Tomorrow armor created, Tech breakthrough |
Tomorrow armor created, Tech breakthrough |
Dec 15 2005, 08:31 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 226 Joined: 4-June 03 Member No.: 4,685 |
|
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 08:39 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Looks like a good company to start sinking your stocks into. If they have passive Fullerine armor... Well, let's just say that firearms just took the back seat to paying for Chunky Salsa when you want to kill someone.
Heh. We may be looking at a Schlock Mercenay world before we look at a cyberpunk one. |
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 08:49 AM
Post
#3
|
|||
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Yeah no shit. It's got a specific gravity of 7.5, the same as Bronze. -Frank |
||
|
|||
Dec 15 2005, 08:59 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
But for the chance to be utterly invunerable* to small arms fire, defining "small arms" as "anything without splash damage", you'd wear it.
*Note that there is a difference between "utterly invlunerable" and "safe". In chaotic situations such as firefights, headshots and shots that get through the fluke quarter inch seam do in fact happen. Do not assume because you are wearing passive low-profile Fullerine armor that you can walk through machine gun fire. All armor will help to save your life, but no armor can save you from your own stupidity. Dry-clean only. |
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 09:28 AM
Post
#5
|
|||
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Can someone find an article where it gives the thickness and mass/area of a ballistic panel made out of this material that is sufficient for stopping actual firearm threats? With additional flexibility (weight bending) and backface deformation information if someone can make this stuff non-rigid. It's a promising field, but I'll hold back on celebration until I get something more definite. For example, the mention of the steel projectile at 1500m/s doesn't actually mean anything since we're not even given the thickness of the armor panel or the mass, diameter or shape of the projectile. In any case, this technology is still a long way from providing "utter invulnerability" to small arms fire. In the mentioned applications, it's completely rigid, which means you won't see full suits of it any time soon. Likewise, it's only "up to twice" as strong as silicon carbide, but also more than twice as dense.
So an M256 firing M829A2 APFSDS-T would be a "small arm"? This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Dec 15 2005, 09:34 AM |
||
|
|||
Dec 15 2005, 01:01 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,088 Joined: 8-October 04 From: Dallas, TX Member No.: 6,734 |
Man, SCA nuts go wild! It really does look like old Roman armors...
|
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 01:19 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
...
It does? What sort of "old Roman armor" have you been looking at? |
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 01:33 PM
Post
#8
|
|||||
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
I'm not going to hold my breath until they actually build marketable body armor. A lot of wonder material start-ups sound good in their initial PR releases, but they're nowhere to be found after a few years.
Read the article again, particularly the caption of the photo. That armor in the photograph was NOT made of the super-material under discussion, it was just an example of a possible application. |
||||
|
|||||
Dec 15 2005, 04:26 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
Chrome to the Core Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,152 Joined: 14-October 03 From: ::1 Member No.: 5,715 |
I echo Critias on this one. Also; SCA members are generally medieval- or Renaissance-based. Not Roman-based. |
||
|
|||
Dec 15 2005, 04:33 PM
Post
#10
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
im guessing that any application of this will be a vest based on kevlar equivalent materials with metal inlays along surfaces that dont need to flex.
maybe having some plates that overlap in some flexible areas. that is unless they can make a chainmail out of this thats not to heavy... |
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 06:20 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Otherwise they'd be much cooler. I mean, then someone could just show up at an SCA event in a toga, and if he bribed enough of his friends to come along and chant his name to show the other SCA Romans that he had the love of the masses, he could declare himself Emperor, and they'd all have to play along (until someone else went out, scooped up a bunch of random passers-by, and bribed them to shant his name, etc, etc). Now, he's got to...I dunno. Hit people with foam swords, or whatever it is those people do. |
||
|
|||
Dec 15 2005, 06:36 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Chrome to the Core Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,152 Joined: 14-October 03 From: ::1 Member No.: 5,715 |
SCA use live steel and do beat on each other something harsh. Crazy folk, them.
|
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 06:43 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
Most important statistical detail on this armor:
How much does it cost? |
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 06:46 PM
Post
#14
|
|||
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Because a soldier's life isn't worth a hudred thousand dollars. -Frank |
||
|
|||
Dec 15 2005, 07:06 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
I actually mean that for in SR not in RL
|
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 07:10 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
Target Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 26-February 02 From: England Member No.: 1,927 |
Er... this kind? Not originally roman apparently, they supposedly copied it from the greeks. *shrug* whoever made them first, they look distinctly odd when worn by someone with a beer gut, a sight I've seen too many times for it to still be funny. |
||
|
|||
Dec 15 2005, 07:42 PM
Post
#17
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 44 Joined: 2-October 05 Member No.: 7,799 |
I dunno what they mean by energy absorbant. Energy absorbant material can actually be pretty harmful to the wearer, particularly for rifle bullets. One the guys who works in my lab (I'm a researcher at the Dynamic Effects Lab at UMD) has a lot of experience in the defense industry. He commented that it's great that a material can stop a bullet, but if the bullet is stopped two inches into the person then it's still going to kill them.
