Army Exoskeleton Prototype Helps Soldiers Learn To Shoot

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Army Exoskeleton Prototype Helps Soldiers Learn To Shoot

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday July 5, 2015 @04:10AM from the point-and-shoot dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Infantrymen live by their shooting skills, but becoming an expert marksman can take a long time. U.S. Army researchers are working on a way to improve these skills with the help of the MAXFAS, an arm exoskeleton that uses arm braces to correct involuntary arm shakes. Designed At the U.S. Army Research Laboratory by Dan Baechle, the MAXFAS has been shown to improve aim even after users have taken it off. "Soldiers need to be able to aim and shoot accurately and quickly in the chaos of the battlefield," Baechle said. "Training with MAXFAS could improve Soldiers' accuracy, and reduce current time and ammunition requirements in basic training."

86 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:They seem to need more help not raping people by JaredOfEuropa · 2015-07-05 04:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, it's called a chastity belt. Old tech.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Seems to work. by o_ferguson · 2015-07-05 04:25 · Score: 1

I guess they should just wear them in the field.

--
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
1. Re:Seems to work. by marcello_dl · 2015-07-05 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  > I guess they should just wear them in the field.
  What? As soon as they see your AIMBOT the enemy cries "CHEATER!!!" and you get disqualified, worst idea ever.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
2. Re:Seems to work. by o_ferguson · 2015-07-05 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, you made me lol. Well done.
  
  --
  - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
What happened to basic training standards? by adosch · 2015-07-05 04:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ah how the U.S. Military has softened up. I remember pushups, kick in the helmet, and more pushups, sweat in the eyes, drill sergeant fear and pushups to correct my shooting posture and shaking.
I am sure it is a cool corrective tool to use, but its a crutch. But we have been shooting guns for centuries and using less-than-accurate firearms than we have now, its a matter of attention, caring and wanting to be good with your firearm.
And icing on the cake: When I was in the 'motherland' for OIF, it was a great feeling to know I had good shooting mechanics and trusted my shot. I couldn't imagine being in the military and sucking at that.
1. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  We have become a nation accustomed to throw money at every problem. Looking back at the conflicts we have been involved since WWII, I guess we have also forgotten how to win wars. What is the end result? A very expensive and sophisticated army that can't win a war?
  In the meantime, the Chinese and the Russians are threatening the sovereignty of their neighbours. Strange days indeed.
2. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by nicoleb_x · 2015-07-05 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Shooting is hard for a lot of people and lots of training certainly does help. If you want to deploy technology that makes a big difference then I think there are better avenues to approach.
3. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  We have become a nation accustomed to throw money at every problem. Looking back at the conflicts we have been involved since WWII, I guess we have also forgotten how to win wars. What is the end result? A very expensive and sophisticated army that can't win a war?
  In the meantime, the Chinese and the Russians are threatening the sovereignty of their neighbours. Strange days indeed.
  You have to ask what the goal was.
  Since the goal is preserving jobs of high ranking soldiers, pensions of retired soldiers who are working as military contractors and lining the pockets of executives who control those contracting firms. I would say we've met every single goal.
4. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by ShanghaiBill · 2015-07-05 05:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The goal here is to finally have women serving as equal.
  Marksmanship is an area where women tend to do well. They have a lower center of gravity, less fast-twitch muscle, and a weaker systolic heartbeat. For the opposite reasons, black men tend to be the worst marksmen. In general, if you are good at sports that require sprinting, fast reactions, and upper body strength, you will be bad at shooting.
5. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  Can we please keep things on topic and not have every article turn into a gay marriage debate?
  No?
  Ok, Let's just get this exo-whatever thing built so we can have more time for our military to attend sensitivity training.
6. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by JaredOfEuropa · 2015-07-05 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  If this technology helps people to become better at marksmanship with the same amount of training, then why not? However, I do have my doubts...
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
7. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah but you didn't spend all your youth creating carnages with only your index finger.
  Besides, push-ups are not fun!
8. Re: What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  But they hate us and want us to die. Why does your kind defend that? I hate you for hating me. I hate this republican scam to increase death rates even more. They want to kill us.
9. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  For starters, let me not be and hypocrite and accuse someone of something while being benefited by the status quo: I believe a balance of powers is better than have one single nation with the capacity to conquer the whole world. It was not good with Napoleon, nor with Stalin and specially not with Nazis.
  That said, the problem is not the Chinese or the Russians. The problem is that we didn't construct a good, working, enforceable international order. Most of the time either the US, or China or Russia will veto something good to the world -- because they would need to sacrifice some of their vantage positions.
  > In the meantime, the Chinese and the Russians are threatening the sovereignty of their neighbors. Strange days indeed.
  You know the US do the same, obviously, don't you? Why single out those two? Actually, the US does that more than the two combined. And China, except for Tibet, is not not threatening anyone. They even tolerate that annoying dwarf called NK. And if you're worried about Russia and their ridiculous bear-riding President, stop putting a gun to their face. Your way of defending yourself by attacking first will grant there will be a fight. But then, that's the basic idea, isn't it?
  I agree with your remarks about excessive importance being given to tech; but let me highlight a point, which I deem important... nobody wins wars. Everyone involved in a war, loses something.
  Even in the highly improbable outcome that there are no casualties or economic downturn, massive opportunities for gains are lost when the enemy is defeated. Not all can be reconstructed as Japan or Germany -- and even that cost a lot of money to make it happen.
  One should make it clear to every enemy that it is advantageous to them to work together, as compared to waging a war. Not being able to do it makes someone just incompetent, no matter how good at warring.
10. Re: What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Scam is right. For over a hundred years, more people die at the hands of these CONservatives via artillery than small arms. Investments in small arms and training is a boondoggle. It is Republicans stealing for us to pay their corporate welfare. It is the way of their kind. Murdering us is simply a nice side effect for them for this scam.
11. Re: What happened to basic training standards? by adosch · 2015-07-05 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Ah. You're right. I was always viewed as a "hell of a good guy" vs "model soldier". You took more slanted patriotic stock in my opinion than it took me to give a shit to read yours.
  One thing I did learn is how not to be a coward, than post as one and be a poser troll, to boot. Back to your cave, Taliban troll.
12. Re: What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  One problem is that US military rifle training outside of special forces and to a lesser degree, the Marines, is about 40 years out of date, because the previous generation's training was 50 years out of date, and so on. One thing that was apparent to me is that the level and amount of dogma and misinformation passed down from instructors. COD kiddies almost know more, which isn't saying much.
  Basically, soldiering is a job. Some excel, most just go through the motions.
13. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Can we please keep things on topic and not have every article turn into a gay marriage debate?
  No?
  Ok, Let's just get this exo-whatever thing built so we can have more time for our military to attend sensitivity training.
  RE sensitivity training: People who are actually IN the military don't complain so much about who they are fighting next to, it's the people that are out or were never in, trust me.
14. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  Harsh discipline and some stricter physical punishment have been eliminated to give women an equal footing. This has nothing to do with which sex is the better shooter, but what happened to the "pushups, kick in the helmet, and more pushups, sweat in the eyes, drill sergeant fear and pushups to correct my shooting posture and shaking." that adosch remembers.
15. Re: What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  One problem is that US military rifle training outside of special forces and to a lesser degree, the Marines, is about 40 years out of date, because the previous generation's training was 50 years out of date, and so on. One thing that was apparent to me is that the level and amount of dogma and misinformation passed down from instructors. COD kiddies almost know more, which isn't saying much.
  Basically, soldiering is a job. Some excel, most just go through the motions.
  Cost of training per person * number of people trained per year, sort things by that metric and see if there's correlation for basic marksmanship standards :)
  "Every Marine is a rifleman" wouldn't work if we had two million Marines, IMO
16. Re: What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymity, pseudonym, it is the same thing: hiding that which could be used against you. Posting your real name and address certainly would be brave, but to call someone that chooses not to accept a risk unnecessary to take a coward is simply wrong. Cowardice is avoiding risks that ought to be taken. Posting as the pseudonym "adosch" instead of the pseudonym "Anonymous Coward" is not that.
  Just because a particular individual is being an ass does not mean that it is okay to tarnish the reputation of everyone that shares a singular benign trait with them. That is the sort of brash, undisciplined thought that militant nationalism, racism, and general prejudice is born from.
17. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  Actually many of them aren't thrilled by a bunch of recent decisions. You can't always trust the PC spokesman.
18. Re: What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  The problem here is mental illness, specifically yours. You keep posting this stupid crap, and that is all it is.
19. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Iamthecheese · 2015-07-05 06:35 · Score: 2
  
