the character models

[meyamoti 0]

Where was it stated that body armor woudln't affect a soldier?(ingame) I wonder if it would be possible to make a model with and without,and one would be slower..The Russians and US soldiers wer wearing them so I figure they would have SOME efect,what I'm more curious about is,digital camo or current desert camo? As for the models..I must say..they really have learned alot since OFP,the new ones are very realistic..man I sure hope the crouching thing stays like OFP,taking a moment or two to crouch in which you cannot fire,same with crawling,no firing while crawling..don't need it to be like bf2 But I'm sure BIS wouldn't be that foolish

[Chunder 0]

I always aim for the head.... I like thinking i'm a notch above the rest, even if I'm definitely not hehe...

at other times if I'm feeling nasty a shot at the knees can be especially gratifying especially if the guy keeps on killing u in multiplayer =-p.

I'm pretty sure I would be knocked over from a hit by 7.62 mm round with body armour on... and if I was the guy behind the trigger i'd sure as the sun rises again put another few in him for measure.

[meyamoti 0]

No kidding..nothings worse than running out of ammo only to hope a guy shoots you in the head,only to shoot you in the knees and leave you to crawl away...

Indeed,body armor can take it,but can the human body?

[Randy 0]

Yes it can, especially with the latest armor, read the whole thread.

The torso is the biggest part of the body, most likely to be hit. Soldiers aim centre mass, that is, for the torso. Shooting at someone from a distance, you are most likely to hit the torso.

The torso.

The torso is the part with the armor.

Statistically your chances of not being killed by the next bullet to hit you, improve dramatically.

So, what are our chances of death when the enemy takes aim and fires from say 40 metres. If he aims for the head he will most likely miss the head. He will probably miss you with the first few shots, if he hits you, its most likely the torso.

The torso is the bit with the armor on it.

[meyamoti 0]

I meant the kinetic force of the bullet,upon its calliber to knock you down and al that.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

No new dmg system will be introduced as far as i remember

placebo said that, in one of the many fansite interviews or on this forum i don't know exactly.

[Randy 0]

I meant the kinetic force of the bullet,upon its calliber to knock you down and al that.

Bullets don't have the kinetic force to knock somebody over, no hand held rifle in the world has that capability I believe. If it did, simple physics dictate that the gunmen would be thrown back with near equal force.

The lethality of a bullet is connected with the hydrodynamic qualities of human flesh and the way in which a small high speed projectile displaces it.

The concussive shock of taking a bullet to the torso despite having body armor on, can and does ground soldiers. If hit while wearing conventional ceramic plate insert body armor, you may be winded and be unable to continue the fight for a time.

However the principle of reactive armor, or kinetic force dispersion across the entire armor piece, utilised in state of the art armors, ensures minimal harm to the wearer.

While initial shock may cause the victim to slip over or stagger, no damage will be done to the wearer.

[Stendac 0]

Bullets don't have the kinetic force to knock somebody over, no hand held rifle in the world has that capability I believe. If it did, simple physics dictate that the gunmen would be thrown back with near equal force.

Did you guys see the "Mythbusters" episode on this? The question was: In real life, can bodies be thrown back by bullets, like in the movies? They shot a pig carcass hanging from a hook with different types of guns to test this. Their conclusion: no, although the shotgun did cause the dead hog to fall from its hook. I think they also mentioned that bit about physics making it impossible as well.

[Chunder 0]

I don't think it's about people being knocked over litterally by a bullet... it's more being set off balance by the bullet and falling over. Hollowpoint especially.

[scary 0]

Yes it can, especially with the latest armor, read the whole thread.

Not necessarily. While a bullet isn't heavy, a hvr round is still exiting the barrel at Mach 3. Although body armour can stop most - but not all - first round penetration, this best it can do with the impact is to spread the load over a larger area of the body. The impact causes similar internal damage to that of an explosion. Multiple hits increases the likelihood of penetration exponentially and the compounded damage of multiple non-penetrative hits will kill. The best you can hope for is to get your head down and take cover after the first hit.

Quote[/b] ]The torso is the biggest part of the body, most likely to be hit. Soldiers aim centre mass, that is, for the torso. Shooting at someone from a distance, you are most likely to hit the torso.

The torso.

The torso is the part with the armor.

Soldiers aim centre kill-zone, not centre mass. There is as much chance of hitting the neck as the abdomen.

