New RW body armor

[kaladorn]

If I recall my MT ref's screen correctly, critical success +2 did minimum 1 pt damage under all circumstances. +4 did 2. +8 did 3. Thus, it is possible, even with a blowgun, to do damage to someone in BD under that model. Counterintuitive, perhaps, but it prevents the 'walking tank' syndrome.

Note however I have heard examples of tanks using MGs on other tanks to 'clear off the ants'. So if a BD is just a smaller version of this, there ought to be some way to enable you to walk through hails of lesser fire. About the worst you might sustain is damage to your sensors (a not inconsiderable risk, mind you) or comms ariels or the like. Or something getting lodge in a joint and impeding its function. Even if nothing gets through, there ought to be ways for BD to take damage. But at the same time, BD ought to be immune to some weapons.

MT didn't capture either of those very well.

And how exactly is a small few gram projectile going to knock over 400kg worth of armoured Marine? I mean, if it could, firing it would break the arm of the shooter (and knock him down).

It seems more likely to me that the way you beat BD is with pit traps, etc. if you are low tech. Drop a building on them. That'll spoil their day.

I do have one curiosity about plasma/fusion weapons: Assume they do not penetrate - do you get backface thermal damage like spalling, only with molten drops or catching your inner soft lining on fire? Is there any energy weapon equivalent of blunt trauma?

 

[mctesla]

Not really. Comparable to the odds of the person shooting the gun being knocked down by recoil.

Non-penetrating trauma is an issue, but it probably wouldn't mean much more than bruising for someone in battledress.

That's what I was afraid of-- I was hoping that there was something that I was missing beyond Newton's 3rd law.
So really it's just a matter of changing my expectations, using a different rule set, or simply lowering the armor values to something more reasonable.

Thanks for the response!

 

[kaladorn]

Since there are minimum damages provided for in MT, I'm not sure why you'd change rulesets. There are also damage multipliers.

And really, for any given TL (say 15), the armour isn't keeping up if it can't at least stop a major portion of the damage the weapon does. Nowadays, interceptor armour with various reinforcing plates can stop some rifle rounds. I'd *expect* TL-15 BD to stop part of an FGMP-15. The fact 7 points would get through is still disturbingly much...

 

[Todg]

Interceptor armor can effectively stop all military rifle rounds. The standard for NIJ level IV is stopping 30-06 armour piercing ammunition fired at point blank range. interceptor can stop multiple hits of said ammunition in the same location, effectively rendering all military small arms ammunition (including GPMGs) ineffective.

 

[womble]

I think "rendering ineffective" is a bit strong... The Interceptor is only capable of stopping rifle rounds that hit the plates. A rifle round in the shoulder joint is still going to be a serious, possibly mortal wound, not to mention lower abdomen/legs and face. It does provide fore and aft protection to the vitals and centre of mass which most shooters who aim will aim at, though, so survivability is improved.

On a bit of an aside, I was surprised to find the mv of a FAL was greater than that of a GPMG. Maybe it's because of the gas needed for the blowback on a full-auto weapon...?

 

[Uncle Bob]

The big advantage of Pinnacle armor is the nearly complete torso coverage.

 

[Uncle Bob]

The big advantage of Pinnacle armor is the nearly complete torso coverage at NIJ III or IV.

But even the SAPI plate in the Interceptor vest will catch most bullets that would hit the heart, aorta, vena cava, upper spine, and other structures that cause rapid death.

 

[Uncle Bob]

The big advantage of Pinnacle armor is the nearly complete torso coverage at NIJ III or IV.

But even the SAPI plate in the Interceptor vest will catch most bullets that would hit the heart, aorta, vena cava, upper spine, and other structures that cause rapid death.

 

[womble]

Yep, the armour will save lives. No doubt about that, or it probably wouldn't be readily adopted by the man on the ground. But even complete torso coverage doesn't render all bullets ineffective.

