Soldiers

~~smurf~~ · 07-31-2009, 02:45 PM

I was looking at UT and noted that if you wanted an infantry man for the future it is most likely he/she will have the next best armour because it would be cheaper. The best armour would be saved for elite units.

eg

TL10 soldier may have TL9 Reflex vest and depending on their role may have TL9 Clam Shell armour.

Whilst TL10 elite units would be given the TL10 stuff.

Is this a fair way to cost it, in the real world not all soldiers have the best body armour.

Gigermann · 07-31-2009, 03:07 PM

It would really depend on the "wealth level" of the agency providing the gear—they'll get the best stuff that they can afford to part with. It's probably true that if they can only manage a few of the most expensive pieces, they won't want to trust them to schlubs out of basic training.

Agramer · 07-31-2009, 03:40 PM

V-2 German rockets from WW II were ahead of TL6.

So depends... on lower TLs you do have some Experimental stuff(or not so experimental) with slightly worse stats than regular equip from higher TL in extremely limited "editions".

USA is prime example of it in military field.

Earth today is TL8 as of GURPS basic.

Though true statement for Earth is that its TL 7 /8 with some very small samples of TL 1-4 (Bushmans,some Amazon tribes...etc).

Today we are in early TL8 with many things on TL7 in "developed countries".

20 years ago we were in TL 7 with Informatics/Medicine/some military stuff at TL8 only.

ON Body Armour:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/

Inside next 30 years industry will develop something much better and well still be at TL8.

When you draw the line its just question into how much detail do you want to go and tweaking stats a bit while renaming piece of equipment in question.

jacobmuller · 07-31-2009, 04:55 PM

I'd treat it as
Front-line: tactical vest with ballistic inserts, cheap.*
Special Forces: ditto but average quality.*
MIB: tactical vest DR20/10+30, $1,500, 6lb.
*this has no effect in game terms until you need to assess wear & tear from long-term use; eg cheap HT10, average HT12. And that's If they get anything different.

Not another shrubbery · 08-01-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agramer

V-2 German rockets from WW II were ahead of TL6.

It's gonna take some impressive personal armor to survive a direct hit from of those *ig*

alaph · 08-01-2009, 12:29 PM

I'm not sure if this 100% accurate but I've heard that the Dragon armour is better than what we use in the US Army and the only reason we don't get the dragon stuff is because it is really, really expensive.

I would say that your assumption would be correct as long as the government in your setting works under the lowest bidder model, or a communistic type environment where innovation and productivity have been reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Just my 3 cents.

alaph

Agramer · 08-01-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alaph

I'm not sure if this 100% accurate but I've heard that the Dragon armour is better
alaph

You really should read this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/

Its about Dragon armour from guy who invented current issue body armour

~~smurf~~ · 08-01-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alaph

I'm not sure if this 100% accurate but I've heard that the Dragon armour is better than what we use in the US Army and the only reason we don't get the dragon stuff is because it is really, really expensive.

I would say that your assumption would be correct as long as the government in your setting works under the lowest bidder model, or a communistic type environment where innovation and productivity have been reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Just my 3 cents.

alaph

It's not about governments, it's about what is cost effective.

There is an old equation how many foot pounders is an air man worth. The Airman is worth retreiving due to training time, a foot pounder can be replaced relatively quickly and cheaply.

ed_209a · 08-01-2009, 02:21 PM

I want to start by saying that I do believe a brand new set of Dragon Skin armor, that has never been outside room temperature will outperform a similar set of Interceptor armor. But military supply isn't quite as simple as that.

Comprehensively replacing Interceptor with Dragon Skin will cost several hundred million dollars. Where will the money come from? What will the troops have to give up to get Dragon Skin?

I really doubt the average infantryman would say Dragonskin is enough better than Interceptor to be worth $1,500 less maintenance on his Stryker, or several fewer cases of ammo, etc, etc, etc.

Second, spin/PR being what it is, I don't think we have 100% of either side of the ITV/Dragon Skin issue. Last I heard, the government wasn't saying exactly why Dragon Skin failed testing. I am going to make a guess that 6 months of sweat, heat and rough handling causes the disks to come loose and settle to the bottom of the carrier. That can't happen with Interceptor.

If there were no environmental issues with Dragon Skin, I believe the wise thing to do would be to replace Interceptor with Dragon Skin as the interceptor suits wear out.

Hannes665 · 08-01-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ed_209a

I want to start by saying that I do believe a brand new set of Dragon Skin armor, that has never been outside room temperature will outperform a similar set of Interceptor armor. But military supply isn't quite as simple as that.

Comprehensively replacing Interceptor with Dragon Skin will cost several hundred million dollars. Where will the money come from? What will the troops have to give up to get Dragon Skin?

I really doubt the average infantryman would say Dragonskin is enough better than Interceptor to be worth $1,500 less maintenance on his Stryker, or several fewer cases of ammo, etc, etc, etc.

