(Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal inspired me to launch a digital military campaign via winSPMBT involving the real world antagonists: Deutchland and طالبان.

During the resultant skirmish between the human controlled Taliban and the computer controlled German forces, I noticed that the German "Jagers" were suffering peculiarly high causalities from industrial age weapons the Taliban commonly use compared with friendly forces that are reported on the news networks.

I investigated the matter and determined that they were not modeled as wearing ballistic vests with rifle resistant ceramic trauma plates. I know not whether this is because the Germans do not posses this technology or whether the game does not model it, only that the German casualties were at about 2 to 1 in my favor with no handicap placed on the AI.

My first question is: would it be possible to model bullet resistant ballistic vests with ceramic trauma plates by increasing the "survivability" value a bit?

My second and third questions are: Do Germans posses the "baseball catchers" armor like American forces do? If so, are they known to use this technology on the field of battle?

Thanks for reading and responding.

Sincerely Yours,
Kartoffel

Re: (Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

The game does not model body armor.

At best, you can approximate it by tweaking the "Infantry toughness" value.
Infantry-type units do not use the "survivability" value (IIRC, it's only used to determine damage to armored vehicles after penetration).


It might be possible to add such functionality to the game, but I believe that'd be a lot of work for relatively little gain (and not "just" coding work - it would require re-working the OOBS, probably adding a lot of extra units).

Re: (Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

Searching the forum on "body armour" gives:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...ht=body+armour

and
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...ht=body+armour

Amongst other hits.

Please use the search facility of the forums before posting, since you may find your question has already been addressed.

Andy

Re: (Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

Thank-you for the advice. :up:

I apologize for posting like a boor, I should have realized that with the war in Afghanistan going on since 2001 that vests would have been discussed here before. :doh:

Re: (Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

I don't understand what you means by "industrial age". When it comes to infantry weapons technology there has not been a massive rate of improvement in the last decades compared to others military development. Bluntly put the capability gap between the average, current issue, NATO rifle and a StG 44 or an AKM isn't comparable to that between an Abrams and a Sherman or a T-54. Same applies to machine guns, mortars and such(infantry antitank and antiaircraft weapons have undergone many more changes to keep up with those platforms of course but have only limited relevance in infantry vs infantry contests).
The only exception I can think about are grenade launchers, both the underbarrel and the heavy crew served ones, which are far better than what was used before and whose proliferation in places like Afghanistan has been limited. Still bottom line is that infantry armed with AKMs, PK machine guns and RPG-7s does pose a significant threat despite the old age of such weapons.
The western advantage in addition to the already mentioned body armor lays in factors like superior training/organization, sensors (when applicable)and very capable fire support.


I don't know exactly what type is in use by the germans but body armor is pretty much standard issue for western troops in such theaters.

Re: (Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

As to your question about my usage of "industrial age" I used the term , incorrectly as it turns out, to denote the relative antiquity of the Taliban's small arms.

Your post sheds light on the the technology gap present in certain weapon systems and not present in other weapon systems such as small arms.

Re: (Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

Players should note that body armor would have a serious effect in playbalance, making armies with those nearly invincible, Like T-54 x M1 Abrahms(even early ones)

Re: (Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

Are you speaking about reality or the game mechanics?
Because if it is the former that is certainly not the case.
All it does is protecting some areas of the body against a certain range of threats.

Re: (Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

From what I understand would have as much effect on the game as troops wearing a beret or helmet as in none. If lucky & a glancing blow may prevent an injury otherwise just reduces the level of. Reasonable measure of protection vs shrapnel but like helmets that bullets most likely going through it, cost comfort as in weight & climate allowing wearer to operate effectivly all restrict it.
The tank analogy would be decent ammo storage so it does not go bang once penetrated.

Re: (Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

Well, i've seen somewhere some sort of body armor that can stop an AK-47 shot at close range,and a helmet made of the same material, i wonder if it is true, as nobody seems to know it, but the video and the ak looked real, btw IMP's post made me think, most tanks ammo is stored on the turret, so hull hits are less deadly?(for armor piercing)

Re: (Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

Some clarifications. Body armor capable of withstanding AK-47 shots not only does exist but has been standard issue for each soldier in the iraqi/afghan theater for years.
The most common type has been the Interceptor body armor: a basic kevlar vest capable of stopping fragments and pistol shots upon which ceramic inserts capable of stopping 7.62x51mm NATO are applied.
What I did not know the last time we discussed this and I still do not know is in what condition one is left after being hit by an AK round. It would appear that typically one can get away with minor bruises and keep fighting but I have only found anedoctes about this, no statistical evidence.
Even if one can get away with an AK hit in the chest there are still several issues to consider:

1) The armor only covers a portion of the body weight/heat/mobility/etc issues usually forbide extending it further.
You get shot/hit in area with no cover or only a lower level of protection, you are still going to be killed of incapacitated.

2) The armor offer only a certain level of protection.
For example if I am not mistaken a PK machine gun (which is to say, a relatively common weapon in places like Iraq/Afghanistan), owing to the more powerful cartridge and longer barrel, has a good chance of piercing even the heaviest armored portion of the vest, at least with some types of ammunition.

3)Further the composite plates performance against repeated hits is worse than that of normal metal armor.

So the bottom line is that body armor is more something that gives an extra chance rather than something that turns a soldier into unstoppable robocop

Re: (Hypothetical) West Germany v. Mujahideen circa 2009 CE
 

The answer is something along the lines of "it depends". I will make some examples.

Leopard 2A4
1) 15 rounds in the turret bustle with blow off panels and armored doors separating them from the crew.
2) 27 rounds in the hull in thin walled racks, perhaps some protection but nothing special.

Leclerc
1) 22 rounds in the turret bustle with blow off panels and armored door separating them from the crew.
2) 18 rounds in the hull in thin walled racks, perhaps some protection but nothing special(if I am not mistaken).

Ariete
42 rounds, all in the hull in thin walled racks, perhaps some protection but nothing special.

And to show what I mean for "thin walled racks, perhaps some protection but nothing special"

http://www.ferreamole.it/images/mbt_ariete/m132_026.jpg

Source http://www.ferreamole.it

In general the norm for western MBTs is that of leaving no vulnerable rounds in the turret; beyond this the degree of ammunition protection ranges between the Abrams (maximum) and the Ariete (minimum).