Body Armor

[jmcorp 0]

hello every one i'm new here, this is my 1st post.

okay so here goes:

In Arma 2, i believe the dev team should include body armor or bullet-proof vests, helmets,shinguards and shoulder guards that the player can choose to wear or not, and if worn can be taken off as well.

the variations of vests should protect you from various levels of small-arms fire, such as pistols, sub-machine guns and some rifles, for example a level 3 body armor will protect you form 9mm rounds, 5.56x45mm NATO rounds and a few shots of a 7.62x39 mm rounds.

this will make the game much more realistic, in terms of land military combat.

the player should be able to choose from a selection of body armors, but it should have these effects on the player:

-slow the player down, if taken off the player should be able to sprint for longer and faster

-protects player from small-arms fire listed above...but there should still be bullet penetration, in more powerful rounds, such as the 7.62x51 mm NATO.

-restrict the players mobility and flexibility, these could simply be done with animations.

same applies to helmets, they should incluse some anti-ballistic helmets in the game, which are capable of stopping 9mm and 5.56x45 mm rounds, but not many, this will make the game much more realistic.

the helmet should affect:

-his speed, but not as much as the torso armor.

-his breathing should be a little heavier after sprinting for some time if your wearing a helmet.

of course the ability for the body armor to stop rounds should be based on the distance the round has been travelling:

traveling for very long = less energy

point blank  range = enormous energy

AK-47 effective range: 300m

thus if shot with an AK-47 from (0-150)m the bullet should penetrate your body armor and fattally wound your player, but if hit from say 300m-above the bullet should not penetrate, but say 3 shots from an AK-47 at more than 200m should then crack or damage one of your bulllet proof plates, thus any more shots and you would die.

M4 effective range: 460m

if hit with a 5.56x45mm NATO round fired from an M4, at ranges between 0-150m the body armor should stop the bullet but only a few, if hit at ranges of up to 300m and above, little or no effect should happen to the player, due to the fact that the 5.56 round is a less powerful round as the 7.62.

for this to be incorporated into the game, the current system of hitpoints will have to go! IMO

let me know what you guys think. if any of the above information is wrong, please inform me...

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Welcome to the forums

Any improvement is great, and things as intricate as this would be great for multiplayer. The more stuff included the better, but what's most important?

I think the choosing aspect is questionable- an infantryman uses what he is given, doesn't he? Variety is always good, though.

Discussions such as this have been discussed to death already but input is always good from the perspective of the developers. A compromise of development time is, unfortunately, a factor

[smellyjelly 0]

I like the idea of body armor actually making a difference, especially with smaller firearms, like pistols. Though being able to customise it might be going kind of far. Yeah, I agree it's nice to have the option, but being forced to select my body armor every time I play a mission would get kind of annoying.

Of course, BIS could just add an option to customize each soldier in your profile. The models, however, should be realistic, like machine gunners need larger armor or snipers have a ghillie suit.

[jmcorp 0]

yeah it would be a burden selecting it for every mission, then it could be selected in the player profile like smelljelly said, or it could be at the start of the single player campaign, yeah but i prefer the profile option better...

oh and i dont want it to be customisable either, thats going a bit over the top with the feature.

i just want it realistically implemented, i hate just knowing the fact that me and my soldiers all wearing 'body armor' can be killed by 9mm shots to the chest in Arma, even at > 100m

[stakex 0]

It would be nice if body armor was something that could be picked up from an "equipment box" or added to a character in the editor and then just simply have a real world effect depending on the type of armor it is.

[jfish83 0]

First time poster,long time reader. Yes the damage system is kinda simple in Arma. I hope its a litte better this time in Arma2.

[ricnunes 0]

AK-47 effective range: 300m

thus if shot with an AK-47 from (0-150)m the bullet should penetrate your body armor and fattally wound your player, but if hit from say 300m-above the bullet should not penetrate, but say 3 shots from an AK-47 at more than 200m should then crack or damage one of your bulllet proof plates, thus any more shots and you would die.

M4 effective range: 460m

if hit with a 5.56x45mm NATO round fired from an M4, at ranges between 0-150m the body armor should stop the bullet but only a few, if hit at ranges of up to 300m and above, little or no effect should happen to the player, due to the fact that the 5.56 round is a less powerful round as the 7.62.

let me know what you guys think. if any of the above information is wrong, please inform me...

