NCR Ranger Armor and Pelit scans

[Mutoes]

Not a big fan of the looks of the armor to be honest, i do dig the moustasche.


Edit: that groin protection looks inadequate

 

[cronicler]

The image needs to be (don't know the specific term, reversed? or mirror imaged?) for the knife on wrong shoulder. (Or the guy is a lefty).

The knife needs to be turned around too for a down draw. Still shoulder holstered knifes are not really useful. Then again if the guy only has a pistol, then it wouldn't be much of a problem.

As padded outdoor gear, the whole thing is not too bad but as an armor, it is barely adequate (Kidneys, Neck, Back, Sides, No Kilt)


Also SuAside; I am probably a bit off as I don't know the force imparted by a 5.56 or 7.62 but an EOD Helmet is supposed to be ok up to 2200 (This number I do remember well) kjoules (I think. not sure) and The helmet is supposed to be the weakest part of the EOD armor (Not that it makes it any more mobile but you can attach chickenplates to the whole thing) Technichally the armor (even the helmet) is supposed to be able to stop intermediate (Assault Rifle) cliber bullets

 

[Beelzebud]

neck protection would be nice too, but that would be a bit picky

Why stop now? You're already at 'a bit picky'.

 

[Tagaziel]

You'll remember that the original Fallouts had none of these flaws for armor that was produced before the nuclear holocaust. The only questionable armor in the game was made post-apoc, and it's no friggin' doubt then that any armor is better than none in a post-apoc environment.

No, not really. I've elaborated on this below.

The original Fallout's armour had all of these flaws and more. The glorified combat armour had very limited armour coverage and the lower torso and legs were practically totally exposed, down to and including the knees.

This armor is however overcomplicated and fairly advanced. It looks like something that was made before the war, or at least produced in facilities that were capable of near BoS level of tech production.

I disagree, obviously. This armor does NOT look like armor they made or pieced together from "stuff they could get their hands on", therefore it is either pre-war or produced post-war in a highly industrialised setting.

NCR is the biggest state on the West Coast. It has a large industrial capacity, evident by the fact that Shady Sands was expanded by 2242 to include it's own power plant, forcefield emitters, proper roads, buildings and computer network.

That said, one of the previews mentioned that the Rangers use armour based on pre-War LAPD riot gear. Police gear (as mentioned by Fo1 manual) includes the original combat armour. Thus, this armour is a design based on the original combat armour, except with better armour coverage and adapted for desert environments.

*sigh*

Not the point. it's too neat and dandy. Besides, actually tying it would be more secure & less complex...

Clearly, the biggest state in the wastes has no washing machines whatsoever and its citizens are totally unable to wash clothing. Dirty hippies.

Also, it's tucked under the shoulder pads. It's less complex than tying it and allows much easier access. Sure, it's less secure, but easier to grab.

Never actually shouldered and fired a rifle, have you? The knife would be in the way, no friggin' doubt about that.

And you have years of military experience on the other hand.

Doesn't meet any of my requirements?

Yes.

1) covers the back

You're making shit up. Either PROVE that it covers the back by finding the original model used to render the sprite or don't claim it does, because the back is covered by a backpack and you can't see what's underneath it.

2) covers the sides (and have bonus armor on the arms too btw)

Hahaha.

No.

The only thing protected by armour are the forearms. There is nothing on the model or the inventory icon suggesting it has side plates (hell, the entire armour is basically armour plates sewn onto a vest.

3) doesn't protect the groin, but i didn't say it should. (i said if you try, then do it good, not half-arsed)

The original one doesn't either, it has a massive crotch bulge in that place. Oh, but look!

Groin protection and thigh pads! It's actually superior coverage to the Fallout 1/2 armour.

4) neck protection was optional

Same for Fo1 armour.

I don't quite see how this "doesn't meet any of my requirements". While true it has a somewhat stupid gap near the bellybutton, that could be explained with increased flexibility to prevent hampering agility too much.

Wow. You're willing to excuse the armour in Fallout 1/2 by making up a flimsy excuse, yet you trash Obsidian's design, which has better coverage than Fo1/2 armour (actually, any post-Fo3 CA has better coverage than the original).

There's no reason to assume that combat armor wouldn't do just as well...

Sure. With it's minimal armour coverage there's plenty of breathing space for the skin. Especially once you get ventilated.

Leaving out armor on the back near one of our most fragile areas is plain retarded, and not covering the flanks with at least a thin layer of kevlar or something similar is retarded. Plenty of ways to ventilate that area tbfh.

And, again, you have no proof that Fo1 armour covers those areas, yet you're making stuff up just to trash Obsidian. Why?

Combat armor was made before the fall and hardly suffers from your objections.

As I just proved, your praise of the original combat armour is unfounded and baseless. It's little more than a glorified T-shirt with armour plates on it, yet you treat it as some kind of reference point for the rest of Fallout armour.

Hint: it's not.

Leather armor is basically an old american football armor style... Quite effective against blunt trauma and might stop some bladed weapons.

They sure didn't care about players, if that armour's all they got in motorcycle football.[/img]

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I always assumed all of the gray on the old combat armor was either metal armor or a fabric armor like kevlar, which would mean that his entire upper body is well protected. It certainly would provide more protection than a shirt. The pants look leather, so they don't provide any protection from bullets but the bulges look like pads or some sort of armor so maybe there is some real protection there (most likely hardened leather?). It's hard to really tell on the tiny 8bit sprites but I'm with SuAside that it seems to provide more protection.

I'd also say that due to the size of the 8bit sprites, it's all rather irrelevant as it wasn't clear to make out and I've commonly read it referred to as an abstraction to a certain level. It also fails to excuse stupid design in new models. The back clearly needs more protection, it makes no functional sense to leave it as open as they did but I'm sure the modeler or concept artist thought it looked cool.

Still, I think arguing that everything needs to be perfectly function is ridiculous, especially in Fallout with it's Mad Max inspired armors. That said, if you're going to go for aesthetics over function then really go for it (like Mad Max), I hardly see this as going for something particularly stylized. Still, I like it, I'd like it better with a few small tweaks (no spikes, more back protection) but it looks a hell of a lot better than Fallout 3's combat armor.

 

[Tagaziel]

I always assumed all of the gray on the old combat armor was either metal armor or a fabric armor like kevlar, which would mean that his entire upper body is well protected. It certainly would provide more protection than a shirt. The pants look leather, so they don't provide any protection from bullets but the bulges look like pads or some sort of armor so maybe there is some real protection there (most likely hardened leather?). It's hard to really tell on the tiny 8bit sprites but I'm with SuAside that it seems to provide more protection.

Who says the Ranger armour doesn't have kevlar-type fabric woven into it? Since you're willing to excuse the gray upper-body jacket the plates are attached to as kevlar, then have equal standards and do the same for the Ranger armour. Which has the same colour difference as the original CA. BTW.

I'd also say that due to the size of the 8bit sprites, it's all rather irrelevant as it wasn't clear to make out and I've commonly read it referred to as an abstraction to a certain level.

It's not. Fallout sprites are based on a highly detailed 3D model, so everything that's on the sprite was included in the model. The sprite doesn't have any pads below the waist, save for the greaves, so it doesn't have any protection below.

It also fails to excuse stupid design in new models. The back clearly needs more protection, it makes no functional sense to leave it as open as they did but I'm sure the modeler or concept artist thought it looked cool.

Not really. It's more of a case of working with pre-existing models.

 

[Beelzebud]

This is the problem with nostalgia. This is why I remember NES games looking much better than they really are.

The fact is that Fallout 1 and 2 are not absolutely perfect in every detail, so it's pointless to try to herald them as some sort of flawless games.

When New Vegas comes out, and the game sucks, I'll complain about it. Nitpicking over 1 piece of concept art is pointless.

 

[Alphadrop]

No one ever said Fallout 1 and 2 were perfect in every detail.

Heck I knew that F1 combat armour wasn't very realistic but it is still my favourite armour because it looks really cool.

 

[Morbus]

Yeah, it's green and has a tinted visor. You can't get cooler than that. IIRC, FOE had the Talon Squad armor, but it wasn't as cool.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Who says the Ranger armour doesn't have kevlar-type fabric woven into it? Since you're willing to excuse the gray upper-body jacket the plates are attached to as kevlar, then have equal standards and do the same for the Ranger armour.

Compare the rigid gray material in the inventory image for combat armor to the flowy material in the new model.

It's not. Fallout sprites are based on a highly detailed 3D model, so everything that's on the sprite was included in the model. The sprite doesn't have any pads below the waist, save for the greaves, so it doesn't have any protection below.

Given that you were asking for the original model, I assume you haven't seen it so the point remains, the detail level in the 8bit sprite is low.

Not really. It's more of a case of working with pre-existing models.

Do you really think that they based this design on the original model for the old combat armor? It looks different enough and it's been long enough that I'm highly skeptical.

 

[SuAside]

But from all european nations Germany has still the bigest tank force in action if I remember correctly (much smaller compared to the cold war time though).

Except tanks are ridiculously expensive and ridiculously useless for European countries. Or at least underemployed for the budget spent.

This isn't meant as a critique btw, just an observation. Tanks were meant to stall the evil communists, but it doesn't really look like the communists are up to much lately.

