07-06-2012, 05:36 PM | #41 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: New body armor options for soldiers
No, it's slightly under 1/2 of what GURPS calls the 'torso' location. It's about 1/3 of the total area of the torso (total torso area is ~7 square feet). The thing is, much of the missing coverage is area that is unlikely to get hit if you're being attacked from the front or back and have partial cover -- it's area below the waist or that are much more likely to be hit from the top or sides than the front.
Last edited by Anthony; 07-06-2012 at 06:09 PM. |
07-06-2012, 06:28 PM | #42 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: New body armor options for soldiers
Quote:
The officer was going down the hall of a residence and was probably turned sideways (though still in a firing position for his SMG). A single 25 ACP entered from the side and hit his heart. Exactly which HT roll he failed may depend on how you interpret his final burst of SMG fire. I think this hallway situation may be a common problem. this may be be from conversations/playtesting with Lisa for Cops or SWAT.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
07-06-2012, 08:13 PM | #43 | |
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Somewhere between Cape Horn and Zenith Point
|
Re: New body armor options for soldiers
Take a look a this:
Quote:
I google it and that came up. So, this is representative for what is encontered in field? |
|
07-06-2012, 08:53 PM | #44 |
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Re: New body armor options for soldiers
Those are nice figures, but I should caution you that they don't necessarily immediately translate into something useful for GURPS. Here's why:
1. You'd need to take an average to find the average weight of the plate and then determine what is the average size for the operators they are fitting it. Is ST12 average or large size plate? What about ST9? ST14? Generally, GURPS armor has never bothered with size. You can decide on this, but just beware that this is not a transparent step. You must decide. 2. Then you need to consider that armor in GURPS has never mapped to the drawings which depict the hit locations very well. In other words, as well-meaning as the discussion on percentage of body covered is, if you go back through previous editions, those coverages were never very consistent and never really mapped to a given armor piece very well either. It's always been very abstract. There is a good reason for that -- abstract is simple, and simple is quick. Quick is usually more fun. 3. The suggestion to use a N/6 chance is a nice optional rule but requires an additional roll for every single attack. That's a lot of imposed record keeping for very little extra gain. I have also read where the sizes of plates and vests were determined to be the size necessary to catch most attacks they were intended to defend against. So do hits that bypass armor represent a normal hit, or a critical hit? If they are a normal hit that rolls normal damage and goes through is that armor failure? If its a critical hit then why roll every time to see if it bypasses armor? You can be a masochist and try to determine the actual figures, or something like them, but since we don't know where a hit falls on a location anyway (edge? center? somewhere between edge and center?) it's rather moot. You all should feel free to play and decide as you like. I just wanted to pitch in here and say that there are some decisions that must be made and they are game play/design decisions which have ramifications, and contrary to what some may argue it is not just research on actual/historical weights and sizes and so forth. |
07-06-2012, 08:54 PM | #45 |
Join Date: May 2007
|
One point on armor/equipment that doesn't let you get too low --
Just give the shooter an effective +1 to hit (vs. the maximum penalty on hitting for a prone target.) If you can't get sufficiently low (due to incompressible armor, full magazine pouches, or even while shooting with a long magazine [an actual issue with the M-16 in Vietnam] you're easier to hit.)
"Willie, I can't get any lower. My buttons are in the way." -- Bill Mauldin |
07-06-2012, 09:01 PM | #46 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: New body armor options for soldiers
Quote:
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
07-07-2012, 09:16 AM | #47 | |
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Re: New body armor options for soldiers
Quote:
Just need to actually get around to doing the java bit. Which has taken six months so far. :) |
|
07-07-2012, 02:14 PM | #48 |
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Re: New body armor options for soldiers
I've used the N/6 rules before, and they are okay when everyone is shooting single or semi-auto. But they are a real pain with full-auto, and shotgun fire is also a bit problematic. It's very much the same thing with trying to figure out gaps in armor from different stances or directions. "He's shooting Weaver, so he's got 3 in 6 on his body armor. Fool! Isosceles gives 4 in 6." or "I wait till he walks by and then shoot him in the side because everyone knows that vests don't protect from the side." It's simpler and quicker to just roll and deal with this stuff as critical hits. No one is required to do that, of course, but it's certainly the default assumption.
|
07-07-2012, 04:11 PM | #49 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: New body armor options for soldiers
GURPS seems to deliberately ignore armor coverage -- virtually no armor has the same resistance to penetration over its entire area.
|
07-07-2012, 04:14 PM | #50 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: New body armor options for soldiers
|
Tags |
high-tech |
|
|