Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Power Armor
Message-ID: <1991May29.011254.7294@amd.com>
Date: 24 May 91 19:40:35 GMT
References: <1991May24.030024.8386@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 43
Approved: military@amd.com


From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)


>From: camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Seymour)
>...contention that we are near the tech level needed for [Powered Armor]

There are a couple of crucial shortfalls in our current technology, I think.

One is the need for force-feedback technology for effective control.
We will see powered armor after, not before, we have high-quality
"waldos", robot arms that follow the motions of a separate human
operator.  Current waldos are decidedly crude, and in particular do not
give the operator any tactile feedback on what's going on at the other
end.  Worse, there is little work being done on improving them.

Second is the sheer mass of both the necessary motors and the necessary
power source.  Portable energy-storage systems have pitifully small
energy capacities for their mass.  I'd guess you would end up with some
sort of fuel-burning engine (baby gas turbine?) driving a hydraulic
pump.  Batteries are hopeless; don't expect battery-operated powered
armor until electric cars are plentiful and perform well.  The motor
situation is improving, but energy storage isn't, much.

>What real use would PA have in combat? 

I think this is the real question.  Its advantages will be minimal
unless it's good enough armor to make it just about invulnerable to
well-equipped infantry.  Otherwise it is cheaper and simpler to just
field more infantry.  Considering rifles, heavy machine guns, grenades,
and the smaller shoulder- launched missiles, that level of protection
is a tall order.  You can't assume that the armored soldier has
superior weapons, because it will be easy to equip infantry with the
same weapons -- the infantry won't find them as easy to carry, but
there will be lots more infantrymen to carry them, and the infantry is
used to doing pack-mule duty :-).  One possible exception is if the
armored soldiers make heavy use of chemical and biological weaponry,
since they'll have a much easier time carrying full life support and
adequate cooling.

-- 
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry