• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Downgrading Bruno's AP

Status
Not open for further replies.
8,377
3,045
From Bruno Buccellati's page

"Wall level (Knocked out Pesci with a kick and cracked a train windshield. European train windshields have been noted to be able to withstand RPG-7 missiles)"

Except there's no source whatsoever for this. I also doubt 2001 Italian trains had such resistant windshields, but that's not the problem.

That's basically it.
 
Idk jojo so I would not know the next best feat but yeah, something like regular train windows tanking RPG missiles seems unlikely.

Is that just a common issue for your Europeans? Walking down the street when somebody run up on you with a rocket launcher?
 
Who added it in the first place? They should have a source.

But train windshields, especially those of cross-national passenger trains should be heavily resistant and at least bullet proof. It aint a car, it's a train, it has to be far more durable for impacts, stray debree and the like. Terroists attacks too due to how easy it is to actually board it and the masses within.

Found something saying that train windshields are UIC 651-impact tested at least though.
 
Well yeah we know he cracked it, we just need a source of the durability. Who added it originally? We could ask.
 
So, who's gonna drop a message on his wall? I've been looking up articles myself though looking for a source, the windshields are definitely wall level regardless though, just dont know if it's RPG-7 wall level durable.
 
>Curved rail glass from ProCurve Glass is carefully tested in compliance with Federal Railroad Administration Standard 49 CFR Part 223. Our glass prevents damages and harm from the impacts that trains are commonly susceptible to, such as rocks and hail, as well as more severe damages. Made with a double reinforced layer of bonded glass and a resilient polyvinyl butural (PVB) interlayer, our rail glass can even protect passengers from the impact of heavy objects and even bullets. We can make glass to suit any plane or angle on the train, and provide a seamless fit. We can also tint glass for extra privacy and keep the train cooler by preventing 50 percent of UV light from entering.


Found that so at least bullet proof.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/appendix-A_to_part_223
 
Okay, after a bit of searching, I found this document about characteristics of windshields of one of the biggest train companies in Italy as well as the most famous due to memes about their trains being always late. It seems to be from 2004, so pretty accurate given that Part 5 took place in 2001.

Page 21 explains the impact tests a kind of windshield must pass in order to be used. One of them is sending a projectile of mass 1kg at 360km/h (100 m/s) to the windshield. The test is passed if the glass sustains damage but the projectile doesn't go through it. With a quick calculation we get 5e3 Joules from kinetic energy formula, or 9-C.

I would say it's fine to downgrade Bruno, but I'll wait if there's any rebuttal.
 
.

I'm not searching something like that. It may be better if you asked someone to calculate it instead. Control panels shouldn't be much more resistant than normal metals.
 
TriforcePower1 said:
Okay, after a bit of searching, I found this document about characteristics of windshields of one of the biggest train companies in Italy as well as the most famous due to memes about their trains being always late. It seems to be from 2004, so pretty accurate given that Part 5 took place in 2001.
Page 21 explains the impact tests a kind of windshield must pass in order to be used. One of them is sending a projectile of mass 1kg at 360km/h (100 m/s) to the windshield. The test is passed if the glass sustains damage but the projectile doesn't go through it. With a quick calculation we get 5e3 Joules from kinetic energy formula, or 9-C.

I would say it's fine to downgrade Bruno, but I'll wait if there's any rebuttal.
We could always check the actual train, the tran in part 5 is based on a real world counterpart.

Although I'm still unsure, what does damage mean exactly, is it minor? Major? Bruno kinda concaved it and from what I've been seeing most tend to be bullet proof, and given that the train in Part 5 was from a major station for the country, it should be of a high quality. And the glass he caved in was from the front of it as well if that changes anything.
Bruno Kick
It looks like it has some depth to it and the entire windshield is cracked.
 
TriforcePower1 said:
Okay, after a bit of searching, I found this document about characteristics of windshields of one of the biggest train companies in Italy as well as the most famous due to memes about their trains being always late. It seems to be from 2004, so pretty accurate given that Part 5 took place in 2001.

Page 21 explains the impact tests a kind of windshield must pass in order to be used. One of them is sending a projectile of mass 1kg at 360km/h (100 m/s) to the windshield. The test is passed if the glass sustains damage but the projectile doesn't go through it. With a quick calculation we get 5e3 Joules from kinetic energy formula, or 9-C.

I would say it's fine to downgrade Bruno, but I'll wait if there's any rebuttal.
This seems to make sense to me.
 
I was looking all over for that link. Thanks for finding it.

Originally J-ManRequiem found it but sadly I couldn't find the convo anywhere.
 
Paulo.junior.969 said:
What about scaling from Pesci breaking the control panels?
Okay, I asked DMUA about it offsite, and apparently, since Pesci isn't bending the metal, the feat is extremely unlikely to wield a good enough value.

Anyway, should I post this thread or the document as justification for 9-C? Since the document is in Italian, I think it may be better to link this thread, but I'm not sure.
 
We should generally avoid linking to discussion threads as evidence.

Is it possible to auto-translate the document and upload it at Pastebin, or somesuch?
 
I'm not so sure, the amount of damage that the windshield recieved was kinda massive.

Even if the metal objects damaged the windshield, what's that mean? A scratch? A chip? Complete embeding? That changes things greatly.
 
It is a pdf, so never mind. I suppose that you can link to the document directly as evidence, in lack of better options.
 
Chariot190 said:
I'm not so sure, the amount of damage that the windshield recieved was kinda massive.

Even if the metal objects damaged the windshield, what's that mean? A scratch? A chip? Complete embeding? That changes things greatly.
That seems like a good point. Perhaps a Wall level rating is better then.
 
The test is passed if "the windshield, even if damaged by the impact, were not punctured by the bullet (the bullet cannot go pass the glass or remain stuck into it)" "I provini, pur lesionandosi per effetto dell'impatto, non sono stati perforati dal proiettile (il proiettile non deve oltrepassare il VSF ne rimanere incastrato in esso)."

It doesn't say anything about how much damage, just that the projectile cannot go through it. Given that Bruno didn't outright break it, I think it's fine.
 
So should he stay at Wall level?
 
Triforce, Bruno absolutely broke it though. His foot didnt go clean through it but the entirety of it was cracked to the very edges of the frame and the center was heavily fractured and slightly concaved, It's structural integrity would have been heavily comprimised.

While your description sounds like if it's only chiped slightly it's fine (punturing is an autofail, meaning the projectile didnt actually enter it in the slightest and given the area of the projectile, it'd be a small chip) and that's if it chips, it can also not damage it and pass (plus given that theyre made to be bullet proof...). As such I dont think a small projectile chipping it and not even causing massive cracking or indentation is all that comparable to the damage Bruno did.

While not RPG-7 ap I'm pretty sure Bruno is inflicting numerous times over the damage of that steel projectile or even assault rifle bullets to it which according to the link I put, is something that they must withstand fully.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/appendix-A_to_part_223 heres the link again.

Edit: I also want to point out how thick the glass Bruno cracked is, it looks to be like 5+ inches thick.
 
I think we can settle at 9-C+ then. I'm not sure if we can jump tiers without a calc. At best, it would be baseline 9-B
 
I am personally fine with 9-B.
 
It seems fine. I will close this then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top