This, until we can get something that is basically a sci-fi miniaturised (in both volume and weight) powerplant they are going to be limited to use as very restricted loading/construction exoskeletons. It might not make a soldier immune to small arms and most AT weapons, but having a worker lift things weighing half a ton all day long without breaking a sweat is still kind of impressive.
>>626809
>forcing the enemy to carry a fucking AT rifle to the battlefield already means winning
Unless the guy 'carrying' them is wearing or more likely driving a powered exoskeleton which happily takes the weight of two 40mm auto-cannons (which seem a better bet than AT rifles) and a 2-300 rounds of HESH or APHE rounds, and maybe the electronics needed to computerise the fire control, give the auto-cannons a decent range of motion and tracking speed and they can engage targets about as fast as the soldier can designate them.
>But that's completely impractical!
Yes, but as we're talking about something that would still be sci-fi 50 odd years from now I don't think that's a problem.
>Dude, it's still retarded!
and when has that ever stopped a military purchasing decision?
>>626849
Oh yeah, you are entirely correct there. Until powered armour is as cheap as modern kevlar it will be impossible or maybe just retarded. You might be able to use it as specialist kit for very carefully chosen and trained units in about 50 years, but until then it's just a sci-fi fantasy. I do rather enjoy indulging n sci-fi fantasies though. Although when it gets to the point I described in >>626848 there's not much point in leaving the human in the system (with any luck by then the senior staff officers will have cooled the fuck down when it comes to automation in warfare).
At that point why not limit all international military action to a televised sporting event held in designated locations around the world
>This Sunday forces of the Russian Federation and European Union will meet in the Jungle Combat Zone on Tetepare Island.
>Both sides have agreed to category 2 combat rules, and a force of no more than 1000 men with 5'000 points worth of equipment, vehicles, and/or support.
>The modifications Russia has made to their Mil MI-32 helicopters, bringing them down to 320 points apiece, will certainly be relevant here, but there has been a lot of discussion lately about the EU dropping so many points into their standard communication gear after that debacle in the Southern Thule combat zone.
>Tune in at 11pm GMT this Sunday to see how that works out for them!
>American is terrified of playing a fair game on an even field
Sounds about right.
>Indeed, everything is kind of a sport for the average Brit.
But everything is a sport, Magyar.
>Sport: an activity involving effort and skill in which an individual or group competes to determine which of them is superior
>Typical bleak bong views
Don't worry, in a few decades/years you'll know exactly what it feels like to have the world taken away from you by some group of idiots who don't know how to run it. At that point you will understand (and most likely adopt) that sort of world view. We may even see an improvement in the quality of American comedy and humour, what can I say - I live in hope.
<100 years war, AKA the first British War For Independence
>France: WHY WON'T THIS OTHER COUNTRY ACT LIKE OUR VASSAL?! WE WILL HAVE TO REFUSE TO UPHOLD OUR TREATIES WITH THEM AND THEN ACT LIKE IT'S THEIR FAULT!
>Also the way you guys treated that poor, mentally incompetent (she literally heard voices for fucks sake), farm girl you turned into a political figurehead at the end of that war was absolutely disgraceful.
<Cromwell. Need I say more?
>Charles I. Need I say more?
<Give DA JOOS their main source of financial power
>The Jews go for where the power is. Why do you think they're elbow deep in Americas arse at the moment?
<Britain/England is responsible for ALL OF EUROPES WARS
>This is what the frogs actually believe
<Muh Mao
>The Opium trade/wars were a political, economic, and humanitarian necessity. You would have done exactly the same thing if you had been a relevant country at the time.
>Secondly China has always been and always will be an unstable shithole, the communist revolution there was only a matter of time, just as the failure of their communist government is also only a matter of time.
<Muh Boers
>Boers rebel against the legitimate authority that protects them, rebels get fucked.
>This_is_how_things_should_work.jpg
<Muh Qwebeckers!
>You're right, we should have wiped them out. I think most modern Canadians would be very grateful for that. Even in the best of cases sometimes mercy misleads the hand of righteousness.
<Da werld wers!
>Firstly, you're welcome for us bailing you out and ensuring your independence (at ridiculous cost) twice in 40 years.
>Secondly, you're currently doing very well at ceding the independence that both our ancestors died for to Berlin at the moment.
>Thirdly, you're now getting annoyed that 'muh perfidious albion' actually abides by its treaty commitments?
>>627245
Well, in the case of Rhodesia we were definitely in the wrong. The Boers I've covered above. As for South Africa they had a perfectly peaceful and civilised exit from The Empire that ran from the South Africa Act of 1909 to The Statute of Westminster in 1931.
>>627251
>the treatment/handling of colonials entities of the brits is THE reason why Africa is so shit nowadays
Those countries were working just fine under British rule, and they were working just fine when they left the Empire. If things have gone to shit since then it can't be our fault, they agreed to remove our responsibility for them by setting up their own independent governments.
>Like the surrender of Maine?
You mean that peace treaty that Charles VII immediately undermined and invalidated with his support of Brittany?
>Orange free state
The dutch colonies ceased to exist as a political entity with the fall of the Netherlands. The land was (politically speaking) not owned by anyone. Why wouldn't we take it?
>just self defending
You mean after the Boers fired the first shot in the Transvaal Rebellion?
<pic related
>saving French democracy
They were kind of begging us to at the time. I was just remarking that it's a little gauche for a Frenchman to be angry at Britain for those times we saved them at their request.
>>627264
>fall of Rhodesia
America demanded we keep out, and the British government of the day was happy to comply - like I said that was a fucked up action that the British government took. We were entirely in the wrong there.
>blockade of South Africa
Presumably you mean the Embargo in the 1980's rather than the naval blockade in the early 1800's? To be honest I don't know a great deal about our involvement there (or the various factors and causes that lead to our involvement) from what I do know we had been opposing the sanctions since they were first proposed in the 1960's. I think you'd be better off looking at America for a cause there.