  You're wrong. No matter how much experience shooters have or how well they control the voluntary side of their muscles there is some shake that just can't be trained out. That's why we wrap the sling around our left arms.
  
  It's also a mistake to call this a training aid. Obviously if you need it to control involuntary shakes on the firing range you'll need it in the field.
  
  --
  If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
20. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by drinkypoo · 2015-07-05 06:48 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Marksmanship is an area where women tend to do well. They have a lower center of gravity,
  not always :D
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
21. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  Ah how the U.S. Military has softened up. I remember pushups, kick in the helmet, and more pushups, sweat in the eyes, drill sergeant fear and pushups to correct my shooting posture and shaking.
  I am sure it is a cool corrective tool to use, but its a crutch. But we have been shooting guns for centuries and using less-than-accurate firearms than we have now, its a matter of attention, caring and wanting to be good with your firearm.
  And icing on the cake: When I was in the 'motherland' for OIF, it was a great feeling to know I had good shooting mechanics and trusted my shot. I couldn't imagine being in the military and sucking at that.
  Did they teach you how to whine there? Or did you pick that up on your own?
22. Re: What happened to basic training standards? by dzamie · 2015-07-05 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  >if you need it to control involuntary shakes on the firing range you'll need it in the field. If you'd read the submission, you might have noticed that the effects persisted partially, even after the device was removed.
23. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by radarskiy · 2015-07-05 07:30 · Score: 2
  
