Talk:Combat armor

BADTFL
Any idea what does BADTFL mean? BTW check with your lawyer's eye Federal government (I am missing long arguing) --dotz 11:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevlar?
Isn't some of the newly added stuff too speculative? I don't recall any references to kevlar in Fallout, especially that since kevlar was invented in 1965, it wouldn't fit the retro setting. Ausir 23:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Shi dealt with polymers to obtain materials suitable for CA.--dotz 05:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's made of polymers, but not specifically kevlar, since the name kevlar is an anachronism in the Fallout universe. Ausir 10:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if all that divergence blablahs mean, that they didn't invented word "kevlar" in their XX-XXIth centuries. I can agree this word probably is not present in canon - a good solution could be more distant description: "kevlar-like". Anyway crucial is chemical formula, not the name. --dotz 16:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to be quite complex work - may be Combat Armor MkII should be merged here (and other similar level/ similar looking armors)?--dotz 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons
Anyone else think there is an uncanny resemblance between Combat Armor, and the stuff the bad guys wore in the Road Warrior? Coincidence? I think not.


 * That's more along the lines of the Raider Armor. The Fallout 3 version of Combat Armor reminds me of the stuff that the space marines wore in 'Aliens'. 68.49.187.181 23:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Colonial Marines, Space Marines are from Warhammer 40K...Icko 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Fallout 3 combat armour looks like Imperial Caidian Guardsman Armour from warhammer 40k Outcast115 00:34, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

"Combat Helmet" redirects here. Since the combat helmet is a fallout-3-only piece of armour (it is not its own unique item on f:1 or 2) it should redirect to the fallout 3 combat armor page.

Combat armor MKII
Well, the Combat armor MKII and the Combat armor reinforced MKII are two different models, they are not the same style and same color, it would be like saying that the leather armor from Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 and the leather armor from Fallout 3 are the same. Itachou [~talk~] 02:04, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * The color is irrelevant. It's simply that the FO1 and 2 version of combat armor was called "reinforced" in FNV to distinguish it from the more basic variant from FO3. The reinforced Mk 1 and Mk 2 from FNV are the same armors as their FO1 and 2 counterparts. Ausir(talk) 22:41, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Combat armor in NCR
Do only Rangers wear Combat armor or also NCR military?because the guard in the entrance of the city wear that-is he a Ranger or soldier?

Aliens?
"This armor looks like the armor worn by Marines in the film Aliens" where did this come from? Does it really look like the armor from Aliens? Even so, is it even worth noting?

IncompetentMinion 13:33, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and no it really doesn't, there is already too much unnecessary attempts at comparing things in fallout to completely different in-game subjects. (Troper of the Wastelands 21:42, August 12, 2011 (UTC))

NCR Ranger Combat Armor
The Desert Ranger Armor and Ranger Combat Armor are placed under "third generation". I don't think this is correct. Although it is called "combat armor", it is not developed as a continuation of the regular and reinforced combat armor.--I7Grendel 15:26, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Where did you find any clue that the Marine combat armor that forms the core component of the Desert Ranger combat armor is not a continuation of the main combat armor line? http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 15:47, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

You can't ask a question like that, it is what is known to some as an argumentum ad ignorantiam you are assuming your claim to be true simply because insufficient information exists for it to be definitively proven true, don't post your conjecture as fact, unless it has been proven. (Troper of the Wastelands 21:50, August 12, 2011 (UTC))

why do we not see more prominent leg guards, it is armored in the legs right?

Clean Up
This article, although extensively detailed, could use some extra eyes to look it over, I think it maybe time for some heavy editing. Anyone willing should mark the things they're editing first though, I don't wan to start an edit war, but some things definitely need to go. (Troper of the Wastelands 22:00, August 12, 2011 (UTC))

To think that this article shouldn't be edited just because of the complexity would be wrong. This article has some information that relies on unstated sources, this is why I'm concerned. If I'm wrong and all the information here is solid, then show me where it came from, because right now a lot of it seems like the information was pulled out of a hat. (Troper of the Wastelands 22:11, August 12, 2011 (UTC))

Anchorage War Memorial
The model of combat armor the statues are displaying is not on this page. Is it because it's only a stylistic choice by the artist and not a real model?--Ant2242 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Specifically LAPD?
Shouldn't the passage mention that the riot armor is a variant of the third gen armors and not specifically LAPD armor? Where is this specific department mentioned?--Ant2242 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Helmets
I know that our policy has always been about brevity regarding the helmets, buy adding them to their combat armor pages. But shouldn't we accurately track how the progression of this gear has developed over time? I don't believe that we have good images of these items either... am I incorrect? If so do we have images of the front, reverse and internals of the helmets?--Ant2242 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the best course of action would be have a separate helmet section situated beneath the "Other types of combat armor" heading, with subheadings for information on first-, second-, and third-generation helmets. Thoughts? --Kastera (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.--Ant2242 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Fallout 4 combat armor is the first iteration?
Fallout 4 combat armor the first iteration of combat armor - barring the combat helmet?

