotion from fact.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[Junior J. Junior III]

Wait, we already do that.

Oh, I see you meant "the other side", not the bad guys.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[Rob_Bryerton]

Now, I don't know the first thing about the cost of that kind of ammo, but I have to think that it's a little harder to come by than your vanilla bullet.

Not to mention the chocolate variety...

bleh...

[Hallowed]

I would rather see it go to the military myself, I trust them (in the long run) to protect our civil rights more than the police do.....

Re:bleh...

[sd_diamond]

I would rather see it go to the military myself,

If it had to be only one, I'd agree. They're more likely to need it.

I trust them (in the long run) to protect our civil rights more than the police do.....

Oof. If those are our only choices, we've already lost.

Re:bleh...

[spauldo]

In America, the military doesn't protect your civil rights, except in the sense that they ward off invasion (the exception being if you're a member of the military, in which case your civil rights are quite a different matter, and the ones you don't sign over are protected by the military directly). The military is more or less the strong arm of the government in international affairs. Domestically, the military gets used more often for peaceful ventures such as disaster recovery and parades than it does in any martial sense. They can be used against the people, of course, but it's very rare for that to happen in the U.S.

Most military members do care quite a bit about civil rights, but they're not in a position to protect them unless ordered to.

Police act much more individually, so it depends on the cop. Some will play by the rules, some won't. Like Bob Dyllan said, sometimes you just find yourself over the line - in that sort of situation, best hope you get some good ones. In the end, though, it's up to the courts to protect your civil liberties.

Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[core plexus]

I read the article, but I don't see where it will do much more than stop a projectile, if even that.

What I want to know is: if the projectile hits a helmet, even thought it won't penetrate it, will it still cause enough force to break the wearers neck? If a projectile hits the wearers chest, will it break ribs and shock organs?

Body armor can stop some projectiles, but it will still leave, at best, a nasty bruise.

Alaskan Volcano Getting Stinky, May Erupt

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Lisandro]

There's no easy way to disipate the energy of an incoming high-powered proyectile. I recall seeing a show about this subject... assault rifle ammo, for example (like the 7.62x39mm round fired by an AK-47) has enough power to knock down a person, even if the bullet doesn't penetrate the armor. Bruises are common too, specially with kevlar vests designed for pistol ammo - they showed a few examples with a dummy wearing a vest and being shot with 9mm ammo.

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Blastrogath]

I don't think there are many non-vehicular antipersonnel guns that have enough KE to break your neck or ribs, as they'd often break the shoulder of the firer. If you need that much force you need something like an autocannon or explosive warhead. Also, the "nanoarmour" sounds like it's plates not cloth so in all likelihood chest hit's KE would get too spread out to break ribs.

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Blastrogath]

Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. A bullet actually puts less KE into the target than the person firring it feels. The KE of the kick is from the bullet and the hot gas from the propellant, the KE on the target is only from the bullet. There's also drag from the air that further reduces KE.

An AK-47 can be fired full auto without falling, therefore a person can absorb all the KE of every bullet fired without falling. The only way being hit would make you fall if you had impenetrable (to an AK) body armour is by tripping you because of the unexpected impact.

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[core plexus]

"I don't think there are many non-vehicular antipersonnel guns that have enough KE to break your neck or ribs, as they'd often break the shoulder of the firer."

Then maybe you've never heard of the Barrett Light 50, aka M82A1/2/3. I've shot them, and it's not bad at all. I certainly would not want to be on the receiving end.

Alaskan Volcano Getting Stinky, May Erupt

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Lisandro]

IIRC, the AK-47 is a gas operated gun - the reciever is made to work using the energy of the gas from the firing. There's also a recoil spring system which absorbs energy from the shot round and helps reducing recoil. The person firing the rifle doesn't absorb all of the kinetic energy of the round; and even then, those guns can kickback strong.

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[core plexus]

"An AK-47 can be fired full auto without falling, therefore a person can absorb all the KE of every bullet fired without falling. The only way being hit would make you fall if you had impenetrable (to an AK) body armour is by tripping you because of the unexpected impact."

That's not the way it works. You may want to do some research on this before replying.

Alaskan Volcano Getting Stinky, May Erupt

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

If a projectile hits the wearers chest, will it break ribs and shock organs?

Probably. Cops that are hit while wearing their Kevlar vests get bruises, and even cracked ribs. It's better than a bullet hole, more like getting a whack with a baseball bat.

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[gbjbaanb]

IIRC, all machine guns work like that - firing one round causes the next round to be fed into the chamber, and so on.

With recoil though, even if there's a meaty spring in there, the energy still has to go somewhere. If its not turned into heat or light, it stays as kinetic (even if its turned into potential energy temporarily stored in the spring, that spring will still uncompress releasing the energy you put into it). So what happens to it?

It all must go into the body of the firer, who is of course braced and so the energy will only push him into the ground (like a butressed wall holding up a tower). If he wasn't braced, he would fall over.

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Lisandro]

The energy is absobed by the coil, "stored" for a moment as potential energy then released (much more slowly, but still fast enough) partially into the frame of the gun, which of course gets stressed. When the H&K USP (a handgun which uses a system of opposing springs to help reduce recoil) came out it made a big fuzz about this. Also, the momentum of the bullet must equal the momentum of the displacement of the gun (which has quite more mass) and, to a degree, the shooter, if he experiences recoil. The fact that the bullet flies at (X * 100) mts/s doesn't mean the shooter will do as well.

    The shooter still experiences recoil, but it is contollable. Otherwise guns would be impossible.

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Blastrogath]

"...Barrett Light 50, aka M82A1/2/3. I've shot them, and it's not bad."

A gun hurts on the receiving end because:

1 there's a smaller impact point on the tip of a bullet than the butt of the gun, which spreads the impact over a larger area.
2 there's usually no shock absorber on the target like there are in many guns, the shock absorber (usually a spring or springs) spreads out the kick over time.

A bullet hurts more on the receiving end because the impact is more concentrated.

