The XR-311 has AC35 ?!?

[Slar]

Does anyone know why the XR-311 can stop a .50 caliber round?

Seriously, WTF?

I'm starting to think maybe the AC for some of these things is out of whack. Does anyone have an idea of how thick the skin of something like the XR really is?

[mmartin798]

It was just a tubular steel roll cage covered with "heavy gauge" steel. I seriously doubt the standard XR311 could stop a .50 cal. Though if you wanted, you could say that it is laminated with resistweave to give it an AC of 35.

In 4th edition, the XR311 only has an AR of 20B, 40NB and 640EX. So you could just use the 20B for the AC if you wanted.

[Slar]

I was thinking 10, with 7 extra for the Resistweave lining.

20 would work, though.

[Slar]

According to 4E, the standard Project HMMWV is as protected as a Commando Ranger/Peacekeeper. As is the standard M35 truck.

Now, why the hell would the Project issue the Ranger at all if an unmodified M35 is just as protected?

These numbers are all out of wack.

[gamerguy]

Just checked 1e which is the one I am familiar with and the XR311 has an armour value there of 35. The commando has a value of 100. If this helps at all.

[Slar]

That's literally where I started, with AC=35. That means that a regular .50 cal won't go through the XR-311, nor will an armor piercing 7.62x51mm NATO round.

[mmartin798]

According to 4E, the standard Project HMMWV is as protected as a Commando Ranger/Peacekeeper. As is the standard M35 truck.

Now, why the hell would the Project issue the Ranger at all if an unmodified M35 is just as protected?

I would say seating capacity. The Ranger can carry 8, the HMMWV 4, and the M35 only 2. While the M35 could carry many more, they would be in the unprotected bed of the truck and not benefit from the armor.

[nuke11]

The vehicles clearly are not the standard armor package one would get off the shelf.

If we look at the 3rd edition 3mm Boron/carbon filament plate is an AC of 35.

I'm guessing without the original designers saying it directly, TMP might have redone the armor on the vehicles, or added add-on plates to up the armor, but that doesn't take into account the weights of the vehicles presented are standard weights.

If we look at the Ranger it has an AC of 100. The armor on the Ranger was only rated for 7.62 AP at the maximum, so we have something here that doesn't add up either.

Add-on armor or reformulated armor plates might be the answer to this question.

This link provides the information required to calculate the weight of add-on armor for boron carbide https://www.eticeramics.com/products/boron-carbide-bulletproof-plate/

[mmartin798]

The vehicles clearly are not the standard armor package one would get off the shelf.

If we look at the 3rd edition 3mm Boron/carbon filament plate is an AC of 35.

.
.
.
.

This link provides the information required to calculate the weight of add-on armor for boron carbide https://www.eticeramics.com/products/boron-carbide-bulletproof-plate/

That is a great link. I particularly loved reading this in the application section:

Boron Carbide Applications

The ability of boron carbide to absorb neutrons without forming long-lived radionuclides makes it attractive as an absorbent for neutron radiation arising in nuclear power plants and from anti-personnel neutron bombs.

Never know when the Krell will throw in an anti-personnel neutron bomb.

[.45cultist]

There were add on up armor packages, but the composition and thicknesses were never disclosed.