How important is physical strength in modern warfare? Let's

Mildly important in that the average infantryman needs to lug around a lot of gear and ammo, and adopting weaker, lighter ammo for service weapons is a frequent compromise.
Stronk muskles won't help you not get airstriked or artileried to bits, though.

Very important in that non-grunts, the people hauling supplies and arming warmachines, have a lot of especially big and especially heavy shit to manipulate, which is why militaries are so keen on developing exosuits.

>>52639880

You don't want your soldiers to be huge slabs of muscle, that means they require more food to stay alive.

Something close to book-version War of the Worlds Martians, except with a really ferocious immune system instead of a nonexistent one. A big brain, good eyes, good hands/manipulators, and the smallest amount of organs needed to support that. Although the sense organs and hands might well be disposed of in favor of neural interfacing, turning the soldier into a brain and support organs, basically.

Flesh is squishy and weak, machines stronk. what the soldier contributes is the intelligence the machines currently lack. And a soldier that's just a brain-pod allows for more machine and less meat, as well as less restriction in shape. Such a soldier could wear power armor that doesn't have its limbs limited by the need to wrap around the squishy arms and legs of the human inside for example.

Almost forgot; for self reproduction they'll need wombs and weenies, if artificial ones don't already exist.

The real world is full of things a lot bigger and stronger then man. They all get killed with guns, the great equalizer over strength.

>>52639880
Physical strength is decently important. To but is another way, most guys in the special operations community use steroids. Why? Because when you enter that community you're leaving the regimented military behind and entering a wolf pack. You pass selection... you're on the team. A deployment later you're promoted to to lead assaulter, means more specialized kit on top of your existing kit, means you have to go as long and as hard as you could before but with more weight. Then you take on the role of team lead. More specialized gear means more weight means you need to go just as long and as hard as the other guys. If you can't keep up, you get relegated, someone is always willing to take the weight where you couldn't because you're in a wolf pack. Someone is always jonesing for your spot. It's that competitive. You're only as good as your last mission, and you lead by example. Meaning you have to be bigger, stronger, harder, faster, smarter, and longer lasting than the guys you're directing, otherwise you ain't directing them to do shit. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

File: Heavy Support Armour.jpg (204KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 900x1200px

>>52639880
Till exo-skeleton/power-armour tech or gene-enchanced phisiology can take the strain off the common infantryman it limits the ability to carry any weapons/ammo/kit needed for any given situation. The stronger the infantryman the bigger load and weapons he can carry, which in turn, allows them to combat more threats. Imagine a group of tech/gene-enhanced infantry all able to wield .50 cal machine guns like they were smg's/rifles, they could engage and more reliably destroy targets or objectives larger than themselves. It generally gives them a massive boost in the ability to fight any threat.

So, say you're facing an alien species who's more genetically strong in it's line infantry than you. Unless you have some good anti-infantry capability, you can expect the aliens to wield heavier weapons capable of taking out light to medium armoured vehicles, depending on what they're armed with.

>>52640197
And yet the most decorated special forces operative in US history is a nerdy little accountant who spends his free time reviewing literature on Amazon

>>52640256
Yeah. There's something to be said about Being able to win an infantry encounter quickly and outright before force multipliers can enter the battle space to make a difference. It's a huge deal.

Current US infantry doctrine is to use infantry and small arms to prevent an enemy from maneuvering/redeploying so a force multiplier like fast air, rotorwing, or artillery can annihilate them. If one were to win the firefight outright before the force multiplier could take effect, you've nullified the opposing infantry's primary function.

>>52640270
Exceptions always exist.

>>52640270
What.

>>52640197
>muhwolfpacks
>theweakshouldfearthestrong.jpg

File: Black Phoenix Missile Drone.jpg (283KB, 1178x1413px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1178x1413px

>>52640256
>Continued
OP's question actually links into a question in the military community that people have been discussing for a while now. At what point do infantry, a small, relatively lightweight, flexible and potentially stealthy unit, surpass the need for armoured vehicles and even tanks. In my own opinion there will come a point where technology will put a weapon in an infantryman's hands that will be able to penetrate a tank whilst also being cheap and easy to manufacture. At that point, unless tanks and armoured vehicles in general haven't developed a counter to that threat then they are veunrable to any monkey armed with the equivilant of a railgun-ak47 that doesn't take any skill to use. therefore negating their armour advantage.

Though I understand there are numerous defences that tanks currently have right now, Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA), Space armour, cages and Active Protection Systems, you can see examples of this in the middle east. Tanks bought from the Russiand or Americans that are being attacked from miles outside their engagement zone by Anti-Tank Guided Missile launchers. all it takes is one dude, from 5 miles away and equipment they can set up within 10 minutes to ruin their day. So imagine that multiplied by a hundred from some of the railgun systems being developed or smaller more man-portable versions of missile launchers.

In the end, everyone is playing the game of catch-up in terms of creating new firepower and then having to create counters to that new firepower.

>>52640408
Read "going all in" by former force recon Jimmy Stare.

>>52640420

I imagine unless some external threat calls for the need for heavy vehicles as long as we're killing each other it'll probably get like you said where weapons become more portable and just as capable of killing vehicles without the massive cost of a big old coffin on wheels with a cannon on it.

That said, barring everything going completely to shit I imagine people are going to want to preserve infrastructure so having a force that can minimize damage to the area while killing your enemies is preferred.

>>52639880
I'm not an expert on military matters, but I'd say having a good motor skill and endurance are probably more important than sheer muscular strength.
Being able to lift a huge gun and punch faces might be very useful, but not falling under the weight of your backpack and not tripping when trying to avoid enemy fire seems like stuff you really need to be able to do.

>>52640512
Not to assume anything of OP, but I would instinctually think that any increase in physical strength an infantryman would gain, would come with the ability to coordinate said physical strength effectively and the stamina to support said increase in muscle performance. But I do understand that the distinction needs be made

>>52639880
Guns are the great equalizer.

No longer does the outcome of a battle depend on who's the strongest or smartest, just who gets hit with the bullet in the worst place.

>>52641151
The correct deployment of the correct guns takes brains.

War, heck, even personal combat is a thinking mans game. The smarter guys are almost always the more talented ones at it.

File: article-2354233-1AA11ADA000005DC-364_634x704.jpg (123KB, 634x704px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 634x704px

>>52641881
Noooo, speed, surprise and aggression.

>>52641881
Most guns are lethal if they hit you almost anywhere on the body.

Also I'm talking on a person to person encounter, completely unplanned. Then its all up to luck and nerve. Brains make sure you avoid bullets by being as useful or nonthreatening as possible, but when it comes down to it anyone with a gun and basic knowledge can hurt or even kill you.

>>52641151
on a one on one sure

but on a whole army basis, if you entire contigent of foot soldiers can carry heavy weapons like they were pistols, they will be much more effective.

>more supplies carried per soldier
>more anti-tank weaponry
>more heavy weapons in general

>>52642093
I don't think anyone is denying those being almost paramount in importance.