Lower material thickness for ballistic vest.

[arijust]

Summary

SUMMARY: Bugfixes "Lower material thickness for ballistic vest."

Purpose of change

Close #36759
Related to #36682

Describe the solution

Lower material thickness from 20 to 7.
It should lower cut resist to ~31 and bash resist to ~17.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Someone making rework of damage function.
Like separating cut damage to two kind of damage.
Cut to blades/powered tools like chainsaws and pierce for guns/crossbows/bows/whips.
(There could be more to added to it, but that would be good start.)

Additional context

I am aware it's temporary solution at best anyway.

[Ker-Nes]

I don't think that this should outright close #36759 , as there's still merit in going through all the armors and rebalancing them, specially with keeping in mind that there is legitimately the issue that most supposedly bullet resistant armor isn't, even against considerably lower caliber bullets.

[tenmillimaster]

Can you explore lowering ceramic's chip resistance instead? I believe this would be a much more rational approach.

Based on /src comments, I believe that will make it much more likely for items depending on ceramic plates for protection to receive damage, which is pretty close to how it should be: A few hits against very good protection before the plate fails.

[tenmillimaster]

This PR is not directly related to closing #36759 as @Ker-Nes suggests. This issue is specifically related to the closed issue #36682, which was invalid.

You need to:
Provide documentation from NIJ or other authoritative bodies showing how many hits of what ammunition in game the body armor @ymber based this on can withstand
Then you need to adjust the armor based on that data, showing that it will withstand, for example, 4 shots of .662 loudenboomer M2AP or whatever ammo before failure.

Either present evidence and act on it, or close the branch(IMO).

[Ker-Nes]

Provide documentation from NIJ or other authoritative bodies showing how many hits of what ammunition in game the body armor @ymber based this on can withstand

Point of order: Even without a precise number, it can be taken as a given that it is not quite as durable as the game currently makes it, that is, effectively indestructible against anything that can't pierce it.

Some reduction to the protection values should also probably be in order, if only to represent hits that don't actually penetrate, but still impart enough blunt force that the person behind the armor is going to feel it. That alongside perhaps dropping "STURDY" tag should be enough to handle most of it: Attacks that are powerful enough to cause meaningful to the plates is likely to have enough energy that, even spread across the larger surface area, it's still likely to bruise.

[tenmillimaster]

I am not saying that a reduction is unnecessary. I am asking for sources and for the author to do the legwork here.

it can be taken as a given that it is not quite as durable as the game currently makes it,

This is why I suggested first playing with the chip resistance value of the armor.

[Night-Pryanik]

Provide documentation from NIJ or other authoritative bodies showing how many hits of what ammunition in game the body armor @ymber based this on can withstand

Wanna know how all this whole situation and this particular requirement look from a bystander's point of view?
Someone (@ymber in this case) have added some item in the game (ballistic vest in this case, #36558), gave this item completely arbitrary values (I emphasize it), based on his subjective reasoning. He didn't provide us no information on why did he set this particular values, no documentation, no reliable sources, no links, absolutely nothing. Comment stating that it's Based on US Army SPCS means nothing without any proofs.
And when someone else (@arijust in this case) tries to tweak this item's values based on his subjective reasoning (so, in fact, basically mirrors ymber's way), you suddenly require him to provide documentation from authoritative organization.
This is inconsistent at best and double standards at worst.

[tenmillimaster]

Provide documentation from NIJ or other authoritative bodies showing how many hits of what ammunition in game the body armor @ymber based this on can withstand

Wanna know how all this whole situation and this particular requirement look from a bystander's point of view?
Someone (@ymber in this case) have added some item in the game (ballistic vest in this case, #36558), gave this item completely arbitrary values (I emphasize it), based on his subjective reasoning. He didn't provide us no information on why did he set this particular values, no documentation, no reliable sources, no links, absolutely nothing. Comment stating that it's Based on US Army SPCS means nothing without any proofs.
And when someone else (@arijust in this case) tries to tweak this item's values based on his subjective reasoning (so, in fact, basically mirrors ymber's way), you suddenly require him to provide documentation from authoritative organization.
This is inconsistent at best and double standards at worst.

If Ymber did not provide similar documentation, then he and whoever merged his work are both complicit. Thankfully, this is an ongoing project so we can correct both. No matter what the case is, the armor should be based on real world data. It should be available. The onus was on the author and is on those wishing to modify the work. It doesn't matter who does it, it just matters that it gets done correctly.

[tenmillimaster]

https://ciehub.info/ref/TM/10-8470-209-10_2013.pdf
https://ciehub.info/ref/TM/10-8400-205-23P.pdf

Army Scalable Plate Carrier System is capable of carrying soft ballistic inserts and hard ceramic inserts, in front, back and side plate locations.

SAPI, ESAPI, and XSAPI are available.

This is a very similar arrangement to other body armor as I understand it- more info should be able to be discerned from the armorer maintenance manual above without digging for the other relevant TM's. I believe it is safe to conclude that differences between SPCS, interceptor, IOTV, etc don't really matter except for perhaps encumbrance, as the rigs were improved to hold the armor better throughout the years.

so we can just focus on the soft armor and the hard armor components.

Soft armor, probably something like level IIIA panels, that generally the best you'll see with kevlar.

XSAPI is the most advanced, but doesn't look to be as fielded as ESAPI and SAPI are. FBI appears to be using XSAPI. http://services.prod.iaff.org/ContentFile/Get/36292

This piece suggests they're really not being issued, the XSAPI plates. https://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Armor-Piercing-Myths-10-9-2011.asp

ESAPI seems to be most common, and is rated for 7.62x63mm AP M2.

Requirements for testing are here, page 8: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a499208.pdf

Therefore: an ESAPI plate can withstand 3 M2 AP 30-06 shots before failing. After my skimming, there appears to be some more information on what condition the plate would be in when it is failing.

To recap:

• SPCS is just a carrier system for kevlar combined with (E/X)SAPI inserts for Front, Back, maybe sides. It can be scaled up to include additional possible lower level protection pieces: deltoid, groin and collar protectors, to name some.
• ESAPI appears to be most commonly issued, and needs to be specced in game to withstand 3 shots of 30-06, M2 AP. Whatever damage reduction is available will need to evaluated based on the testing guidelines (Backface deformation on the clay).
• The material Ceramic needs to have chip resistance lowers such that after 3 shots of AP 30-06, the ballistic armor is in whatever condition is indicated in the testing guidelines.
• At a later date, it should be added in a different PR some sort of 'always recover/drop on destroy' option for the rig. The kevlar and ceramic might get busted, but the rig should still be repairable.

This is how I believe progress should be made to address the ballistic armor's perceived issues.

[Xanmyral]

Seeing this topic a bit, I'll throw in some research of my own (for what it's worth) about NIJ IV plates. Focus was on sheer durability of similarly rated plates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdgQ0OSZqOo (NIJ IV v calibers far beyond expected value)

• Plate and a half required to stop .50, caused extensive damage through sheer shock
• .308 AP went through half a plate and damaged the surrounding areas
• .50 AP gave similar results as .50, but more destructive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULiRbeHrDL4 (NIJ IV v expected and similar calibers with detailed dissection)

• Plate caught .30-06 AP as expected, deformation from back and destruction of plate (would not take second shot likely). Note of impact damage from author.
• Second round of .30-06 AP cleared the plate (different spot), caught by IIIA rated plate, does ballistic vest include layered IIIA?
• Third shot (mosin-nagant shot) cleared both IV and IIIA, hit edge (basically hitting outside the coverage)
• Fourth direct shot (clear surface) caused extensive damage but didn't clear plate. Board beneath showing signs of stress from impact.
• Dissection of plate shows exact damage at the end

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEXMFtOTHao (NIJ IV v multiple calibers; handgun to expected)

• 9mm showing no real damage, should likely not cause chip damage except through repeated strikes
• 7.62x39 shows decent damage (not as much as .30-06 AP) and deformation
• .30-06 AP caused deformation akin to prior video, no penetration on back. Extensive damage.
• .308 FMJ struck the same spot as the 7.62x39 and penetrated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSK4U2Poo0k (NIJ IV v Sledge and shot)

• Took hard hit from sledge and took dent but otherwise appeared fine? No chip from appearances, unsure on shock behind as main damage would be through force transfer through the plate. Likely assumption would be strength 8-9 person getting a good hit on the plate clear on from conditions.
• Clay behind shows deformation within expected guidelines from shot afterwards

General consensus seems that shooting the same place twice pierces the plate with a sufficient cartridge, the plate is expected to be layered over IIIA NIJ armor (I'm curious if the current armor rating is making the assumption of that or not), shouldn't take much chip damage from 9mm or similar rounds, and strikes to the surrounding areas do weaken the structure but appear to hold up as long as shots aren't in the same general area.

I'd thumb the plate as taking three to five shots max of .30-06 AP or similar (.308, 7.62x39, etc) before the plate is compromised enough that it shouldn't be expected to protect you well. Coverage appears accurate (if maybe a bit large) as only the direct face of the plate would protect you sufficiently it appears. Hits to the edge, as shown in video, will clear it even with a cartridge rated under .30-06 AP.

Should certainly be non-repairable and chip (not easily, as a 9mm and sledge would do little to chip it from the looks of it).

[tenmillimaster]

Seeing this topic a bit, I'll throw in some research of my own (for what it's worth) about NIJ IV plates. Focus was on sheer durability of similarly rated plates:

While the youtube videos are certainly visually helpful, they really cannot be used as the basis for armor work here; we need the ~100+ sample sizes that .mil and NIJ subjects this stuff to.

Second round of .30-06 AP cleared the plate (different spot), caught by IIIA rated plate, does ballistic vest include layered IIIA?

As outlined above, probably. How the user has the vest configured matters, but its testing was conducted with both panels and inserts.

[Ezsk]

It is worth noting that the 90c ballistic vest reduces .50BMG damage abnormally. It's much more difficult to balancing than case of .03-06.

Also need to noting the encumbrance it's still only 10 so we can able to wear the ballistic vest more than one.

[Ker-Nes]

Army Scalable Plate Carrier System is capable of carrying soft ballistic inserts and hard ceramic inserts, in front, back and side plate locations.

SAPI, ESAPI, and XSAPI are available.

The implementation perhaps should be similar to how MBR vests currently work, except that the version with the plates should provide more protection while just the carrier should have protection in line with any other strong but non-bullet proof material (being made of strong nylon and such).

I'm working on the supposition that the MBR vest is supposed to be bullet resistant non-low profile vests with pouches for extra plates in general, without having to handle each specific brand and model. Those generally tend to fit slightly thinner and lighter plates than a dedicated plate carrier (with the plates not being necessarily rated for standalone protection at their declared level), while the ballistic vest represent the dedicated plate carriers, with the heavier plates rated for standalone protection (and should probably be renamed "plate carrier" too).