  "I am sure it is a cool corrective tool to use, but its a crutch. "
  From the summary that you could have read yourself: "the MAXFAS has been shown to improve aim even after users have taken it off. "
  It is an actual training tool, not a crutch.
24. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by myowntrueself · 2015-07-05 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  Ah how the U.S. Military has softened up. I remember pushups, kick in the helmet, and more pushups, sweat in the eyes, drill sergeant fear and pushups to correct my shooting posture and shaking.
  I am sure it is a cool corrective tool to use, but its a crutch. But we have been shooting guns for centuries and using less-than-accurate firearms than we have now, its a matter of attention, caring and wanting to be good with your firearm.
  And icing on the cake: When I was in the 'motherland' for OIF, it was a great feeling to know I had good shooting mechanics and trusted my shot. I couldn't imagine being in the military and sucking at that.
  Can't have people being afraid of joining the military because they are worried about the discipline!
  BTW the USA has the lowest 'fit for military service' per head of population than any other country on Earth. They are desperate to get people in the military and desperate to get them fit for service. Why do you think the USA is so keen on drones, fighting robots etc?
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
25. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by myowntrueself · 2015-07-05 07:44 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  We have become a nation accustomed to throw money at every problem. Looking back at the conflicts we have been involved since WWII, I guess we have also forgotten how to win wars. What is the end result? A very expensive and sophisticated army that can't win a war?
  In the meantime, the Chinese and the Russians are threatening the sovereignty of their neighbours. Strange days indeed.
  The USA has been at war for a lot more of its history than any other country, and thats with a very short history indeed.
  The USA has a strong tendency to be more belligerent, more likely to go to war, more likely to fuck with its neighbours than China has ever been in its entire history (except when it was ruled by the Mongols but thats completely different).
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
26. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  The goal here is to finally have women serving as equal.
  Marksmanship is an area where women tend to do well.
  That would be fantastic if only they didn't do pathetic in every other area. Women can't even be harden without them crying 'sexual harassment'. Because everything women do somewhat become 'sexual something'. That uteri-centrism is non-sense. Fuck 'em.
  Screw that, just give them all they ask for. This civilisation isn't worth saving anyway. I, for one, welcome Islam and it archaic, but based, way of life.
27. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Racism! Sexism! Transphobic hetro white cis male bigotry!! This triggered me. Stop oppressing women and minroties with your right wing republinerd fascism. Your post was RAPE CULTURE!!
28. Re: What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Veteran!! Literal mass rape!!!!! You patriarchy penis power politics trigger pulling death devices are racist by your own confession you are guilty you white southern hetro cis gendered male!! You sicken me with your triggerring toxic words you harrassment factory shitlord. STOP OPRESSING WOMEN! Donate to my patreon!
29. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Women are typically better at shooting than men!
30. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the US military has little trouble getting enough people physically fit for service. Physically fit, and sufficiently educated, and disciplined, and willing to risk your life for long hours, low pay, and little respect - those criteria are hard to meet. But still, we find a few million. More than all of Europe combined.
  The main reasons for drones and robots are politics and money. The politicians are afraid they'll be blamed when even a single soldier dies, so they don't want to risk any. Also, training and supporting human soldiers is EXPENSIVE. Robots are cheap and effective. Why the hell wouldn't you switch if you could?
31. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by rtb61 · 2015-07-05 13:09 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If you can shoot at them, they can shoot at you. The longer you take to aim, the longer you are exposed and someone else can aim at you or as is more often the case, take a snap shot at someone a few metres away and hit you by accident as they spray out bullets. Somehow a exo-skeleton that makes me stick my gun up with my head exposed behind it while it demands I take aim, kind of seems wildly offensive. Reality if the people you are training are too incompetent to learn to shoot relatively accurately with minimal training, you should not be giving them a gun because in the field they will revert to pray and spray and that is worse for your side rather than the other side. Many armies make recruits run/march for fifteen kilometres, then immediately get you on the firing range to shoot off twenty shoots and if you miss with too many shoots you fail and you are out. Of course it depends whether you want professional soldiers or just cannon fodder you can chew up and spit out, dumping them on the streets with crippling injuries.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
32. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by Sarten-X · 2015-07-05 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't served, but I have a decent amount of experience with the military.
  I've met and worked with soldiers in all of the US military branches. They're really good at what they do, but they're not perfect, and they know it. As you so bluntly pointed out, there is exceptional discipline, but you can only beat people so hard before they just stop improving. Humans have limits, and despite what your commanders convinced you to believe, technology is the best way to surpass them, not more pushups.
  The soldiers today are given just as much training, and they're just as good on their own as you were. Now, though, they also have better technology and better training equipment, so they're more effective than you could have been. If they need to move further, faster, they'll have a robot to carry gear so they can go the extra distance. If they need to shoot straighter, they'll have the rifle and stabilizing exoskeleton to hit their targets. If they need to watch a building for hours, they'll have a drone do it without putting a soldier in a vulnerable position.
  It doesn't matter whether you trust your "good shooting mechanics" or your equipment. You are there to complete a mission, for which you are to use every means at your disposal. That desire you have to be "good with your firearm" should have been a desire to complete your mission properly. Giving up any advantage for fear of being "soft" is not honor or duty. It is stupidity.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
33. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by hackertourist · 2015-07-05 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  What can possibly be bad about using a device that helps you to learn to shoot better? Detailed feedback seems to be a more effective method than a scattershot approach of pushups and getting yelled at.
34. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by KapUSMC · 2015-07-06 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Can we please keep things on topic and not have every article turn into a gay marriage debate? No? Ok, Let's just get this exo-whatever thing built so we can have more time for our military to attend sensitivity training.
  RE sensitivity training: People who are actually IN the military don't complain so much about who they are fighting next to, it's the people that are out or were never in, trust me.
  This is extremely true. I was in the Marine Corps during DADT and the repeal. I heard maybe a couple of people complain at the repeal of DADT, and in execution I noticed a grand total of 0 changes, including no decrease in the rampant number of dick and gay jokes.
35. Re:What happened to basic training standards? by sd4f · 2015-07-06 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  In all my years of shooting training (non military, rather olympic rifle shooting and similar disciplines), there are women who do come in and do rather well, however most often it happens that way if there's someone to set everything up and all they have to do is put a round in and pull the trigger. Obviously there will be exceptions to this. Military trained shooters, at the ordinary level, are usually hopeless at disciplined target shooting. It's fair enough, they're two completely different things, but top notch marksmanship at the ordinary soldier level is not the criteria which good soldiers are measured by, therefore, it's not the only thing they spend time training. However, to relate this to the original topic, my shooting training largely revolves around a couple of things; namely steadiness of hold, and setting up the correct natural point of aim, so that your position aligns with your target as precisely as possible.
  A large support won't necessarily train that into someone, what it may do is aid in the mechanics of sighting, which can be elusive for the beginner if they're lumped with all variables at once. However, in my experience, once that has been trained, and it's usually fairly quick, the supports get taken away and the next variables are added to mix everything together. For all intents and purposes, they don't need a robot to do this, they could just place a rifle on a rest and achieve the same thing.
  Lastly, there is no definitively correct shooting posture. Everyone is physiologically different, and at elite level shooting, you'd be very hard pressed to find two shooters doing exactly the same thing. At the olympic level, the rifles are very customisable, and everyone adjusts things to suit themselves. This creates a difficult situation in a military context, where firearms are, by design, mass produced and simple in nature, in order to keep costs down and expedite manufacture if the need arises. As a result, they don't have the ability to adjust in many fashions to suit an individuals anatomy. Sometimes, this needs to be compensated for with a shooting technique that can be less than ideal in other circumstances.
Basic marksmanship better than a exoskeleton by RY · 2015-07-05 04:29 · Score: 1

