|
02-14-2017, 06:04 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Layered Cutting Edge Armour
In regards to a post upthread with an example of TL9 armour consisting of a flexible underlayer and a clamshell outer layer, how does one apply the Cutting Edge Armour rules in connection with layering armour rules?
Published GURPS examples of armour that is constructed from layers of say; leather and plate, mail or plates or para-aramids and ceramic ballistics plates do not apply a -1 penalty to DX for layering armour as long as the armour is constructed as one whole. How does one determine whether armour constructed with Cutting Edge Armour from a mix of two or more materials should give a DX penalty for layering? I've been wanting to make late TL8 advanced concealable ninja armour and/or full-on tactical bodysuits for anti-supers black ops and I can't figure out how much rigid DR you can add over a flexible underlayer on the Chest without suffering a DX penalty. SAPI plates don't officially give a DX penalty and it would be odd if making the materials more high-tech would suddenly add one, but then again, maybe SAPI should give -1 DX. Mod edit: this thread is a branch-off from [Supers/Ultra-Tech] Making Advanced Tech Opponents Not-Unstoppable Badasses?
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! Last edited by vicky_molokh; 02-14-2017 at 10:40 AM. |
02-14-2017, 06:34 AM | #2 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Layered Cutting Edge Armour
Quote:
For actually building something that simply has multilayered armor, here's how I'd handle it*. First off, the armor design rules have an unwritten assumption (that can be inferred from DR/inch and max DR) that rigid armor must be no more than 0.2 inches thick, while flexible armor must be no more than 0.5 inches thick. Exceeding this (outside of some specific areas, where the cap is increased - I believe the Cutting Edge and Ultra Tech version make mention of it) would result in a rapidly-increasing DX penalty. For armor made of multiple layers of different flexible armors (Nomex over Kevlar for improved burning resistance, say), or multiple layers of rigid armor (metal over ceramic, so that weaker attacks don't reduce DR), simply use the above guidelines. For something more composite in nature, set a limit of 0.5 inches thick, but multiply the thickness of the rigid layer by 2.5. In my example, the flexible armor is a uniform 0.1333 inches or so (we'll round up to 0.15). The double-DR layers of rigid armor are just shy of 0.2 inches, the lesser layers are just shy of 0.1 inches; we'll round up. The high DR sections are functionally 0.65 inches thick (0.15 + 0.2*2.5), the lower DR sections are functionally 0.4 inches thick (0.15 + 0.1*2.5). Because the high DR sections are where you have an increased cap**, no DX penalties would be applied. Layered Armor should probably use the normal layering rules or the above, whichever is worse. Rigid armor should have the option of being tailored/adjusted to fit over a substantial flexible underlayer, allowing you to use the above rule exclusively. Wearing such armor without such an underlayer makes it fit improperly. Technically, all of the above would mean, with the right design, the soldiers could actually have rigid protection over their entire body, with the flexible underlayer. However, I feel the partial armor is more realistic, more aesthetically pleasing, and more interesting (allowing aiming at exposed areas, or spraying and praying to hit such, while the alternative is "I hope you packed armor piercers"), so it's what I'd go with. *I think I've posted about this before, but I've changed my mind a bit since then. **I feel the Chest should have the same increased cap as the Head, at least for 5/6 or worse protection (sizable gaps at the armpits). If you disagree, you may wish to reduce the Chest DR in my example. I'm unfamiliar with AIM; the above are what I'd use for elite Ultra Tech soldiers, and may or may not actually be appropriate for AIM troops. |
|
02-14-2017, 07:10 AM | #3 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Layered Cutting Edge Armour
Quote:
In any case, it ought to be easily possible to design a flexible underlayer so that you could fasten a heavier vest and/or a plate carrier to it when needed, but have the end result be every bit as comfortable as armour that was permanently fastened together. At most, it might add some to tailoring and fastening cost, but probably not more than a few hundred dollars at most (probably less, realistically). After all, it's not noticably less comfortable or less restrictive to wear one thick layer of heavy denim overalls than it is to wear briefs and t-shirt under a layer of thermal hose and shirt and an outer layer of jeans and sports jacket.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! Last edited by Icelander; 02-14-2017 at 07:29 AM. |
|
02-14-2017, 07:40 AM | #4 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Layered Cutting Edge Armour
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
02-14-2017, 08:46 AM | #5 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Layered Cutting Edge Armour
Quote:
Mind you, I am open to considering that it might be an oversight in High-Tech not to give TL8 tactical vests -1 DX layering penalty when worn with rigid ceramic plates that cover large parts of the chest front and rear. I just think that for consistency's sake, we shouldn't give TL9+ armour that can be worn with or without a removable rigid layer for defence against military weapons a layering penalty unless we do the same to the equivalent TL8 armour.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! Last edited by Icelander; 02-14-2017 at 08:52 AM. |
|
02-14-2017, 08:55 AM | #6 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Layered Cutting Edge Armour
The armor in High-Tech is at a higher level of abstraction than the rules in Cutting-Edge Armor (which is meant to be used with the more detailed rules in Low-Tech).
|
02-14-2017, 09:23 AM | #7 | |||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Layered Cutting Edge Armour
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT: I sent out a request to the mods of the GURPS forum to at least split this tangent into its own thread, and possibly get an official word on the whole trauma-plate-layered-armor thing. So does the n-in-6 designation for armor - in fact, I think that originated in HT - yet they opted not to use it for body armor that, in real life, doesn't give full coverage. Last edited by Varyon; 02-14-2017 at 09:38 AM. |
|||
02-14-2017, 10:27 AM | #8 | |
Join Date: Feb 2014
|
Re: Layered Cutting Edge Armour
Quote:
https://greyzealot.files.wordpress.c...c-soldiers.jpg |
|
02-14-2017, 10:41 AM | #9 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Layered Cutting Edge Armour
Thread split off from [Supers/Ultra-Tech] Making Advanced Tech Opponents Not-Unstoppable Badasses?.
|
02-14-2017, 11:30 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Re: Layered Cutting Edge Armour
Having a thrust vest with and without the inserts (flexible inserts), the inserts don't seem to make it particularly more DX reducing, but definitely add weight
|
Tags |
cutting-edge armor design, pyramid #3/85 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|