Well that part of your information is a bit wrong.

First the 7.62x39mm (also known as the 7.62mm WP) doesn't have a more powerfull/better penetrating power than the 5.56mm NATO!! It may have a more powerfull stopping power due to higher caliber but not a better penetrating power. In fact the 5.56x45mm (known as the 5.56mm NATO) has a more penetrating power than the 7.62mm WP.

People often confuse the 7.62x51mm (also know as the 7.62mm NATO) with the 7.62x39mm (or 7.62mm WP) but they shouldn't be confused! The 7.62mm NATO is a much better ammo in terms of penetrating power and range then the 7.62mm WP and also considered better in this regard than the 5.56mm NATO.

So comparing those 3 kind of ammo, the 7.62mm NATO, the 7.62mm WP and the 5.56mm NATO in terms of penetrating power from the "better" to the "worse" we would have the following rank:

1- 7.62mm NATO (7.62x51mm)

2- 5.56mm NATO (5.56x45mm)

3- 7.62mm WP    (7.62x39mm)

The reason for this is most of the part due to the size of the cartrigde which in the 7.62mm NATO is 51mm (7.62x51mm), the 5.56mm NATO is 45mm (5.56x45mm) and finally the smallest one being the 7.62mm WP with 39mm (7.62x39mm).

The bigger the cartrigde the more powder it has and the more powder it has the bigger impulsion it has.

Again don't confuse the 7.62mm NATO (which has in fact more penetrating power than 5.56mm NATO) with the 7.62mm WP (which is very diferent ammo and less powerfull than 7.62mm NATO and less penetrating power than even the 5.56mm NATO).

Also, I doubt that any body armour (or at least the vast majority of them) can effectivelly stop a direct hit from a 5.56mm round (fired from an M-4 for example) at distances up to 150 meters (0-150m) and even at distances of 300 meters the best body amours would have a "hard time" to stop a 5.56mm round and even if a 5.56mm round it a body armour at a distance of 300 meters and didn't penetrate it certainly wouldn't be "little or no effect" like you said to the person who wears the body armour, because I'm sure there would be a big trauma resulting in impact of the bullet on the body armour.

Finally, I don't know how ArmA models the bullet penetration versus Body Armour but I think that ArmA currently does an excelent job at this and ArmA is definitly and by far the game that models this with the higher degree of accuracy of any shooter game. You see, Body Armours aren't things that magically stop bullets with nothing or almost nothing happening to the person like happens in many other shooter games such as GRAW/FarCRY, etc...

So I hope that BIS doesn't change this, at least much...

In reality, even if a Body Armour stops a bullet the trauma resulting from it can easily incapacitate the person carrying that body armour and the problem that I see in games like ArmA is that an incapacitated soldier is equal to dead one.

[mr.g-c 6]

And i have to correct you here.....

7,62x39 AK47 Ammo-type series have EXCELLENT Man-stop capabilities but mostly don't make big wounds such as the .223 Remington 5.56x45 Ammo fired for instance in the AR-15 type of rifles. They mostly have fully penetrated the bodys they were fired at and thus only producing "smaller" wounds.

Penetration power is good but not as good as with the 5.45x39mm (which always has a steel-core) - different picture at the Chinese made 7,62x39 which also has a large steel-core penetrator... Even though they are both not officially determined as "Armor Piercing" the chinese-made 7,62x39mm is banned from importing into the US because of its possible penetrating-power.

By the Way: Michail Kalashnikov says until today that it was a big mistake to replace the 7,62x39 with the 5,45x39 ammo - think about that!

They always tell that the standard .223 5,56x45 is a "rather good" ammunition because of the wounds it produces - but experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a different picture about this ammunition. There are many known cases where they fired 10-15 Rounds at the torso of a single running Insurgent - unable to really "man-stop" him with this ammunition.

I know from the german army called "Bundeswehr", they have usual tactical full-body vests with ceramic-blend inlays which can stop 7,62x39 (without steel-core) and even PK/SVD fired 7,62x54R ammo(without steel-core) without problems, but NOT the 5,45x39 (AK74 with steel-core) nor the 7,62x39 (Chinese Ak47 Ammo) with steel-core!

