Jump to content

Questions on Freeman's Durability

Recommended Posts

So let me get this straight:

 

In Half Life, no soldier should be able to die if they are shot in the armor, ever? Even when using US manufactured assault weapons* and .50 cal guns?

 

*Said weapons being ARs, MP5's, Shotguns, and others?

Share this post


Link to post
So let me get this straight:

 

In Half Life, no soldier should be able to die if they are shot in the armor, ever? Even when using US manufactured assault weapons* and .50 cal guns?

 

*Said weapons being ARs, MP5's, Shotguns, and others?

 

That is NOT what I fucking said, and if you're so STUPID you can't UNDERSTAND what I have ALREADY EXPLAINED AT LENGTH MULTIPLE TIMES, then I am NOT going to bother explaining it again.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert.

Share this post


Link to post
So let me get this straight:

 

In Half Life, no soldier should be able to die if they are shot in the armor, ever? Even when using US manufactured assault weapons* and .50 cal guns?

 

*Said weapons being ARs, MP5's, Shotguns, and others?

 

That is NOT what I fucking said, and if you're so STUPID you can't UNDERSTAND what I have ALREADY EXPLAINED AT LENGTH MULTIPLE TIMES, then I am NOT going to bother explaining it again.

 

I was barely skimming the damn thing, I DIDN'T FUCKIN KNOW!

 

Alright, alright, I'll go look at it when I have time. I can't right now.

Share this post


Link to post
So let me get this straight:

 

In Half Life, no soldier should be able to die if they are shot in the armor, ever? Even when using US manufactured assault weapons* and .50 cal guns?

 

*Said weapons being ARs, MP5's, Shotguns, and others?

 

Well, to give an abridged version of this discussion... they can die against certain weapons. III-A soft armor on its own is highly resistant to 9mm and buckshot, while hard armor (III and IV) is basically immune to it. I already knew that prior to this discussion, I was just surprised by the difference in power between 5.56 and 7.62, as I thought it would only take a few shots from the former to take down an armored soldier, when it's really more like a dozen. With the HD pack, it makes more sense, as the MP5 becomes an M4, and it takes 10-15 bullets to take down a soldier depending on difficulty. That's fairly plausible assuming the soldiers have the level III armor that would be common in the early to mid 2000s, but even still, they die too quickly (though that's a game mechanic thing rather than an armor durability thing).

 

In the context of Freeman's Mind, well, I have a lot of theories attempting to make some sense of how Freeman takes down the soldiers here. Including the HK53 theory, head shots, abdomen shots, just shooting the soldiers a lot (including times where he's technically missing in-game), and the soldiers not having the absolute best armor they can have. But the issue of him taking down soldiers with shotguns when they're clearly hit in the armor, as well as the soldiers just dying too quickly, still stand.

 

The only issues I have with this are:

A: The MP5 is a perfectly sensible weapon for the marines. They are going into CQB, expecting predominately unarmoured targets. They would be using a weapon well-suited for that, and the MP5 is very, very well-suited for that. While them also brining along carbines would make sense, the MP5 present and their primary weapon for the circumstance is entirely logical.

B: The HD pack STILL has the M4 chambered in 9mm. No amount of ignoring this issue will make it go away.

 

A. Oh, I know that, I was saying that the M4 was more sensible since the marines and Freeman actually take damage from it. That still wouldn't explain the pistol and shotgun

B. Again, I just see that as a game mechanic thing, as the weapon is clearly not chambered in 9mm, as shown both by the weapon model and the shells it ejects. The PS2 version doesn't have this error anyway. But again, to each their own, I can see how this would just annoy someone too much.

 

No, the front and back were both covered. Assuming the soldiers actually wore the back plates like they were supposed to. Plenty didn't, which was swiftly corrected after the battle of Mogadishu.

 

That's weird, some of the sources I've read seem to imply that they just didn't have back armor. Such as this one:

 

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/nov27/default27.asp

 

Then again, the source mentions earlier that one of the men took out his back plate, so I guess the guy at the end did the same. Still... pictures like this (http://i47.servimg.com/u/f47/13/87/79/34/captur37.jpg) gave me the impression that they just didn't have back plates initially. Unless they're just complete hogwash, of course.

 

It came with back plates, but the plates were frequently discarded out of lazyness, and ranger armour was not common in the military as a whole. While the battle of Mogadishu was the reasoning behind the decision to up-armour US troops and issue stronger plates. I believe the nickname for that armour was "second chance" because it couldn't reliably stop more than one rifle bullet. (Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't.) The ranger armour failed to function for the soldiers because they were hit multiple times and the plates couldn't handle multiple shots. New plates were later issued that could stop multiple rounds.

 

So the plates used in 1993 were inferior to the ones used later? By how much (e.g. how many 5.56/7.62x39 rounds could they take compared to 2003-era plates)? And were the plates used for the RBA still used at all past 1993, or were they all immediately discarded?