If you where wearing a suit of body armour made with internal plates to spread impact the kick of a round on the receiving end would be similar to that of a gun with no recoil suppression. The article was also praising the "nanoarmour" for being an efficient shock absorber. Also worth bearing in mind for automatic weapons is that usually you don't hit with all the bullets you fire.

Basicly to get enough KE to break the targets neck or ribs from impact on a helmet or armour plate you'd need a gun with enough kick to break your neck or ribs if you braced the butt against your head or ribs to fire it.

I also said that there are not many AP guns with that much KE, not that there are none. The Barrett Light 50 is one gun and not a typical or common one, most infantry are armed with assault rifles. It has as much or more kick per round as common vehicle mounted machine guns and may well be capable of breaking your neck if you braced the butt against your head to fire it. I'm sure a Mk 19 grenade launcher would do a fair job too on a direct hit, but most guns are not like these.

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Blastrogath]

> The person firing the rifle doesn't absorb all of the kinetic energy of the round

The user masses more but he still recieves almost exactly as much KE as the sum of the bullet and gas going out of the gun have, it's manageable becaue its spread out over space (gun butt) and time (springs or other recoil management). Springs do not meaningfully reduce KE, they spread it over time.

Modern armours spread the impact over space via intenval plates. The nanoarmour is mentioned to have shock absorbing properties as well in TFA.

No, I Don't Agree

[BigDork1001]

I'm in the military so I defintely do not agree. I know several people in the Army and would like to see them have the best protection possible. Why shouldn't they?

Due to the nature of their job who is going to get shot at more, the Army or police? Obviously it's the Army. So why shouldn't they get this armor?

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[blank89]

It's not that I don't believe that those in the army don't deserve protection. I just think that the Armor would be a better investment at home than away. Do we really still want to have so many forces away from home for another three years? If something isn't solved by then, we need a lot more than some Armor. Thank you for being civilized, and rational, unlike some of those posting after you.

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[BigDork1001]

Do we really still want to have so many forces away from home for another three years?

No, we really don't want that. But it'll probably be so to some extent. And who's to say where they will be next. There is no way that Iraq will be the last place that the US Army will ever have to fight. Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, Canada, Cuba, where ever. There will be conflicts in the future and our Army needs to be ready to face their opponents with the best equipment and training they can have.

That being said, I am far from a gung-ho military member. I'm currently deployed to the Middle East and I for one hope that this conflict is quickly done and over with.

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[blank89]

At some point, it would be nice to see military personal better protected. You're right that we will at some point have to fight another war, and that the army has to be prepared. I would rather that any conflict occur later, rather than sooner though. If it were a choice between spending the defense budget on this Armor as opposed to more weapons, then I wouldn't see a problem with it.

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[spauldo]

I think you're treating a symptom, not the cause. If our guys are ill equipped out there, that just means more will die. Think Vietnam here - if our troops had the proper equipment, training, and support back then, there'd be a lot less names on the wall.

The guys in uniform don't (usually) start the war - they follow the orders of those who do. Your best bet, rather than reducing the defense budget now, is to convince congress to quit sending our troops off to fight. Once we're not fighting all the time, then we can worry about reducing the defense budget.

Until then, I say give 'em the best we can.

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[drsquare]

Well, maybe the Army would be better protected if they didn't randomly invade countries they have no business with?

I'd rather the police be protected whilst stopping crime, that's more of a concern to most people than killing those evil Iraqis with their WMDs...

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[the eric conspiracy]

So you would like the Army to decide who they invaded and who they didn't invade?

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[Armadni General]

Don't feed his troll line.

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[canadian_right]

The army does not get to decide which countries it invades. The civilian government decided to invade, the army then does as the lawfully elected government orders it to do.

You should be mad at the government that decided to start an ill advised war that was justified by frabricated evidence, has cost many, many more lives than 911, and made the USA LESS safe.

All this assumes you are speaking about the USA army.

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[blank89]

Of course, the guys in uniform didn't start the war. If somebody really wanted to limit the number of deaths, they would think twice about sending them to war in the first place. I think that the defense budget is far larger than need be as it is. If things were more efficient and less corrupt, there would be enough money to cover what's needed, along with some decent wages for the ones who are risking their lives in the first place.

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[Fordiman]

In response to your sig - I think your trouble is determining the difference between 'naieve, idealistic' and 'harsh, realistic'.

Re:Sometimes seems

[MichaelSmith]

its sad to think that something like this will be used first and foremost, to minimize a country's casualities, so that the country can perpetrate more violence

Maybe, but this is primarily a defensive material. Its not a weapon per se. If this could be used to make lightweight garments which are resistant to some bullets and nearby explosions you could outfit children in landmine infested areas and save a lot of lives.

Re:I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

[Melfina]

If the material is as solid as they claim it is it should reduce the impact of the bullet hitting. Reducing the impact is all well and good, but it's only so effective. To truly protect someone from a shot you need to be able to disperse the impact force throughout the entire vest.

Containing an explosion

[Circlotron]

Would be just the stuff to construct a super-lightweight scatter blanket for a racecar transmission or similar. Anyone that has witnessed a major engine failure in a top fueller will appreciate this. http://www.wediditforlove.com/CHRR2005/Williamson- Q1-topend-1.jpg

Re:Sometimes seems

[MiKM]

By your logic, medics are evil because they minimize casualties in army A so it can kill army B faster.

In The Cross Hairs

[Criliric]

What affect would said armour have on a head shot....

I mean IF a helmet was made... would the user suffer a concussion? Or just feel nothing...?

Re:In The Cross Hairs

[Nimey]

That would depend on how dense this stuff is.

In the Society for Creative Anachronism, people can fight in various amounts of steel armor and wield rattan swords. This always includes a helm and some other mandatory armor.

One man got the idea to make his mandatory helmet out of titanium. Titanium is stronger than steel, but less dense. When he went into combat that day with his new helmet, he took one good whack to the head that someone wearing a steel helm would have shrugged off. With his lighter titanium model, he was knocked unconscious and got a concussion. The helmet was undamaged, however.