Mastery of basic marksmanship and body mechanics will go further than band aiding the problem with technology.
American shooting displine doesn't foster well by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 04:31 · Score: 0

Check out what's done in European shooting clubs instead. Without arm braces.
Alternatively... by Karmashock · 2015-07-05 04:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

... a drill sergeant could just push your arm into the correct position and call you a grab-asstic piece of amphibian shit until you get it straight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This reminds me of those tablets they were handing out to school children on the notion that it improves education... and isn't just a great way to play angry birds. Which is exactly what happened to the Los Angeles Unified version of that little genius ploy.
I don't know. I'm all for exoskeletons... in the military and otherwise. But telling me it teaches people how to shoot in the military seems like a solution to a problem that we already have a better solution for... no?

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. Re:Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Listen, they have to cater to a bunch of over sensitive millennials now, they'll probably make them safe spaces to cry in while holding a stuffed unicorn when they miss a shot.
2. Re:Alternatively... by Karmashock · 2015-07-05 06:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  According to the military, that isn't the problem. Apparently the current generation is more willing to kill than any prior generation that they kept records for... WW1's generation had a really hard time actually intentionally shooting someone.
  Even up to Vietnam it was quite common for US soldiers to intentionally miss.
  The military is saying the problem is not that people are sissies so much as they're fat and weak. So they've shifted a lot of the training from bits where they key up people's killer instincts and instead spend that time running laps and doing push ups.
  I can send you reports from the marines and army. They're very happy with the "grit" of the men showing up to serve. They're just annoyed out how out of shape they are.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
3. Re:Alternatively... by drinkypoo · 2015-07-05 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  ... a drill sergeant could just push your arm into the correct position and call you a grab-asstic piece of amphibian shit until you get it straight.
  Is that what made you the man you are today?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:Alternatively... by Inferno+Vulpix · 2015-07-05 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Drill sergeants cost a significant amount of money to maintain, whereas if this technology is produced in large quantities it can become a valuable investment as a replacement for drill sergeants.
  If they both accomplish the same thing, and one can be cheaper than the other, why would you not choose the cheaper one?
5. Re:Alternatively... by radarskiy · 2015-07-05 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  "we already have a better solution for"
  By what criteria are you judging this to be worse that the current method?
6. Re:Alternatively... by myowntrueself · 2015-07-05 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  According to the military, that isn't the problem. Apparently the current generation is more willing to kill than any prior generation that they kept records for... WW1's generation had a really hard time actually intentionally shooting someone.
  Even up to Vietnam it was quite common for US soldiers to intentionally miss.
  The military is saying the problem is not that people are sissies so much as they're fat and weak. So they've shifted a lot of the training from bits where they key up people's killer instincts and instead spend that time running laps and doing push ups.
  I can send you reports from the marines and army. They're very happy with the "grit" of the men showing up to serve. They're just annoyed out how out of shape they are.
  If the military requires drone pilots then the requirement for fitness in military service drops a lot. Which helps the USA a lot because the majority of 'Murcans are not fit for military service at all.
  Just set the flabby fatty 'Murcan in the chair in front of the drone controls and let them murder as many people as they like cos they LOVE killing.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
7. Re:Alternatively... by Karmashock · 2015-07-05 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Cost, live human feedback, live adaptability, proven effectiveness of existing methods...
  You know... just the really obvious things that anyone could cite if they thought about it for at least 2 full seconds.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
8. Re:Alternatively... by Karmashock · 2015-07-05 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  The military doesn't take that view. The marines especially have the notion that EVERY member of the marines is a "rifleman" first... which means universal fitness is mandatory. Not only that but competence with their rifles is required... it doesn't matter what you actually do most of the time. You must master that first and maintain that skill. Look at them.
  There are no fat marines.
  The army a bit looser on that but for a lot of reasons I won't get into, they're not going to tolerate big fat dudes. It literally offends large portions of the military to even contemplate it.
  New recruits... sure. But they work you until you're fit.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
9. Re:Alternatively... by Karmashock · 2015-07-05 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Drill sergeants are a given so that's a zero sum game. The military is not replacing drill sergeants with anything.
  They would sooner get rid of infantry than replace their non-coms.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
10. Re:Alternatively... by Karmashock · 2015-07-05 08:53 · Score: 2
  
  It gives me a genuine thrill of pride that you would think so... Really.
  Ever had someone try to insult you but they know so little about you that they accidentally complimented you? Always amusing.
  Thanks. :)
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
11. Re:Alternatively... by drinkypoo · 2015-07-05 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  It gives me a genuine thrill of pride that you would think so... Really.
  That's what I was trying to find out, more than whether you had been in. You confirmed my suspicions in every way. Thanks, I guess. Sorry about your life.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
12. Re:Alternatively... by trawg · 2015-07-05 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know. I'm all for exoskeletons... in the military and otherwise. But telling me it teaches people how to shoot in the military seems like a solution to a problem that we already have a better solution for... no?
  Well, that's the only question that matters - is the exoskeleton solution better than having a human train you?
  That question can only be answered by building it and trying it out over a series of tests, comparing it against the baseline of having a human yell at you to stand up straight or whatever.
  I have often wondered if something like this could exist for skiiing - I've been skiing maybe 5 times now and I'm starting to get the hang of it, but every time I get a lesson I'm frustrated by the instructor saying "oh, just do this with your body", because I can't figure out how to map what they're doing or saying onto my body.
  Sure, if I took a bunch more lessons (and if they screamed at me like a drill sergeant) I'd probably figure out it - but having some exoskeleton thing that "guided" me into the right actions seems like it could be really useful.
  The other question though is - even if the exoskeleton solution is better, is the cost worth it? Assuming it's more expensive - if only improves outcomes by 10% in one key metric, but costs 50% more, does that work out? What if the outcome goes up to 80%?!
13. Re:Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry about your life.
  Speak for yourself. Karmaschmuck's life is an almost endless source of entertainment for the rest of us. I guess you can still be sorry for his life outside of /. - which isn't much.
14. Re:Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  According to the military, that isn't the problem.
  
