10-12-2015, 04:26 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
|
Catastrophic failure of armor
So if I understand things correctly, armor tends to protect very well or suffer catastrophic failure and protect very badly. If that is correct, wouldn't a good model be that DR either protects fully or (if any damage penetrates) gives DR 1 or 2 if it fails. Would that make sense?
Edit: Apparently I was wrong. Move on, nothing to see here.
__________________
“When you arise in the morning think of what a privilege it is to be alive, to think, to enjoy, to love ...” Marcus Aurelius Last edited by Anders; 10-12-2015 at 02:10 PM. |
10-12-2015, 05:15 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Re: Catastrophic failure of armor
|
10-12-2015, 05:28 AM | #3 | |
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jeffersonville, Ind.
|
Re: Catastrophic failure of armor
At least in the modern day I know that for the most part bullet resistant armor either stops the bullet completely, or it penetrates and does nearly full damage, with little in-between.
__________________
The user formerly known as ciaran_skye. __________________ Quirks: Doesn't proofread forum posts before clicking "Submit". [-1] Quote:
|
|
10-12-2015, 07:05 AM | #5 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Catastrophic failure of armor
Quote:
|
|
10-12-2015, 07:12 AM | #6 |
Join Date: Feb 2012
|
Re: Catastrophic failure of armor
I wonder if this applies to muscle powered weapon or not, given the huge difference in speeds involved.
|
10-12-2015, 07:33 AM | #7 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Catastrophic failure of armor
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Tomsdad; 10-12-2015 at 07:46 AM. |
||
10-12-2015, 09:23 AM | #8 | |
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: A crappy state called Illinois
|
Re: Catastrophic failure of armor
Quote:
IIRC, DouglasCole used to work with Kevlar before and has done experiments on the failure models for it so hopefully he'll be able to chime in on the matter.
__________________
GURB: Ultra-Tech Reloaded Normies: Man! The government is filled with liars and thieves! Me: Well yeah, here's what they're lying about, what they're stealing from you, and who's doing it. Normies: Rolls eyes Shut up conspiracy theorist Me: >.> |
|
10-12-2015, 11:23 AM | #9 |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Albuquerque
|
Re: Catastrophic failure of armor
It's all about how much energy the material can absorb and disperse over that fraction of a second during impact without failing immediately. If the kinetic energy on impact doesn't exceed that value (whatever it is), then the projectile is stopped as the weave is able to absorb the kinetic energy over a much broader area. If it goes above that threshold, the fibers in that area get destroyed immediately and are unable to disperse the energy of the projectile which results in penetration. It seems like more of a material design problem (using a weave as opposed to solid plates of the material) than an actual material weakness problem.
I'd imagine that slower projectiles are less likely to meet this threshold as the weave has a larger time frame to absorb and disperse the kinetic energy from the impact. Faster projectiles should be more likely to penetrate as the material has a much smaller amount of time to achieve the same thing. I could be wrong here too, as I am not an expert. I wouldn't be surprised if wounding has a similar profile as well. |
10-12-2015, 11:28 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Catastrophic failure of armor
Depends on the attack type. On a thrust with an impaling weapon, if the tip doesn't get stopped by armor, you can apply continued force after penetration to continue driving through almost indefinite amounts of flesh. On the other hand, against cutting and crushing it's almost more accurate to treat the armor as a damage divisor.
|
Tags |
armor, damage resistance |
|
|