To summarize:

Standard Nato-issued 5,56x45 M885 has the worst/none penetration-power at body-armor because its made to fragment after impact, rather than to penetrate anything besides standard clothes. Nato has however the M995-AP round to solve this issue.

The Standard 7,62x39 was made to penetrate but is also stoppable by modern body-armors with ceramic-blend inlays.

The Chinese made 7,62x39 is often considered as AP-Round, official it is not - nevertheless its a dangerous round AFAIK NOT stoppable by any modern body-armor

The Standard 5,45x39 ammo of modern AKs (Ak74 types) has a steel-core penetrator simmilar to the chinese made 7,62x39 and is able to penetrate a few centimeters thick steel-plates, thus also a big threat against even the modernest body-armors.

I hope this helps a bit. Sources are mostly from the many books i own/read about ballistics and Russia/Warzwa-pact made weapons.

EDIT: Just checked my files and i found that the Dragon-Armor by Pinnacle (SOV3000) can stop all above listed....

Read it here: http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/ballistic-chart.php

Regards, Christian

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]EDIT: Just checked my files and i found that the Dragon-Armor by Pinnacle (SOV3000) can stop all above listed....

Read it here:

Unfortunally this is just PR and not the truth. Pinnacle made up some of the test-results and have already been proven wrong.

Quote[/b] ] DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) announced today that it has determined that the Pinnacle Armor, Inc. bulletproof vest model SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01, is not in compliance with the requirements of OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) voluntary compliance testing program for bullet-resistant body armor. Effective immediately, this body armor model will be removed from the NIJ list of bullet-resistant body armor models that satisfy its requirements. Pinnacle Armor, Inc. is the maker of "dragon skin" body armor.

NIJ, OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and has determined that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model will maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period.

It was a blatant lie from Pinnacle to label the SOV 2000 vests as being NIJ certified Level III armor. That´s one of the reasons why the Air Force expelled them from participation in government contracts with the service.

Read the transcript of the inquiry that depictures the failures of the DS armor produced by Pinnacle here

Apart from the failing in tests the DS is simply ouright too heavy to be used in a suitable manner.

The system currently being shipped to Iraq, the MTV (Modular Tactical Vests) produced by Protective Products International

is also in question as it´s extremely bulky and it´s 30 pound of weight put an additional burden on the soldiers.

To make it even more funny the vest has an emergency cord that can be pulled when a soldier has fallen into water or got stuck with the vest. The problem is that often this cord gets pulled by the equipment or when leaving or entering a vehicle by accident. Then the hole thing simply drops off, leaving the soldier in the field with his pants down.

I´m all for improving Arma ´s armor system, but you have to be aware that improved armor also means reduced agility, reduced endurance, reduced speed, reduced ability to carry equipment.

If this is portrayed along the new armor systems in the game I´m fine with it. If not, it´s simply a joke, as people would uparmor them to their teeth without having to face the reality consequences of such. If it does influence all the above it could be an interesting addition to certain gameplays, as for example agile units wouldn´t wear heavy body armor but at the same time would make themselves more vulnerable to enemy fire while uparmored units with heavy armor would play the price by being slower, sooner exhausted and unable to carry much euipment as a price for their increased bullet-resistance.

I don´t see how this should be practicable with AI though, unless BIS comes up with a Gear setup screen in the editor that allows you to distribute equipment to a group of soldiers at once, as a mixed euipment platoons will simply fall apart when moving through terrain, given the restrictions followed by the use of different bodyarmor types.

[ricnunes 0]

Well I agree with what Balschoiw said.

Moreover, I find hard to believe that a round in the of the 7.62mm WP which has a Velocity of 710m/s and generaly has a lower range (depending on the weapon) to have a bigger penetration capability than the 5.56mm NATO round that has a Velocity of 940m/s and generaly a higher range (depending on the weapon).

According to this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO

Yes, there are fragmentating problems with some 5.56mm NATO rounds which can affect penetration capability but this problems seem to affect shorter barreled weapons such as the M4 and not longer barrel weapons such has the M16. Nevertheless new 5.56mm rounds are being developed to solve this problem.

