Body Armor

[guyguy1 0]

One thing that I'm not too sure about is if the damage models in AA will incorporate body armor. I'm not a modelling genius, so I don't know how it's done, but body armor should definitely be in this game because this game takes place during modern times and because many armies, especially the Americans, use it widely. There hasn't been much info on this, but If the models show the soldiers wearing body armor, and if the game takes place in modern times, an American soldier should definitely be wearing some form of protection other than a helmet (granted the soldiers of the "west" side are American, which they sure look like).

[Lightspeed 0]

Hi Im new here, but a GR diehard so this stuff really appeals to me.

However, in saying I love GR, I found the one shot one kill v unrealistic.

Body armour is used, and it protects soldiers, and as such a soldier should be able to be hit 2 or 3 times you would think, not die after the first shot. Obviously, there are occasions when this would occur but in general the guy should live to fight on.

Lightspeed

[Kode 0]

What would GR mean?

1 shot 1 kill only happens when you shoot the head

When you hit something else, for example the foot, you can hit a person 4-5 times without killing him. So average, you'd need 2-3 bullets to kill somebody( that is my experience). Body armor could be a nice addition, but I don't see it hold against 6 bullets from a heavy machine gun

[malick 0]

I'm no specialist, but as far as I know, there's no body armor meant to protect from direct bullets. They are meant to protect from ricocheting bullets which have lost a great amount of power but can still be harmful, shrapnel from a nearby explosion and general shock projection.

[Lightspeed 0]

GR = GHOST RECON

And body armour is designed to take direct hits from bullets.

Obviously, it will not withstand any type of ballistics, like heavy machine gun, etc. But most standard issue handhelds. This is my understanding from ppl in the know.

[Kode 0]

keep in mind there are different types of body armor, the heavier, the more it can handle, but I don't think they are using heavy body armor, it's too heavy to cary in battle...

I think what Malick said is more realistic.

[ziiip 1]

http://www.nofrag.com/images/000b89.jpg

Just look at the dude.

[Placebo 29]

What a handsome man

[dmakatra 1]

Won't the new Interceptor Body Armour along with ceramic inserts stop like a 7.62?

[Balschoiw 0]

For sure body armor will in SOME cases protect you from lethal wounds but be assured that you´re out of action anyway. The impact of projectile will give you more than a slap. It´s like you´re hit by a 2m big Sumo wrestler. Apart from that manufacturers do claim that their product will stop bullets, but IRL the situation looks different. Body Armor is unfortunally overrated. It may work well for small calibers on a distance but that´s it.

I remember wearing a plated vest during convoy service. It was very very bulky and heavy as hell. I don´t know if it would have kept a 7.62 from coming through. Even modern composite body armor that is much lighter than the plated armor is not that safe as you may think. Originally it is meant to keep pistol fire, fragments and stabbing away from you.

Anyway, if you´re not killed by the projectile that goes through the wonderful armor you´ll be taken out of action by the impact.

Edit:

Article on the failure of Zylon vests DOJ Testing Confirms Deficiencies in Zylon Vests

Those vests were ordered in large amounts all over the world. The german police got supplied with it aswell. Congratulations

Anoher article on recalled military body armor

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON - The military is recalling more than 18,000 protective vests because they did not meet ballistic test standards when the body armor was made up to five years ago.

It is the second recall in about six months.

Some vests in the latest recall may have been used in Iraq or Afghanistan. Made between 1999 and 2001, they were green or woodland camouflage, making it less likely they were used in the Gulf, where troops use the newer, desert-colored camouflage vests.

Marine Corps spokesman Maj. Douglas Powell and Army spokesman Paul Boyce said no Marines or soldiers were at risk because the vest met field test requirements.

The vests did not meet the higher manufacturing standards. Officials discovered the problems in September.

The recall affects only the outer tactical vest and its soft inserts, made by Florida-based Point Blank Body Armor Inc., and not the ceramic insert that also is used in the armor.

A message left with the company late Thursday was not immediately returned.

Because troops may have moved some of the soft inserts from one of the older green vests to a newer desert-colored vest, soldiers and Marines need to check all parts of their body armor for the recall numbers, officials said.

In May, the Marine Corps recalled 5,277 combat vests issued to troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Djibouti after a newspaper article raised concerns that they failed a test to determine whether they could stop a bullet.

