High-Tech issues, real-world equivalencies and questions

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I can't find a 2 lbs. NIJ Level IIIA vest anywhere, even one that only covers the torso partially.

It would not be at all difficult to get level IIIa protection for 2 lb over the same area as is covered by standard insert plates, as that's less than 2 sf.

I suspect, however, that GURPS is semi-deliberately statting out armor in terms that are conducive to more cinematic game play.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by safisher

To be blunt, please don't spread misinformation like this because your ten minute Google search did not find it. There are manufacturer's products which you will not find on Google. One can find IIIa vests in the 1.7-2.2 lb. range. Total weight depends on size, minute changes in coverage, and the "wear" strength of the ballistic panel carrier.

Where are these manufacturers' products? Which manufacturers?

I very much doubt that they deliberately hide their best products. And note that Second Chance publishes a catalogue and so do many of the others. In fact, here is a catalogue for law enforcement use that includes products from several leading companies. I can find several others if you like, from the year 2007, when High-Tech is published.

I note that not one of them cites the use of any fibre with an areal density low enough to make a 2 lbs. NIJ Level IIIA vest that covers the human torso.

Give me a name of a NIJ Level IIIA ballistic fibre with an areal density to make it plausible for it to cover a significant area of the human torso while weighting only 2 lbs.

Or give me a name of a vest that does so. No matter if it's not on Google. I'll write to the manufacturer myself if you just give me a name.

Originally Posted by safisher

Now as to the coverage issue, this was simply a continuity and complexity issue. It would require another roll for each hit to see whether the bullet struck an unarmed portion of the torso, and/or a change of that N number based on stance. That was too much fiddling and too cumbersome in play. Often it becomes necessary to balance fun and "realism" and in those cases, I lean toward the latter.

Fair enough that not everyone would want to bother with it. But since another piece of armour on the same page has such a notation (and the book introduces the rule for it in the chapter in question), wouldn't it have been okay to mention it as a possibility?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It would not be at all difficult to get level IIIa protection for 2 lb over the same area as is covered by standard insert plates, as that's less than 2 sf.

It's surely possible, I agree.

But wearing just that shouldn't qualify as Torso armour. It's partial torso armour.

And few manufacturers sell such armour as part of their standard line-up, at least. None that I can find.

Originally Posted by Anthony

I suspect, however, that GURPS is semi-deliberately statting out armor in terms that are conducive to more cinematic game play.

Why is considering partial armour complete coverage conductive to more cinematic gameplay?

Shooting for the unprotected parts of the torso seems plenty cinematic for me.

It's not question of 'cinematic' vs. 'not-cinematic'. The point is that the weight of a concealable vest is given as too light while the tactical vest is about accurate, meaning that players who dress appropriately are punished for it by their equipment weighting 4 times as much and providing the same protection.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Why is considering partial armour complete coverage conductive to more cinematic gameplay?

Not going down in one shot is conducive to more cinematic gameplay. That means armor has to be fairly useful, often more useful than it actually is. Realistically, 5.56mm should also be barely slowed down by a level IIIa vest.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Not going down in one shot is conducive to more cinematic gameplay. That means armor has to be fairly useful, often more useful than it actually is.

I prefer to allow cinematic advantages if that's the desired outcome.

Otherwise there are too many unintended consequences, such as NPCs that were never meant to be Cinematic Badasses demonstrating such qualities due to their equipment being wrongly statted.

Originally Posted by Anthony

Realistically, 5.56mm should also be barely slowed down by a level IIIa vest.

True.

Though, by using the blowthrough rules, a 5.56mm will inflict almost the same damage whether it goes through a IIIA vest or not. Especially if the M885 bullet is allowed to retain its (1.25) Armor Divisor from 3e.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The point is that the weight of a concealable vest is given as too light while the tactical vest is about accurate, meaning that players who dress appropriately are punished for it by their equipment weighting 4 times as much and providing the same protection.

The weight of the concealable vest is fine; I did not make a mistake there. And as Kromm said in the other thread on this, the tactical vest acts as load-bearing gear. You could consider the assault vest "rugged" from the standpoint of duty wear and abuse, while the concealable ones are not. But in any event, this is what those items weigh. It would be very easy to say -- if this bothers you so much -- that your outfit has custom gear. Call it $1,500 for a concealable vest in an assault vest carrier; 4-5 lbs. would be about right.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by safisher

And as Kromm said in the other thread on this, the tactical vest acts as load-bearing gear.

. . . which people seem to forget. It's hugely valuable. It makes the difference between "I take a Ready and pull out a magazine!", "I take a Ready and pull out a grenade!", etc., and p. B383's "I take 1d or 2d Ready maneuvers to dig out my stuff." It also enables Fast-Draw of things like ammo and grenades. Let PCs save 6 lbs. of weight if they want (and let's not oversell that as "four times the weight" . . . it's a piddly +6 lbs.); their pals with proper tactical vests won't spend most of the fight emptying pockets, though. I've seen fantasy GMs ban fantasy LBVs because they're too effective!

[SuedodeuS]

This all still leaves one question - where on Earth can someone get a Level IIIa vest that covers the torso and weighs in at a mere 2 lb?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by safisher

The weight of the concealable vest is fine; I did not make a mistake there. And as Kromm said in the other thread on this, the tactical vest acts as load-bearing gear. You could consider the assault vest "rugged" from the standpoint of duty wear and abuse, while the concealable ones are not. But in any event, this is what those items weigh. It would be very easy to say -- if this bothers you so much -- that your outfit has custom gear. Call it $1,500 for a concealable vest in an assault vest carrier; 4-5 lbs. would be about right.

The new IOTV weights 5.7 lbs., so that's not unreasonable.

But since the 2 lbs. Level IIIA Concealable Vest represents a real vest that can be bought today, can you please give me the name of the manufacturer and the model number?

I'm not kidding. My friend is a cop, he's allowed to buy his own gear for supplemental use and even if this is available just for Law Enforcement use, he'll likely want to buy one.

How does one buy this vest?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Kromm

. . . which people seem to forget. It's hugely valuable. It makes the difference between "I take a Ready and pull out a magazine!", "I take a Ready and pull out a grenade!", etc., and p. B383's "I take 1d or 2d Ready maneuvers to dig out my stuff." It also enables Fast-Draw of things like ammo and grenades. Let PCs save 6 lbs. of weight if they want (and let's not oversell that as "four times the weight" . . . it's a piddly +6 lbs.); their pals with proper tactical vests won't spend most of the fight emptying pockets, though. I've seen fantasy GMs ban fantasy LBVs because they're too effective!

I know LBVs are effective, but in a tactical situation, many characters will be wearing MOLLE gear and the weight of that isn't included in their OTV.

I don't really have a problem with the weight of the tactical vest (it's in line with plenty of real examples), but the Concealable Vest is better than any real example I've seen or even heard about.