Quote[/b] ]Statistically your chances of not being killed by the next bullet to hit you, improve dramatically.

So, what are our chances of death when the enemy takes aim and fires from say 40 metres. If he aims for the head he will most likely miss the head. He will probably miss you with the first few shots, if he hits you, its most likely the torso.

40 metres is rock throwing distance. Unless he's shooting with his eyes closed or he's a Liberian Gangsta Militia, he will hit first shot.

Quote[/b] ]The torso is the bit with the armor on it.

So is the head.

[Randy 0]

Your point about armor being quite possibly penetrated seems to disregard the previous few pages of this thread, that has been covered. Beyond reasonable doubt, the integrity of state of the art armors such as Dragon Skin is proven, even battle proven. Body armor, is extremely effective against most hand held rifles and assault rifles, even AP rounds.

The testing conditions include multiple muzzle velocity AP shots from various assault rifles, none of them penetrate in the case of Dragon Skin.

Soldiers do aim centre mass, not killzone. Killzones include the head and neck, soldiers do not aim here. The chances of missing increases too much where you have only a relatively small area to hit (the head). My brothers who are in the army can testify to this. This principle of aiming for killzones only really applies to snipers.

Also, a first shot hit from 40 metres away, on a firing range is quiet achievable. On the battlefield is much different. The targets on the firing range don't run, don't hit the deck when fired upon, do not seek cover and most definetly do not fire back. In fact marksmanship is not so easy to master for most people in comfortable conditions, not even mentioning when your breathing heavily, on uneven ground and under fire.

In regards to internal damage caused by an armor halted round: Yes in inferior vests this can and often does occur. Modern systems deal with this effectively, private contracted workers in Iraq (who are thus equipped with the best armors) in many cases have reported not even realising they have been hit from an AK round.

Conclusion: Body armor of acceptable quality is often the difference between life and death for a soldier. What piece of equipment could be more pivotal in a soldiers inventory then, apart from his firearm? Good body armor can also be the difference between having several men down, killed and/or wounded in enemy held territory.

And that is disasterous.

[scary 0]

Your point about armor being quite possibly penetrated seems to disregard the previous few pages of this thread, that has been covered.

Yes, and I will continue to disregard the conjecture of people with a copy of Jane's and a Pinnacle Armor press release. Especially considering that penetration is not required to kill.

Quote[/b] ]Beyond reasonable doubt, the integrity of state of the art armors such as Dragon Skin is proven, even battle proven. Body armor, is extremely effective against most hand held rifles and assault rifles, even AP rounds.

There is no doubt that Dragon Skin is good, however, it is not 100% effective. Body armour is a compromise between weight, maneuverability and protection and is not designed for repeated hits. It also cannot overcome the physical limitation of the human body not liking to be hit very, very hard, i.e. a 7.62 round punching someone in the heart at 800m/s.

The fact that soldiers are not issued Dragon Skin makes this irrelevant anyway. ArmA is about the last remnants of a withdrawing US Army MATT; if they are issued any body armour at all - which isn't guaranteed, or even likely - it will be Interceptor, not Dragon Skin.

Quote[/b] ]The testing conditions include multiple muzzle velocity AP shots from various assault rifles, none of them penetrate in the case of Dragon Skin.

Not mg, not lapua, not 0.5, and not multiple hits, and no protection against the concussive force. See above about irrelevance.

Quote[/b] ]Soldiers do aim centre mass, not killzone. Killzones include the head and neck, soldiers do not aim here.

Soldiers aim centre kill-zone (singular and does not include the head) not centre mass. Centre mass is the middle of a diamond shape, the kill-zone is a kite shape, stretching from groin to chin, centred at the top of the heart.

Quote[/b] ]The chances of missing increases too much where you have only a relatively small area to hit (the head). My brothers who are in the army can testify to this. This principle of aiming for killzones only really applies to snipers.

Snipers do not aim for the head, ever. There is too much effect from windage at the ranges snipers work at to aim for such small areas.

Quote[/b] ]Also, a first shot hit from 40 metres away, on a firing range is quiet achievable.

Which range is this where 40 metres is even bothered with? An apwt is from 100m to 300m for irons and 100m to 400m for susat. Taken after running, when out of breath, some of it at night and some whilst wearing a respirator

Quote[/b] ]On the battlefield is much different. The targets on the firing range don't run, don't hit the deck when fired upon, do not seek cover and most definetly do not fire back.

