I think some people in the Army would be Sean.
1 Like
It would be funny if they just added the armour as spall liners in the exact shape as the torso but with a x1.01 size increase.
Just take the torso model and multiply it by 1.01
3 Likes
that’s fine, but the problem is for us we have no idea what that ECBA actually provides in terms of levels of protection. we could work backwards using STANAG 2920, but that doesn’t actually give us a figure.
I mean air crews already have a flack jacket modification so i don’t see why crews shouldn’t get equivalent protection, it’s literally stated that it must be worn.
2 Likes
Helicopters too
2 Likes
1 Like
German army Schutzweste Bristol Type 18. A commercial off-the-shelf vest the Germans bought in a pinch for peace-keeping deployments in the first part of the 1990s (hence why the camo pattern is wrong).
Found those pics I was looking for of the .50 cal vest in an old thread on ARRSE:
CARRIAGE, BALLISTIC, PROTECTION, 12.7mm
Ed:- more pics of another example of this vest from the IACMC forum
As I said it’s just a plate carrier with no integral soft armour at the sides etc. - was to be worn over the top of CBA or INIBA
3 Likes
STANAG 2920 as far as I can see is a way to standardise how ballistics are tested, what Addition 2 entails I’m not certain
If we had a level of HOSBD protection provided that’d be fine, because again, we could work backwards and ascertain a level of protection provided in millimetres.
The problem is we don’t actually know to what level
So I feel, and I’m no expert so I may very well be wrong, that that answer is a bit of a non starter for our purposes. We could make some assumptions based on what we do know about other plates, and say "well given their usage it would appear that these vests are meant primarily for defeating rifle calibre rounds, therefore it might match the specifications of RF2 on the HOSBD system of rating, therefore should be able to defeat (largest level of penetration of 7.62mm ammunition in game)
Then again, I do feel like I am missing a document or two here. So this chilli hot take is based on what I have found on HOSBD and STANAG 2920.
1 Like
Yes this is what we keep finding, the testing method is public but the results are not.
Which on its own isnt a problem. What is a problem is we have no idea how to work the equations/standards backwards to get a value/result
1 Like
Not the best source but:
The late 1980s a lightweight Combat Body Armour (CBA) was introduced, consisting of a vest with soft ballistic filler capable of protecting against fragments and 9-mm pistol rounds. The Enhanced Body Armour (EBA) version could be reinforced with ceramic plates for greater protection against higher-velocity projectiles.
STANAG 2920 Protection Levels
“Our Kestrel body armour (NATO STANAG 2920 V50 – 450m/s) is lightweight and comfortable, providing vital area protection whether standing or kneeling to excavate anti-personnel mines.”
Kestrel is Osprey, I believe? Looks like the soft bit is rated at frag level F2.
Keep in mind as he states this amour is out of date, and an older model, in this video it potentially offers a 50/50 chance of stopping 9mm rounds, id argue that a fresh batch without the kevlar resin breakdown it would stop 9mm without issue. It’s a fragmentation jacket, i wouldn’t expect top level protection… When already in an armoured tank lol
2 Likes
I haven’t a clue what that means if I’m honest
yes, I don’t use HESH or Smoke, it explodes constantly, even when I only carry like 22 rounds. Only Britain lmao.
only britain indeed
iirc there’s a bug report in the works but we’ve heard nothing back so far
Kestrel was a flak jacket with integrated soft armour sleeves and collars, that had a pocket for CBA plates (Mk.1) then Osprey plates (Mk.2)
It was introduced around the same time as Osprey but apparently everybody hated it even more than wearing the snap-on collars and deltoid panels on Osprey
3 Likes
You know when i brought this up i just thought it would maybe be a quick report or suggestion asking for flak jackets for tankers. I didnt think gaijin would add it lol, yet here you lot are trying to comb through the internet to get accurate stats for body armour, i respect the dedication to make your loaded survive 1 more piece shrapnel but i doubt gaijin will even look at it for more than a second. GL though, im rooting for you
Next you will be looking for ballistic protection values of tankers helmets…
I agree with this sentiment. Gaijin aren’t going to model different parts of a crew member to have different armour values. Any such modification would almost certainly take the form of +X% to crew HP. Where X is some number Gaijin made up for balance.
Still cool to see the information that’s being dug up though.
3 Likes