It all goes back to physics: action, reaction, momentum.

Re:In The Cross Hairs

[bagsc]

Most soldiers who take bullets to the helmet do not suffer concussion. Helmets are rounded very carefully to deflect bullets so that they don't absorb all the momentum of a round, and the straps and restraints try to cushion as much of the blow as possible. E.g. US Kevlar Helmets have about an inch of air between the shell and the head strap that is actually in contact with the head. A network of polyester straps suspends and balances the helmet around this head strap. I've been hit very hard on the helmet and all it did was twist, pull on my scalp and echo.

It is only you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Policemen need armor a lot less than soldiers do, especially Israeli soldiers.
I disagree with your statement because it implies that you would prefer more of our soldiers to die.
I don't want our soldiers to die.

Re:It is only you!

[Fordiman]

The trick to war is getting the other guy to die for his country.

-----
Balls. Got a slow down cowboy. Now I gotta think of something else to say.

Glerbelwerbelwitz.

Re:I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I meant by 'crater.' There are some excellent examples at The Box O' Truth website. The tests with level IIIA armor and bulletproof glass give me a lot of respect for a 12 gauge slug.

Shock Absorbing !=Viral Protection

[Propaganda13]

TFA compares it to current impact resistant material. "The new Tungsten based IF material has up to twice the strength of the best impact resistant materials currently used in protective armor applications such as boron carbide and silicon carbide, and are over 5 times stronger than steel" It doesn't claim to anything else, just better than the current material. Sure a bullet could still kill you unless the force is spread out by other material or a structure made by the new material. Of course, you could be killed by a virus, poison gas, or a sonic blast, but that has nothing to do with their claims about the material.

Be careful about IsraCast.

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful about IsraCast. In my opinion, the web site often shows investment opportunities in fraudulent companies.

"The Armor Of The Future"?

[Chaffar]

Bah, that won't hold against my Carsomyr +6.

Re:"The Armor Of The Future"?

[Hank Chinaski]

before i clicked the link i actually thought it was about rpgs like in rocket propelled grenade and not about rpgs like in role playing games :p

Re:"The Armor Of The Future"?

[Kelz]

But then all the bad guys will start wearing boots of escaping!

Distribution of Force? F*DeltaT anyone....

[nonother]

The article makes it extremely clear that the material can withstand the force of the impact, but makes no mention of its ability to actually protect the wearer from the force of impact. This seems like it would be amazingly useful in a tank or other non-contact situation. However, I can't see how as a vest this would be better than a vest that diffused the force. Perhaps it does work that way, but would that not have been mentioned?

IF ?!

[AkA lexC]

Does anyone else read that as ironforge?

Not perfect, just better

[ZorgonTheMeek]

The thing that I am noticing about all of the replies on this subject is that that they are stating this armour is not perfect. Sure, the wearer will still feal the kinetic energy of projectile or whatever...but the wearer will be more protected with this than probably any other armour available measured by hardness. Maybe next they should think how to reduce the amount of energy that is transferred from one plate to the next.

Re:Not perfect, just better

[bagsc]

There are really only two things that matter when you're stopping a round: breaking the skin, and breaking the bones. Broken bones don't generally kill you, but occasionally internal bleeding or punctured lungs will. If you can breath and you aren't bleeding, you can survive a few hours to get to a hospital.

That being said, you don't want to "reduce" energy per se (that's kinda unphysical), but rather spread it out. The amount of energy isn't the problem, its the area density. You always need some amount of flexibility and cushioning to transfer the energy from the strike plate. That, and you need to be able to move in it.

Civilian Uses

[lloy0076]

Hey,

Think of it:

• Safer cars
• Safer air-craft
• Safer joy rides

And:

• Potentially less expensive, but stronger items

Re:Civilian Uses

[EnsilZah]

Safer cars? You want your car to be easier to destroy for it to be safer.

Re:Shock Absorbing

[Rank_Tyro]

Do a bit of math here. Newton's third law says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if a projectile were to deliver enough energy to break a persons neck after hitting an impregnable helmet, the soldier that made that shot would suffer from a broken shoulder.

As an aside, necks are tougher than most people think. In movies, the hero grabs the villian by the head and makes a severe twisting motion accompanied by a loud "CRACK". In real life, the amount of force needed to break a neck seems to exceed the amoount of force that a SUV traveling at 35 mph imparts to a stopped vehicle at a stoplight. Whiplash is the usual outcome of a multi ton vehicle traveling at 35 mph. A 5 gram bullet moving at approximately 900 m/s has no where near the same energy delivered.

  Of course, if a howitzer round lands on the helmet, the odds of a broken neck are pretty slim compared to the odds of being blown into a thousand little red bits....

And you've made a critical point...

[Khyber]

... as I was thinking that "Gee, I wonder when the next war breaks out for the technology to create this material?" I'll admit that's a paranoid thought, but jeeze, oil ain't gonna last forever. Producing technology with a good aplication most likely will last "forever" in our market. (Forever being the lifespan of the entire human race.)

The first obvious application of this technology is war or oppression of one's own citizens. This bothers me probably as much as anyone else here, but the question I pose is somewhat involved, so think carefully. Can we find OTHER uses for this technology that far outweigh the application for combat and war? Can there be some potential way to divert attention from this application and (for fun and economy) make it more profitable for use in other industries?

Just my honest thought and idea. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:And you've made a critical point...

[ls -la]

Can we find OTHER uses for this technology

It doesn't matter what other uses it has, if it can be used for war or oppression, it will be.

question is: is it better than ceramic armor?

[thorndt]

The US Army uses ceramic plates that slips into pockets in soldiers' jackets to stop projectiles. This is, I believe, called "hard body armor", as opposed to "soft body armor" (kevlar and such). The article states that this new stuff is five times stronger than steel...but how does it compare to the ceramic plates? FYI: The ceramic plates pretty much crumble and disintegrate when hit by incoming rounds; this stuff, I guess, would be so strong that the bullet would ricochet off?