I believe that the combat armor of Fallout 4 is the predecessor of the "basic combat armor" because not only does it cover less on the body, its upgrades (Sturdy & Heavy) add more to its various pieces in an a careful and calculated manor. This would also lead me to conclude that the "combat helmet" is the first upgrade to the Army helmet, making it the predecessor to the "second generation" combat helmets. I believe that this is most implied with the "commando helmet". Especially because the "second generation combat armor" is referenced as special forces & shock trooper armor.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent update
--Ant2242 (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Why do we need the game specific combat armor pages? For most of the series there is only one or two in each.
 * 2) I believe that we have the "standard" and "Army" combat armors reversed. The cuirass armor is far more advanced than the one seen in FO4. As it has all the protection of the "sturdy" level FO4 armor in a lighter package and no welded on, aftermarket plates. Therefore the FO4 chest piece armor as seen in game advances to the point of said cuirass.
 * 3) Furthermore although the "combat armor helmet" is the next step from the "combat helmet", it is introduced so sporadically that it implies that it was not widely deployed. Instead being the stepping stone for the helmets of the Mk armor series.
 * 4) Using the FOS descriptions for the FO4 series of combat armor makes little sense. Not only does it have the image of the FO3 introduced cuirass combat armor (for which there is different types) there is also the Mk series, the former is more than enough of a reason to disregard the FO4 armor as the item in question.
 * 5) What reference is there for the helmet's "laser" systems?
 * 6) Also what happened to the specific armor piece names? Were they not accurate? I've added those section to the FO4 armor page.
 * 1. For sanity and to clean up the article. As per UESP practice, with multi-game articles, it's easier to have a lore and game-specific article, rather than putting them together. The same should also be done with other armor types and multi-game items.
 * 2. No, it isn't. The Fallout 4 intro clearly establishes the standard combat armor as the current generation system issued to frontline troops. Army helmets are used as, essentially, service caps, by troops not using the more modern combat system. Beyond that, the Army combat armor (ACA) has less coverage, is much less advanced (no mounting for targeting systems or a headlamp, for instance), and comes in three different types, rather than just one. The light, medium, and heavy versions of the SCA are all distinct military variants of the same base armor, not base types modified with aftermarket elements.
 * 3. There is no "Mk armor series." The advanced combat armor (derived from the description, "using advanced defensive polymers") is next in line as it's made completely out of defensive polymers, rather than them being an optional, high level upgrade (as seen in SCA). Oh, Mk stands for "Mark" which is a synonym for version.
 * 4. The FOS descriptions correspond to armor types seen in Fallout 4. Given that Fallout Shelter is a companion game to Fallout 4, I fail to see how they don't apply.
 * 5. Inference. Can be changed to a more generic type of hardware, sure.
 * 6. You are using medieval terms to refer to modern body armor. The naming convention is completely different, what we might call pauldrons are actually professionally referred to as axillary/deltoid protectors. Tagaziel (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really sure if my two cents are needed, but take them anyways:

1) This should have been a more public conversation - I apologize for that. But I have been in discussions with Tag for quite some time now, about how we should separate all of our articles, whenever it makes sense. This is something that we agreed on, and we have been looking into ways to implement the change in etiquette.

6) Medieval terminology is definitely not appropriate for Fallout. GarouxBloodline 13:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) okay.
 * 2) How does it do so? Where specifically does it say the new model is the standard? Army helmets are not the military cap. The Breastplate armor was clearly upgraded with other plates attached to cover more of the soldier. While the cuirass armor already has this without having said plates attached. Both the breastplate armor and cuirass armor has more than one variant. Would this not describe armor development?
 * Breastplate ("light"→"sturdy"→"heavy") Cuirass ("standard"→"US Army combat armor")
 * 3) My apologies, I had no idea we were now going with "advanced" for this armor model.
 * 4) The FOS descriptions also utilize the Cuirass armor model. It makes it just as viable an option for them to be used to describe the cuirass armor.
 * 5) okay.
 * 6) Well... I tried. Can't say I didn't do my best or that I'm a good for nothing vandal. BTW good luck "cleaning up" the Synth, Metal and Leather armor pages description.
 * --Ant2242 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)