  The military doesn't take that view.
  What are you, the fucking Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? More like the Chief of smoking Joints. Fuck off numbnuts.
15. Re:Alternatively... by jgtg32a · 2015-07-06 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to see that, kinda disturbing.
  Maybe they were right about video games and violence on TV, but violence rates are still going down so who knows.
16. Re:Alternatively... by Karmashock · 2015-07-06 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't explain properly. The military is not saying the new recruits are psychos. They're saying they don't have to be conditioned to kill. The average US WW2 vet was not a psycho. But after the war, he was much more able to shoot someone than he was prior to going to war.
  He had had the violence normalized in his mind to a certain extent. However, that didn't mean he was a murderer. The crime rates after wars don't spike up above what they were went vets come home. They might go up above what they were during the war but they don't go up measurably above what they were before the war. And that is despite having many more people in your society that have psychologically normalized the concept of calculated methodical killing.
  A certain amount of this is video games and violent movies. But that doesn't mean you're a psycho if you watch those things or even enjoy them as entertainment. But what it does mean is that when it comes time to actually pull the trigger it is less of a psychological shock. Parts of your mind are ready for it and it just blends into that same part of your mind.
  Again, the military's attitude on the whole thing is that it is a mixed blessing. They like the "brains" of the new recruits. They find us to be better educated, smarter, faster with technology, less hesitant to pull the trigger, less psychologically conflicted about pulling the trigger... They are however fucking disgusted by the bodies.
  https://youtu.be/RXhKpUfITV0?t...
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
17. Re:Alternatively... by jgtg32a · 2015-07-06 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah sorry I put way too much "negativity" into that post it was before coffee. I also seem to remember seeing some quote by an SAS/SEAL/Delta/Some other special forces founder that said when they were starting out it was easy to find people who could handle the physical side of things but difficult to handle the mental, and it then reversed on them, mental was easy physical was hard.
18. Re:Alternatively... by Karmashock · 2015-07-06 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yep... the mental aspects are underrated. When the lead is going on target you want people on your side to go for the kill. That's how modern militaries protect themselves on the battlefield. It isn't armor. Its about killing the enemy quickly... ideally before they even know you're there.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
19. Re:Alternatively... by KGIII · 2015-07-06 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Fitness requirements stop at age 42.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
The real reason...... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 04:43 · Score: 1

"Training with MAXFAS could improve Soldiers' accuracy, and reduce current time and ammunition requirements in basic training."

The bean counters have struck again!
Incorrect characterization by fnj · 2015-07-05 05:08 · Score: 1

They aren't "improving skills". They are assisting the subject mechanically so he doesn't NEED as much skill.
1. Re:Incorrect characterization by RY · 2015-07-05 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  And the less skill a solder has the less of a threat they are to the politicians who sent them to war.
2. Re:Incorrect characterization by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 14:44 · Score: 0
  
  You've just defined firearms in general..
3. Re:Incorrect characterization by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 15:48 · Score: 0
  
  They aren't "improving skills". They are assisting the subject mechanically so he doesn't NEED as much skill.
  I take it that you missed the part in the summary where they note that it has a lasting impact even when they stop using it. We could argue the semantics of whether or not that is a skill (I'd call it muscle memory instead), but it certainly isn't mechanical assistance after they stop using it. And I'm not sure that skill overcomes the lack of muscle memory. Although you could think of muscle memory as one component of skill.
  They don't discuss this in TFA, but it would seem that this is just a shorter feedback loop. Instead of shooting and missing a lot to find out that they are trembling, this gives immediate feedback. So people learn from the immediate and direct feedback faster than from the slower, less direct feedback. I.e. this discourages a bad behavior directly rather than requiring people to learn it indirectly.
  Here's how I think it works. When someone holds a weapon, they naturally have arm tremors. This system pushes against the arm tremors. So your arm learns not to make the system push against it. You could argue that you are learning, not your arm. But I think that is incorrect. This happens down at the level of involuntary reactions. It is more accurate to say that your arm learns it, even if the actual change happens elsewhere in the nervous system.
  This works because it focuses the feedback on just one aspect of the problem. Just shooting allows for so many things to be wrong that you don't necessarily realize where you need to improve. So people probably compensate for the arm tremors (which can be done at the conscious level) rather than stopping them (which needs to be done below the level of conscious thought). This could help a lot if it avoids the compensation phase altogether and goes straight to the learning how to aim phase. So your arm is learning not to tremor at the same time as your brain is learning how to aim and adjust for the environment. Something that you'd normally have to relearn to do without the compensation.
  The interesting part is that it sounds like what he wanted to do was to make a system that made people shoot better while they were wearing it. The post-use benefits are a useful side effect that will be of more immediate use than the system that he is trying to create (it's cheaper to build a device that people will use temporarily and then pass on to the next person than a device that they have to carry with them and maintain).
4. Re:Incorrect characterization by jgtg32a · 2015-07-06 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  It is subtle and immediate feedback, works wonders when learning a new skill.
Double tactical lights by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 05:09 · Score: 0