Re:question is: is it better than ceramic armor?

[phriedom]

"The new Tungsten based IF material has up to twice the strength of the best impact resistant materials currently used in protective armor applications such as boron carbide and silicon carbide."

I guess your "ceramic" plates are made of boron carbide or silicon carbide?

Re:Sometimes seems

[ls -la]

If a medic has to save someone's ass, chances are they won't be ready to fight again for a while (if ever).

Re:Let nothing touch them

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm sure they've read your brilliant post, slapped their foreheads, and all will be well by Tuesday.

mass vs velocity

[sanman2]

My understanding is that bullets quickly lose velocity due to air resistance, and that while conically-shaped hyper-velocity bullets are on the drawing boards, there are still various issues about stability in flight/transit.

Cocky Armor

[NCraig]

Alright, IsraCast, the material is strong. We get the point.

But did you really need to give the armor a six-pack?

Re:Cocky Armor

[megrims]

Hehe. It looks like something Batman would wear...

Re:Cocky Armor

[gagypsy02]

My Body Armour used to have a sixpack, but I drank 2 of 'em.

250 tons/cm^2

[Barkmullz]

"these materials...have successfully resisted to steel projectiles generating pressures as high as 250 tons per square centimeter"

That material will be the only thing left when they find you. Puts a whole new meaning on "he turned into Jello," doesn't it?

*rimshot*

Thank you very much!

Believe it when I see it

[docbombay]

Is there any news about this from a more reputable and slightly less biased source than, say, a press release on the company's website?

Rifle bullets are the interesting problem

[billstewart]

Conventional bullet-proof vests, made of things like Kevlar, will stop almost all pistol bullets and shotgun pellets but not rifle bullets. If you're making body armor for the military, that's important; if you're making it for police, it's less of a problem because (in spite of US propaganda) most criminals don't use assault rifles, they use pistols, which are easily concealed and much more convenient. If by "armor-piercing shells" you mean things meant to pierce tank armor, as opposed to body armor, those are going to pack enough wallop that it probably doesn't matter much if you're wearing armor.

picture of prototype leaked to net!

[krispyosjp]

somewhat familiar design...

Rifle Bullets vs. Depleted Uranium

[billstewart]

The real threats this stuff is likely to help with are rifle bullets. It'd be interesting to know how easily it burns - will WP or napalm set it on fire, or just go around it?

Depleted uranium isn't something that would normally be used for rifle bullets - it's used for big honking anti-tank rounds, and it's unlikely that nanotech body armor would keep you alive if you're hit by one of them even if it could keep it from penetrating - there's just too much kinetic energy that's going to get dissipated around your ribcage. Maybe they could build tank armor out of the stuff that would be lighter or more effective than heavy steel; that's really a separate question, though it's also a cost-effectiveness problem.

Re:Rifle Bullets vs. Depleted Uranium

[werewolf1031]

Maybe they could build tank armor out of the stuff that would be lighter or more effective than heavy steel...

Or better yet, use this material as a secondary (tertiary?) armor layer beneath the ablative-reactive armor deployed on most M1 tanks, perhaps beneath the conventional steel of the tank's hull, thus affording greater protection for the crew (arguably the greatest asset of the tank).

Erm... just a thought.

Re:Shock Absorbing

[arkhan_jg]

Do a bit of math here. Newton's third law says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if a projectile were to deliver enough energy to break a persons neck after hitting an impregnable helmet, the soldier that made that shot would suffer from a broken shoulder.

I was thinking about this the other day. Conservation of momentum only means that the force applied to the target by the bullet as it deccelerates will be equal to the force applied to the bullet, which is why it deforms. The force applied to the gun firer will be different. I think.

The kinetic energy the bullet has will do work on the target, which if the bullet is fully stopped, will be equal. That work, as newton meters, will result in a large force over a short distance (very short if it doesn't penetrate the armour). That force then follows the 3rd law, and is applied to the target and the bullet, which bruises or breaks bones and squashes the bullet.

The gun performed work on the bullet to give it that kinetic energy, but because of the barrel length, means that a smaller force must have been applied over a longer distance; that smaller force is then applied to the firer's hand and/or shoulder, due to the third law. (the 3rd law also dicates recoil; a bullet accelerates fast in the barrel, due to a small mass, while the heavy gun accelerates slower backwards due to a larger mass. If the soldier is tightly gripping the gun, then they both will accelerate backwards even slower; if he's got a solid stance, then the earth will rotate backwards with him a very very tiny bit)

So the energy applied to the bullet at firing will equal the energy applied to the target (or less a bit, if you include air friction); but the two people will experience different forces. That's why you can fire a high power rifle that will blow a hole right through body armour, but won't break your shoulder.

Of course, I've gone about this the wrong way; gun manufacturers work on creating a force on the bullet (amount of gunpowder) that will give a high muzzle veocity, without applying dangerous force to the firer. Air resistance will dictate the effective range of the weapon, and the muzzle velocity and range will determine the energy applied, and thus the eventual force applied to the target.

Anyway, back to the point. Stronger body armour doesn't mean less energy applied to the target, it just means that the force from the bullet is spread out over the surface of the armour, rather than going through it and applying force to the squishy bits in your body cavity directly as it slows down. Our bodies survive larger diffuse impacts at the surface better than small holes in organs, so stronger body armour means better survivability, even if the impact does hurt like hell.

Incidentally, I'm right there with you on necks. The ease with which a villain's neck snaps is right up there with the likelyhood of cars exploding because they rolled over when it comes to suspension of disbelief. Oh, and that getting stabbed once or twice in a random area kills you instantly. Human beings survive trauma a lot longer than films usually give them credit for - unless they're the hero, in which case they always shrug off wounds that would disable a normal person from shock.

Re:Shock Absorbing

[jeti]

I agree about breaking the neck. However, a lot of medieval knights lost their eysight. While their helmets withstood the impact of weapons, the resulting forces ruptured their optic nerves.

