New RW body armor

[Uncle Bob]

Flexible, rifle-proof (NIJ III+, IV) armor
titanium or compsite scales
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_PArmor,00.html

 

[TheBrain]

So how new is this? I recall seeing something similar awhile ago from a British company. So do we call this hightech scale mail or brigandine?

 

[Uncle Bob]

It is more a jack of plates, but brigandine sounds classier.

I remember the British product, IIRC it was knife-proof. This new stuff will stop AP rifle ammo and they are working on a vehicular version that will stop 12.7 HMG

 

[Jame]

This could be worked into Traveller as a higher-tech version of cloth.

 

[TheBrain]

"This could be worked into Traveller as a higher-tech version of cloth."

I'd keep it at the the same TL but list it as heavy or enhanced cloth with a higher price.

 

[Todg]

It's just a variation of boron carbide ceramic armor. Both rigid and flexible variants each have their own advantages. Rigid armor has significantly reduced backface trauma. it is not unusual for troops wearing the current issue interceptor armor to not even notice when there are hit. Ridgid armor also work better against explosive and blunt force trauma. Flexible armor is more comfortable.

 

[kaladorn]

Corejob,

I was under the impression that 'rigid' armour really was properly 'rigid + flexible' - that is to say that any rigid plating had a padded backing. The plating itself spreads out the impact reducing the force per unit area, but the padding helps to cushion this further thus avoiding bruising blunt trauma.

Watching the older LA bank robbery gunfight, you see the two guys in BA taking minor jerks when they are hit, but not really showing much signs of noticing.. maybe it stings a bit.

 

[Zutroi]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Corejob,
<<SNIP>>
Watching the older LA bank robbery gunfight, you see the two guys in BA taking minor jerks when they are hit, but not really showing much signs of noticing.. maybe it stings a bit.

It's hard to tell if they actually felt anything, since neither of them survived to tell us IIRC. The 'minor jerks' could have been the result of the bullet transferring momentum / kinetic energy to the target...

 

[kaladorn]

I actually suspect that's exactly what it was. I sort of meant that the worst they felt while in an adrenalin boosted state was probably a stinging sensation - at most a minor distraction with no functional impact. All you had to do was watch how they moved while being hit (you could see the hits) to know it didn't impede them much.

But all I was getting at in my main comment there was that this is sort of analogous to the dark -> middle ages -> rennaisance. We started with some quilted armours, swords and axes cut them, so we evolved to a solid armour, then people started getting spiked weapons and bludgeoning ones. For a while, bludgeoning weapons smoked plated armours. Then they put appropriate underpadding underneath to avoid blunt trauma and low and behold, heavy armour could deal with blunt weapons. But it was rigid + cushioning backing. Of course, eventually along came the longbow, firearms, and the heavy lance or pike. But hey, it is always rock, paper, scissors in the real world!

 

[kaladorn]

Vehicular Armour

Apparently, the Hummer is pretty well constructed...

I wonder if this is the kind of experience Imperial Marines have on Counter Insurgency?

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Corejob,

I was under the impression that 'rigid' armour really was properly 'rigid + flexible' - that is to say that any rigid plating had a padded backing. The plating itself spreads out the impact reducing the force per unit area, but the padding helps to cushion this further thus avoiding bruising blunt trauma.

The large plate is not flexible. Wear one and you understand. It's not as bad as wearing a cuirass, but not at all like soft armor.

Watching the older LA bank robbery gunfight, you see the two guys in BA taking minor jerks when they are hit, but not really showing much signs of noticing.. maybe it stings a bit.

Bear in mind that in the North Hollywood shoot out, the bad guys were being hit by pistol fire. a .30-30 rifle (which has about the same energy as a 7.62x39mm assault rifle) has more energy at 100 yards than a .44 magnum does at the muzzle.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by kaladorn:

But all I was getting at in my main comment there was that this is sort of analogous to the dark -> middle ages -> rennaisance. We started with some quilted armours, swords and axes cut them, so we evolved to a solid armour, then people started getting spiked weapons and bludgeoning ones. For a while, bludgeoning weapons smoked plated armours. Then they put appropriate underpadding underneath to avoid blunt trauma and low and behold, heavy armour could deal with blunt weapons. But it was rigid + cushioning backing. Of course, eventually along came the longbow, firearms, and the heavy lance or pike. But hey, it is always rock, paper, scissors in the real world!

Actually, the modern body armors are the first good rationale I've seen for gauss weapons. Truth be told, It is very unlikely that RL(TM) gauss weapons would have any improved hit probability over conventional weapons. nor are they likely to provide significantly increased lethality (at least according to studies done by Fackler et al). They are more expensive and complex, so why adopt them?