 

It also didn't really provide much protection against shrapnel. It was complete shit, and the reason most veterens from that era firmly believe body armour to be worthless. Kevlar is useless against edged weapons and the thing was overall useless in warfare. The armour itself was NIJ-II, but with the plates originally issued it was III-A. After 1993, new plates were issued for PASGT that brought it up to NIJ-III, but they didn't last under fire any more than the ones the rangers used to have. (I think they may have inherited the old ranger plates, but I could be wrong.)

 

Wait, it was originally issued with plates? What kind of plates? I thought that they just issued the vest and helmet itself for most troops up to 2003, making it II-A/II.

 

So, rifle-proof plates were standard and common for the PASGT in the late 90s and early 2000s? On Google Books, there is a document called "Protection Equipment and Counter Measure Devices: Congressional Hearing". Dated 1999, it states that up to '96, the standard armor of the US military was only meant to protect against fragmentation, and that the military had procured 4,000 ISAPOs for the PASGT armor to be distributed as needed to American forces before the introduction of Interceptor armor. The same information is parroted on various websites.

 

Those plates may have been issued, but they were neither the first nor the largest run of anti-rifle plates for the PASGT vest. I believe you're thinking of the limited run of OTV-style plates that was put out to increase protection until interceptor armour could be issued. I thought that was later than 1996, though I could be wrong.

 

That's probably what I was referring to. Were standard rifle-proof plates deployed before that, and were they closer to the old ranger plates or the Iraq-era plates in quality?

 

I'm again racking my head trying to make sense of some things that shouldn't really have to make sense, but do you think it might be plausible that many of the soldiers in Freeman's Mind (not HL, as they all have the same health and are supposed to be top quality) just weren't wearing rifle-proof plates? That would go with Freeman's comment about the soldiers at Black Mesa being "what's left" after the deployments overseas, anyway...

 

For the most part, that's correct. It also features an actual anti-shrapnel chainmail layer, which the PASGT didn't. The thing is, though, that 7.62 is a large range. Do you maybe mean 7.62x51mm or 7.62x39mm? In the former case you'd be correct, in the latter it would be more and likely as many as half a dozen.

 

Sorry, I was talking about 7.62x39mm, just about the most likely small arms threat the average soldier would be facing in Somalia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. And half a dozen? For standard Interceptor armor? Damn. I was thinking it would take 4. Blunt force trauma wouldn't significantly effect them at all then? What about the enhanced plates in the IOTV, how many hits could they take?

 

The IOTV is nice, but the plating doesn't cover the abdomen or sides, only the kevlar does. And yeah, it's pretty damned awesome.

 

Strange, all the pictures I've seen of it has it with side plates (e.g.http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2013/04/01/1375808_02__body_armor_iotv_with_esapi_es_640.jpg). I guess those aren't designed to stop rifle rounds?

 

1. Doing that kind of damage through impact alone would take a cannon. And not a small cannon, either. The .50 is NOT that powerful, and while the impact would likely break a rib or two and rupture a lung that's all it's going to do and it's highly unlikely such an injury would even be life-threatening. Firearms do NOT work as bludgeoning weapons, they do NOT have the momentum, and the .50 is no different. There's no man-portable firearm with enough power to turn internal organs "into jelly from the pure kinetic energy". The human body is one durable piece of machinery, one especially strong against "pure kinetic energy" and it's certainly not the plasticine figure you seem to be imagining.

2. The number of plates has no bearing, the first plate stopped it and did so in a circumstance where it is MUCH worse off than it would be inside body armour on a soldier's body. (As it's more firmly fixed and can't move away from the impact or shift to change the angle like it would in a vest.) Granted, that's a standalone plate, but NIJ-IV body armour on a soldier's body would outperform a standalone plate sitting against a hard object.

 

So, according to you, a .50 BMG (assuming it's just a normal ol' .50 BMG, not armor piercing) hitting a soldier wearing modern body armor would shatter the plate, but still "only" take the wearer out of combat and significantly wound them, possibly killing them but also possibly letting them live with quick medical attention? I don't DISbelieve that, but... I'd just like a source that shows that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
That's weird, some of the sources I've read seem to imply that they just didn't have back armor. Such as this one:

 

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/nov27/default27.asp

 

Then again, the source mentions earlier that one of the men took out his back plate, so I guess the guy at the end did the same. Still... pictures like this (http://i47.servimg.com/u/f47/13/87/79/34/captur37.jpg) gave me the impression that they just didn't have back plates initially. Unless they're just complete hogwash, of course.

 

I don't know if you know, but inlaid plates have to be accounted for in the design. They couldn't build a vest without them and then suddenly decide to issue them because then there'd be no place to put them.

 

And yeah, I see a source now that says that the back plates the armour was BUILT to have just weren't being issued. Fucking cheap bastards.

 

So the plates used in 1993 were inferior to the ones used later? By how much (e.g. how many 5.56/7.62x39 rounds could they take compared to 2003-era plates)? And were the plates used for the RBA still used at all past 1993, or were they all immediately discarded?

 

I see three questions here.

 

1. This is a little ambiguous. Do you mean for RBA or PASGT? Yes in either case.

2.