Re:Okay, Israel, we get it

[pintomp3]

or the stuff does work and gets bought by someone who doesn't want everyone to know they bought it or have it.

Going the other way...

[Gordonjcp]

... you don't need a lot of armour in a car door to stop a bullet. Even thin crappy steel (early 80s Nissan Micra) could take enough energy out of a shotgun blast (not the same thing, I know) to keep all the pellets behind the hardboard door card. A door from a mid-80s Volvo 340 could keep out .303 hunting rounds pretty effectively - only one actually made it right through the door. I suspect the 6mm steel plate up the insides of the doors of my Citroën CX would be pretty damn effective armour. No, I don't know why it has them. Yes, the glass *is* the weakest point.

Re:Yes...

[MBraynard]

First, you're wrong.

Eyeglasses were from either Northern Italy or China (dev'd about the same time). The triangular sail thing is about 1800 years ago (pre-Islam) and questionable if it came from there. They didn't originate astronomy - the Greeks did - though I suppose, again, about 1000 years ago. Irrigation was even longer before that (and man, then that's the only place people existed). Same stupid argument for the wheel.

The folks who did all of that are NOT the same people/ethnicity and more important, economic/government tradition of those who created these things that you mention.

Did I specify I meant within the last, say, 100 years? I'm just looking at Iran, Syria, Egypt, or any of these other kleptocracies and trying to see what advancements if any have come out of them within my, my fathers, or his father or his father's lifetime.

Re:You're going to be modded down soon.

[tewner]

Welcome to the world of R&D. Israel does a lot of it. Have you ever worked in the field? Many ideas are presented, but not all of them are developed to maturity. Either way, slashdot science is a place to share cutting-edge science advancements, not only mature off-the-shelf products.

In that case they are fucked

[Rank_Tyro]

Body armor covering vital areas of the body from penetrating trauma has very little to do with protecting the body from flamnable materials like WP or Napalm.

As for DU rounds, the tremendous amount of KE combined with the density of the rounds means that almost nothing on the planet will stop one of those things from going through it's target.

The warhead will always win the arms race between armor and penetrator.

Re:Shock Absorbing

[Jesapoo]

Have none of you watched Saving Private Ryan?
Opening battle, one of the Americans takes a hit on the helmet.
"You lucky bastard!"
American takes helmet off to look at damage... And then gets shot in the head.
But no broken necks! ;)

I doubt this reasoning

[GroeFaZ]

First off, I am aware of Newton's laws. That being said, it doesn't have to apply here to the extent that is always described, i.e., "if a bullet knocks the victim 10 feet through the air, the same has to happen to the one firing the gun" That may be true in a micro-gravity system where there is almost no resistance to momentum (which makes fist fighting in zero g almost pointless). So I doubt the reasoning, for mainly 2 reasons:
Consider, for example, medieval catapults, Trebuchets, whatever. They released enough kinetic energy to smash city walls of stone, yet they were not destroyed by this energy themselves. Where the energy goes depends on the weapon design and, in case of hand-held kinetic weapons, on the posture of the marksman. If one holds a powerful gun casually and unprepared while firing, it's no surprise to see it flinging out of one's hand. Hold it tightly and in correct posture, and the gun barely moves.

Another reason: I have served my time in the Bundeswehr, the German army. Our trainer in basic training told us why modern battle helmets (in Germany, at least) have a kind of safety latch on the chin strap which opens and releases the helmet when a certain amount of pull is applied to the opposing ends of the latch. According to our trainer, the reason for this provision is that during WW II soldiers died because a rifle shot happened to graze their helmet and break the wearer's neck, because the helmet was strapped tightly to the wearer's head. And it just might make sense too: If you fire a strong rifle, you have the inertia of your whole body and posture to absorb the released kinetic energy, whereas the hit helmet and head would be a local, much lighter system which can absorb a lot less momentum and accelerate to much higher velocities. The neck, being the pivotal point which connects the moving head/helmet system and the fixed body system, would be the weak point and subject to leverage.

Re:Shock Absorbing

[SashaM]

In real life, the amount of force needed to break a neck seems to exceed the amoount of force that a SUV traveling at 35 mph imparts to a stopped vehicle at a stoplight. Whiplash is the usual outcome of a multi ton vehicle traveling at 35 mph.

Umm you got your physics wrong. The mass of the hitting vehicle has little to do with the force applied to the neck of the driver that was hit. I could bore you with formulas, but a good way to demonstrate that you are wrong is examine the case of an infinitiely massive "SUV" hitting a vehicle at a low speed. Do you think the force exerted on the vehicle's driver will be infinite? This doesn't happen because what determines that force is the acceleration of the vehicle hit (F=ma, where the m is the mass of the driver being hit, not the SUV!), which in turn depends on the change in velocity of the vehicle hit (which in our imaginary case will be the velocity of the SUV) and the amount of time it takes to accelerate to that velocity (assuming constant acceleration) -- a=v/t. That time doesn't depend on the mass of the hitting vehicle, but on the type of the impact. Car manufacturers spend a lot of time making sure that cars, when hit, would absorb the momentum slowly, making sure it takes the car a lot of time to accelerate to its final speed, making the maximal exerted force as small as possible.

A 5 gram bullet moving at approximately 900 m/s has no where near the same energy delivered.

True, but again, everything depends on the final velocity of the person being hit and the time it takes him to accelerate to it. If he accelerates from 0 to 2 m/s in 5 milliseconds then his acceleration is 400 m/s^2 (40g), which is probably enough to break something. The numbers are made up, of course, and are probably wrong, but I'm not showing your result is wrong - just the proof.

Re:Shock Absorbing

[dbIII]

Do a bit of math here.

