http://www.isracast.com/tech_news/091205_tech.htm
Seems like security armor of future, ne?
Full Version: Tomorrow armor created
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.
Heh. We may be looking at a Schlock Mercenay world before we look at a cyberpunk one.
| QUOTE |
| Tungsten Disulfide is relatively heavy |
Yeah no shit. It's got a specific gravity of 7.5, the same as Bronze.
-Frank
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.
*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.
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.
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.
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685) |
| [...] defining "small arms" as "anything without splash damage" [...] |
So an M256 firing M829A2 APFSDS-T would be a "small arm"?
Man, SCA nuts go wild! It really does look like old Roman armors...
...
It does?
What sort of "old Roman armor" have you been looking at?
It does?
What sort of "old Roman armor" have you been looking at?
| QUOTE (Traks) |
| http://www.isracast.com/tech_news/091205_tech.htm Seems like security armor of future, ne? |
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.
| QUOTE |
| Man, SCA nuts go wild! It really does look like old Roman armors... |
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.
| QUOTE (DocMortand) |
| Man, SCA nuts go wild! It really does look like old Roman armors... |
I echo Critias on this one.
Also; SCA members are generally medieval- or Renaissance-based. Not Roman-based.
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...
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...
| QUOTE (tanka) |
| Also; SCA members are generally medieval- or Renaissance-based. Not Roman-based. |
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.
SCA use live steel and do beat on each other something harsh. Crazy folk, them.
Most important statistical detail on this armor:
How much does it cost?
How much does it cost?
| QUOTE (stevebugge) |
| How much does it cost? |
Because a soldier's life isn't worth a hudred thousand dollars.
-Frank
I actually mean that for in SR not in RL
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| ... It does? What sort of "old Roman armor" have you been looking at? |
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
| QUOTE (DocMortand) |
| Man, SCA nuts go wild! It really does look like old Roman armors... |
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.
| QUOTE (tanka) |
| SCA use live steel and do beat on each other something harsh. Crazy folk, them. |
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)
| QUOTE (stevebugge) |
| Most important statistical detail on this armor: How much does it cost? |
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.
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
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.
| QUOTE |
| I dunno what they mean by energy absorbant. Energy absorbant material can actually be pretty harmful to the wearer, particularly for rifle bullets. |
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.
| QUOTE (Prosper) |
| but if the bullet is stopped two inches into the person then it's still going to kill them. |
That's the exact first thing I thought of. It's still gonna mush the mushy parts.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) | ||
Because a soldier's life isn't worth a hudred thousand dollars. |
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.
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
I'd expect at least four digits to be considered early. 900 BC is getting pretty late, all in all.
~J
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.
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.
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:
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:
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) | ||
Because a soldier's life isn't worth a hudred thousand dollars. -Frank |
Sure it is. That's why we spend so much to train 'em.
The question is -- is a soldier's armor worth $100,00?
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| unless this have to be form fitted for each soldier |
Right now it's rigid, so while it wouldn't necessarily have to be form fitted, there would have to be at least a few dozen different sizes. Which basically means it'd be quite strictly personal gear.
As of 2004, the US Army was still going for flexible full body armor by 2020. Considering all the problems you run into with rigid full body armor, I seriously doubt such will be fielded in large numbers for a few decades yet. This particular material has not yet been shown to provide any real advantage over other types of flexible body armor -- nor has it even been shown to function properly as flexible body armor.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Armor is useless if the soldier doesn't wear it and this is the kind of armor that soldiers won't wear, it uncreased the overall gear weight to intollerable levels. Howwould 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. |
Depends on what the probability of taking fire is, doesn't it? If you think it unlikely, you probably won't wear the armor. But if you already hear the gunshots, you probably would.
For stuff like patrols, recon, etc, where you don't anticipate taking fire, you'd probably leave this at home. For situations where you're planning on doing a direct assault on a fortified position, well, yeah, assuming that it could stop most of the fire you'd take and it doesn't turn you into a sitting duck for the fire it can't... well, you'd suffer the 300 lbs of weight, wouldn't you?
Not that I could lug around 300# of armor, but if I was capable of doing so:
- I'd be too slow to seek cover when it was needed, and
- My chance of fatality through heat stroke would be greater than the chance of getting shot.
Guys. Stop looking at this technological breakthrough in terms of "how can this alone add to already established military technology."
Look at what other forms of military technology are coming down the pike, too. Like that exoskeletal humanoid movement enhancer.
Now think about that. We have things that can let a soldier go stomping around at full tilt for two hours without getting tired, while carrying a shitload of heavy gear. We have armor that looks to be impervious to just about everything short of high-explosives and APDS tank rounds.......
Come on people! This is not a hard leap of the imagination!
Look at what other forms of military technology are coming down the pike, too. Like that exoskeletal humanoid movement enhancer.
