High-Tech advanced body armor: DR 35, 5 vs crushing

[mlangsdorf]

Does anyone know the reasoning as to why the Advanced Body Armor (ABA) from High-Tech, p 66-67, has DR 35 against all attacks except crushing, against which it is only DR 5? Why DR 5?

I'm trying to estimate the stats for lighter or heavier variants of ABA, and that weird armor profile makes it difficult. It'd be easier if I understood why ABA protects so well against acid and fire but has such weakness against crushing attacks.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I'm trying to estimate the stats for lighter or heavier variants of ABA, and that weird armor profile makes it difficult. It'd be easier if I understood why ABA protects so well against acid and fire but has such weakness against crushing attacks.

It's a flexible armor (thus, bad vs crushing) with refractory ceramic inserts (good against intense flames and corrosives, though it's neither insulated nor sealed, so heat will conduct through it and acid will leak through it. Neither of those effects is anything GURPS tries to model, though).

[Edges]

If you're looking for a way to vary armor thickness, you may want to check out Low-Tech Armor Design in Pyramid #3/52. Don't let the title fool you. Modern materials are covered.

[mlangsdorf]

I'm already using a variant of that article (Better Fantasy Armor!), which doesn't cover ABA anyway. Thanks for the pointer, though.

Thanks for the response, Anthony. I still don't have much of a feeling for the crushing DR cap at 5 - would having your ABA be twice as thick give crushing DR 10, or still leave it at 5? Would having the thickness of the scales give you crushing DR 3?

[Celti]

Originally Posted by Edges

If you're looking for a way to vary armor thickness, you may want to check out Low-Tech Armor Design in Pyramid #3/52. Don't let the title fool you. Modern materials are covered.

Actually, he wants Cutting-Edge Armour Design, from Pyramid #3/85. Which is the same thing but with explicit stats for a whole bunch of TL6-9 materials.

[Celti]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Thanks for the response, Anthony. I still don't have much of a feeling for the crushing DR cap at 5 - would having your ABA be twice as thick give crushing DR 10, or still leave it at 5? Would having the thickness of the scales give you crushing DR 3?

Realistically, the Advanced Body Armour in HT is superscience. The real armour it was based on was decertified after multiple rounds of testing, and the stats that showed up in HT aren't consistent with much of anything out there besides their marketing materials. Extrapolate the one in HT however makes sense to you, but don't try and match it with the real world — and if realism does matter significantly to you, go with the article I mentioned previously.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Celti

Realistically, the Advanced Body Armour in HT is superscience. The real armour it was based on was decertified after multiple rounds of testing, and the stats that showed up in HT aren't consistent with much of anything out there besides their marketing materials. Extrapolate the one in HT however makes sense to you, but don't try and match it with the real world — and if realism does matter significantly to you, go with the article I mentioned previously.

I don't think the story is that clear. The stuff got a fair number of positive tests, while the key negative test seems to be less than clearly explained in public materials. At the same time, the company is demonstrably not a trustworthy source...

Did the armor actually work as advertised? (And if so why was it really rejected?) Did it work as advertised when new but fail after some sort of exposure/wear? Did it never work quite that well? (And if so, why did it pass the tests it did?)

[Celti]

If you want to be pragmatic about it, the company failed the surest test: They're out of business and nobody's picked up the patents to try it themselves. But I'll admit the data isn't clear.

I still don't think the stats in HT have much of anything to do with reality, however, compared to other scale armours made out of other materials.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Celti

If you want to be pragmatic about it, the company failed the surest test: They're out of business and nobody's picked up the patents to try it themselves. But I'll admit the data isn't clear.

The company certainly did, but I don't think that test tells us much about the product. Picking up their legacy of negative hype and the deadly armed-services rejection seems like an investment to avoid like the plague for entirely non-technical reasons.

Originally Posted by Celti

I still don't think the stats in HT have much of anything to do with reality, however, compared to other scale armours made out of other materials.

I would assume the weight is a matter of record. Not sure what the basis for the DR 35 was though. That seems to verge on a NIJ Type IV rating, which I don't see having even been tried for. DR 25-ish (stopping 7d) seems well supported by some results but I'm not going to speak for the last 10.

Should be remembered, though, that High Tech armors can have gaps and limited coverage that don't get the mention they would in a Low-Tech style armor treatment...

[DanHoward]

Keep in mind that High-Tech was written when the armour in question was making the rounds in the media and was surrounded by a lot of hype. There wasn't a lot of reliable data available to make a good judgement on how to model it in GURPS. The authors did the best with what they had.

Thanks for the response, Anthony. I still don't have much of a feeling for the crushing DR cap at 5 - would having your ABA be twice as thick give crushing DR 10, or still leave it at 5? Would having the thickness of the scales give you crushing DR 3?

DR is largely determined by the level of flexibility, which is detemined by the method of joining the scales together. The thickness of the scales doesn't have much influence over this but it does affect it to a small degree.