Fig 11s might not, but the ones on electronic ranges do. And I don't think there are many soldiers left that haven't seen active service.

Quote[/b] ]In fact marksmanship is not so easy to master for most people in comfortable conditions, not even mentioning when your breathing heavily, on uneven ground and under fire.

Hmm, and I thought I had mastered it. Thanks for letting me know, I'll go give my badge back.

Cpl scary RM.

[Randy 0]

You are being far too defensive in all of these points.

You are disregarding the point that if Dragon Skin made claims of no penetration after multiple muzzle velocity hits from an AP assault rifle, they probably wouldn't be around because the first time this claim was proven painfully incorrect, they wouldn't be a company anymore.

On the effectiveness of body armor in general: I'm very aware that penetration is not required to kill. But a majority of those who have been hit while wearing body armor suffer only bruising. Therefore a minority suffer worse injuries or even death from blunt force trauma.

Then the point still remains: are you better off being hit with or without body armor on?

More on the defensive and possibly aggressive nature of your post: this is supposed to be a debate, not a personal battle, the implications that I have a "copy of Jane's and a Pinnacle Armor press release" if it was even true, is irrelevant.

I also wasn't claiming that you havn't mastered marksmanship, I have a suspicion that you tossed this in simply to state that you have, because if you read my post I was reffering to the broadest range of people. Any military force/person, militant, hunter, mountain shepherd.

Now I'm not a soldier or a professional in this regard, so some of my technical assertions are probably innaccurate, but I make the strongest effort to cross check everything I put forth as fact.

And all this time, the most important fact I have been pressing is that good body armor will probably save an unlucky soldiers life, as I suppose you'd have to be a little bit unlucky to be shot. If this is not the case in real life, then it is most definetly the case in OFP. Many enemies and comrades have been downed by torso shots that would have been stopped by armor in OFP.

I am most definetly not going to try and make an entire post of every arguable technical innaccuracy you put forth, or make assumptions and unfounded assertions about your person.

So, please if you are going to post a retort to a point of mine: oppose the point I make, not the subtle nuances and errors of every sentence, let slide anything in my post you percieve as wrong and stay on the issue at hand. Because these things can go on forever.

To refresh the point I am making is this:

Body armor is too significant a factor to be added simply as a visual feature in Arma.

[Scrub 0]

Quote[/b] ]Randy Posted on May 01 2006,21:28

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then the point still remains: are you better off being hit with or without body armor on?

Succinct, poignant, and undeniable.

[meyamoti 0]

Increase in weight,decrease of speed and things seem to become heavier..yet the armor would protect you..hmm...I'd take the armor,if nothing else it would probably help build up strength somewhere because you'd have to become accustomed to wearing it so long...oh wait we mean AA It would be nice if they included this..possibly weapon properties as well but I see that as more of a game2 thing..anyway its time to head off to bed,don't worry yourselves over this too much do not judge until you have played the game.

[Sturmwolf 0]

To the protection of body armor...Around the web theres a video of two taliban (or kinda...) guys firing at an american soldiers' torso with a dragunov from a relatively short distance (u can see the soldier well, cam is not zoomed and at pos o the taliban)

its funny, the soldier survives and is still combat-effective, at least for that moment.

no, what is really funny is when the 2 guys try to escape but get caught by the hmmvv's. thats why we got the video now. dunno where i got it at that time though.

So BA can hold off a 7,62 mm bullets, which is afaik one of the largest assault-rifle calibres. (i know about flying angles but wasnt the impact power of the 7,62 the highest?)

i dont think there would be much left of such a vest(or the soldier) after a 50. 'barett projectile hitt

[Balschoiw 0]

We´ve somewhat had the big deal on BA some time ago.

Kind of buggles me to see it again and again.

Body Armor thread

[scary 0]

You are being far too defensive in all of these points.

Not at all; I am being blunt, not defensive. I don't feel the need to communicate with you or anyone else on here as if they are children.

Quote[/b] ]You are disregarding the point that if Dragon Skin made claims of no penetration after multiple muzzle velocity hits from an AP assault rifle, they probably wouldn't be around because the first time this claim was proven painfully incorrect, they wouldn't be a company anymore.