Now think about that. We have things that can let a soldier go stomping around at full tilt for two hours without getting tired, while carrying a shitload of heavy gear. We have armor that looks to be impervious to just about everything short of high-explosives and APDS tank rounds.......
Come on people! This is not a hard leap of the imagination!
Pffft.
I think that's the shortest thing raygun has ever posted.
But it still speaks volumes.
| QUOTE (John Campbell) | ||
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) |
And you can still get hurt from that if the blow lands in a lightly or unarmoured area, believe me. Though at a Faire outside of KC I did see a tournament that was done with live steel (flat of the blade) and full-on Tilting. This was put on by the local college's Theatrical dept so they definitely were "well practised".
As to the "cultural" styles, most of the members I ran into were either Brit or Celtic. We had the odd Roman, a couple of Vikings (very fun at the bardic circle) and even a Samurai once, but the British Isles seemed to always be represented by the majority.
--"Crazy Ivan the Polish Madman" [Retired] (& that was long before Hunt for Red October)
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685) |
| Guys. Stop looking at this technological breakthrough in terms of "how can this alone add to already established military technology." Look at what other forms of military technology are coming down the pike, too. Like that exoskeletal humanoid movement enhancer. Now think about that. We have things that can let a soldier go stomping around at full tilt for two hours without getting tired, while carrying a shitload of heavy gear. We have armor that looks to be impervious to just about everything short of high-explosives and APDS tank rounds....... Come on people! This is not a hard leap of the imagination! |
like the energy requirements for fielding and army wasnt bad enough allready...
Although I'd allow this bit of trivia in the use of creating self repairing hardened armor, I don't think I'd let it get to the "bulletproof bug repellent" stage...
On the subject of SCA liscences, I got one to play with my airsoft guns in a public park masquerading as Shadowrun.So Sci-Fi works if your municipallity is lax (or "openminded" enough).
Wow.
| QUOTE (Weredigo) |
| Although I'd allow this bit of trivia in the use of creating self repairing hardened armor, I don't think I'd let it get to the "bulletproof bug repellent" stage... |
Why would the armor be self-repairing?
Or, rather, what in the article said the material would be self-repairing? I didn't see anything about that property.
| QUOTE |
| Why would the armor be self-repairing? |
yer right, my bad, saw the word Nano and thought Nanotechnology was being used to full extent, i.e. molecule sized robots, which could theoretically be utilized in producing self repairing hardened armor. However now that I've at least scanned through the article more carefully and caught the jist I'm not sure if I like it and would want it in my game.
Correct me if I'm wrong but this stuff sounds like what one of my players wants, "Diamond Plated Armor",
Correct me if I'm wrong but this stuff sounds like what one of my players wants, "Diamond Plated Armor",
What does this have to do with shadow run?
| QUOTE |
| What does this have to do with shadow run? |
In a more or less reality based role playing game set in the somewhat near/not too distant future Players and GM's both should have access to materials, equipment, and scientific advances which are available in our modern world. So whenever something new like this comes along we all should take a look into it, get an idea of it's edges and flaws. Also we should at least bring it to the attention of our respective gaming groups, hash out a conversion for it, run it through some simulations, then comes to voting of keeping/calming/tossing...
I'm no einstein, but I love science, so feel free to email any scientific breakthroughs my way.
I'm just a Cannon kind of GM.
| QUOTE (Weredigo) |
| yer right, my bad, saw the word Nano and thought Nanotechnology was being used to full extent, i.e. molecule sized robots, which could theoretically be utilized in producing self repairing hardened armor. |
In fact, no real world application of nanotechnology involves microscopic robots. Nanotechnology as it currently exists just involves nanoscale control of material properties. For example, heat treating can adjust the grain (crystal) size of some steel alloys to nanometer-scales for unique hardness and strength properties. Also, I believe a number of common products (like blue LEDs) require nanoscale precision in setting up their different semiconductor layers. (And that's achieved with vapor deposition, not microscopic robots.)
| QUOTE |
| However now that I've at least scanned through the article more carefully and caught the jist I'm not sure if I like it and would want it in my game. |
It would be easy enough to say something like, "Yeah, this nanostructured material was popular in the 2020s for armor, but it's as obsolete and ineffective as kevlar in the 2060s."
| QUOTE |
| Correct me if I'm wrong but this stuff sounds like what one of my players wants, "Diamond Plated Armor", |
This material would probably survive the Dikoting process, if that's what you mean. Dikoting doesn't do that much for armor - just +1/+1 in SR3 and SR2. That shouldn't be a game breaker.
| QUOTE |
| I'm just a Cannon kind of GM. |
(Cannon? You like big guns?
)Canon doesn't get into armor materials with great detail. It wouldn't hurt to cite this nanomaterial as a typical hard armor material of the 2060s.
My votes with Cray.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.