Also SuAside; I am probably a bit off as I don't know the force imparted by a 5.56 or 7.62 but an EOD Helmet is supposed to be ok up to 2200 (This number I do remember well) kjoules (I think. not sure) and The helmet is supposed to be the weakest part of the EOD armor (Not that it makes it any more mobile but you can attach chickenplates to the whole thing) Technichally the armor (even the helmet) is supposed to be able to stop intermediate (Assault Rifle) cliber bullets

Except that the measurement you used doesn't really mean anything without a proper context.

I'm sure it'll stop a football lobbed at it with a total of 2200kJ strength/power. But an armor piercing bullet at the same power? Doubt it.

kJ doesn't say anything about the surface it is hitting. Imagine a dagger and a hammer. smack the hammer down lightly on a fairly thick wooden table. Smack the dagger with the same power onto the table. The hammer will do little, but the dagger point will penetrate lightly. Yet, they both went down with equal impact force.

Anyhow, I'm not saying it's not possible it'll stop a rifle round, just saying it's not designed to. Maybe the americans designed theirs to do so nowadays because too many EOD guys got sniped (as if disarming bombs aint dangerous enough). I'm not an expert on american EOD gear, so I can make only educated guesses based on similar european gear.

That said, one of the previews mentioned that the Rangers use armour based on pre-War LAPD riot gear. Police gear (as mentioned by Fo1 manual) includes the original combat armour. Thus, this armour is a design based on the original combat armour, except with better armour coverage and adapted for desert environments.

Better coverage? Wtf are you smoking? It specifically neglects key areas of the torso, which as you might not know is the primary area you take aim at. Sure people get hit in the legs plenty, but those are usually a lot less life threathening than torso shots...

And you have years of military experience on the other hand.

*sigh* Don't talk about it, but yes, I volunteered. Belgian army reserves, eventually washed out as a butter bar for medical reasons. (combination of a badly busted knee & a light scoliosis)
No, I never killed anyone and no, I never got shot, obviously...

But that's pointless, my primary source of experience is from being an active sport shooter and having half a functional brain. Plenty of first & second hand experience. Which is better than you can say, furby.

*snip*

Don't have time to draw you a friggin' crayon, but notice how below the chest area there are plates in the inventory picture? Yeah, that's thinner, but still hard armor. Better than a floppy white long sleeved T-shirt.

The original one doesn't either, it has a massive crotch bulge in that place.

And where did I fucking claim it did? Seriously, I tire of your ranting. Do you even bother to read what I said, or do you just go on using what you thought I said and went down the trolling path because you've got nothing better to do?

And no, the FO3 armor is NOT FUCKING RELEVANT to this discussion in any way. Stop trying to drag stuff into this that has no bearing on the discussion at all.

As for the bulge, that couldn't be a protective cup at all, right? Anyhow, I cannot be sure of that so I never claimed it was...

Wow. You're willing to excuse the armour in Fallout 1/2 by making up a flimsy excuse, yet you trash Obsidian's design, which has better coverage than Fo1/2 armour (actually, any post-Fo3 CA has better coverage than the original).

The ranger stuff doesn't have better coverage where it counts... Get over it.

Sure. With it's minimal armour coverage there's plenty of breathing space for the skin. Especially once you get ventilated.

Hard (ceramic plates) vs Soft (kevlar) armor, bro. Deal with it, the ranger armor looks like there's a bloody cotton T-shirt instead of soft armor.

As I just proved, your praise of the original combat armour is unfounded and baseless. It's little more than a glorified T-shirt with armour plates on it, yet you treat it as some kind of reference point for the rest of Fallout armour.

lol, fuck off. You proved even less than I did.

 

[Tagaziel]

Compare the rigid gray material in the inventory image for combat armor to the flowy material in the new model.

It's not rigid. The character in-game has no problem doing everything from minigun handling, through running, to punching kids in the groin.

Given that you were asking for the original model, I assume you haven't seen it so the point remains, the detail level in the 8bit sprite is low.

It's still enough to identify the details I'm referring to.

The model was used in Fallout 1's intro and I sure as hell didn't see any armoured plates beyond what we get on the sprite.

Do you really think that they based this design on the original model for the old combat armor? It looks different enough and it's been long enough that I'm highly skeptical.

Yes they did. The arrangement of puches, the lone plate at the base of the neck, general appearance of pads and breastplate, thigh pads all indicate that it's based on the FO3 CA.

Better coverage? Wtf are you smoking? It specifically neglects key areas of the torso, which as you might not know is the primary area you take aim at. Sure people get hit in the legs plenty, but those are usually a lot less life threathening than torso shots...

I've supplied the necessary material. The original Combat Armour doesn't extend past the ribcage, leaving the abdomen exposed, in addition to not having any protection for thighs, groin, knees and feet.

The Fo3 armour does leave the abdomen exposed too, but covers other areas mentioned above.

Thus, better armour coverage. This is a fact - more areas of the body covered equal better coverage.