I am disregarding Dragon Skin altogether as it is not issued to US soldiers so should not be in the game. As for your effectiveness claims: 'no penetration after multiple muzzle velocity hits' means that they have tested multiple vests against different ammunition, it does not mean they are firing multiple shots at the same area of the same vest. They are only guaranteeing no first round penetration, they are not guaranteeing the wearer will not be dead or even just out of action, nor are they guaranteeing that the second or third round won't penetrate.

Now please, no more twittering about Dragon Skin; anyone would think you have shares in Pinnacle - and your sales pitch isn't working anyway.

Quote[/b] ]On the effectiveness of body armor in general: I'm very aware that penetration is not required to kill. But a majority of those who have been hit while wearing body armor suffer only bruising. Therefore a minority suffer worse injuries or even death from blunt force trauma.

Then the point still remains: are you better off being hit with or without body armor on?

Most of the time - probably. Here's another, more important point: are you more likely to be hit with body armour on? After yomping 40km through the desert in 45 degree heat wearing full fighting order and body armour are you going to be in a suitable condition to have a firefight?

Quote[/b] ]More on the defensive and possibly aggressive nature of your post: this is supposed to be a debate, not a personal battle, the implications that I have a "copy of Jane's and a Pinnacle Armor press release" if it was even true, is irrelevant.

That wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular. You will find there are many armchair Generals on the Internet that use the sole qualification of owning a copy of Jane's as the basis for their conjecture. Judgement is good, fact is better, conjecture is as useful as ice-cream body armour.

Quote[/b] ]I also wasn't claiming that you havn't mastered marksmanship, I have a suspicion that you tossed this in simply to state that you have, because if you read my post I was reffering to the broadest range of people. Any military force/person, militant, hunter, mountain shepherd.

But ArmA doesn't contain the broadest range of people, it contains infantry, and infantry can shoot, that is a very large part of the job. Just like Michelin starred chefs can cook, infantry can shoot.

Quote[/b] ]Now I'm not...{snip}...To refresh the point I am making is this:

Body armor is too significant a factor to be added simply as a visual feature in Arma.

Body armour does not turn you into batman. It isn't as good as you think it is and it can severely impact on an individuals operational effectiveness. And as the US military doesn't have enough to go around, a MATT stationed on an island that isn't perceived to be in immediate danger isn't going to take priority over being issued with it.

Unless you expect BIS to code extremely realistic bullet physics that actually impart a force on objects they hit, and model an Interceptor (not Dragon Skin) vest that is damaged when hit, with the plates disintegrating, as well as coding human physiology that responds to the trauma of the hit with the related organ failure/collapsed lungs/ruptured aortas for something that may well not even exist in that situation for a game that is primarily tactical not a fps then don't get your hopes up.

[Ukraineboy 0]

As sure as an M1Abrams will make short work of a T50,

Yeah I think its safe to say the M1 Abrams can take out the T50...

especially since it's a light tank from WWII with 12-37mm armour

lol the Abrams .50 cal could take it out.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

All I hope is that BIS gives realistic body armour model-wise. Values can easily be fixed - however, models mean a problem.

[Randy 0]

Scary I was simply using Dragon Skin as an example of the possibilities, some people are all too keen to pipe up and say that body armor is ineffective just for the sake of holding a different opinion.

I really don't care to go over the semantics and technicalities of previous posts, I think I made my point a few posts back. It is understood by myself that body armor won't turn you into batman. Such condescending comments don't help this debate, like I said the issue at hand here is whether it's wise for BIS to model body armor on the soldiers if it has absolutely no bearing in the game.

We've already established that it's better to be wearing body armor if your hit by a bullet, whether you'd wear it on a 40km patrol is not the issue. It goes without saying that there is a point where body armor is impractical, but in so many situations, it is practical.

Now putting the completely pointless debate as to the exact effectiveness of body armor aside, the fact is it's already in the game as far as I can tell and it remains to be seen whether it will end up meaning anything. I personally hope that it will be life saving in the game, even though various comments hint that it is just an asthetic feature.

[Turowicz 0]

i recently found this opfe screenshot:

[ig]http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/574/1118061794.jpg[/img]>100kb

and i was wondering, is that the interceptor armor?  so are the guys from armed assault going to be wearing interceptor armors?  i noticed there's these bars on the beck of this armor, but in other ofpe and armed assault shots it's a smooth back.

This could be a FSBE vest, not interceptor for sure!

http://www.specwargear.com/armor&vest.html

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I hope BIS changes it to Interceptors in AA, if they're not. Otherwise I'll have to fix it myself.