 

[Todg]

It is interesting to note that combat casualties in Iraq are primarily from explosives. In that sense, the current armor has proved effective. While it is true that hits to non-protected areas can still render a soldier or Marine hors de combat, the likelihood of a fatality from small arms has dropped to a very low level. In this sense, current small arms have been rendered relatively moot - or at least the possibility is well within reach.

Extending the concept to Traveller, it would seem that a soldier equipped with high-tech armor (e.g. combat armor) would be relatively invulnerable to troops equipped with lower tech weapons.

 

[kaladorn]

Hmmm. You make it sound like the armour is what has resulted in the majority casualties being from explosives. I think that has as much to to with the situation on the ground (enemy tactics, operational success in engaging enemies that decide to enter open engagement) as with armour. The IED is an easy weapon to use and doesn't usually threaten the user, unlike actual combat.

Now, I'm not saying your contention about the value of armour is mistaken, just that I wouldn't try to establish any causality between armour efficacy and the casualty rates from explosives vs. other means. That is a much broader issue.

I'm also not sure how, as long as you have an exposed face and neck, you can really render small arms moot. And I've yet to see a solution that tries to protect these areas that is workable within the context of actual operational needs. Yes, there are reduced odds of a casualty if you have plates covering the sternum, shoulders, top of the head (helm) and shoulders an thighs. But there are still spots to score disabling wounds and the face, back of the neck below the helmet and front of the neck above the chest armour to score lethal wounds on, as well as armpits if the arms are in such a position as to permit it.

Troops with combat armour, in MT terms, have AV of (IIRC) 8 to 14 depending on the generation. Most sluggers have penetration no more than 4. And even the gauss rifle designs I've seen have 7 to 9. Only laser rifles of TL13+ or PGMP/FGMP or RAM grenades seem workable as ways to take these down. Which makes the selection of the ACR humorous, since it won't take down the armour that most people who use it wear....

 

[mike wightman]

Pinpoint location option and use either an ARL firing HEAP or KEAP, a Gauss Rifle, or a 9mm ACR with DS ammo. They'll all get through TL12 CA and TL13 BD.
The ARL doesn't even need to use the pinpoint location option with HEAP, but you'd have to if you want to shoot up TL14 CA/BD.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Now, I'm not saying your contention about the value of armour is mistaken, just that I wouldn't try to establish any causality between armour efficacy and the casualty rates from explosives vs. other means. That is a much broader issue.

After action reports from Iraq seem to indicate that armor is having a significant impact. There is a large body of reports showing that armor is intercepting a large percentage of bullet strikes - hits which would have been disabling or even lethal without armor. There are reports of even multiple torso and head hits being unnoticed by the soldiers struck.

The ALCLAD studies showed that even the most rudimentary armor can have a profound impact on casualties. The adoption of steel helmets in WWI lead to a significan reduction in casualties, and the US military is working towards full coverage armor (Future Warrior).

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Pinpoint location option and use either an ARL firing HEAP or KEAP, a Gauss Rifle, or a 9mm ACR with DS ammo. They'll all get through TL12 CA and TL13 BD.

Traveller seem to be overopimistic ib the efficacy of both DS and HEAP. The penetration of HEAP projectiles is directly related to warhead diameter. And DS hasn't proven to be particularly effective against modern armor. DS has been dropped in favor or long rod penetrators by every major army. DS has proven even less useful in small arms. Even SLAP round for the .50BMG have been removed from the inventory, an DS rounds like the Accelerator are now nothing more than a curiosity - although they were new and exciting technology when Traveller was originally written.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Corejob:
And DS hasn't proven to be particularly effective against modern armor. DS has been dropped in favor or long rod penetrators by every major army.

Uh...long rod penetrators _are_ DS rounds.

Spin-stabilized DS rounds fired from rifled barrels have been replaced by fin-stabilized DS rounds fired from smoothbores, but they're still DS rounds.

