[Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Are there more? Are 3 and 4 the same?

Depends a bit on the threat environment. Police tend to be worried about pistols and knives, so a level IIIa with stab protection is plenty. Military tends to be worried about being shot with a rifle.

[Varyon]

For armor, one thing to consider is if you want to go with a similar modular paradigm to what is found in many science fiction stories. This is where armor consists of a bodysuit that gives moderate protection while being sufficiently thin and comfortable for everyday use, and there are bulkier, clamshell-esque plates that can be worn over that for improved protection against more serious threats.

[Donny Brook]

Random thoughts-

a-As long as resources of almost any kind (cost of inputs, cost of transport, carrying capacity, etc.) are constrained, innovation and technological improvement will create a trend toward smaller and lighter weaponry. "Noise" in the trend will be caused by changes in the usage landscape (disruptive technologies, laws, wars, social change).

b-characteristics, needs, frailties, and other preferences of end users and purchasers will continue to drive design choices and advancing technology will permit more scope to address these items. (To adapt an earlier comparison -- the recoil pad on a modern weapon is better than the butt plate on a 1550 wheel lock.) Targeting and other performance aids, safety features, monitoring and measuring systems, and comfort improvements (including emotional/psychological) will continue to be areas on innovation.

c-technological progress in design itself will continue, though possibly there may be little room for major improvement. (One design development that is probably going to continue is seen in the modern AR platform -- modularity (and attendant customization for task or tastes). Should energy weapons become common it would not surprise me if they come to market looking a lot like an AR, with a core 'kill package' on a platform that also mounts accoutrements.) Another design direction that may emerge/continue is for the weapon to integrate or be integrated with other functions or equipment that fit with it's position in an overall loadout, similar to how a smart phone doesn't NEED to have GPS, but since it can, it does.

d-I would expect to observe some divergence between civilian weapons and those found in an organizational/military context as civilian purposes and environments will not change as radically.

[dcarson]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Are there more? Are 3 and 4 the same?

They can be but I'd expect police to be lighter and less coverage. Different threat level and different psychological level. Convince the population that they police are scared and it raises the threat to the police because they need to respond more often with force and they get less cooperation.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by dcarson

They can be but I'd expect police to be lighter and less coverage. Different threat level and different psychological level. Convince the population that they police are scared and it raises the threat to the police because they need to respond more often with force and they get less cooperation.

I think it depends on how the armour vs bullet race is going. If it's still hard to stop a rifle bullet (contemporary to the armour), I think the police might well have heavier armour - they'll have armour that stops as much as is practical over the body and head, but won't bother with the limbs - the armour is to keep them alive under gunfire.

The infantry, on the other hand, will have lighter body armour, accepting that stopping full powered rifle rounds costs too much, but will have limb armour sufficient to stop fragments from grenades, mortars, etc., because they can be stopped practically completely with relatively light armour, and cause a huge portion of the casualties unarmoured infantry take.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Y

1. protective workwear that is not really designed to protect against weapons but that incidentally provides a minimum of protection
2. VIPs and discreet bodyguards whose armour must be disguised as or concealable under business wear
3. police general duties armour, for people who don't mind being visibly armoured but don't face such a high level of threat that they are prepared to wear twenty kilos of armour all day every day
4. military patrol armour, for extended light infantry operations involving days on foot
5. heavy infantry battle rattle and SWAT armour
6. exoskeleton infantry armour

Are there more? Are 3 and 4 the same?

You have baked into "2" an assumption that conceaable armor will be too expensive for the non-wealthy who live and/or work in real or percieved high threat environments. US experince shows some market for affordable/concelaable ballistic armor for liquor store clerks and urban taxi drivers and similar persons.

At the least this level of armor should become affordable after a "cheap" modifier is applied.

A "cheap" and possibly an "expensive" modifier would seem to be good ideas generally.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

You have baked into "2" an assumption that conceaable armor will be too expensive for the non-wealthy who live and/or work in real or percieved high threat environments. US experince shows some market for affordable/concelaable ballistic armor for liquor store clerks and urban taxi drivers and similar persons.

At the least this level of armor should become affordable after a "cheap" modifier is applied.

A "cheap" and possibly an "expensive" modifier would seem to be good ideas generally.

I think, even for armour, and certainly for guns, at least one level of 'fancy', 'ornate', or the like would be useful. Stealing further from GURPS' already existing list of modifiers, 'rugged', which in the case of armour would make the armour more resistant to harm and general wear and tear, rather than giving more DR.

Looking at UT, it has four armour weights: Heavy, Normal, Light, and Diaphanous, the latter for armour so thin and light it doesn't look like armour at all, rather than being able to be disguised as non-armour.

For guns, if there's a continuum of size, 'light', 'medium', 'heavy', etc. some or all of them would probably use different ammo, such as 'light pistol ammo', until the point were they just use power cells. There would be space for a further option, 'powerful' or 'magnum' that either used ammo one step bigger for increased performance and smaller ammo capacity or used a 'magnum' round of similar size (longer, but not fatter, so it doesn't affect capacity), but costing more and having a small weight increase.

By the way, Traveller 5 has a gun (and about everything else) description system that works rather like this. At least I think it does, as my read-through of it mostly made my head hurt.

[AlexanderHowl]

In UT, the difference for rifles is 5.7mm CL, 7mm CL, 10mm CL, 10mm CLR, and 15mm CL. CLR is a more powerful version of CL, with 50% more weight and cost, and more damage and range (+2d damage and +600/2,700 range), so it should be possible to make CLR versions of 5.7mm, 7mm, and 15mm. For example, a 15mm CLR should weight 0.6 lbs, cost $6.6, deal 17d pi++, and have a range of 2,600/12,700 (the CLR versions of the weapons would be +25% weight and +50% cost). The 5.7mm would be light, 7mm would be medium, 10mm heavy, and 15mm extra-heavy (CLR versions would be extra-powerful versions of each).

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

You have baked into "2" an assumption that conceaable armor will be too expensive for the non-wealthy who live and/or work in real or percieved high threat environments. US experince shows some market for affordable/concelaable ballistic armor for liquor store clerks and urban taxi drivers and similar persons.

At the least this level of armor should become affordable after a "cheap" modifier is applied.

Good pooint. Shallow cover detectives, too.