New combat boots to "protect from IED's"

#2
If an IED can disable an MBT or rip the wheels off a protected vehicle, just how is a boot supposed to help? A putty-filled set of full-body ballistic armour might be a start...
 
#4
So the 8mm of putty and rubber will do exactly what? Absorb the blast? I don't think so somehow. Or does it mean that after your legs, arms, torso and napper has been either pink misted or shredded, at least your nearest and dearest will still have your foot filled boots to plant.
 
#5
There are marginal cases in which in smaller IED (or poorly constructed one) may cause lesser injury that can be mitigated by this.

However, I think this is probably aim more at blokes travelling in vehicles, who might suffer foot and ankle injuries when the floor is deformed.
 
#6
Waste of money, just use two pairs of insoles.
 
#7
Only think i can think of is that the putty could somehow divide the weight around the boot so less force/pressure is put into one spot. if that makes sense to anyone
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#8
Only think i can think of is that the putty could somehow divide the weight around the boot so less force/pressure is put into one spot. if that makes sense to anyone
Sort of, but you're going to be hard pushed to make 100lbs of kit on a mans back any lighter with some play-doh.
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#11
They may distribute the weight to certain areas of the sole? never know wtf they can bring out with all the tech now
The theory is sound but it would be impossible to decrease the pounds per square inch over such a small space to anything below 'triggering' weight for an IED which can easily be a few lbs.

However, no harm in trying new tech!
 
#13
Sounds like a very dubious ploy to garner extra money for nonsensical research. Caractacus Potts and Mike Mercury appear to have come up with a no less ludicrous solution.
 
#14
The centre will experiment with different materials to work out how best to transfer the blast energy away from the heel, which if damaged often leads to eventual amputation, and towards the shin bone, which can be more easily reconstructed.
Sounds pretty sensible to me, it's not stopping the blast but making it more likely you get to keep a leg. Shins are easier to fix than heels so if you can protect the heel people are more likely to survive, keep their legs and recover faster.

Edit - Fixed the quote.
 
#15
Who will volunteer to trial them i wonder? Sounds like a very dubious ploy to garner extra money for nonsensical research. Caractacus Potts and Mike Mercury appear to have come up with a no less ludicrous solution.
Yep, because I'm sure the design process goes like this:

1) Think up idea on fag packet
2) Bodge together in garage
3) Issue to troops in Afghanistan.


Believe it or not, there are means to test such things before they enter service. And yes, there is a point to it - see my post above.
 
#16
Yep, because I'm sure the design process goes like this:

1) Think up idea on fag packet
2) Bodge together in garage
3) Issue to troops in Afghanistan.


Believe it or not, there are means to test such things before they enter service. And yes, there is a point to it - see my post above.
As much as i would like to believe it possible to wear a pair of megaboots that deflect bomb blasts, i think given the dynamics of an explosion in such a polarided area, it's unlikely to have any real improving effect to the bod who steps on the mine/IED. Even if it does deflect from the ankle, and the human body being what it is, i suspect the limb will give way at the next weakest point. Or if as you suggest it may be aimed at the vehicle borne soldier, then spend the money on better protection for the vehicles. Perhaps a type of under vehicle reactive armour could be developed to help counter the blast effects? But even then, there are no guarantees are there??
 
#17
As much as i would like to believe it possible to wear a pair of megaboots that deflect bomb blasts, i think given the dynamics of an explosion in such a polarided area, it's unlikely to have any real improving effect to the bod who steps on the mine/IED. Even if it does deflect from the ankle, and the human body being what it is, i suspect the limb will give way at the next weakest point. Or if as you suggest it may be aimed at the vehicle borne soldier, then spend the money on better protection for the vehicles. Perhaps a type of under vehicle reactive armour could be developed to help counter the blast effects? But even then, there are no guarantees are there??
Re-read my posts, and the original article.

There are specific applications for this technology, which does not imply that soldiers will be able to step on a large buried IED and walk away unscathed.

As I have said before - and contrary to popular internet opinion - there are ways and means to test such theories without killing live squaddies.
 
#18
GB...I appreciate your enthusiasm for this potential development, and would like to see it happen myself. But the truth is that an IED, whether it be underfoot or roadside is virtually unstoppable. Nowhere in the article or in any of your posts does it explain how this boot will actually work, just that it may reduce the effects. Just to clarify, as it isn't clear in the article, are we talking about roadside or specific underfoot devices, as the effects can be very different on the individual involved? If it's the former then i can't see how a boot, no matter how it's reinforced, can prevent the loss of a limb. If it's the latter, then i would be more concerned about the effects of the blast on the lungs, which as the article points out is one of the major factors in soldiers dying. That said, any improvement in the soldiers personal safety, no matter how small will be a good thing.

Incidentally, "the who's going to trial this boot" comment was a joke, and not meant to be taken literally.
 
#19
GB...I appreciate your enthusiasm for this potential development, and would like to see it happen myself. But the truth is that an IED, whether it be underfoot or roadside is virtually unstoppable. Nowhere in the article or in any of your posts does it explain how this boot will actually work, just that it may reduce the effects.
And there's probably some very good reasons why they don't.

Just to clarify, as it isn't clear in the article, are we talking about roadside or specific underfoot devices, as the effects can be very different on the individual involved? If it's the former then i can't see how a boot, no matter how it's reinforced, can prevent the loss of a limb. If it's the latter, then i would be more concerned about the effects of the blast on the lungs, which as the article points out is one of the major factors in soldiers dying. That said, any improvement in the soldiers personal safety, no matter how small will be a good thing.
There's a huge variety in IED flavours out there, but again I come back to the point that there is a specific body of evidence which suggests that in some cases - and we're not talking about traumatic amputations here - heel fractures can be translated into a shin fracture -which heels a hell of a lot better (to excuse a pun).
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
#20
Far be it from me to try to help the MOD save money on another stupid moronic idea but if you are concerned about lower leg injuries suffered by occupants of vehicles targetted by IED's or mines what you do is place firstly a water tank ( which is a fecking good idea when you're in a desert btw) and then your fuel tank between the troop compartment floor and the armoured v-hull.

This rather basic idea has been around for about 30 years - not that I'm trying to infer that the MOD are stupid money wasting incompent cnuts who get people killed and to quote Jeremy Clarkson should be taken out and shot in front of their families or anything.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top