A. For the ranger armour? I don't rightly know. They did show that after being hit once with a 7.62x51 it was unable to stop a second one, though. The newer plates stopped the first, second and third shots.

B. For PASGT? The older plates only made it IIIA, and would be penetrated by any rifle. The newer plates post-1993 made it III, and would stop a rifle a grand total of once and wouldn't reliable against a second shot.

C. I don't know. But given the basically identical performance of the older RBA plates and the newer PASGT plates I am inclined to believe they were the same ones or at least the same model, but I'd have to look.

 

Wait, it was originally issued with plates? What kind of plates? I thought that they just issued the vest and helmet itself for most troops up to 2003, making it II-A/II.

 

It was NIJ-II without, but it had spaced for inlaid plates and they issued shitty inlays similar to those of police vests that made it III-A, the exact same level as police vests. This was later traded out for ones suspiciously similar to RBA SAPI plates.

 

So, rifle-proof plates were standard and common for the PASGT in the late 90s and early 2000s? On Google Books, there is a document called "Protection Equipment and Counter Measure Devices: Congressional Hearing". Dated 1999, it states that up to '96, the standard armor of the US military was only meant to protect against fragmentation, and that the military had procured 4,000 ISAPOs for the PASGT armor to be distributed as needed to American forces before the introduction of Interceptor armor. The same information is parroted on various websites.

 

And that's referring to a later run of stronger plates that could actually do the job more than once. Something better than the old SAPI-style plates the PASGT was using up to that point.

 

That's probably what I was referring to. Were standard rifle-proof plates deployed before that, and were they closer to the old ranger plates or the Iraq-era plates in quality?

 

I looked, and they seem to be (as far as I can see) identical to SAPI plates. Which were the old insert plates for RBA before the battle of Mogadishu. Those only stop one bullet reliably, and for further shots it's a total crapshoot.

 

I'm again racking my head trying to make sense of some things that shouldn't really have to make sense, but do you think it might be plausible that many of the soldiers in Freeman's Mind (not HL, as they all have the same health and are supposed to be top quality) just weren't wearing rifle-proof plates? That would go with Freeman's comment about the soldiers at Black Mesa being "what's left" after the deployments overseas, anyway...

 

That's possible. They are VERY stupid, after all. But even after all that, I still find it unlikely Freeman could stop them with the number of shots he's using.

 

Sorry, I was talking about 7.62x39mm, just about the most likely small arms threat the average soldier would be facing in Somalia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. And half a dozen? For standard Interceptor armor? Damn. I was thinking it would take 4. Blunt force trauma wouldn't significantly effect them at all then? What about the enhanced plates in the IOTV, how many hits could they take?

 

Not really. Bullets don't have the mass to function as blunt weapons. They have plenty of energy, but very little momentum. They might cause some minor lung damage, but no more than a hard slap to the chest would do. Repeating that a could times wouldn't change anything, it's not enough.

 

Strange, all the pictures I've seen of it has it with side plates (e.g.http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2013/04/01/1375808_02__body_armor_iotv_with_esapi_es_640.jpg). I guess those aren't designed to stop rifle rounds?

 

I must be getting the IOTV and OTV confused on that one.

 

So, according to you, a .50 BMG (assuming it's just a normal ol' .50 BMG, not armor piercing) hitting a soldier wearing modern body armor would shatter the plate, but still "only" take the wearer out of combat and significantly wound them, possibly killing them but also possibly letting them live with quick medical attention? I don't DISbelieve that, but... I'd just like a source that shows that happening.

 

It's impossible to find a source for something that never happens. Our soldiers aren't being shot at with .50, you know.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if you know, but inlaid plates have to be accounted for in the design. They couldn't build a vest without them and then suddenly decide to issue them because then there'd be no place to put them.

 

And yeah, I see a source now that says that the back plates the armour was BUILT to have just weren't being issued. Fucking cheap bastards.

 

I know, I thought that the original RBA vests weren't designed to hold two plates. Apparently they were, but some troops just wouldn't get back plates.

 

I see three questions here.

 

1. This is a little ambiguous. Do you mean for RBA or PASGT? Yes in either case.

2.

A. For the ranger armour? I don't rightly know. They did show that after being hit once with a 7.62x51 it was unable to stop a second one, though. The newer plates stopped the first, second and third shots.

B. For PASGT? The older plates only made it IIIA, and would be penetrated by any rifle. The newer plates post-1993 made it III, and would stop a rifle a grand total of once and wouldn't reliable against a second shot.

C. I don't know. But given the basically identical performance of the older RBA plates and the newer PASGT plates I am inclined to believe they were the same ones or at least the same model, but I'd have to look.

 

Sorry, I was talking about the RBA.

 

Huh. I guess that'd firmly establish them as a good bit inferior. Were those newer plates the ones used in 2005-ish, or the updated ones used after 2007? And do you have any estimate for how the older plates would hold up to 7.62x39 and 5.56, or is that just impossible to guess without actually seeing a test?

 

Okay, that makes sense. So the armored plates used in rifle-resistant body armor weren't really updated up until 2003, when the standard body armor of the US military was swapped?

 

It was NIJ-II without, but it had spaced for inlaid plates and they issued shitty inlays similar to those of police vests that made it III-A, the exact same level as police vests. This was later traded out for ones suspiciously similar to RBA SAPI plates.

 

Huh... if it was III-A, then why is it remembered as being so lousy?

 

And that's referring to a later run of stronger plates that could actually do the job more than once. Something better than the old SAPI-style plates the PASGT was using up to that point.

 

So, superior the last stock/RBA plates? Alright. Were rifle-proof plates standard for every troop deployed in combat, then, even before the 2003, e.g. in Afghanistan? Did the military have that much?

 

I looked, and they seem to be (as far as I can see) identical to SAPI plates. Which were the old insert plates for RBA before the battle of Mogadishu. Those only stop one bullet reliably, and for further shots it's a total crapshoot

 

I remember reading about a type of hard armor that would only stop one or two rifle shots. I thought it was the IBA, but I guess it must have been the RBA.

 

That's possible. They are VERY stupid, after all. But even after all that, I still find it unlikely Freeman could stop them with the number of shots he's using.

 

Yeah, that's true. Humans tend to keep going on for a while before they keel over and die. But eh, better than nothing. Okay, so HK53 + many of them getting relatively second rate armor + some of them just choosing to not wear plates + abdomen shots + other lucky shots + landing more hits than he technically is in-game. Things make sense!... kinda.

 

It's impossible to find a source for something that never happens. Our soldiers aren't being shot at with .50, you know.

 

I know, I was wondering if anyone had done a test proving that result, or if one person just happened to shoot someone with a .50 BMG weapon in a recent conflict involving body armor.

Share this post


Link to post
I know, I thought that the original RBA vests weren't designed to hold two plates. Apparently they were, but some troops just wouldn't get back plates.

 

The RBA armour didn't change, only the plates did. And several rangers during the battle of Mogadishu that had back plates died because they were discarding them. Before the deployment in Somalia and during the early stages they weren't issued, they started before the battle but some marines didn't take the new plates out with them once they were and got killed in that unexpected clusterfuck. I don't get it. Who decides "Well, they're giving me something to fix my armour's biggest flaw, but nah, I think I'll save a couple pounds."?

 

Sorry, I was talking about the RBA.

 

Huh. I guess that'd firmly establish them as a good bit inferior. Were those newer plates the ones used in 2005-ish, or the updated ones used after 2007? And do you have any estimate for how the older plates would hold up to 7.62x39 and 5.56, or is that just impossible to guess without actually seeing a test?

 

Okay, that makes sense. So the armored plates used in rifle-resistant body armor weren't really updated up until 2003, when the standard body armor of the US military was swapped?

 

Kinda. RBA got updated first to plates equal to the OTV vest's plates in the mid '90s. PASGT got shit plates at least better than their old shittier plates, then a limited run of OTV-style plates that didn't accomplish anythin due to low numbers until the interceptor armour replaced it.

 

And as tired as I am, I could not make a good guess on much of anything right now and I don't care to look up a demonstration like I normally do. Maybe in the morning.

 

Huh... if it was III-A, then why is it remembered as being so lousy?

 

Because III-A is useless against rifles at most ranges and angles, and the "shrapnel protection" really only applied to the plate and nowhere else. It really was heavily underpowered for its purpose.

 

So, superior the last stock/RBA plates? Alright. Were rifle-proof plates standard for every troop deployed in combat, then, even before the 2003, e.g. in Afghanistan? Did the military have that much?

 

If the numbers were 4000, I doubt it.

 

I remember reading about a type of hard armor that would only stop one or two rifle shots. I thought it was the IBA, but I guess it must have been the RBA.

 

Dude, I don't even know right now. I'll check it tomorrow.

 

I know, I was wondering if anyone had done a test proving that result, or if one person just happened to shoot someone with a .50 BMG weapon in a recent conflict involving body armor.

 

Tests proving the armour stops the bullet aren't that hard. I showed one, couldn't find the really good one though, and there's likely more out there. But tests that show how the bullet performs when it hits somebody wearing it don't exist. Nobody is going to do that kind of test. Nobody is willing to stand in front of a .50, and telling them "it's okay, I know it looks like it'll kill you but we think it'll just break a rib and rupture your lung" doesn't help.

 

And no, I have nothing on friendly-fire incidents with .50 bullets where the soldier was only hit once *and* was hit in the chest. Do you realize how unlikely that is?

 

Also, I hate to be so forward, but you checked out the health and damage scores I posted, right? I mean, you asked for them, I want to make sure I didn't put them all up for nothing.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert.

Share this post


Link to post
Kinda. RBA got updated first to plates equal to the OTV vest's plates in the mid '90s. PASGT got shit plates at least better than their old shittier plates, then a limited run of OTV-style plates that didn't accomplish anythin due to low numbers until the interceptor armour replaced it.

