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
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.
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.
“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Keep in mind as he states this amour is out of date, and an older model, in this video it potentially offers a 50/50 chance of stopping 9mm rounds, id argue that a fresh batch without the kevlar resin breakdown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
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
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
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.
Somebody im sure can look in the files for this on the helicopters flak jacket mods? Then you would be able to see if is hp based or affects only the chest of the pilots (it will be HP)
Hello I have a doubt about L23A1 when I did my research it is said that L30A1 gun were designed to have higher muzzle velocity adding for the same munition higher penetration in comparison to L11A5 gun.
But in game L23A1 shot by L30A1 is a copy / past of the L23A1 shot by L11A5 this mean that if I’m correct there is a problem on penetration stats of the L23A1.
With the two guns the initial velocity is 1535 m/s but as said above the velocity of L30A1 is superior to L11A5 as we could see with the L26 ammunition available on both guns in game :
L26 on L11A5 : 1550 m/s which mean a penetration at 30° and 500m of 392mm
L26 On L30A1 : 1650 m/s which mean a penetration at 30° and 500m of 411 mm
that said my question is simple why on earth L23A1 isn’t affected by this modification knowing that it’s our stock munition on ALL Challenger 2 the correction of this may actually be helpful ?!
The gun alone doesn’t make any difference.
It’s the gun’s ability to use more energetic propellant charges that means it can fire some ammunition natures that achieve higher velocities than previous generation ammunition.
L30 is able to use more energetic charges than L11, but those new charges aren’t necessarily qualified to be used in combination with older shot like L23. The FCS will also only perform correct ballistic calculation with the appropriate charge for each type of shot/shell. If CR2 isn’t programmed to use L23 with a higher energy charge than CR1, it won’t be able to use the new charge
According to the article I have read the modification was for all ammunition in current service while the development of the L30A1 meaning L23A1 was also affected but it seems that you’re pretty much well informed so I thank you for your response !
The L23A1 armor-piercing can be modified to use a combination of the L18A1 cartridge (as an improved version of the L23A1 cartridge used on the L30 tank gun to distinguish it from the L11A5 tank gun)