Second, spin/PR being what it is, I don't think we have 100% of either side of the ITV/Dragon Skin issue. Last I heard, the government wasn't saying exactly why Dragon Skin failed testing. I am going to make a guess that 6 months of sweat, heat and rough handling causes the disks to come loose and settle to the bottom of the carrier. That can't happen with Interceptor.

If there were no environmental issues with Dragon Skin, I believe the wise thing to do would be to replace Interceptor with Dragon Skin as the interceptor suits wear out.

That concurs with what I read about the issue few months back. That Dragon Skin needs more maintenance and not cost affective for regular units were wear and tear is important. There was some PR blunder back in 2006 or 7 when a General was seen wearing Dragon Skin along his Spec Op bodyguards, the argument was that the General got the good stuff while regular troops "had" to wear standard Interceptor armor. So I presume that there were few DS issued or at least ordered by special units of the US army for either field tests or ordered for special use.

What armor soldiers were is most likley related to economics of the armed forces and the Elite status of the Unit. Like a TL 10 Space Marine (regular) may wear the standard body armor, 30 year old design while the Space Marine Raiders get the brand new just out of RnD for their infiltration mission to save the Emperors Uncle.

07-31-2009, 02:45 PM	#1
~~smurf~~ Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bristol	Soldiers I was looking at UT and noted that if you wanted an infantry man for the future it is most likely he/she will have the next best armour because it would be cheaper. The best armour would be saved for elite units. eg TL10 soldier may have TL9 Reflex vest and depending on their role may have TL9 Clam Shell armour. Whilst TL10 elite units would be given the TL10 stuff. Is this a fair way to cost it, in the real world not all soldiers have the best body armour.

07-31-2009, 03:07 PM	#2
Gigermann Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Oklahoma City	Re: Soldiers It would really depend on the "wealth level" of the agency providing the gear—they'll get the best stuff that they can afford to part with. It's probably true that if they can only manage a few of the most expensive pieces, they won't want to trust them to schlubs out of basic training. __________________ The Art of D. Raymond Lunceford, The Daniverse: Core Group Annex The Daniverse Game Blog

07-31-2009, 03:40 PM	#3
Agramer Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Zagreb,Croatia	Re: Soldiers V-2 German rockets from WW II were ahead of TL6. So depends... on lower TLs you do have some Experimental stuff(or not so experimental) with slightly worse stats than regular equip from higher TL in extremely limited "editions". USA is prime example of it in military field. Earth today is TL8 as of GURPS basic. Though true statement for Earth is that its TL 7 /8 with some very small samples of TL 1-4 (Bushmans,some Amazon tribes...etc). Today we are in early TL8 with many things on TL7 in "developed countries". 20 years ago we were in TL 7 with Informatics/Medicine/some military stuff at TL8 only. ON Body Armour: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/ Inside next 30 years industry will develop something much better and well still be at TL8. When you draw the line its just question into how much detail do you want to go and tweaking stats a bit while renaming piece of equipment in question.

07-31-2009, 04:55 PM	#4
jacobmuller Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Not in your time zone:D	Re: Soldiers I'd treat it as Front-line: tactical vest with ballistic inserts, cheap.* Special Forces: ditto but average quality.* MIB: tactical vest DR20/10+30, $1,500, 6lb. *this has no effect in game terms until you need to assess wear & tear from long-term use; eg cheap HT10, average HT12. And that's If they get anything different. __________________ "Sanity is a bourgeois meme." Exegeek PS sorry I'm a Parthian shootist: shiftwork + out of country = not here when you are:/ It's all in the reflexes

08-01-2009, 12:29 PM	#6
alaph Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: B'ham AL	Re: Soldiers I'm not sure if this 100% accurate but I've heard that the Dragon armour is better than what we use in the US Army and the only reason we don't get the dragon stuff is because it is really, really expensive. I would say that your assumption would be correct as long as the government in your setting works under the lowest bidder model, or a communistic type environment where innovation and productivity have been reduced to the lowest common denominator. Just my 3 cents. alaph __________________ Afghanistan is a beautiful country...save for all the humans that loiter about the place.

08-01-2009, 02:21 PM	#9
ed_209a Join Date: Sep 2004	Re: Soldiers I want to start by saying that I do believe a brand new set of Dragon Skin armor, that has never been outside room temperature will outperform a similar set of Interceptor armor. But military supply isn't quite as simple as that. Comprehensively replacing Interceptor with Dragon Skin will cost several hundred million dollars. Where will the money come from? What will the troops have to give up to get Dragon Skin? I really doubt the average infantryman would say Dragonskin is enough better than Interceptor to be worth $1,500 less maintenance on his Stryker, or several fewer cases of ammo, etc, etc, etc. Second, spin/PR being what it is, I don't think we have 100% of either side of the ITV/Dragon Skin issue. Last I heard, the government wasn't saying exactly why Dragon Skin failed testing. I am going to make a guess that 6 months of sweat, heat and rough handling causes the disks to come loose and settle to the bottom of the carrier. That can't happen with Interceptor. If there were no environmental issues with Dragon Skin, I believe the wise thing to do would be to replace Interceptor with Dragon Skin as the interceptor suits wear out. __________________ “Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"