 

And as tired as I am, I could not make a good guess on much of anything right now and I don't care to look up a demonstration like I normally do. Maybe in the morning.

 

Wait, the PASGT's plates were less shitty than the old RBA ones? I thought you said they were the same?

 

Waiting for that.

 

If the numbers were 4000, I doubt it.

 

Keep in mind that's only for the ISAPO, and the source where that number comes from is dated 1999. There may have been more produced in preparation for the Aghanistan War, which is why I asked you.

 

Tests proving the armour stops the bullet aren't that hard. I showed one, couldn't find the really good one though, and there's likely more out there. But tests that show how the bullet performs when it hits somebody wearing it don't exist. Nobody is going to do that kind of test. Nobody is willing to stand in front of a .50, and telling them "it's okay, I know it looks like it'll kill you but we think it'll just break a rib and rupture your lung" doesn't help.

 

Because III-A is useless against rifles at most ranges and angles, and the "shrapnel protection" really only applied to the plate and nowhere else. It really was heavily underpowered for its purpose.

 

Well of course soft armor won't stop a rifle (discounting extreme circumstances). I was more wondering why it was so underpowered against shrapnel. Also, do you have any images of the plate that made the armor III-A, or text mentioning its existence? I've never heard of it.

 

And no, I have nothing on friendly-fire incidents with .50 bullets where the soldier was only hit once *and* was hit in the chest. Do you realize how unlikely that is?

 

Of course not, but you can assess damage like that in other ways than making a person get shot.

 

Yep, but unlikely thing happens all the time. I was basically wondering if just once in the entire history of modern warfare, someone wearing level IV hard armor got hit in the chest with a non-armor piercing .50 BMG round and lived after being incapacitated with only significant wounds.

 

Also, I hate to be so forward, but you checked out the health and damage scores I posted, right? I mean, you asked for them, I want to make sure I didn't put them all up for nothing.

 

I did. I'll probably have something to say about them tomorrow. It might devolve into more talk about body armor :lol: I'll post some thoughts in the relevant thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Wait, the PASGT's plates were less shitty than the old RBA ones? I thought you said they were the same?

 

I meant they were less shitty than the older PASGT plates.

 

Keep in mind that's only for the ISAPO, and the source where that number comes from is dated 1999. There may have been more produced in preparation for the Aghanistan War, which is why I asked you.

 

There's a 7-year gap in my knowledge. It's 1996-2003. I looked into the years before because of Somalia and the first Iraq war. After because of the second Iraq war and our involvement afterwards in Afghanistan. Don't bother asking me what happened in 1996-2003 with body armour. I'd have to look it up, and have been looking it up, and you can do the same yourself.

 

Well of course soft armor won't stop a rifle (discounting extreme circumstances). I was more wondering why it was so underpowered against shrapnel.

 

Because kevlar is soft, and provides negligible resistance to sharp objects. They cut it with scissors, dude. And not big industrial scissors either, regular ones.

 

Also, do you have any images of the plate that made the armor III-A, or text mentioning its existence? I've never heard of it.

 

Funny thing, I looked into it, and the armour was somehow III-A on its own. The source that said it had CFRP plates was full of shit. Or maybe the new source is. For the record, the only modern armours I've ever worn myself were civilian-issue, except for once each RBA and OTV. So those are the (modern) armours I know the most about. I get ALL my information on armours other than civilian, historical, RBA and OTV from online sources. Online sources you could find yourself if you looked, you know. Hate to hammer that in, but this discussion is wearing on me. I am not an expert, I am a hobbyist, and I divide my attention amongst all things martial past and present. You can likely get all the information I can at any point.

 

I did. I'll probably have something to say about them tomorrow. It might devolve into more talk about body armor :lol: I'll post some thoughts in the relevant thread.

 

That'd be best.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert.

Share this post


Link to post
There's a 7-year gap in my knowledge. It's 1996-2003. I looked into the years before because of Somalia and the first Iraq war. After because of the second Iraq war and our involvement afterwards in Afghanistan. Don't bother asking me what happened in 1996-2003 with body armour. I'd have to look it up, and have been looking it up, and you can do the same yourself.

 

Typically, I do look these things up- it's just when you make a claim on something I've never heard or found no information on (like the RBA plates being inferior to later ones or .50 BMG being survivable) that I have to ask for a source.

 

Funny thing, I looked into it, and the armour was somehow III-A on its own. The source that said it had CFRP plates was full of shit. Or maybe the new source is. For the record, the only modern armours I've ever worn myself were civilian-issue, except for once each RBA and OTV. So those are the (modern) armours I know the most about. I get ALL my information on armours other than civilian, historical, RBA and OTV from online sources. Online sources you could find yourself if you looked, you know. Hate to hammer that in, but this discussion is wearing on me. I am not an expert, I am a hobbyist, and I divide my attention amongst all things martial past and present. You can likely get all the information I can at any point.

