[LT] Silk vs Piercing

[Kalzazz]

The silk upgrade in Low Tech for armor mentions Silk helping vs Cutting and Impaling, so, why does Silk not help vs piercing? Should it help vs piercing and just are very few Low Tech piercing weapons?

[acrosome]

For all practical purposes piercing means "bullets." Silk is tough and resists cutting, that's why it gets the bonus to cutting and impaling attacks (most impaling attacks rely on a cutting component as well). But I have a hard time believing that silk is more tough than other cloth armor to a degree as to give a bonus vs bullets. Yes, some early bullet-resistant vests were made from silk but I think any benefit is far below GURPS granularity.

[starslayer]

Theory: silk is tough to cut, strong, and has very fine fibers (so thread count would be very high). Impaling attacks are large so in order to get through those strong fibers it is going to have to cut/break them. Peircing attacks are small they can just push the fibers aside and get through with minimal difficulties.

If this would actually remain true under actual conditions leaves to be experimented, but that is the theory the rules exist for as I understand it

[Varyon]

Early modern bullet resistant vests were made of silk due to an observation - a particular duelist was saved by a silk handkerchief in his vest pocket (probably a case of Tin Star Armor, from Tactical Shooting). While this was likely a freak accident, silk is still rather capable - with black powder-fired bullets at least - to wrap around a bullet as it goes into the body, slowing it and making extraction easy. The slowing effect probably isn't much more than you'd get from normal cloth, so it makes sense for it not to give you a boost.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Early modern bullet resistant vests were made of silk due to an observation - a particular duelist was saved by a silk handkerchief in his vest pocket (probably a case of Tin Star Armor, from Tactical Shooting).

It's worth observing that the vests in question had about thirty layers of silk.

The duellist in question would have had his handkerchief folded up in his pocket. When I fold mine they end up sixteen layers thick. So the bullet (having luckily hit the bloke over the pocket he had his hankie in) would have had to penetrate a layer of woollen suiting material, then the lining of the pocket, then perhaps sixteen layers of silk handkerchief, then the lining of the pocket again, then the canvas or buckram interlining of the man's coat, then the lining of his coat, then perhaps another layer of suiting and another of lining making up his waistcoat, then his silk or linen shirt, and then probably an undershirt. Two layers of woollen suiting, one of buckram, twenty of silk, one of linen, and one of flannel — it's not a huge surprise that that stopped a fairly slow soft lead bullet from a black-powder cartridge pistol. And it's a flimsy basis on which to ascribe wonderful properties to a single-layer silk shirt.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by acrosome

For all practical purposes piercing means "bullets." Silk is tough and resists cutting, that's why it gets the bonus to cutting and impaling attacks (most impaling attacks rely on a cutting component as well). But I have a hard time believing that silk is more tough than other cloth armor to a degree as to give a bonus vs bullets. Yes, some early bullet-resistant vests were made from silk but I think any benefit is far below GURPS granularity.

No it doesn't. Well, not only bullets, anyway. It also means stuff like blowgun darts, bodkin and fire-cage arrows, bird Beaks, some Strikers, sling and prod pebbles, chisels, drills, and probably some other stuff I forgot.

[Anthony]

Piercing is a kind of incoherent damage type, because it's used at times where the power should really be Impaling (Reduced Wounding).

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Piercing is a kind of incoherent damage type, because it's used at times where the power should really be Impaling (Reduced Wounding).

Indeed. Other stuff is typically fairly coherent - Corrosive is stuff that dissolves the target and their armor (the latter in a simplistic and cinematic manner), Burning is stuff that cooks/melts the target (or causes damage that resembles this, for Burning with No Incendiary Effect), Cutting is stuff that is sharp and wide, Impaling is stuff that has a sharp point, and Crushing is stuff that doesn't penetrate the skin deeply enough to reach anything important. Piercing runs the gamut from "Crushing attacks that do more injury by punching through vital bits" (like bullets) to "Really small Impaling attacks" (like beaks). Personally, I think Piercing should be reserved for the former use and Impaling should have a range of sizes like Piercing does currently.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Indeed. Other stuff is typically fairly coherent

Corrosive is also bad, 'damages armor' should probably be a +100% enhancement that can be applied to multiple damage types (Corrosive would then either become Chemical, or become merged with Burning)

• Acids are Burning (Corrosive), No Incendiary Effect.
• Saws are Cutting (Corrosive)
• Drills are Piercing (Corrosive) or maybe Impaling (Corrosive)
• Melting attacks are Burning (Corrosive)
• Sonic attacks are Crushing (Corrosive)