Body Armor in T2K

[Raellus]

I don't think we have a thread devoted to this topic. Assuming that's correct, I thought this might be a good topic to open for discussion.

The idea came to me when I was watching a recent (I think) episode of Pawn Stars on the History Channel. Apparently, kevlar has a bit of a half-life. After about 5 years, the fibers start to deteriorate, apparently making the vest less safe. I had no idea. The vest the guy brought in to the pawn store even had the date it was issued/sold written on the tag. I had never thought about Kevlar body armor losing it's integrity over time.

If this is the case, a lot of Kevlar body armor would be approaching that 5 year use-by date in the year 2000. I think it's safe to assume that Kevlar body armor produced after '97 would be extremely rare.

If you wanted to, I guess you could address this in game mechanics by assigning Kevlar body armor a wear value based on age (as well as previous use).

Anyway, your input is welcome. Please feel free to use this thread for any discussion having to do with body armor in the T2KU.

[HorseSoldier]

How well it ages is also dependent on how it is stored and how heavily used it is. Anything in constant use during the entire war is probably much worse off than something made in, say, 1990 and stored flat in a cool location out of sunlight.

And it bears noting that any hard plates and similar in service in the Twilight War timeline (and those would be pretty scarce to begin with) will be single hit plates that will lose a lot of their ballistic protection if they're hit. Soft armor that suffers penetrations will likewise be compromised to varying degrees.

[kcdusk]

Now that you've said that, it makes sense. I work at a place where we have to wear those flouresent yellow/orange or white safety hats. Legally (in australia) we have to update our hats every 2 years i think it is. Why? Because even if it hasnt been knocked, safety wise its best to change them over. I see no difference why kevlar vests would be different.

I also agree, it would "age" depending on how it had been looked after. I'd imagine 99% of vests would have seen hard use in t2k times. A player would really have to argue a good argument to get a good condition kevlar jacket in my view.

Finally, i reckon V1.0 rules said something like "kevlar has a wear value just like vehilces. For each hit, the wear value goes up by 1. When a jacket gets to wear value 10 it is useless providing, any benefit" - or words to those effect.

And while we're here, I'd apply "bulk" modifiers for wearing a vest. Jumping a gate, climbing a fence, any type of movement that is harder than usual anyway, would be harder when wearing a vest. I think most real world SWAT and other vest wearing types agree with this. They are also hot to wear, so endurance can be affected. Doubly so if wearing a vest in an APC type vehicle for any length of time.

[simonmark6]

I've done some net trawling and information is inconclusive.

bulletproofme.com has a quote that may or may not apply:

“NIJ tests failed to demonstrate any significant differences in 10-year-old armor, regardless of the extent of use or apparent physical condition”

“The warranty exists solely to limit the manufacturer's liability on the product and is not a reflection of the anticipated service life of the product.”

...Guide to Police Body Armor, National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC)

I haven't been able to verify this quote or find out if it specifically refers to Kevlar.

From a TK2 feel of things I like the idea of degrading protection. Perhaps a variation of the TK2013 wear rules might be in order. For armour that has been subject to wear and tear, roll d6-1 to determine age. This is its base wear value. The wear value represents the percentage lost from protection so a WV of 5 vest would lose 1 AV (I'd only apply when it got to 5 1/2 protection and 10 useless). In addition, the vest loses 1 WV for every additional year of use and 1 WV every time it is hit.

[Legbreaker]

I believe you're right about the 10 hit capacity of body armour in V1.0. Been a while since I looked though.
Close Assault Armour, which has twice the protective level of "standard" kevlar applies several penalties to the wearer, notably restricting movement to no more than a trot and I think making all tasks one level harder.
If we were to go even better to the bomb tech style of protection, 'd say nothing more than a slow walk and forget about using anything more bulky than a pistol or small SMG - certainly wouldn't be able to put a rifle to the shoulder or use the sights. Small manual movement of the hands shouldn't be penalised (that's an important necessity for bomb disposal) but there'd be no way the wearer would be doing any gymnastics.

[kcdusk]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I believe you're right about the 10 hit capacity of body armour in V1.0. Been a while since I looked though.

Shame on you, you should know V1.0 by heart! Its the bible, which we quote from religlously!

[Legbreaker]

My motorcycle gear is almost all Kevlar and is over ten years old. In that time I've come off a couple of times and without it wouldn't be here today. My jacket especially copped a hammering in one incident but besides a few small tears which were easily patched up it's still as good as new.
Based on that, and realising it's not necessarily the same composition as ballistic armour, I've no problem in believing it does not degrade over time - I still trust my life to the same jacket, etc that I've been using for over a decade.

This isn't to say that a bullet or shrapnel wouldn't cause it significant damage and several hits wouldn't render it less effective though. General use, wear and tear, or what have you isn't likely, in my opinion, to significantly downgrade performance to the point where it needs to be reflected in game. Any armour in 2000 isn't likely to be all new and shiny though, and is sure to have suffered some damage to it's outer layer from stones, branches and general accidents, but unless it's hit with something powerful enough to penetrate, I say it really shouldn't be effected IC.

Even armour which has been penetrated is better than nothing - a bullet may still hit a good portion of the armour and although the energy may not be spread out across a wide area, it's still likely to slow the bullet to the point where the wearer isn't killed but just injured. 10 penetrations seems a reasonable limit though - after that it's little more than swiss cheese and although weighes the same (near enough) to new offers little measureable protection.

[dragoon500ly]

I remember reading someplace that kevlar is chemically inert so it doesn't break down over time. I'm checking some sites and if I can find more info, I'll post the link.

[HorseSoldier]

If stored in such a manner that it creases or gets folded that will also create weak points in the armor.

[dragoon500ly]

According to the US Army, kevlar vests have a service life span of 20 years. They are supposed to be stored flat and not exposed to direct sunlight unless being worn (i.e. supply can't leave a flat of vests exposed to weather).

Vests are to be inspected for water damage, tears, rips on a yearly basis and returned to depot in case any defects are discovered.

If a vest has been hit by fragments or bullets, the vest is to be carefully inspected and used if mission essential, but to be returned to supply at the first chance.

Ballistic plates are strictly to be replaced at the first chance. If, for any reason, the plate cannot be returned to supply, it is to be destroyed in such a manner as to render it useless.

Hope this helps!

[Griff]

Since we started recieving these new vests (2001 and on) we've been told that they have to be checked every year (end of deployment) for major tears, kevlar breaking down (heavy use, excessive weather exposure), and impact damage. Apparently the average vest issued to an Infantyman (or anybody else who operates in it alot) lasts about 3 years (this according to several supply types over the last 6 years of turning stuff in). The plates get updated about every two years so I have no idea how long they last, but my guys were told to look for any plate over three years old, and to turn it in if found. We've had a couple of defective serials on K-plates, and they break down just like the vest. Since they're hard, they tend to break when they've taken a heavy impact (designed to to help mitigate kenitic impact). The plates apparently breakdown more from extreme temps (heat/cold).

For T2000......I wouldn't worry about it too much (just another pain to track/worry about). Tracking the impact damage seems solid enough. Now as possible GM tool to hint at/use to help the story move about...sure. I would imagine the plates being the hardest thing to find/replace in T2K (same goes for K-pots). Hope this helps.

Scouts Out

[simonmark6]

Even if it doesn't degrade, I'd really hate to be issued a vest with ten holes, or patches in it...

[Griff]

Oh it's fine partner.....all you've gotta do is check the pockets for the "bullet magnet" and get rid of it!


Sua Sponte

[pmulcahy11b]

Every so often, I get a weird glimmering of an idea for a new body armor rating in T2K -- basically, your vest or helmet might have a rating of "0.7" or something like that, which would mean that the incoming damage is multiplied by 0.7 to determine how much damage goes on to your fragile body. In the case of the "0.7 armor" here, one would receive 2 points of blunt trauma damage -- the 0.3 stopped, x10, /2, rounded up. I just haven't really sat down and tried to firm up the concept.

[Targan]

Gunmaster has a similar system. If bullet penetration damage is reduced below a certain level due to body armour, that penetration damage is converted to blunt impact. This is important in Gunmaster because different types of damage (Blunt, Edge, Point (and the sub-set of Ballistic point), Fire/Frost, Squeeze and Tear) have different effects on the body (in terms of shock rolls, blood loss and healing).

All the different versions of Gunmaster can be downloaded for free at http://www.warflail.com/harn/index.html

Heh, heh. It's been a while since I've mentioned Gunmaster so I thought I might get away with this post

[Legbreaker]

Gee, any excuse to promote Gunmaster.......

[WallShadow]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Every so often, I get a weird glimmering of an idea for a new body armor rating in T2K -- basically, your vest or helmet might have a rating of "0.7" or something like that, which would mean that the incoming damage is multiplied by 0.7 to determine how much damage goes on to your fragile body. In the case of the "0.7 armor" here, one would receive 2 points of blunt trauma damage -- the 0.3 stopped, x10, /2, rounded up. I just haven't really sat down and tried to firm up the concept.

Paul, I think you're channeling 2300AD there. The decimal values of armor plus the non-penetration force defaulting to blunt trauma.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by WallShadow

Paul, I think you're channeling 2300AD there. The decimal values of armor plus the non-penetration force defaulting to blunt trauma.

Hmmm...I have 2300AD, but I've never actually read the rules system, just looked at the future "history." I'll have to take a closer look.

[James Langham]

How about this is a rule mechanic:

Armour has a wear value like vehicles. Until it reaches value 10 when it is destroyed it works perfectly. Wear value is increased by 1 in the following circumstances:

* each month on a 1D10 roll of 1 which must then be confirmed by rolling the wear value or less (tears get bigger, etc)

* each penetrating hit by a small arms

* each non-penetrating hit by small arms if the damage dice stopped are equal to or more than a roll of 1D6.

* the number of dice of a penetrating or non-penatrating large calibre weapon

Helmets which are notoriously damagable by small arms fire take double the wear value for all except the first case.

Rigid plate inserts where fitted are also subject to this rule but are also subject to shattering on each impact that penetrates. this occurs on a 1D10 roll equal to or less than the new wear value.

I suggest a doubling or trippling of the base cost of armour so that it is reasonably priced when worn.

Thoughts?

Usefully this has also got me thinking about rifle wear values linked to rules I am writing for weapon reliability.

[Targan]

Is it possible to replace damaged/degraded kevlar panels in the field? For instance by removing and storing undamaged panels from damaged body armour. I assume kevlar body armour consists of a number of specifically sized and shaped internal panels sewn, glued or other wise fixed in place within a durable nylon exterior cover? And if it is possible to field-refurbish 'Frankenstein' body armour, is it possible to cut larger panels down to a required size and shape where necessary, without impairing the panels' impact resistance?

On a similar vein, what grades and thicknesses of steel could be cut and shaped to create at least marginally effective replacement hard plates?

[natehale1971]

I think I had read somewhere that you can meltdown and recast kevlar.. or is that cermaic plates?

[Legbreaker]

Kevlar doesn't melt, it "decomposes" just shy of 500 degrees C.
http://www2.dupont.com/Kevlar/en_US/...ical_Guide.pdf
It doesn't burn either unless you hold a blow torch to it.
The outer shell of a vest however is another story depending on what it's made of.
Silicon Carbide, which is the ceramic used in vests likewise will not melt. Another use for it is disk brakes in high performance vehicles where melting at any temperature would be squarely in the "bad things" category.

