View Single Post
Old 04-17-2018, 12:09 PM   #23
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: High tech armor vs Ultra-tech armor

Originally Posted by weby View Post
They are not similar, but in real life conceilability does not come from DR. It comes from bulk, contouring and stiffness.

As examples: Lets take four real life armors:
-A friend of mine has a vintage Ballistic Nylon fragmentation vest from maybe 1970s, it is big, bulky and maybe DR 5. By HT rules it would cause a -2 to Holdout.
-I have a class IIa vest from 1990s somewhere packed away, it should thus have DR about 8 and a -3 holdout penalty, but it is definitely easier to conceal, but the cut is a bit clumsy.
-I have a modern class IIIa vest. It has thus DR about 12 so should have -4 conceal penalty. But it is by far easiest to conceal of all the armors due to superior cut and being thinner than the two other flexible armors.
-I have a class IV stand alone plate. It has a DR of about 48, so by HT rules it should be -48 to conceal and yet it is much easier to conceal than the ballistic nylon vest and fairly easy to conceal under a suit jacket and trivial under motorcycle gear...

The UT method in the armor construction articles give closer results. It should be noted that a standalone class IV plate is not possible to create with the article as the maximum DR for

Sorry I should have been more clear I was only comparing the two systems in terms of the end result they give in regards to system relevant information. I absolutely agree with you that in RL "concealability" is much more a factor of thickness (and other physical properties of the item in question) than abstract DR.

One point though, as I said earlier I think Dan Howard's article about concealable armour which although written about LT has some relevance here. Specifically to your lists above it mentions tailoring and cut as variables that can benefit concealing stuff.

Originally Posted by weby View Post
I would thus argue that the -7 is meaningless a titanium composite will be 1/3 inch for the 40lb/DR 35 armor and 1/7th inch thick for the 17lb/ DR 15 armor. As comparison my class IIa vest is about that 1/3 inch thick and the IIIa vest slightly less.
I have to say I struggle to see how that can be considered concealable in any but the most favourable of set ups. But well I guess -7 isn't very concealable! I mentioned this originally as it concealability was apparently causing a problem.

Originally Posted by weby View Post
"Titanium composite" in the article sounds like a general category where "titanium-ceramic matrix" from HT would be a member of.

And "scale" is construction method in the article that makes hard materials soft(and thus potentially concealable) but is heavier for the same protection. And the HT description says it is "scalar construction"

Last edited by Tomsdad; 04-17-2018 at 12:17 PM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote