Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Personal Armor
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Moonstone Spider
I was leafing through Rigger 3 and noticed Personal Armor in the modifications section. It's armor which weighs less, costs less, and "has much the same effect on Vehicle-scale weaponry as personal body armor."

Can anybody explain what this means? It sounds as if this is a cheap way to put 50 points of armor on a drone since it weights 1/10th what normal armor does, and I don't know what the effects of vehicle scale weaponry are, it doesn't say.
Siege
I _think_ it's draping an armored jacket over a vehicle rather than using actual vehicle armor capable of repelling anti-vehicle weapons.

Essentially, you're using (meta)human scale armor on a vehicle instead of the proper vehicle armor.

-Siege
Herald of Verjigorm
As Siege said, it is unhardened basic armor. It does not count double against small arms, it does not lower the damage scale of small arms fire by one (but that's apparently a general vehicle trait and not a vehicular armor trait). It's only really helpful to protect passengers a little better with less costs.

You may be able to put 20 points on a drone, but since it isn't hardened, you still have to deal with the 2D using the pathetic body rating of the drone (+applicable pools).
Moonstone Spider
I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion, since Rigger 3 specifically states that it fends off small arms fire but says it reacts to AV fire as body armor. Nothing there says it fails to stage down normal weapons (even vehicles with no armor at all get to do that!) or is not hardened. It seems contradictory to me to say it cannot repel small arms, when the book states that it fends off small arms.
FlakJacket
You still get the stage down a level and halve the power effect from it being a vehicle. It's just that since it's not counted as hardened armour, it acts as normal personal armour rather than automatically stopping damage is the armour rating equals or exceeds the power of the weapon.
Kagetenshi
I hadn't realized that it'd count at all for attacks against the vehicle; I was just assuming it was an armored passenger cabin.

~J
Capt. Dave
Think of Personal Armor as Lucite glass and Kevlar in the doors. It's the same type of armor that vehicle as used by government heads and public figures.
This will protect against people firing a weapon in the small-arms category. If the weapon does AV damage, then Kevlar isn't going to do much for you.
Luke Hardison
Personal Armor "has the same effect on vehicle-scale weaponry as personal body armor." It's treated as non-hardened balistic armor; if you put in 3 points of personal armor, it's as though your passengers are all wearing armored clothing.
mfb
i don't see anything in the text that keeps it from protecting the vehicle, as well. i also believe it acts as both ballistic and impact armor (which may not seem important, until that troll physad takes a swing at your engine block).
Luke Hardison
I agree that there's nothing in the text that says it can't protect the vehicle, but I think that either one is a valid interpretation to take. However, the last sentence in the description says
QUOTE
It is ballistic armor, not impact.

Which also means it won't help you out in a crash. (I think)
Frag-o Delux
Personally since it is called Personal armor, not car wrapped in kevlar, I wouldn't allow it help against vehicle hits, only against called shots aimed at the peoiple in the car. That is just me though.
Capt. Dave
Just to play Devil's advocate - the armor is a part of the car, and perhaps "Personal Armor" refers to defense from "personal weapons", as most people don't pack AGTMs. (note I say most) I think it protects the car from small arms (Non-AV) damage, but I agree it won't help in a crash.

Bad Guy A fires his Ares Predator at your lovely car (9M)
You have 3 points of Personal Armor which reduces the power of non-AV
damage by 3, so the attack comes in at 6M, which due to the fact it is being
directed at a vehicle makes it 3L.

Of course, you could say that the staging down applies before the armor does,
in which case it would be 1L

Frag-o Delux
Then why not call it economical armor or slightly weaker then real armor armor? I seem to remember I think R2, personal armor was described a passenger armor, not really intended to prtect the car.

Like Luke said, either intereptation is valid, it is just the name that makes me think it was intended to protect the passenger cabin not the car.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Frag-o Delux)
Then why not call it economical armor or slightly weaker then real armor armor?

I think you answered your own question quite nicely here. smile.gif "Personal Armor" is a good, clear name for armor of the kind that personnel usually wear.

Still, you can certainly rule either way. Do modern armored cars (such as those meant for transporting VIPs) have the engine compartments protected by armor panels, or is all the armor around/in the cabin?
Frag-o Delux
Depends what you pay for. I have seen some that are just lined with kevlar in the cabin. Some with plates in the doors. I have seen the radiator moved to a compartment that can still get air then armoring just the grill. Armoring a car for a VIP can come in all shapes and sizes depending on the budget. But I think all but the most important people just get the kevlar wrap done to the cabin and some lexan windows. The president on the other hand is loaded for war.

Austere, are you agreeing with me? Hard to tell. smile.gif
Kalibar
I'd say that the personal armor protects the whole car not just the passengers, otherwise it'd be superfluous to have:

Armored seating: personal armor protection for individuals in a car without protecting the whole car. Which is bought on a per person protected basis.

I always considered personal armor to be non-vehicular armor...no scaling down, no hardening. But light, easily concealable, cheaper and easy on the CF.
Capt. Dave
Most armored cars do incorporate armor around the engine compartment, but those vehicles that are meant to resist serious fire have what would be in SR "real armor". The thing is, personal armor is usually inside a vehicle. So it would make some sense that it would not protect the car, as a round would have to go through
the side of a car to be stopped by the armor. Hmm...
Frag-o Delux
But armored seating, If I remember correctly only protects from shots coming from behind. What about shots comeing through the windshield? Sure the guy in the back seat is fine, but now he is wear his buddies liver.
Capt. Dave
Most cars that have personal armor usually replace the window glass with lucite or bulletproof glass. You could use a barrier rating equal to that of the personal armor.

EDIT- when I say "inside a vehicle" i mean in the door panels
Austere Emancipator
If the armor is in the panels, it would still protect the important bits of the car -- engine, controls, transmission, whatever. If the armor is only around the cabin, then of course it's not much good for protection the vehicle itself, but trying to stop a car by wrecking the "shell" of it is pretty difficult.
Capt. Dave
Good point. I guess it's just up to the GM. I usually treat it as its nearest counterpart in real life (Kevlar in the door panels, quarter panels, armored glass),
but there's nothing wrong with saying it protects passengers only, not the car.
mcb
What good does it do the passengers if only the passenger compartment is armored and not the engine and drive train. I don’t know of any armor limousine or SUV manufactures that only armor the passenger compartment. They all protect the engine, put run flat tires, self sealing gas tanks etc. If you don't protect the engine and drive train then what’s the point in armoring anything else? The attacker will just shoot the unprotected engine and then the attacker can take their time getting to the occupants. In adding light armor to vehicles like a Limo or SUV they are simply attempting to buy the occupant a little time to get away. To do that the armor has to keep you from getting shoot and keep the vehicle functional so you can run.

mcb
Kagetenshi
No amount of vehicle armor protects the tyres unless you buy the runflat versions, IIRC.

~J
Cray74
QUOTE (mcb @ Mar 23 2004, 06:27 PM)
What good does it do the passengers if only the passenger compartment is armored and not the engine and drive train.  I don’t know of any armor limousine or SUV manufactures that only armor the passenger compartment.  They all protect the engine, put run flat tires, self sealing gas tanks etc.  If you don't protect the engine and drive train then what’s the point in armoring anything else?  The attacker will just shoot the unprotected engine and then the attacker can take their time getting to the occupants.  In adding light armor to vehicles like a Limo or SUV they are simply attempting to buy the occupant a little time to get away.  To do that the armor has to keep you from getting shoot and keep the vehicle functional so you can run.

Yeah, what mcb said. smile.gif

I've been interpreting "personal armor" as a non-hardened armor protecting the whole vehicle. Just some body armor-grade ballistic fabrics and similar materials slipped into vehicle body panels (including the engine compartment and the like).
Rev
I think it is supposed to be similar to the armored seating thing, but maybe a bit better especially if you have a lot of seats.

What good is it? The goal is to protect the passengers from attack. The vehicle may be easily crippled, but today in vehicle assissinations/carjacking typically go something like this:

Vehicle is halted by roadblock, bomb, stoplight, in parking lot, etc.
Attackers run up to it and shoots or threatenns people inside through the windows, perhaps with only a pistol.
Passengers die, or do whatever the guy with the gun says. Attacker immediately leaves the area to evade police/security response, is captured, or suicides.

Personal armor seems to me to be meant to represent the sort of vehicle armor that protects against that sort of thing without the expense of armoring the vehicle such that it can be attacked by moderately heavy weaponry and continue to drive. The idea is that the passengers stay safely inside the vehicle if attacked by small arms and wait for help. Some protection is also provided against larger weaponry, but probably not enough. The vehicle is likely to be immobilized but unless the attackers have a lot of time or heavier weapons the passengers are relatively safe inside. Basically if somebody wants to whack you they now have to hire shadowrunners or top of the line gangers instead of just local thrill gangers.