[natehale1971]

I wonder if it was teflon then that I read about.. it's been nearly twenty years ago since i read about it. and all i know was that they said that they could recast the material to make thick plates that could stop bullets and knives.

[Legbreaker]

Teflon will melt however it's got abysmal bullet stopping properties. It is used though as a coating on some bullets to minimise barrel wear.

Steel and other metals could be used however the weight of an adequately thick sheet of metal would be a little on the prohibitive side. Only need look at what happened to armour a few hundred years ago when personal gunpowder weapons became widespread. Breastplates hung about for a while, but once reliable firearms which could quickly be reloaded came about, armour almost totally disappeared.

Better I think to try and avoid being hit in the first place by using cover and concealment and shooting them before they can do it to you. Having a vest and helmet is a huge bonus, but they certainly shouldn't be relied upon in place of common sense and cover.

[Targan]

What are the spall liners in armoured vehicles made from? Can they be cut down and used as replacement panels in damaged body armour?

[Panther Al]

Usually Kevlar from what I have seen though I wouldn't be surprised if there was some other materials used as well.

[dragoon500ly]

spall liners are pretty much all kevlar, even the Navy is using the stuff to frag-proof key compartments.

[B.T.]

It is a little confusing, if one tries to get the evolution in body armor and equipment from the 1990ies up to now.

If I understood it right, the PASGT-system should have been the most common body armor of US troops in the Twilight War. The Interceptor body armor had been under evaluation and the first items were fielded in 1997 IRL (Hm, at least that's what Wikipedia says.).

So: Would the Interceptor body armor have been issued to US troops on a wider scale or even earlier than IRL, if the Twilight War had gone off the way, the game says? What about the SAPIs and/or ESAPIs? When were those exactly issued?

I don't want to make this whole thing to complicated, but should an Interceptor body armor (eventually with the SAPI) give a better armor rating?

And, last one at the moment: When were the MOLLE pouches fielded? Would it be a common sight on the Polish battlefield in 2000, would it be rare, or would there be no chance to find these equipment items in the ETO?

[bobcat]

PALS/MOLLE was first fielded in the mid ninety's in special forces units. by 2003 even the reserves and national guard had it(along side the old alice gear) that said i've been issued everything from M1956 webbing to MOLLE as late as 2005

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by bobcat

PALS/MOLLE was first fielded in the mid ninety's in special forces units. by 2003 even the reserves and national guard had it(along side the old alice gear) that said i've been issued everything from M1956 webbing to MOLLE as late as 2005

The first place I actually saw MOLLE in use was at Ft Bragg in 1990. A unit from 10th Mountain came down for some joint training (Bragg has some great training areas, especially MOUT sites, hiding in the backwoods); one of the squad leaders of the platoon our platoon was paired with was led by a roommate of mine from Korea, Stephen Blodgett. He told me the MOLLE gear they were working with was part of a field test and only his battalion had it, but there seemed to be universal approval of it from the troops. It wasn't until well after Desert Storm that we at the 82nd saw any MOLLE -- it is a good setup, and very customizable (within the limits imposed upon you by your chain of command).

Just as a BTW, when I first got to Bragg, one of the first places I went after getting to my unit was ALC (Airborne Leader's Course). One day, the entire class had the opportunity to ask the ADC(M) one question each. I asked him why the 82nd didn't have SINGCARS --I had just come from Korea (after going through jump school and AIT to change from 11C to 11B), and the ADC(M) told us that the timetable for SINCGARS did not include issue to the 82nd at that time. That shocked me; I was under the illusion at the time that the 82nd was the first "conventional" unit to get anything. He quickly disabused me of that notion, then further told me, after telling him that 8th Army in Korea was nearly complete in its SINGCARS conversion when I left (Jan 90), and it was even seeing limited issue to ROK SF, Rangers, and Marines, that this was a shock for him!