Layered Cutting Edge Armour

[Icelander]

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?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Icelander

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?

My intent was that the armors were actually separate - the soldiers could actually run around in just the bodysuits, but usually strap the rigid armor on top of that. So, in that case, you just use the layering rules as-is.

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.

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

I never got the impression their yellow suits were supposed to be any more armored than a baseline yellow rubber raincoat

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.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Varyon

My intent was that the armors were actually separate - the soldiers could actually run around in just the bodysuits, but usually strap the rigid armor on top of that. So, in that case, you just use the layering rules as-is.

But you can already use TL8 tactical vests with plate carriers without the rigid armour inserts if you so desire and there is no mention of a -1 DX penalty for layering for using the plate inserts, so this would be a case where making an armour out of TL9+ materials made it inferior to mid-TL8 armour.

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.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Icelander

But you can already use TL8 tactical vests with plate carriers without the rigid armour inserts if you so desire and there is no mention of a -1 DX penalty for layering for using the plate inserts, so this would be a case where making an armour out of TL9+ materials made it inferior to mid-TL8 armour.

Inserts would be a good example of armor designed to work together than doesn't work right alone - except in this case, the inserts are useless without carriers, rather than just fitting poorly.

Originally Posted by Icelander

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).

I actually suggested this in my post, in the third paragraph. It was an extremely brief mention following a wall of text, however, so was easy to miss. I wouldn't even charge extra for it - it's basically just armor tailored to a slightly-larger-than-average frame (which normally carries a surcharge because of rarity, but here it's the default assumption). The "cost" is that wearing it without the proper underlayer means the rules from "My Armor Doesn't Fit!" (LT103) apply - although I'd probably change that -1 DR to -10% DR.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Inserts would be a good example of armor designed to work together than doesn't work right alone - except in this case, the inserts are useless without carriers, rather than just fitting poorly.

Yeah, but the ballistic vests with pockets for the inserts still work without the inserts. Without any penalties. Which is a direct analogue to a flexible underlayer you can wear alone and a rigid add-on that still doesn't add -1 DX layering penalty.

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.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

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).

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The MTV is a clamshell with inserts, and terrible ergonomics. -1 DX might be generous.

How much of that is the inserts, and how much is the ergonomics? Perhaps a better design - and/or having (enough) skilled armorers to adjust the armor for the wearer - could avoid those issues.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Yeah, but the ballistic vests with pockets for the inserts still work without the inserts. Without any penalties. Which is a direct analogue to a flexible underlayer you can wear alone and a rigid add-on that still doesn't add -1 DX layering penalty.

Sorry, I must have written things poorly. Let me start over. The idea would be that the flexible underlayer would work perfectly fine without the rigid armor added on, but the rigid armor wouldn't work right without the flexible underlayer. Inserts blur the line in terms of what is the underlayer, but are basically the same concept - the flexible armor works just fine without the inserts, while the inserts are mostly useless without the flexible armor carrier.

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

Agreed. An official word on this would be welcome... but I'm not certain who would be most appropriate to make the call, or I'd shoot out a PM request for such. And, of course, it should be treated the same across all TL's - regardless of if you have some anachronistic leather-armor-with-trauma-plates at TL 2, MTV armor at TL 8, or energy cloth with hyperdense laminate inserts at TL 12.

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.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

But layering penalties do exist at the level of abstraction High-Tech is at.

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.

[Culture20]

Originally Posted by Varyon

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.

I'm betting he's wanting to go with something like the M.O.D.O.C. squad for the AIM soldiers:
https://greyzealot.files.wordpress.c...c-soldiers.jpg

[vicky_molokh]

Thread split off from [Supers/Ultra-Tech] Making Advanced Tech Opponents Not-Unstoppable Badasses?.

[Kalzazz]

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