As such it would be pretty much worthless in a drone. You might say it could protect a cargo space in a drone, but should provide no protection to the drone itself.
mcb
Again if only the crew compartment is armored then a half capable attacker will have had their way with the passenger’s weather they want to kill or kid-nap the passengers long before helps arrive. If the drive train is not protected then armoring the passenger compartment does you very little. Give me a 9mm handgun and a stationary vehicle an attacker will eventually get through the bullet resistant widows. They can only take so many hit in the same spot. If the attacker has a heavier weapon it will take less shots to get through. Without mobility light armor only buys you a few seconds; with mobility light armor can by a lot of time. It make sense to protect all part of the vehicle to the same level of protection weather that be from handgun or 120mm HEAP rounds.

But I did find a company that does just armor the drive’s side window and door, and the back of the seat. They call it their road-rage package or their repo-man package

http://texcaliburarmor.com/index.shtml

Here is another company that does lightly armored vehicles.

http://www.armormax.com/index.htm

Nonetheless if I was going to buy an armored car it sure would have more armor then just the driver’s side door. Knowing my luck the bullet would miss the armor.

That said I think the SR rules imply that that armor is for the entire vehicle and should reduce small arms damage for both the vehicle and the passenger. It should be treated just like personal body armor since it is accentually Kevlar and similar material layered under the normal exterior. The links to the above page have charts very similar to the threat level chart for bullet resistant body armor.

mcb
Frag-o Delux
I agree that it can be interpreteded that way.

But I still feel it is just to protect people, armored cars like money trucks are meant to be scary looking and be able to stop a bomb. Personal armored cars are meant to be driven by professional drivers/bodyguards. These professional drivers should be able to recognize a dangerous situations and get out of it. The drivers of the Presidents limo has to do a lot of training to be able to pull off a simple manuvere like the "J" turn in that iron tub, be a pro in a lightly armored car can get out of most situations that could be fatal. Most smallarms fire will be repelled by this armorand leave it manuverable enough to get the hell out of trouble, not stand there and fight.

Just my opion, you will play it how you feel, nothing wrong with that.

If they just named it something else, I think we may not be having this debate.

You also have to look at economics, if I were to say offer a taxi service in this dangerous time that offered armored protection, it would not make sense business wiae to armor the whole car just the people.

What is the cost of this stuff compared to the other armor, regular and concealed?

With regular armor I see that as tanks and armored money trucks, concealed is what I think of when I think about waht you are describbing for presidents and such, personla armor I picture stopping car jackers from stealing the mini-van, not runnig a guantlet in Iraq.
mcb
QUOTE (Frag-o Delux)
I agree that it can be interpreteded that way.

But I still feel it is just to protect people, armored cars like money trucks are meant to be scary looking and be able to stop a bomb. Personal armored cars are meant to be driven by professional drivers/bodyguards. These professional drivers should be able to recognize a dangerous situations and get out of it. The drivers of the Presidents limo has to do a lot of training to be able to pull off a simple manuvere like the "J" turn in that iron tub, be a pro in a lightly armored car can get out of most situations that could be fatal. Most smallarms fire will be repelled by this armorand leave it manuverable enough to get the hell out of trouble, not stand there and fight.



Again you can't get out of the dangerous situation if they have shot hole in your engine or blown our your tires. Not to mention the engine compartment armor (usually layers of kevlar ) weighs next to nothing compared to the bullet resistant glass used in the crew compartment.

The reason I say it covers the whole vehicle is that most present day armored cars and SUVs are fully armored and protected system. It would make sense to me that 60 years in the future that trend would continue if not becoming a higher percentage of armored vehicle being fully armored as armor components would get cheaper, lighter and better.

Now this 'personal armor' is only designed to stop small arms attacks but it does covers the entire vehicle. A 50cal MG will make Swiss cheese of the average armored limo but the entire vehicle is armored. Some vehicles have protection only against Handgun and SMG rounds other protect up to armor piercing rifle ammo. You can by a variety of levels of protection but despite the level of protection this armor is usually applied to the entire vehicle, including the engine compartment, self-sealing gas tank and run flat tires. Check out the above links I posted you will see that most of those vehicles are fully protected. Not all are but it seem that the majority get the full protection. So from this research I extrapolated to SR that it covers the entire vehicle. Feel free to interpreter it differently.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012