 

III-A on its own? That doesn't sound right, at least not going by the sources I've seen, including testing videos like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq6LOvTaMyU

Share this post


Link to post
III-A on its own? That doesn't sound right, at least not going by the sources I've seen, including testing videos like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq6LOvTaMyU

 

III-A yes, according to the military. And your test video specifies it was a heavily used vest tested, and gets II-A and II totally ass-backwards. Here's an actual test of an unused vest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8cQV51ZK8A

 

And why yes, it's a III-A. The guys testing it were mystified when it stopped a 12-gauge slug.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert.

Share this post


Link to post
III-A on its own? That doesn't sound right, at least not going by the sources I've seen, including testing videos like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq6LOvTaMyU

 

III-A yes, according to the military. And your test video specifies it was a heavily used vest tested, and gets II-A and II totally ass-backwards. Here's an actual test of an unused vest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8cQV51ZK8A

 

And why yes, it's a III-A. The guys testing it were mystified when it stopped a 12-gauge slug.

 

I've seen that test before (it's the first result that comes up when you search "PASGT test"), and that other video wasn't the only other test I've seen. But pretty much every test I've seen ends with the tester rating that armor as II-A or II. I'm not sure I've ever seen it rated III-A. It was supposed to be crap compared to the IBA vest, which was III-A, but maybe that has something to do with the increased shrapnel protection. That video was pretty impressive compared to the other showings I've seen, especially considering how damaged it already was, but the blunt force trauma looks like it'd be significant.

 

Okay, last question in this thread: if you had to give an estimate, how many pistol bullets (let's say standard 9mm NATO) would you say the PASGT would be able to stop at say 10-15 meters? How many shots before the wearer is significantly injured?

Share this post


Link to post
Okay, last question in this thread: if you had to give an estimate, how many pistol bullets (let's say standard 9mm NATO) would you say the PASGT would be able to stop at say 10-15 meters? How many shots before the wearer is significantly injured?

 

That is a question that can't be answered. It's a kevlar vest. If the shots are real close it might only be two or three. It they're all over it might be dozens.

 

And for the record, III-A requires stopping a .357 Sig and a .44 magnum. Not that hard. That 12-gauge slug is harder to stop than both of those combined. If it stopped a 12-gauge slug, it's a III-A.

 

Let me explain what's different between this test and others. This vest they are testing is fairly new. It is not old, or worn, or damaged. And that REALLY matters in armour, especially in a PASGT vest. Most PASGT vests on the civilian market are used, so most tests of them are on used vests. Kevlar deteriorates very quickly, especially in sunlight as it is damaged by ultraviolet radiation. After being used on tour and then put up on the civilian market, it absolutely will be a lot weaker. Especially with a PASGT vest. PASGT was the first military armour made of kevlar. They didn't know jack shit about how to treat kevlar then. The kind of kevlar used had a very low resistance to UV damage, and the outer fabric provided almost no UV protection. PASGT vests were then taken out to the middle of the desert where the sun bore down on them at all times and deteriorated. Then these deteriorated vests were taken and sold on the civilian market when they were phased out. That's where the testing vids come from, old and deteriorated PASGT vests. I just showed you an unused, fairly fresh vest and what it'll do.

 

The PASGT vest isn't shitty because it doesn't work as a bulletproof vest. It's shitty because it wasn't built properly for what it was used for. It wasn't designed to stop rifles, the military didn't understand kevlar couldn't stop shrapnel, and took this vest that already couldn't do the job it needed to or the job it was meant to and put it in an environment that absolutely destroys it. If they just wanted a vest to stop pistol fire then they'd just need to replace it often and it would have been fine, but they needed a vest that could defend against rifles and shrapnel and survive in a desert, and that is why the PASGT vest had to go.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert.

Share this post


Link to post
Okay, last question in this thread: if you had to give an estimate, how many pistol bullets (let's say standard 9mm NATO) would you say the PASGT would be able to stop at say 10-15 meters? How many shots before the wearer is significantly injured?

 

That is a question that can't be answered. It's a kevlar vest. If the shots are real close it might only be two or three. It they're all over it might be dozens.

 

And for the record, III-A requires stopping a .357 Sig and a .44 magnum. Not that hard. That 12-gauge slug is harder to stop than both of those combined. If it stopped a 12-gauge slug, it's a III-A.

 

Let me explain what's different between this test and others. This vest they are testing is fairly new. It is not old, or worn, or damaged. And that REALLY matters in armour, especially in a PASGT vest. Most PASGT vests on the civilian market are used, so most tests of them are on used vests. Kevlar deteriorates very quickly, especially in sunlight as it is damaged by ultraviolet radiation. After being used on tour and then put up on the civilian market, it absolutely will be a lot weaker. Especially with a PASGT vest. PASGT was the first military armour made of kevlar. They didn't know jack shit about how to treat kevlar then. The kind of kevlar used had a very low resistance to UV damage, and the outer fabric provided almost no UV protection. PASGT vests were then taken out to the middle of the desert where the sun bore down on them at all times and deteriorated. Then these deteriorated vests were taken and sold on the civilian market when they were phased out. That's where the testing vids come from, old and deteriorated PASGT vests. I just showed you an unused, fairly fresh vest and what it'll do.