OK - since we are not talking about rigid bodies here energy is absorbed by deforming the material and the amount absorbed is related to the amount of stress required to push the material out of shape a given amount - it's also rate dependant. As people have learned from bicycle helmets, the last thing you want is a impregnable rigid helmet that tranfers a lot of energy to your skull. Unfortuntely the headline for this story appears to be all screwed up - strength isn't the important issue here (after all - bullet proof vests are made from a stronger than usual nylon known as kevlar) but the ability to absorb energy. The main clue that the article is screwed up is giving pressure in terms of tons per square centimeter instead of in sane units that engineers, materials scientists, tradespeople etc use.

Where are the science journalists when you need them? Get the food critic off the case and put one of those on the job.

I'd rather give it to civilians.

[Julian Morrison]

There should be a 2 1/2 amendment: asymmetry between government and civilian being damaging to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and wear effective armor shall not be infringed.

Re:I'd rather give it to civilians.

[deimtee]

Interestingly, in Australia it is illegal for private citizens to even possess body armour.
They don't bother chasing SCA types, but try importing a kevlar vest and they will kick your arse into court real fast.
The cops LIKE to have the ability to shoot without worrying about the slugs bouncing off.

Re: What about us ...

[CaptSisko]

... motorcycle riders? This could be a great addition as protective armor in jackets etc.! Most of the injuries either occur falling on our backs (damage to the spinal cord), or falling and sliding into an object which concentrates the impact damage on a small area (guard rail etc.).

Some thoughts on that

[PromANJ]

I mean IF a helmet was made... would the user suffer a concussion? Or just feel nothing...?

Probably depends on the deflection angle. If it hits straight on so all the energy is transfered, then I suppose that the impact will feel about as much as the recoil from the rifle. Maybe like holding the rifle 'stock'(back) against your forehead and pulling the trigger? I heard (urban) getting shot is like getting hit by a fast softball or tennisball in terms of energy. Nothing that would throw you across the room, probably more of a 'THUD!'.

I think body armours are made so the force is distributed over a larger area, becoming 'blunt'. There's lots of layers cleverly arranged so the force is dilluted as it travels through the armour. I suppose helmets also have paddings that act as suspension too. Isn't helmets more for protecting the wearer from shrapnel and tumblers though?

As far as I know, tank armours have a hard outer layer, and a softer inner layer. The hard outer layer attempts to shatter the projectile, and the soft more flexible inner layer will then absorb the shock from the fragments and distribute the force. Not sure where the israeli armour goes. It's a good thing if the bullet doesn't start to tumble or 'mushroom' (hollowpoints do) inside the body. I think this is the reason why hard body armours are avoided, the just makes matters worse by making lots of little nasty fragments that enter the body.

Depleted Uranium (DU) projectiles (as fired by the A10 tank killer) contains a DU 'needle' inside the bullet, and that needle is apparently self sharpening and very heavy, so it doesn't shatter when hitting the outer hard armour layer. Because of the energy it melts the armour, spraying it inside the tank. I think DU incinerates too. That's what I read anyways.

Re:Shock Absorbing

[MotorMachineMercenar]

"do some research - the soldier firing a rifle round does NOT receive the full kinetic energy the round delivers to the gun."

Oh really? Why don't you enlighten us with your superior knowledge of physics?

whats new dufus

[cheekyboy]

Name me one company on the DOW1000 that never asks for investors?

Unless BG or Paul Allen bank rolls you, extra funding via IPO/part ownership is always seeked. Sure google and many
companies dont NEED IPOs or stocks to gain cash, they could easily get all the cash they need via banks/bonds to do what
they need. Its just that stocks is a way to 'spread the risk' onto 500000 clients rather than 1 ie, the bank. The world is
awash with capitol unlike the pre 20's because we havent had a major war that destroys capitol in a long time, and we have tonnes of it via inheritence and ongoing growth with no major war to kill it.

Once again, complete BS

[Ancient_Hacker]

The strength of material has *absolutely no relation* to it's ability to withstand impact.

For example, glass is extremely strong in compression, but easily shattered.

The steel used to make files is also extremely strong, but shatters with the slightest impact.

What you need to handle impact is a material that can spread the impact energy as uniformly as possible over TIME and SPACE. So you need something that's extremely uniform and ductile.

This stuff may be good for something, but touting it as good for this application sounds mighty fishy.

Boring.....

[BeyondALL]

Wy do the scientists so often invent the obvious boring stuff...
What I want is a nanotech bridge made of 0.5 mm nanoglass that is so scary nobody wants to drive over it :)

Micrometeorite protection

[Jonathan Burns]

And not just for spacesuits, but robotics, tether reels, beanstalk climbers and more. If this works, it will be invaluable.

Helmet answer Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[n54]

Yes and no as it depends on the helmet design.

I know this M1 link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Helmet states that:
"Many men thought that when a bomb went off etc., the chinstrap would snap their neck when the helmet wold be blown off their head. This was also a disproved theory."

The above is actually both correct as well as untrue. http://www.combatreform.com/chinstrap.htm states that:

"During the course of the North African campaigns in 1943, the rigid hook fastener of the chinstrap was found to be a source of potential danger by remaining intact under the impact of a blast wave resulting from a nearby detonation and thereby jerking the head sharply and violently with the production of fractures or dislocations of the cervical vertebras. Therefore, it was necessary to redesign the helmet strap with a ball-and-clevis release so that it would remain closed during normal combat activities but would allow for a quick voluntary release or automatic release at pressures considerably below the accepted level of danger. Following extensive tests by ordnance engineers, a new release device was developed which would release at a pull of 15 pounds or more. This device (fig. 308) was standardized in 1944".

However I was erroneously taught that yes unless one wears the helmet correctly (chin strap on the chin not under it) you could get your neck snapped... and at that even from small caliber fire like the AG-3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AG-3... all of which is plainly wrong but I don't mind: it's typical of the numerous reasons why I didn't go for a career in the norwegian armed forces (some of which actually have a clue; no disrespect to them).

Whichever way one looks at it it becomes obvious that it's not enough to simply stop the bullet; one has to engineer personal armor and helmets to also absorb and dissipate as much as possible of the energy, or actually break/release if needed to.