Regarding the 7.62x39mm Chinese steel core rounds and according to this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39mm

That contrary to common belief, this round was developed to reduce productions costs and it isn't sufficiently hard to improve penetration over the more "common" 7.62x39mm rounds! And the proibition of this round in the USA is due to the fact that there are 7.62x39mm caliber handguns and the ammunition is an armor-piercing handgun round under the U.S. federal legal definition of the word, which is based on materials and bullet design rather than on tested ability to penetrate armor.

[jmcorp 0]

heres are my thoughts:

-the 5.56x45mm round is faster than the 7.62x39mm round

-the 5.56x45mm round loses more kinetic energy than the 7.62x39mm round while traveling, thus when it makes impact on something like body armor, it would not transfer as much energy as the 7.62x39mm, which transfers almost ALL of its energy!

-thus making the 7.62x39mm more powerful than the 5.56x45mm round. especially at stopping a human being, but also at going through protective material.

but what you guys are saying is:

-the 5.56x45mm round has a higher penetration than the 7.62x39mm round.

because it travels faster?

[ricnunes 0]

heres are my thoughts:

-the 5.56x45mm round is faster than the 7.62x39mm round

-the 5.56x45mm round loses more kinetic energy than the 7.62x39mm round while traveling, thus when it makes impact on something like body armor, it would not transfer as much energy as the 7.62x39mm, which transfers almost ALL of its energy!

-thus making the 7.62x39mm more powerful than the 5.56x45mm round. especially at stopping a human being, but also at going through protective material.

but what you guys are saying is:

-the 5.56x45mm round has a higher penetration than the 7.62x39mm round.

because it travels faster?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

Well, first of all I said in my first post here that the stopping power (stopping a human being for example) of the 7.62x39mm is definitly higher than the 5.56x45mm (afterall it's a higher caliber round) but I still doubt that the former has a more penetrating power (in a body armour) than the later.

Of course the link to the video you posted is very interesting inded (thanks for posting it! but you see, the comparative was made between 2 assault rifles, the Ak-47 and the M16A1 but the fact is that even with diferent weapons which uses the same cartrigde we have diferent performances (penetrating capability, stopping power, Velocity, accuracy, etc...) so in the end this doesn't prove that the 5.56x45mm has less penetrating power than the 7.62x39mm (and vice-versa for that matter). In fact one of the main criticism that American soldiers had about the M16A1 (again the weapon in the video) was the lack of penetrating power and that's why the US military developed the M16A2 (and later variants). The M16A2 has a higher penetration capability than the M16A1 and I would definitly like to have seen the M16A2 in that test rather than the M16A1.

One of the reason that the M16A2 has a higher penetration capability than the M16A1 is because of it's velocity, which in the M16A2 is 975 m/s while in the M16A1 is 945 m/s.

I'm not saying that a bullet has a bigger penetration capability only because of it's velocity but that's perhaps one of the most important factors (if not the most important factor) when considering penetration values.

Finally, I have my doubts if the penetration in a body armour works the same way as a penetration in wood blocks.

[yourgrandma 0]

A 5.56x45mm can be more effective at stopping a human if its traveling at a high enough velocity (fire from an m16) it hits flesh then tumbles and breaks apart completely messing up your insides .

[mr.g-c 6]

A 5.56x45mm can be more effective at stopping a human if its traveling at a high enough velocity (fire from an m16) it hits flesh then tumbles and breaks apart completely messing up your insides .

Thats what "they" tell you

In real life it seems to be different after numerous reports of US-Soldiers both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Regards, Christian

[bluevein 0]

Well, we can talk rounds and ammo all day.

I'd like to see body armour in the game, in the Special US ammo box

[bigdannylong 0]

I'd absolutely   that!

I remember Hidden & Dangerous 2 had helmets that protected you from bullets/shrapnel and flew off where appropriate, but they were heavier than cooler-looking berets and hats.

Body armour saves a lot of lives and it should definitely be incorporated in ArmA 2.

[max power 21]

A 5.56x45mm can be more effective at stopping a human if its traveling at a high enough velocity (fire from an m16) it hits flesh then tumbles and breaks apart completely messing up your insides .

Thats what "they" tell you

In real life it seems to be different after numerous reports of US-Soldiers both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Regards, Christian

M4s and other short barrel carbines don't have this effect so much. I think they use a lot of m4s in the US army now.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imho all additional gear like body armor should have an impact on movement and combat ability. Otherwise the game would be more like another superhero mainstream shooter.