Body Armour

rfisher · #1 April 10th, 2008, 05:01 AM

I only ask this out of curiosity, but does the armour that some modern infantry wear, make enough of a difference to a soldiers chance of staying in the fight to be represented in the game?
If it is a significant factor (and to be clear; I've no idea/opinion on if it is!) and it is in the game, how is it represented?

Cheers

Mobhack · #2 April 10th, 2008, 05:37 AM

No. Not in the game, not modelled. Not worthwhile in the game scale, same with AT gun shields.

Andy

Marcello · #3 April 10th, 2008, 05:51 AM

If you want you can adjust a bit the infantry toughness values in the game options menu.
I would guesss there might be a percentage of cases where body armor might turn an incapacitating wound into something manageable enough to stay in the fight but I have never researched the topic. Still between the military and the police some studies might be available if you are interested.

Suhiir · #4 April 10th, 2008, 06:05 AM

For all intents and purposes military body armor is useless against anything but fragmentation weapons. Any full jacketed military round would barely notice anything light enough for an infantryman to wear.
That said, I seem to recall that a study done during WW II indicated that something like 70% of casualties we caused by fragmentation type weapons.

Marek_Tucan · #5 April 10th, 2008, 06:12 AM

OTOH those studies often used just data from hospitals - most head shots etc. won't make it there...

Marcello · #6 April 10th, 2008, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Suhiir said:
For all intents and purposes military body armor is useless against anything but fragmentation weapons. Any full jacketed military round would barely notice anything light enough for an infantryman to wear.
That said, I seem to recall that a study done during WW II indicated that something like 70% of casualties we caused by fragmentation type weapons.

I am sure this was the case until a few years ago. But with modern composite plates resistance against against military rifles round has been achieved. Interceptor with the ceramic plates can stop 7.62x51 standard rounds, although as I said I do not have a numerical breakdown of what would happen after (incapacitated percentages of body armor fitted troops vs ones without etc.)

rfisher · #7 April 10th, 2008, 08:06 AM

Curiosity satisfied, thanks.
And some very interesting points too!

PanzerBob · #8 April 11th, 2008, 02:13 AM

Given how "casualities" are represented, Mobhack is correct at this scale of simulation.

Body Armour as used and even in the future, only means that more troops will survive, it will not make super soldiers. Even if a Vest can withstand high powered military bullets (and as mentioned some of the new stuff coming out can.) The effects of an attack with small arms and lets say grenades will still make men combat ineffective.

The primary bonus for body armor as used is HOPEFULLY less injuries and death. I have read and experianced that body armor has a disadvantage of being clumsy. Some complaints along those lines have been made. This too is being worked on as the technology is improved. It is a heck of a trade off though to have to decide on in the meantime!!

Wdll · #9 April 11th, 2008, 05:01 AM

I know, in theory, I would rather wear one than not lol.

Suhiir · #10 April 11th, 2008, 02:48 PM

The big problem with body armor is weight and cost.
Sure, there's stuff out there that can stop anything short of a nuke, but even the US Army can't afford to buy it for general issue.
That and the classic weight problem.
it seems that very few people that haven't been a mud grunt themselves really appreciate that adding an extra 20-40 pounds of high-tech body armor to their load just ain't gonna work.