Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-17-2018, 10:52 AM   #21
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: High tech armor vs Ultra-tech armor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
These to me are not very similar end results just in terms of how the result in expressed.
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

Quote:
I guess you could argue that -7 on hold out is somewhere between the first two categories?
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.

Quote:
Cool cheers, (Titanium Composite Scale is in the HT article right?) as you say the two don't match up in performance anyway.
"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"
__________________
--
weby's gaming stuff: http://weby.roto.nu
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 11:15 AM   #22
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: High tech armor vs Ultra-tech armor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
The big problem with comparing DRs between various high tech armors is that GURPS likes to ignore coverage. The actual coverage of a pair of inserts is about 25% of the torso (though it's focused in areas that are relatively likely to be hit so the odds of giving protection are well over 25%); increasing coverage area increases weight but doesn't affect DR at all, and since GURPS doesn't list coverage for the smaller armor, has no game mechanical effect.
The pair of "standard" 25cm by 30cm trauma/ballistic plates(front+back) are indeed only about 1/3 of chest(2*0.83cf of 5.25cf) and about 1.7 times the "vitals" armor location.

So if coverage was listed on that basis it would be something like 1-2 on chest hits+all vitals. But in real life they are much larger part of the front/rear and NO protection from sides(there exists side plates but they are cumbersome).

As example on me the plate covers about the full height of the "chest" hit location and maybe 4/6 the sideways chest. BUT for shots coming from straight ahead(or behind) and you cannot hit anything vital at all. The protection is more like 5/6 of chest area for that, but even slight sideways will increase the danger area.
__________________
--
weby's gaming stuff: http://weby.roto.nu
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 12:09 PM   #23
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: High tech armor vs Ultra-tech armor

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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"
yep

Last edited by Tomsdad; 04-17-2018 at 12:17 PM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 01:58 PM   #24
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: High tech armor vs Ultra-tech armor

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby View Post
17lb/ DR 15 armor. As comparison my class IIa vest is about that 1/3 inch thick and the IIIa vest slightly less.

"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"
If the "Advanced Body Armor" in HT is actually the Pinnacle Dragonskin then it is made of overlapping hexagonal scales. From a test I saw on TV DR of scales and vest should add up to at least DR17 or 7.62x39mm as said vest stopped a burst from an AK-47. Semi-ablative deterioration from multiple hits could well apply but that should apply to ceramic trauma plates as well.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 03:19 PM   #25
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: High tech armor vs Ultra-tech armor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
If the "Advanced Body Armor" in HT is actually the Pinnacle Dragonskin then it is made of overlapping hexagonal scales. From a test I saw on TV DR of scales and vest should add up to at least DR17 or 7.62x39mm as said vest stopped a burst from an AK-47. Semi-ablative deterioration from multiple hits could well apply but that should apply to ceramic trauma plates as well.
Of course a design system for RPGs will never be detailed enough to make things exactly as in real life. So a small shift like that in DR is not really unusual.

But what the real DR of the Pinnacle Dragonskin is anyone's guess given that it has not passed NIJ testing. Though anecdotal evidence points to it actually likely being at least close to class III, but with uncertainly factors.

In a game I would likely treat is as an invention with bugs (as if it did not have bugs it likely would have passed).
__________________
--
weby's gaming stuff: http://weby.roto.nu
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 04:37 PM   #26
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: High tech armor vs Ultra-tech armor

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby View Post
But what the real DR of the Pinnacle Dragonskin is anyone's guess given that it has not passed NIJ testing. Though anecdotal evidence points to it actually likely being at least close to class III, but with uncertainly factors.
The problems I recall being discussed weren't about whether a new properly maintained suit would stop bullets, they had to do with wear and tear (apparently scales could come loose or separate) and usability issues (flexible armor is not always what you want. It means the weight is mostly supported by the shoulders instead of some being held up by the hips, and it sticks closely to the body, not allowing air flow).
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 07:38 PM   #27
safisher
Gunnery Sergeant,
 Imperial Marines
Coauthor,
 GURPS High-Tech
 
safisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Re: High tech armor vs Ultra-tech armor

I'm sorry this is ruining your game! Here's the scoop.

The Dragon Skin armor was getting a lot of attention when we turned in the manuscript in 2006. The battle was between the Army's testing program, which couldn't decide how to handle a scalar armor, versus the private company with a lot of retired Army brass and good media attention. The thing was all over the media, who treated it as a scandal that troops were not being given the best armor available. If we didn't address it, the thinking was the owners of this new HT book would complain it wasn't up to date...heh.

Given what we knew at the time (not much!), the armor was given similar DR/weight to the assault vest with plates, in the table right above the advanced armor (same DR, but 1 lb. heavier). It was more costly, of course, and the scales really reduced the bulk -- if you can find pictures of it you'll see what I mean. That still puts it at -7 or -8 to conceal, possible perhaps with a trenchcoat or the like. None of this seemed a bit controversial at the time to our playtesters, as I recall.

The fact is we did not in HT require the use of an extra roll to determine whether your armor protected (though the optional rules are in the book). LT came later, and ruled that those extra rolls were required. <shrug> It's not unreasonable to give bullet attacking this type of armor a 4/6 (large) or even 3/6 (small) chance of hitting the plates. As we noted in the section in HT on trauma plates, these might be considered semi-ablative, too.

If the press reports are to be believed, the major problem of the Dragonskin armor (besides just being difficult to assess versus the NIJ standards because it was a NEW type of armor) is that the scales de-laminated in the heat and with wear and tear. Apparently the adhesives just gave out and the scales would pop loose. If this was true, or something like it, give a HT 8 to HT 10 and roll weekly in hot weather. A failure reduces coverage by another 1/6.

Now, if you use all these rules, let your player keep the albatross and point out that the fully mature UT armor suffers none of these problems. Maybe he'll realize he's got a prototype and turn it in for a better version.

As a GM, if armor is a big deal in your games and you're not just picking off a list, by all means use the armor design systems from David Pulver. I collaborated with him somewhat on those systems, so he's got my blessing, FWIW.
__________________
Buy my stuff on E23. Fav Blogs: Doug Cole here , C.R. Rice's here, & Hans Christian Vortisch here.
safisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 07:40 PM   #28
safisher
Gunnery Sergeant,
 Imperial Marines
Coauthor,
 GURPS High-Tech
 
safisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Re: High tech armor vs Ultra-tech armor

Also, if you want an in-depth study of this whole mess, see the academic paper here:
https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/ha...pdf;sequence=1
__________________
Buy my stuff on E23. Fav Blogs: Doug Cole here , C.R. Rice's here, & Hans Christian Vortisch here.
safisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2018, 12:19 PM   #29
Bruno
 
Bruno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Default Re: High tech armor vs Ultra-tech armor

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
Also, if you want an in-depth study of this whole mess, see the academic paper here:
https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/ha...pdf;sequence=1
Awesome! Thanks, that's great stuff.
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table
A Wiki for my F2F Group
A GURPS blog
Bruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2018, 12:02 PM   #30
Kfireblade
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Default Re: High tech armor vs Ultra-tech armor

Thanks for the help everyone! my player was already planning to switch to using a vest with plates anyway so it worked out fine.
Kfireblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
armor, high-tech, ultra-tech

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.