Oh and the M1 sucked and was a pain in the ass to wear and according to the combatreform link the PASGT hasn't been much better. It's no use having a helmet if it constantly falls off/drops down into your field of vision, makes it hard to hear stuff, chafes and limits head movement significantly... no wonder a lot people simply didn't wear it (I wouldn't either).

Additional info on PASGT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personnel_Armor_Syste m_for_Ground_Troops_Helmet

Note to Journalists: say what the numbers mean

[technoCon]

The abstract includes this quote, "projectiles generating pressures as high as 250 tons per square centimeter." This may be useful to armorers, but the layperson thinks, "as opposed to what?" Ferinstance, if the kevlar vests that the president's bodyguards or our troops in the field wear have a stopping power of 249 tons, I'll yawn. If this stuff will stop a .357 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the whole world and would blow your head clean off, that's also a useful comparison. If it'll stop a .50 calibre machinegun round at point blank range, that's also handy to know. This 250 tons figure means nothing to me.

Re:Note to Journalists: say what the numbers mean

[technoCon]

uh, you knew i was quoting Dirty Harry, right?

Thanks for the stats. I recall from reading my NRA magazine that the term "magnum" refers to the large load and is named after the supersized champaigne bottle.

Re:Note to Journalists: say what the numbers mean

[joib]

uh, you knew i was quoting Dirty Harry, right?


If you were, then you got it wrong. Dirty Harry used a .44 Magnum.

Re:Just me?...Yes. Just You.

[hot soldering iron]

I've known WAY to many cops that chose that field of work because 1) they could be bullies and get away with it 2) it's a great way to skim money and drugs off people that can't attack you (the criminals/drug dealers) 3) they couldn't get and keep a real job.

I know there are GOOD cops that care about people and do the best job they know how to do, but they are badly outnumbered by the scum-that-wear-badges.

Most of the people in the military are volunteers that KNOW they can/will be shot at, are under harsh and strict disciplinary controls, subject to double-jeopardy (punished in civilian AND military court seperately for the same crime), and truly care about their families, communities, and country enough to risk their lives performing their duties.

Yes, I was a soldier. And yes, I've had to deal with blue-bellied scum.

Re:Sometimes seems

[Alsee]

scary no matter who you give it to unless it's Batman.

No, I'd say giving it to Batman is pretty scary too. That goes for both the borderline-evil Batman from the original comic book, and doubly scary for the pajama clad dynamic-duo Batman and Robin of the 1960's TV series.

-

Irrelevent Photo

[tauntalum]

Illustration photo - medieval armor.

The discovery of the extraordinary wave-shock absorption quality of the IF materials, position it as one of the best candidates for future protective gear and armor.

Attached photo was really neat. Where's the real product?

Force, not energy transfer is what causes injury

[moultano]

The damage done to an object, in crude terms, is a function of the force applied to the object. The force is directly proportional to the impulse divided by the time (impulse being change in momentum). So for your example of the gun, if the momentum of the bullet being fired changes over a longer period of time, (the time it takes to accelerate out of the barrel until it releaves the pressure in the chamber by exiting the barrel) it will not do nearly as much damage as it does to the person it hits, since there it is losing momentum over a much smaller time frame. The time it takes to deform your skin the inch or so it will give is much smaller than the time it takes to get out of the barrel, and as a result it will rupture your skin, but not the hands or shoulder of the person firing the bullet.

With your whiplash example, the momentum of the people is changing much more slowly. The car's crumple zones cause the actual force that is applied to be much smaller.

If you aren't convinced, go punch a pillow as hard as you can, then go do the same to a concrete block. See which one hurts your hand more.

Re:Shock Absorbing

[Lisandro]

for a number of reasons, the principal being that most guns firing "big" calibers (and several handguns aswell) implement a spring system solely to absorb recoil and improve accuracy. floating barrels (barrels that move back after each shot) are also common, like in the Barret .50bmg. those gun can shot through ammo and yet they can be shoulder-fired with relative comfort.

it's the same mechanism that avoids you hitting your ass when you drive your car and go over a bump. now, is that enough physics for you?

I'm Batman

[ulerich]

Wayne Enterprises has announced their intention to purchase the Israeli company...

Re:Sometimes seems

[Frumious Wombat]

Uh, dude, you want to give this technology to an perennial bachelor genius acrobat living in a home office/cave, who likes to dress in skin-tight outfits, go out at night, and beat people up?

That's kind of scary too.

Home market is US - metric units useless ;-)

[AHumbleOpinion]

"When I go to the range I use cheap standard bullets, but when I load it for home defense, it's hollow point. Goes in with a centimeter, comes out with a decimeter."

Sir, I suggest you Trademark that phrase and enter Bullet Manufacturing.

That would be a waste of money. The home market is primarily in the US so metric units are fairly useless. ;-)

That was quite a post.

[lheal]

Your post displays a remarkable lack of insight.

Despite what you see on television, most police go years at a time without drawing their weapon. Still, they wear body armor when their jobs bring them into potential harm's way. Their main job is to diffuse situations before violence erupts.

While soldiers and marines can also go for years without drawing a weapon or receiving enemy fire, in a live battle situation it's the expectation that they will. It's the whole point of an army: go into harm's way so the harm doesn't get to the civilians.

Overall, your post shows the complacency of someone who's never had to defend his own liberty, yet is perfectly happy accepting the sacrifice of those who do. At the same time, you want to make their job more difficult.

And yet it is for you that our soldiers die.

No soldiers at all or just poorly-protected ones?

[John Jorsett]

I think I would rather it go to the police than the army. Does anyone else agree?

From that commment I infer that you don't like the military. So would you rather 1) Have soldiers, but leave them more vulnerable to enemy fire than necessary, or 2) Not have soldiers?

1) Would be either sick, stupid, or (my pick) both. Even if you think soldiers are subhumans and therefore not entitled to protection, if you acknowledge their necessity why wouldn't you protect the investment you have in them? It costs a huge amount of money to train and equip them and if they die or are incapacitated, you've wasted that money.