Still, pretty cool stuff. I'll have to take a look at it and see if I can't get a sample for my research. |
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 07:49 PM
Post
#18
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
well the avarage roman soldier was never issued that kind of armor now was they? only some officers and the diffrent emperors and so on would use that from what i recall.
the avarage soldier would use a more simple design that was allso more practical as it was made of overlapping strips of metal that would enable the whole ting to flex more... this is all on the iirc tho... |
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 08:05 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
The picture on that site is just of a random replica breastplate mis-labeled "medieval armor"... I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the material being talked about. |
||
|
|||
Dec 15 2005, 08:23 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,028 Joined: 9-November 02 From: The Republic of Vermont Member No.: 3,581 |
Rattan, actually. You can't play full speed unchoreographed with live steel... it results in casualty rates that are unacceptable in 21st century America. We do have Romans, and Roman-era Celts and Germans and such... they're not all that common, but our official "pre-17th century Europe" scope technically has no starting date. Around these parts, we're so heavily Dark Ages that the joke is, if you have four digits in your year, you're late period. -- Æðelwulf of Mountain Freehold (8th c. Saxon) |
||
|
|||
Dec 15 2005, 08:33 PM
Post
#21
|
|||||||
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Cost for SR? Look at the armor list in any SR book. This material, or its SR fictional equivalent, may have found its way into any number of SR armors. After all, the composition of SR armors is unlisted. Or this may be obsolete by 2060 and you'll only find it in old armors being sold in the Barrens at half price and reduced armor protection.
Yes, that's a critical issue with flexible armors. Unlike a rigid plate, ballistic fabric vests are...well, they're fabric. Instead of dispersing energy over a large area (when you punch a plate, the whole plate will move), a bullet tends to indent a small region. Woven fabrics are worse than unwoven fibers because the woven fibers can't move along their entire lengths - the cross weaves pin the fibers in place, so they only deform locally. Armor designers who work with fabrics bend over backwards to try to disperse the energy over a larger area. A typical format is to use woven fibers on the outer shell of an armor fabric panel, then unwoven fibers as a core. The woven fibers act as a catcher's mitt to prevent a bullet from penetrating, while the thicker core of unwoven fibers disperses the impact over a larger area. Hopefully large enough that the underlying meat won't be deformed enough to splinter ribs and such.
It depends on how they mean "energy absorbant." If that means "some way of dispersing energy other than deforming or moving the armor," it's not necessarily a bad thing. Better to absorb the energy in the material than to let through more joules to the body that can be spent driving cracks through bones and bruising meat. |
||||||
|
|||||||
Dec 16 2005, 05:23 AM
Post
#22
|
|||
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
That's the exact first thing I thought of. It's still gonna mush the mushy parts. |
||
|
|||
Dec 16 2005, 07:08 AM
Post
#23
|
|||||||
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I doubt you'd find anyone who'd say it is who isn't reacting emotionally. Not that I mind, but it would make fielding an army totally untenable. Assuming one per soldier, that'd be $48,550,000,000 for the US Army in active duty as of fiscal year 2004. For reference, this would be an over 10% budget increase based on budget figures for the entire DOD for that same period. If we want to add the Marine Corps, add an additional $17,620,200,000 to the bill.
I'd expect at least four digits to be considered early. 900 BC is getting pretty late, all in all. ~J |
||||||
|
|||||||
Dec 16 2005, 09:17 AM
Post
#24
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
It depends on how much it costs to train the soldier and the probability that the armor will save his or her life. If it costs more than $100,000 to train a soldier and play death benefits and the armor reduced overall mortality by 100% or more then it is certainly worth the cost. It would, after all, cost more to train new soldiers than it would to field the armor.
A problem comes from the fact that there is no force in the world with a 100% mortality rate and there is no armor that is 100% effective, making a 100% reduction in mortality impossible. Thus, the costs of training a replacement and paying death benefits for a dead soldier must be sigificantly more that $100,000 to justify such an expenditure. When one takes into account the fact that this will not stop turnover due to discharge and individual decisions not to re-enlist, there are other problems, as well. Since every human being dies eventually and every soldier will leave the service eventually it is even more difficult to determine an absolute monetairy benefit for the use of such armor. However, there are some more important factors to consider. If they wear obvious rigid body armor then most people would just go for head shots. If they wear helmets then most people wil just aim for the face, a helmet has to leave the face unprotected or else it would block the field of vision. sure, it can incorporate a ballistic glass visor, but it would still provide less protection in that area. But, face shots aren't easy to make compared to center mas shots as the overall probability of surviveal is still increasd significantly. The final and most important consideration is where this armor seems to fail, weight. Armor is useless if the soldier doesn't wear it and this is the kind of armor that soldiers won't wear, it increases the overall gear weight to intollerable levels. How would you like to march 20 miles through the desert wearing 300 pound and carrying 80 pounds of gear? Enough soldiers would simply leve their armor in their lockers as to render it much less effective overall. If they can build a suit of this stuff that weighs equal to or less than modern body armor while providing the equal or greater levels of protection then it may just be worth the expenditure. If not, then one would simply be buying expensive doorstops. |
|
|
Dec 16 2005, 10:29 AM
Post
#25
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
one thing. unless this have to be form fitted for each soldier, they can just issue a set number of them pr base. the troops on patrol are the ones that use them, the ones back on base dont need them (unless your base is under 24/7 shelling, but then the lack of body armor is a lesser problem).
if a person do not re-enlist, he turns over his gear and so on. that is unless the us army is handing out free m-16's and similar, if so: :silly: |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 11:20 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.