Of course you need a brace if you're shooting with 2 tactical lights...
Not true greenwow by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 06:26 · Score: 0

Actually we would all like to see you get better. Please seek help from a qualified mental health professional. You need it, really.
Re:They seem to need more help not raping people by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 06:54 · Score: 0

Is this what you are talking about? I guess repealing DADT really worked out "well."
Victims of sex assaults in military are mostly men
Re:They seem to need more help not raping people by Inferno+Vulpix · 2015-07-05 07:08 · Score: 1

Two questions:
1) How do those numbers compare to the number of men and women in the military?
2) How do those results from 1) compare to national sexual assault rates?
Re:They seem to need more help not raping people by drinkypoo · 2015-07-05 07:15 · Score: 0

Yes, it's called a chastity belt. Old tech.
Maybe they should deploy some of those. It might help with suicide rates being higher than casualty rates.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's for a pistol, only officers carry by Trax3001BBS · 2015-07-05 07:42 · Score: 1

Infantry uses rifles, can't see this helping anybody but the ones behind the line.
Do you want to get Borgs? by ArcadeMan · 2015-07-05 07:59 · Score: 1

Because that's how you get Borgs.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
RTFA by gurps_npc · 2015-07-05 11:32 · Score: 1

If you actually read the article, you see that training with this device on makes you a better shot even when it is OFF. As this is not a weenie thing that bad soldiers use to avoid training, instead it's a he-man, extra hard training to make you a better shooter or hurt you until you fail.
The reasons why are fairly obvious to me. Any teacher will tell you that more than half the job is teaching someone to STOP doing it the wrong way. This technique makes sure you never pick up bad habits.
Secondly, muscle memory. By physically forcing you arm into the correct position, your muscles learn to do it correctly. It's as if your drill sergeant is grabbing your hand and forcing you to do it right.
Oh and to the idiots that think women are bad shots, you are wrong. Data from biathlons clearly show that women are better shots, but slower runners. http://www.quora.com/Shooting/...
Note, I have previously written an unpublished science fiction novel that used a similar technique to train martial arts - the machine relentlessly drilled you in the correct form until your muscle memory gets it right. Same concept, with a smaller set of muscles.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
1. Re:RTFA by jgtg32a · 2015-07-06 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  ShanghaiBill mentioned earlier that it is because of a weaker systolic heartbeat, and during a biathlon the heart rate is going to be up quite a bit.
Shooting fundamentals by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 12:45 · Score: 0

How is an exoskeleton supposed to help with the basic fundamentals of rifle marksmanship being natural point of aim, sight alignment, trigger control and breathing? Of all the times i've missed the 10 ring, i can say with confidence that involuntary arm movement was never the cause.
Look on the bright side by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-05 16:49 · Score: 0

With these sort of exoskeletons, the politicians can finally go out and fight their own fucking wars, instead of getting innocent people killed over their ideals.
Don't let the empire find out about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-07-06 00:10 · Score: 0

If they give this tech to stormtroopers, the rebellion is doomed!
Biofeedback by cwsumner · 2015-07-07 06:47 · Score: 1

After reading the article, I think I see what is happening.
The braces are touching the user's arm, in such a way that they provide feedback on how and when the arm is moving. The users become accustomed to holding their arm so that the touch is minimised. After some training the brace is no longer needed, although it might be useful for heavy firearms or when fatigue sets in.
This is called Biofeedback, it was a popular idea a few years back. And it does work.
I bet the Olympic Shooting Team is training with these next year! 8-)