The Marines said they recalled the vests to alleviate any doubts caused by a story in the Marine Corps Times, but service officials insisted they did not believe the vests are faulty.

Most of the Point Blank vests passed the tests, but several fell short of the Marines' standards during testing in 2004. At the time, the company said it stands by its products and that there had been no reported failures in the field.

The vests are designed to withstand small arms munitions fired at a certain velocity. The contract specification is higher than the potential threat level in the field, Boyce and Powell said, and therefore there were no incidents where troops were injured because the vest failed.

Among the eight lots of the body armor being recalled, more than 10,000 vests went to the Marines and more than 8,000 went to Army soldiers.

According to the company's Web site, the vest is designed to protect against 9 mm pistol rounds and fragments from an explosion.

Both the Army and the Marines have a large number of newer vests, and said there would be no problems providing troops with the better models.

[mr reality 0]

I don't know how far they've advanced in body armour but when i wore mine when i was posted to Northern Ireland i had to place two hardened plates in it. One front and one back. Each about the size of a Game case but twice times as thick. These were placed in pockets in front and back of the heart area. These plates can stop a direct hit but the rest of the body armour as far as i remember was just a thin metal surrounded in padding covered in cloth which was designed to stop pistol rounds and small shrapnel. The idea of body armour is to not stop you from getting hit but to stop you from dying. If you've seen the film Blackhawk down there's a scene where a US Ranger decides not to put his plates in and suffers the consiquenses. They make the armour more heavy but it could be the differance between life and death.

[grayace 2]

as far as I know lethality of a bullet is based on its momentum (somewhat velocity*weight?) and, like mentioned in the previous post, idea is preventing a fatal wound rather than full protection, less speed means less lethality...

[Cam51 0]

Body Armor is unfortunally overrated. It may work well for small calibers on a distance but that´s it.

I remember wearing a plated vest during convoy service. It was very very bulky and heavy as hell. I don´t know if it would have kept a 7.62 from coming through. Even modern composite body armor that is much lighter than the plated armor is not that safe as you may think. Originally it is meant to keep pistol fire, fragments and stabbing away from you.

Anyway, if you´re not killed by the projectile that goes through the wonderful armor you´ll be taken out of action by the impact.

Small caliber? Long range?

http://media.putfile.com/CG-briefing-sniper-clip

Caliber is large, and range is danger close.  Looks like he might disagree with you.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Caliber is large, and range is danger close.

I neither can see the weapon used, nor is the range close. Close range is 10 - 15 m´s.

[stakex 0]

Caliber is large, and range is danger close.  Looks like he might disagree with you.

Its really hard to tell anything from that video. Could have been a grazeing blow for all we know.

And as Balschoiw said, we cannot see the weapon (and thus can not know the caliber) and we don't know the range. The camera could be, and does seem to be, zoomed in quite a distance. Meaning the shot was possibly fired from hundreds of yards off. Or at the very least, not "danger close".

[Cam51 0]

anything less than 100m is close range dude! And that shot was definately less than 100m

The rifle used is at minimum an Ak47.

We use this video in our IED/Insurgent awareness training slideshow here at Ft. Bliss TX. People from units all over the Army train from us, so I think our guys know what they are talking about.

[grayace 2]

Body Armor is unfortunally overrated. It may work well for small calibers on a distance but that´s it.

I remember wearing a plated vest during convoy service. It was very very bulky and heavy as hell. I don´t know if it would have kept a 7.62 from coming through. Even modern composite body armor that is much lighter than the plated armor is not that safe as you may think. Originally it is meant to keep pistol fire, fragments and stabbing away from you.

Anyway, if you´re not killed by the projectile that goes through the wonderful armor you´ll be taken out of action by the impact.

Small caliber? Long range?

http://media.putfile.com/CG-briefing-sniper-clip

Caliber is large, and range is danger close. Looks like he might disagree with you.

about video,

damn he was lucky!!!!

what I see is, LOOSER shooter has shot the infantry at his right shoulder,(possibly trying to shot in the head) if you examine the clip you can see his(guard) arm moves like kicked, in this case probably projectile has skewed off over the curved part of shoulder stripe...

other facts(IMO) shot is not at very close range, because if it was close we should have observed that the guard falls down as we hear the sound, but there is a slight delay, and also, shooter is somewhat close to cameraman because we can hear the weapon sound without much distortion and I assume that sniper is partially closed area like a balcony?? I felt like sound is alittle echoing...

and if you examine "the shot" you can see that some sort of dust or a shockwave obscures the camera slightly.. which I would assume camera was placed "very" near to that gun and it was held by another man because you can observe the hand shake... in this case I will also assume that the view point was very narrow or there wasnt any other clear spots to watch over the target, so the shooter and the camguy had to stick together...