I didn't know that SLAP was being phased out; my impression was that it did have a noticeable gain in penetration. My guess for a reason is that most targets either have low enough armor that the extra penetration wasn't needed (and the loss of KE hurts), or high enough armor that the extra penetration isn't good enough, so there's no real benefit to the extra cost of SLAP.

 

[vegascat]

Casualty stats out of Iraq show a decrease in overall fatality percentages, but an sharp increase in amputations. Translation - those who do get hit survive more often now, but if they are hit hard enough to notice it, the armor saves their torso (Life), but the unprotected limbs are gone.

 

[kaladorn]

I wasn't arguing that part. It was the leading comment about the use of explosives and that this somehow established armour efficacy.

What you've described *does* describe a viable relationship between damage and efficacy for armour.

However, the use of a particular type of attack (which was what I took Corejob's starting sentences to imply) doesn't necessarily imply the efficacy of armour. That may be a factor, but such decisions have more factors in them.

As I said, I didn't dispute the conclusions about the new armour being good stuff. Mind you, heavy as all get out... <argh>

 

[mctesla]

Troops with combat armour, in MT terms, have AV of (IIRC) 8 to 14 depending on the generation. Most sluggers have penetration no more than 4. And even the gauss rifle designs I've seen have 7 to 9. Only laser rifles of TL13+ or PGMP/FGMP or RAM grenades seem workable as ways to take these down. Which makes the selection of the ACR humorous, since it won't take down the armour that most people who use it wear....

That was kind of the point of my original post-- historically, the tension between armor and weapon technologies favors the weapons, and as new armors are developed to counter threats, new weapons are made to counter those threats.
Part of my issue, and the reason why I brought this up, is that I never envisioned ALL troopers being equipped with P[F]GMPs--- I've always pictured them as squad support weapons.
I view the minimum damage rules and the multipliers as kludges- but that is a personal gaming issue.

 

[kaladorn]

Minimum damage I have some small issue with. Damage multipliers not so much, since we don't manage hit locations. Armour won't be equal in all places, as this is not a sensible use of armour mass or necessarily a mechanically useful one.

There is also the Pinpoint Targeting rule. +1 Difficulty Level, *HALF* the target's AV. Now, you say, that won't make a rifle penetrate combat armour! I agree. But it gives a gauss rifle a chance. And it make a laser rifle fairly effective.

Anyway, I would guess that most Imperial Marines would not use FGMPs, simply because they'll do too much collateral damage. I imagine a TL 13 to 15 laser rifle (with penetration enough to score at least low penetration hits regularly) will be the norm. It also has very long range and good accuracy. They'd issue auto GLs with AP RAM grenades, TAC missiles, and FGMPs as support weaponry. This gives them the capability to be discriminate or not. The GL may even have a built on RAM GL.

Where the Marines are deployed in Combat Environment Suits (lower threat environments), they may well be involved in peacekeeping/making or else in counter insurgency ops where armour isn't too keen (ie clankity clankity give my position away). In those cases, depending on the expected foe (lower tech natives), they may be issued gauss rifles with RAM grenade launchers instead.

The only Marine units likely to be nearly 100% FGMP are Marine Assault Units (drop troops and the like). Even they may have some heavy laser rifles as sniper weapons and distance shooters. But for these units, collateral damage is expected and the ability to deploy disproportionate firepower is an asset.

IMTU

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Anthony:
[Uh...long rod penetrators _are_ DS rounds.
[/QB]

True, but Traveller originally didn't give that impression. Book 4 described DS as "9/6mm, 3 gram" projectiles. A typical 6mm bullet weighs in at about 75-100 grains and has a length/diameter ratio of avout 3:1. A 3 gram projectile is about 46 grains, suggesting something closer to 2:1, and such bullet is in fact much lighter than current issue 5.56mm bullets. By no stretch of the immagination is this a long rod penetrator. LRP typically have a length/diameter of 10:1 giving them extremely high cross sectional density.

All long rod penetrators (that I know of) are DS rounds, but not all DS rounds are LRP.