*sigh* Don't talk about it, but yes, I volunteered. Belgian army reserves, eventually washed out as a butter bar for medical reasons. (combination of a badly busted knee & a light scoliosis)
No, I never killed anyone and no, I never got shot, obviously...

But that's pointless, my primary source of experience is from being an active sport shooter and having half a functional brain. Plenty of first & second hand experience. Which is better than you can say, furby.

I concede.

Don't have time to draw you a friggin' crayon, but notice how below the chest area there are plates in the inventory picture? Yeah, that's thinner, but still hard armor. Better than a floppy white long sleeved T-shirt.

If you haven't noticed, they don't extend beyond the ribcage (unless you're a midget). It's even more apparent in Fallout D20 material (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/File:Combat_armor.JPG).

And where did I fucking claim it did? Seriously, I tire of your ranting. Do you even bother to read what I said, or do you just go on using what you thought I said and went down the trolling path because you've got nothing better to do?

You said "not do it half-arsed". I proved it wasn't done half-arsed in Fo3.

And no, the FO3 armor is NOT FUCKING RELEVANT to this discussion in any way. Stop trying to drag stuff into this that has no bearing on the discussion at all.

Given that we're discussing a family of body armour from the same universe, yes, it's very much relevant.

As for the bulge, that couldn't be a protective cup at all, right? Anyhow, I cannot be sure of that so I never claimed it was..

Occam's Razor.

The ranger stuff doesn't have better coverage where it counts... Get over it.

Neither does the original combat armour, which you seem to hold in so high a regard.

Hard (ceramic plates) vs Soft (kevlar) armor, bro. Deal with it, the ranger armor looks like there's a bloody cotton T-shirt instead of soft armor.

On the ribcage and shoulders? Maybe.

Everywhere else? The original armour pretty much leaves you with no chance.

lol, fuck off. You proved even less than I did.

I've supplied at least some reference. You did not.

Do the math.

 

[.Pixote.]

The latest in Post-Apocalyptic fashion. Coming soon to a game near you. Love the glasses…keeps the sand out... Who needs armor when you look so cool with the new trendy threads of the wasteland…WTF. Buy one get one free.

http://www.apocalypticpost.com

 

[Viliny]

You would think that the abdomen which can leads to the most drawn out painfull deaths would be properly armoured...

The inventory pic of the combat armour does not show the sides, seems plausible to think that there might be some light shielding on the sides?

But keeping it concise: None of the armours presented here offer enough protection that i would be going in a firefight with them and expecting to survive a hit.

 

[SuAside]

Tagaziel, take out a bloody ruler, measure the width and height of the inventory picture. You'll see the 'hard armor' of the combat armor runs to the waist line & just below.
Yes, the pants isn't obviously armored and is unlikely to even contain decent padding from kevlar, but that was never claimed.

And no, the other FO3 combat armor has nothing to do with the discussion, since we're talking exclusively about ranger armor and FO1/FO2 combat armor.

I won't reply to you in quotes one by one, wasted enough time already. I'll quote this however:

This is a fact - more areas of the body covered equal better coverage.

Talk to an actual soldier. Try Carib when he's online for instance. See what he thinks. I'm fairly sure they'll all go for the covered abdomen & kidneys, rather than upper leg protection...

 

[Continuum]

http://www.apocalypticpost.com

Thanks. There's one cool winter-ish illustration.

 

[Beelzebud]

One piece of context missing from this discussion. Fallout was never a realistic simulator of combat. Arguing over how much coverage the combat armor has is laughable, IMO.

 

[Santoka]

Tagaziel, take out a bloody ruler, measure the width and height of the inventory picture. You'll see the 'hard armor' of the combat armor runs to the waist line & just below.

I don't wanna get in the middle of the argument, but the inventory pic and game sprite obviously show that the armor covers only the torso/ribcage. It's basically just a hard football/hockey armor.

 

[Tagaziel]

Tagaziel, take out a bloody ruler, measure the width and height of the inventory picture. You'll see the 'hard armor' of the combat armor runs to the waist line & just below.
Yes, the pants isn't obviously armored and is unlikely to even contain decent padding from kevlar, but that was never claimed.

How about you actually look at the pictures I've supplied, rather than rely on your rose-tinted glasses and memory? The Fo1 armour only covers the ribcage.

Here's a nice mental exercise: look at your T-shirt. Note its dimensions. Then look at Fo1 armour. See the difference?

Talk to an actual soldier. Try Carib when he's online for instance. See what he thinks. I'm fairly sure they'll all go for the covered abdomen & kidneys, rather than upper leg protection..

Except they're not covered by Fo1 CA.

 

[UnidentifiedFlyingTard]

if his sides where covered he wouldn't be able to move his torso properly.