PS: Damn shooter says allahuekber, which means "in the name of the god" pathetic looser!

[codarl 1]

The rifle used at minimum is a AK74, using a smaller calibre. Or even a 5.45

Maybe the "lag" of the shot (audio) , and the point where the soldier was hit could be calculated by somebody.

Wait, 900 meters/sec (~2952 feet/sec)

Distance between the shot / hit was about 0.6 seconds, 400M? I think it would be impossible to hit anything with an AK that large

Somebody do thesame for the SVD or something, goo dluck .

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

If that was Iraq, I don't think there are that many AK74's in Iraq. Most of those are in Afghanistan from the war with the Soviets in the '80's. Iraq has more of the older 7.62 x 39mm AK's. It could have been a Zastava, which I believe fires the same round.

[Cam51 0]

Guys, do i need to explain again that we use this video for training soldiers, which happens about 3 times a month. We have had plenty of time to examine and analyze this video.

Not to mention actual information from people in the same unit as this soldier (the guy that got hit).

And the gunmen was in the car with the cameraman.

Why are you guys fighting me on this? How much more info do you need.

[Cam51 0]

If that was Iraq, I don't think there are that many AK74's in Iraq. Most of those are in Afghanistan from the war with the Soviets in the '80's. Iraq has more of the older 7.62 x 39mm AK's. It could have been a Zastava, which I believe fires the same round.

Are you seriuos?? Dude, there is every kind of weapon in iraq right now. Trust me, I've seen first hand the stacks and stacks of Ak of every model in a captured weapon cache over there.

I don't know where some of you guys are getting your information.

[grayace 2]

Guys, do i need to explain again that we use this video for training soldiers, which happens about 3 times a month. We have had plenty of time to examine and analyze this video.

Not to mention actual information from people in the same unit as this soldier (the guy that got hit).

And the gunmen was in the car with the cameraman.

Why are you guys fighting me on this? How much more info do you need.

well according to this I almost guessed correct, but I thought it was a partially covered place... possibly all of the windows are lowered at the time??

anyways, I have shot with M1, HK G3 and MP5 at different ranges, especially I shot over 300m with a G3 and you can clearly observe the sands flying into air almost a second later after you felt the recoil (or my mind is tricking on me... time is relative to the observer thanks goes to Albert Einstein)

so I say that there is a distance between shooter and the target which is clearly over 300m

[stakex 0]

Guys, do i need to explain again that we use this video for training soldiers, which happens about 3 times a month.  We have had plenty of time to examine and analyze this video.

Not to mention actual information from people in the same unit as this soldier (the guy that got hit).

And the gunmen was in the car with the cameraman.

Why are you guys fighting me on this?  How much more info do you need.

Well as for me, my friend who is in Iraq right now took a look at this video and agrees that it very much looks like its outside 100m. I know for a fact he knows what hes talking about... so I will have a tendecny to agree him. Besides... if your so sure your right, why are you getting offended becuase people don't believe you? All that matters is that you know your right, even if your wrong.

[SOMaster 0]

I Agree with cam its definately not far away. You can imagine how fast the bullet is - its not a laser. Anybody who ever took part in a night-shooting with tracer bullets will say the same.

A bullet isnt as fast as you think ... it has a ballistic bow - which i admit, differs from weapon to weapon.

But what is interesting is the fact, that this soldier was attacked from so close range. I cant imagine the scenery down there but how can he stay infront of the vehicle without cover on a high traffic road like this? I mean also the fact there was no other soldier nearby is very critical from my point of view there was no othe soldier which was able to identify the car and repeat fire.

That looks like a shooting gallery for me....

BTW: Allah u akhbar means " God is great"

[AfrographX 0]

I dont know how the surrounding looked and how many other amercian soldiers have been there, but I've read that the sniper was on a kind of training with a recruit. They were hiding and firing from inside a van and after the shot, they soon got captured by American soldiers. So perhaps they have been other Americans around.