Answer - improved body armor.

Already, we can build body armor that cannot be defeated by our own small arms. NIJ level IV can stop .30 caliber armor piercing at point blank range. In fact, there is no practical caliber for an individual weapon that can defeat it. I am told that .338 Lapua AP can defeat an interceptor vest at short range but that is hardly a practical general issue caliber.

The answer then is high velocity, long rod penetrators - much as what are used in tank guns. This means flechettes, or in Traveller terms, gauss weapons.

 

[Straybow]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
But all I was getting at in my main comment there was that this is sort of analogous to the dark -> middle ages -> rennaisance. We started with some quilted armours, swords and axes cut them, so we evolved to a solid armour, then people started getting spiked weapons and bludgeoning ones. For a while, bludgeoning weapons smoked plated armours. Then they put appropriate underpadding underneath to avoid blunt trauma and low and behold, heavy armour could deal with blunt weapons. But it was rigid + cushioning backing. Of course, eventually along came the longbow, firearms, and the heavy lance or pike. But hey, it is always rock, paper, scissors in the real world!

Not quite. From leather to mail to plate assemblages to cuirass to full plate there was always padding underneath. The bludgeoning weapons remained the most effective against the metallurgically advanced armors of the 15th century that defeated longbow, while pikes were not very effective against footmen.

It was the firearm that ended the dominance of armor. Napoleonic heavy cavalry employed a front-only extended cuirass and thigh/knee armor that was proof against musket balls but it weighed over 75 lbs.

Until "bad guys" start fielding armies with extensive armor nobody is going to invest in armor-defeating small arms that already exist (see Corejobs many posts). Those countries that might face the US in combat don't have the R&D budgets or native arms industries.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Corejob:
The large plate is not flexible. Wear one and you understand. It's not as bad as wearing a cuirass, but not at all like soft armor.

I've worn medieval armours. I've worn modern body armours, though not with inserts in.

I never meant to suggest modern armour was flexible, merely that modern 'rigid' armours have non-rigid padding underneath.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Corejob:
The answer then is high velocity, long rod penetrators - much as what are used in tank guns. This means flechettes, or in Traveller terms, gauss weapons.

Urr...there's no inherent connection between gauss weapons and flechette rounds (and, canonically, traveller gauss rifles fire spin-stabilized needles, not flechettes). I'd expect spin-stabilized subcaliber sabot rounds as a first step on improving penetration, since unlike flechettes (where you pretty much want to give people smoothbores) you can fire sabot from the same weapons as regular bullets.

Man-portable gauss weapons start making sense at the point when a gauss weapon becomes smaller (counting power supply and ammo) than a conventional weapon of similar power, which seems unlikely in the near future.

 

[TJP]

Originally posted by Anthony:
...traveller gauss rifles fire spin-stabilized needles, not flechettes...

Okay, what exactly is a fletchette? This has troubled me as it seems to mean different things to different people and my dictionary is of no help here. From Anthony's quote above, I get the impression they are fin-stabilized needles/pointed rods. They apparently can be discarding-sabot or not, it doesn't matter - but spin-stabilized needles wound not be fletchettes. Did I get this right?

 

[Uncle Bob]

AFAIK, long-rod penetrators have to be fin stabilized, even if fired from a rifled gun (105mm M68, British 120mm). Gyroscopic spin can't stabilize a projectile wi a finess ratio mutch over 4:1, unless you cut the rifling so steep it is very lossy.

I concur that the Gauss rifle's projectiles are spin stabilzed since they work equally well in vaccuum.

I have read that one armor maker rates their IV+ plates as proof against 7.62 SLAP (7.62x51 APDS). In the short-term the HEAT round of the 25mm XM29 OICW can penetrate 51mm RHA (rolled, homogenous armor), which should defeat IV++.

 

[TJP]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Gyroscopic spin can't stabilize a projectile wi a finess ratio mutch over 4:1

This I've read as well, but IIRC the L/W ratio was more like 5:1 (or even 6:1). Anyways, well below the c. 10:1 ratio of modern fin-stabilized APDSDU rounds.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Flechettes are generally percieved as needle-like, but they are used like shot. Your round contains multiple flechettes, that spread like shot when fired. The only real difference between shot and flechettes is shape.

The Israelis were evidently using them two years ago in tanks:

According to Jane's Defence Weekly, the British military analysis journal, Israel uses flechette shells acquired from the United States in the 1970s which fire 5 000 darts in in a cone-shaped pattern 300m long and about 94m wide.

They were developed for use against infantry units.

I was under the impression that something banned flechettes, but I can't find it right now.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Beehive rounds. Very nasty. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m546.htm