2) Would be rather foolish in my opinion. Do you think, just as one example, that the cops can get you out when some lunatic group or tin-pot dictator decides you'll make a dandy hostage?

Who cares...

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds sorta like decimated!

pwn3d

[sahilsinha]

headshot!

and you thought mere radiation was bad..

[bombastinator]

I am not by any stretch of the imagination a good authority on this subject as my memory is vague and my sources third hand at best, but as memory serves, and it may not, so feel free to correct me, one of the big problems with fullerenes is that even if they are totally non reactive they still wind up being highly poisonous because of their size, shape and tendency not to bond with anything.

They tend to do unpleasant things like go through your skin, clog blood vessels, and never ever break down.

So the plan is to go spraying them around a war zone asp part of either bullets or armor, with much the same abandon as the U.S. did with depleted uranium in the gulf?

Considering the controversy currently surrounding that behavior this does not strike me as a particularly good idea from first glance.

Re:and you thought mere radiation was bad..

[jonfr]

The time of superheros and supervillans is upon us!

And have they tested it with...

[design by michael]

... the BFG???

Ah-ha!

[IamCarrots]

So it's finally a good idea to bring a knife to a gun fight. Technology never ceases to amaze me.

Wouldn't work.

[raehl]

Americans don't know what a decimeter is.

Interceptor Armour

[phriedom]

I guess I should have Googled it first:"The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) is made of a boron carbide ceramic with a spectra shield backing that's an extremely hard material. It stops, shatters and catches any fragments up to a 7.62 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second. It's harder than Kevlar."

So when they said twice as strong, they meant it.

Re:Interceptor Armour

[thorndt]

Thanks Phriedom. I guess I shouldn't have just skimmed the article... Yes, twice as strong as the ceramic sandwich plates--wow. Still, I wonder about it's strength-to-weight (those ceramic plates can get heavy) and what this stuff's failure modes are. I mean, would it shatter?

Re:Shock Absorbing

[joto]

As an aside, necks are tougher than most people think. In movies, the hero grabs the villian by the head and makes a severe twisting motion accompanied by a loud "CRACK". In real life, the amount of force needed to break a neck seems to exceed the amoount of force that a SUV traveling at 35 mph imparts to a stopped vehicle at a stoplight.

Ever tried pulling a bolt? Even a small one would need several tons of pulling power in order to pull it loose from the nut. Yet, using my bare hands, I am able to separate the bolt from the nut by using a rotational motion.

The neck is pretty solid too. But if you know how to do it, it's not that hard to break it. All you have to do is to pull in the right direction.

Now try to put a bolt and nut in a colliding car, and see if they separate...

That being said, I agree with your point. If someone were shooting at my head, my immediate concern would not be that if the armor held, my neck might break from the impact. Unless I could get one of those sci-fi forcefields...

Re:Sometimes seems

[Jim_Callahan]

If you get hit with a few rounds while wearing light armor, you won't be fighting again for a while, either.

Crossbows to Cryptography and back again!

[aphor]

From Crossbows to Cryptography and back to crossbows? What if the bad guys just use a nano-engineered armor piercing tip projectile? I'm sure a piece if armor made from this stuff will cost much more than 50-60 rounds of ammo made out of the same stuff. What if they made really tiny HEAT style rounds (squirting a jet of molten metal on impact)?

Re:Why even bother

[narcc]

Horray! Two invincible armies can fight all they want and nobody dies -- they'll eventually realize the futility of war...and stop. Now religious zealots will finally keep their fighting to bars and sports events where, as all Irishmen know, they belong!

Re:Support Our Troops FOR THE CHILDREN

[Taevin]

No, that was an idiotic thing to say. The last thing this country needs is a mindless population of sheep that falls in line whenever the administration decides it wants to go to war. Doing so would make you the very opposite of patriotic.

I think you misunderstand what is being said. Maybe we should not have gone to war, fine. That is very different from supporting the troops. The soldiers did not just up and decide to invade Iraq one day, the elected civilian government decided to send them there. Chances are, a good many of the soldiers on the ground do not want to be there and/or disagree with the war. However, short of going AWOL, they have no choice in the matter. If you want to bitch to someone, contact a congressman near you.

In response to the "they shouldn't have become soldiers" argument, I have to say don't forget who many of the soldiers are. I would guess that almost none of the enlisted men and women joined up because they wanted to go kill people. Some probably joined because they wanted a career serving their country. Maybe some others joined because they had no real goals in life and looked to the military as one source of dicipline and training. Many more probably joined for the college tuition benefits. Think about that for a second. Some young kids fresh out of high school, most from poor(er) families, decide to serve in the military for a few years so they can go to college and perhaps carve out a better life for themselves and your attitude is "fuck em, they shouldn't have become soldiers?"

It's because of people that took the risk during peacetime to join the military that we have the freedoms that we do today. So yes, I also agree that we have a duty to support our soldiers in the best possible manner. Protest the war all you want, but direct your anger at the source of the problem: the politicians that started it, the same ones that continually erode the freedoms military servicemen are willing to die for.

Re:Shock Absorbing

[MotorMachineMercenar]

No, it's not. I'm aware of such systems and have fired and own such guns. Such systems do _not_ take away the recoil, they just either make it smoother (different spring mechanisms, buttpads) so it doesn't hit like a hammer, or divert it (muzzle brakes) so the muzzle doesn't jump as much. But the recoil is still there.

BTW, floating barrel doesn't mean it moves back after each shot. There's no shoulder-fired mass-production rifles available that has a barrel that moves back, AFAIK. Moving barrels are used in large-caliber guns (cannons), though. While Barret's do have floating barrels, they don't move anywhere. The floating barrel design is for accuracy purposes, not for recoil absorption. Look it up if you don't believe me. And although this is slashdot, please don't spread misinformation on things you don't know or understand.

Re:Congratulations to Izeickl for his writing tale

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Can't win here, can you R.P.

Personally, I think it's jealousy from people that have blogs no one goes to...