 

The PASGT vest isn't shitty because it doesn't work as a bulletproof vest. It's shitty because it wasn't built properly for what it was used for. It wasn't designed to stop rifles, the military didn't understand kevlar couldn't stop shrapnel, and took this vest that already couldn't do the job it needed to or the job it was meant to and put it in an environment that absolutely destroys it. If they just wanted a vest to stop pistol fire then they'd just need to replace it often and it would have been fine, but they needed a vest that could defend against rifles and shrapnel and survive in a desert, and that is why the PASGT vest had to go.

 

If multiple shots are placed around the vest, it can take a while to break, but the blunt force trauma should have an effect long before that, yes?

 

I see.

 

Well, alternate theory to the HK53 one: that really is an MP5. However, due to the unit deployed to Black Mesa being "what's left", and it only being... let's say 2002, they're using PASGT vests and helmets, and requisition issues and lack of stock (the units in Afghanistan would probably take top priority) mean a lot (let's say half) of the troops don't get the rifle-proof plates (that's not super out there, right? After all, many troops in Mogadishu didn't get back plates when they were fully expected to engage in combat, and many of the ones who did still only wore front plates). They're not viewed as priority anyway, as any potential Black Mesa clean-up operation is not only unlikely, but from the government's point of view will likely involve only cleaning up wildlife and the occasional stranded Xenian soldier, rather than a full-on invasion by troops hard armor might help against.

 

Of those that do have plates, many more (let's say half) have just chosen not to wear them to save on weight, both because they weren't expecting much resistance where they were, and because they're dumb (although, technically not unrealistically dumb). The last quarter do in fact wear the plates. However, these tend to be the ones who Freeman manages to hit in the face (we see him do that tons of times, or at least see blood puffs come from the head area, and in many more cases we don't see the bullet impacts and can assume that to be the case). The others are either killed or incapacitated by multiple 9mm NATO rounds to their armor, with many more likely impacting unarmored parts like the legs ("Freeman's actually hitting guys he's technically missing in-game at long range" can also come into play here). From the tests I've seen, it only takes a couple of shots to the same general area for a 9mm to break the vest, and the PASGT doesn't protect against blunt force trauma as well it could anyway.

 

The plate-wearers get shot in the head. About 3/4 of the troops are just wearing soft armor and get killed/incapacitated by a handful of 9mm NATO shots each*. Buckshot killing the soldiers still makes no sense. 9mm and buckshot have no effect on Freeman's armor. 7.62x51, likely what the snipers are using, can dent the armor and leave welts on Freeman through it, and could probably get through it if they shot him enough times. The .50 BMG machine guns that Gordon is cautious of (and Ross seems to think can kill him) can shatter his armor and significantly wound him with one hit, taking him out of the fight and bringing him pretty close to death, and surely kill him with anything more. And, of course, autocannons (like the one used by the Bradley) can "turn [him] into red paste".

 

*I've counted, and it only takes three shots in FM to kill a soldier, but he typically keeps shooting them after the game registers them as 'dead', so we can assume that in this universe at least the soldiers usually take more than three shots, but not much more.

 

Does any of that sound remotely plausible?

 

In either case, I'll soon post some comments on your mod's thread. I just re-installed Black Mesa, so my interest in it has been further piqued.

Share this post


Link to post

There is also the low likelihood that the MP5s are using AP ammo, or moderate likelihood of +P+ ammo, which can defeat most class II-A, and some class II armor if it's more than 2 years old.

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Don't the soldiers use the same kind of HEV-derives armour that Shepard uses in Opposing Force, or is Shepard a special case?

 

Shepherd's probably a special case. The default soldier model seems to wear a different vest than the one Shepherd wears, and he has four times their hit points at full charge.

 

There is also the low likelihood that the MP5s are using AP ammo, or moderate likelihood of +P+ ammo, which can defeat most class II-A, and some class II armor if it's more than 2 years old.

 

The US military doesn't use 9mm AP. The standard is 9mm NATO, which as far as I know can get through a PASGT with a few hits in the same general area, or maybe take down the wearer with multiple hits all over the body.

Share this post


Link to post
If multiple shots are placed around the vest, it can take a while to break, but the blunt force trauma should have an effect long before that, yes?

 

Effect, yes. Serious effect, no. Bullets that don't get through armour really are like a much nastier version of paintball. A 9mm that doesn't penetrate armour won't cause a serious injury. Repeating it won't make that much better. Asking how many it would take is like asking how many times somebody could stand being slapped. It's not a consistent number at all, really depends on the person, and when adrenaline comes into the picture it increases dramatically. The number of shots it would take to kill somebody with these wounds, a much lower bar than immediate incapacitation, is many times higher than the armour can actually stop. It really does just come down to when the armour gives out.

 

I see.

 

Well, alternate theory to the HK53 one: that really is an MP5. However, due to the unit deployed to Black Mesa being "what's left", and it only being... let's say 2002, they're using PASGT vests and helmets, and requisition issues and lack of stock (the units in Afghanistan would probably take top priority) mean a lot (let's say half) of the troops don't get the rifle-proof plates (that's not super out there, right? After all, many troops in Mogadishu didn't get back plates when they were fully expected to engage in combat, and many of the ones who did still only wore front plates). They're not viewed as priority anyway, as any potential Black Mesa clean-up operation is not only unlikely, but from the government's point of view will likely involve only cleaning up wildlife and the occasional stranded Xenian soldier, rather than a full-on invasion by troops hard armor might help against.

 

Of those that do have plates, many more (let's say half) have just chosen not to wear them to save on weight, both because they weren't expecting much resistance where they were, and because they're dumb (although, technically not unrealistically dumb). The last quarter do in fact wear the plates. However, these tend to be the ones who Freeman manages to hit in the face (we see him do that tons of times, or at least see blood puffs come from the head area, and in many more cases we don't see the bullet impacts and can assume that to be the case). The others are either killed or incapacitated by multiple 9mm NATO rounds to their armor, with many more likely impacting unarmored parts like the legs ("Freeman's actually hitting guys he's technically missing in-game at long range" can also come into play here). From the tests I've seen, it only takes a couple of shots to the same general area for a 9mm to break the vest, and the PASGT doesn't protect against blunt force trauma as well it could anyway.

 

The plate-wearers get shot in the head. About 3/4 of the troops are just wearing soft armor and get killed/incapacitated by a handful of 9mm NATO shots each*. Buckshot killing the soldiers still makes no sense. 9mm and buckshot have no effect on Freeman's armor. 7.62x51, likely what the snipers are using, can dent the armor and leave welts on Freeman through it, and could probably get through it if they shot him enough times. The .50 BMG machine guns that Gordon is cautious of (and Ross seems to think can kill him) can shatter his armor and significantly wound him with one hit, taking him out of the fight and bringing him pretty close to death, and surely kill him with anything more. And, of course, autocannons (like the one used by the Bradley) can "turn [him] into red paste".

 

*I've counted, and it only takes three shots in FM to kill a soldier, but he typically keeps shooting them after the game registers them as 'dead', so we can assume that in this universe at least the soldiers usually take more than three shots, but not much more.

 

Does any of that sound remotely plausible?

 

More plausible than the HK53 theory, but that would be assuming Half-Life is in 2002 and that seems unlikely. And there being few soldiers left in 2002 is even more unlikely. It seems much more likely this is occurring later, especially if the soldiers really are that bad, since in 2002 we'd have plenty of GOOD soldiers out and available. In 2004 or 2005, this theory would make more since because of the Iraq war, and them wearing PASGT would still be plausible because it did see use by military reserve units for a while.

 

However, the big flaws here are that bullets that don't penetrate somebody's armour do very little and the armour would give out before they were seriously impaired, ISAPO was out in the 2000s and they would have plates on, and the armour they wear is clearly too thick and bulky to be PASGT anyway. Not to mention that a special forces unit would have better armour, and HECU is supposed to be special forces.

 

In either case, I'll soon post some comments on your mod's thread. I just re-installed Black Mesa, so my interest in it has been further piqued.

 

Alright then. But I'm out in the sticks so don't expect a rapid response.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert.

Share this post


Link to post
There is also the low likelihood that the MP5s are using AP ammo, or moderate likelihood of +P+ ammo, which can defeat most class II-A, and some class II armor if it's more than 2 years old.

 

The US military doesn't use 9mm AP. The standard is 9mm NATO, which as far as I know can get through a PASGT with a few hits in the same general area, or maybe take down the wearer with multiple hits all over the body.

You haven't ever talked to a special forces group have you... They use whatever the hell they want for weapons and ammo, regardless of what they're issued. They even have been known to use modified AK47's when they need something that absolutely will not ever fail on them. Grabbing some 9mm AP rounds wouldn't be entirely out of character for them provided they knew they were going against armor. (which they didn't, which is why I said that it was very unlikely, though they can get through class III-A armor without too much trouble)

 

The +P+ rounds however are very likely, since the standard round is already a +P, and most special divisions try to go a little above the standard when it comes to ammo and weapons. (and +P+ can defeat class II-A, and old class II armor)

Edited by Guest (see edit history)

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
You haven't ever talked to a special forces group have you... They use whatever the hell they want for weapons and ammo, regardless of what they're issued. They even have been known to use modified AK47's when they need something that absolutely will not ever fail on them. Grabbing some 9mm AP rounds wouldn't be entirely out of character for them provided they knew they were going against armor. (which they didn't, which is why I said that it was very unlikely, though they can get through class III armor without too much trouble)

 

III-A, maybe. III, no.

 

Otherwise, you are surprisingly correct on the rest of this.

 

The +P+ rounds however are very likely, since the standard round is already a +P, and most special divisions try to go a little above the standard when it comes to ammo and weapons. (and +P+ can defeat class II, and old class II-A armor)

 

I think you mean III-A, not II-A. Because II-A is weaker than II by rather a lot.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 63 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.