Why don't modern soldiers just wear knight's armor?

Why don't modern soldiers just wear knight's armor?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >he doesn't know about the magnets

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      how does this have no replies, PrepHole is truly dead.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      King Louie's famous giant electromagnet is exactly why plate armor was phased out

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      DEPLOY YE OLDE MAGNET

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm eager for the day that a superlight highly impact resistant polymer is developed that can be thin enough to make whole-body armor practical again. Really curious how modern CAD workflows and rapid prototyping would evolve historical armor designs.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Really curious how modern CAD workflows and rapid prototyping would evolve historical armor designs.
      These things won't affect anything, they only make it easier and faster to make new designs. Unless by rapid prototyping you actually mean the manufacturing technologies that enable it, in which case the answer is the obvious - that it will allow bespoke armor on a mass scale. But we don't have that even now, so it's still in the realm of sci-fi, although not by much, it's just a matter of will and money. But more likely a modern attempt with future materials would be designed with being munition armor in mind, to be able to outfit soldiers of all sizes and shape. Plentiful lames, to allow this, but not an excessive amount, to retain strength. Lots of concessions to modern ways of fighting, since a shoulder plate would be unwieldy to put the stock of a gun against. Tassets may cover the crotch, since you wouldn't need to sit astride a horse any more.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Cover the crotch
        But what about MOTORCYCLE DRAGOONS?

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because knight armor is thin, bullet resistant plates are way too big. What? Scared of a sand moron charging at you with a curved sword you say? Just shoot him.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Shoot a tin can
    see the result

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A proper suit of armor weighs about as much if not more than a modern soldiers entire kit with none of the advantages it had back in the day

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Modern soldiers routinely carry well over a hundred pounds, I don't believe there is a single suit of armor we've ever found that heavy.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They were upwards of 60-70 pounds, which while isn't quite as heavy it's a lot for just armor

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          More like between 35 and 55 pounds

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ya muthas cunt

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          140 pounds is common for a modern soldier to carry.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            For a short distance to set up a patrol base. You don't go into combat with that much weight.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      25kg max for a heavy suit of armour.
      A modern infantry man carries alot of weight like 35-40kg. They don't have it any easier than troops from ancient times.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're correct but stop using Nogunsagrams and Fagometers.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >They don't have it any easier than troops from ancient times.
        That's not the point I was making dumbmoron, I was saying that a knight would have a considerable amount of weight purely dedicated to armor, while a modern soldier with full kit can sustain themselves in the field for days if not weeks with the ability to set up rudimentary shelters on the spot. But with all that being said, I think I'd rather carry a bit more than be limited to being stuck in a tin can

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >A bit more
          anywhere from two to five times more.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >anywhere from two to five times more.
            So you're claiming modern soldiers regularly march with 275 pounds of gear? This is the point where I stop giving you the benefit of the doubt and start calling out your obvious bullshit

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Every single suit of armor weighs 55 pounds
              Lol.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Even on the low end it's nearly 200 pounds of weight you're talking about, quit being a pedantic gay. No modern soldier is walking around with 5 times the weight of a suit of armor, end of discussion.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                140 pounds is not unusual, meaning on the extreme end men have had to carry more.
                Armor for knights was known to get under 35 pounds on the low side.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >anywhere from two to five times more.
          So you're claiming modern soldiers regularly march with 275 pounds of gear? This is the point where I stop giving you the benefit of the doubt and start calling out your obvious bullshit

          Even on the low end it's nearly 200 pounds of weight you're talking about, quit being a pedantic gay. No modern soldier is walking around with 5 times the weight of a suit of armor, end of discussion.

          I don't know where you get your sources on historical armor weight from but knights didn't need to learn how to march so they don't get crippling arthritis in their legs. Even body armor that soldiers use today is more cumbersome then plate armor. The lack of being able to get up when knocked down is because of limited motion in the legs from the leg armor itself which helps support the weight of the armor suit as a whole when they are standing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      retard

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They're expensive as fuck and aren't good at blocking bullets.

      This is a meme

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    indulging your tardpost, how would you even merge it with modern equipment? it has no mount points, how do you rig up a metal plate vest? modern soldiers spend a lot of time prone, how's that supposed to work?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine it just had some simple hooks or clips to clip webbing onto, or Velcro epoxied onto the plate to mount pouches.
      That part doesn’t require that much imagination, fuck they could sew a jacket for the armor pieces and have them covered in camo if they really wanted.

      Not having mounting points is a boring and dumb argument to not have full tacticool knight armour….
      Fuck you,
      You unimaginative fuck stain.
      Get the fuck outta here.

      There is the issue of dehumanising the troops wearing the armour by covering their faces though, and all the other issues that come from full face helmet.
      Oh and the affect on sound, both the hearing of the soldiers in the helmet and also the clanking an armoured dude would make stomping around.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >that pic
        He even had a fucking squire, what a lad

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's a reason they stopped using plate armor, it doesn't stand up well to bullets

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      is he ok?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just needs a little bit of physio

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The heart is on the other side, anon, so he should be A ok.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Disgusting poo-tier cheap indian made armour

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why don't modern soldiers just wear knight's armor?
    knights armor was between 1-3mm thick and reliant on clever sloping to stop anything
    they were, at most, designed to stop slow moving lead balls fired from matchlock weapons, which would still leave a visible dent on the armor even when stopped

    fast forward to 1943, and you have the soviet steel bib made from 2.2mm manganese steel
    with the chest thickened to 2.6mm
    at most, this could stop 9mm FMJ and 9mm steel-core rounds fired from an SMG
    however, rifle rounds will punch clean through
    and at 7kg for a whole set, this was already at the maximum you could get away with before the soldiers legs gave way

    it would be very cumbersome to increase the protection on the steel bib to increase all of it to the 10mm thickness

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No. Knight armors were only useful against (light) arrows and blades. Any blunt, heavy, piercing weapon was effective against armors and the advantages came from the situational edge over the enemy.

      But against firearms are useless. The only partially useful protection against them was the cuirasse at long distance. Modern cuirass and steel helmets were effective against shrapnel and melee but useless against bullets.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I have seen a cuirass resist a spear pointed Lance that hit it so hard it broke on it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >cuirass
          Cuirass are far more thick than knight armors.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            A knights breastplate combined with the backplate was CALLED a cuirass retard.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yes retard, the cuirass was just an evolution, by dropping all the flexibility of the split plates and removing all the other parts of the full suit plate armor the cuirass could be far thicker and the bearer didn't had to sustain the blunt force of the bullet impact. It's far worse in mobility than the older plate armor and you couldn't use irl (except parade armors) the complete full plate armor.

              After the 14th and 15th centuries the cuirasse IS THE WHOLE ARMOR used by the curiasser cavalry.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You stupid gay when a knight is wearing full plate the breastplate and back plate were called the Cuirass. A Cuirass isn't "much thicker" than a knight's armor because a Cuirass is PART OF A KNIGHT'S ARMOR.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah retard, in the same way that a k-pot is as thick as an armet knight helmet.

                Fucking retard. It's pointless reply to this retard...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You fucking moron, Cuirass refers to plate armor covering the chest and back, not only the specific chest armor of the military unit called a Cuirassier. The word was absolutely used to describe knights armor, and considering we were origionally talking about the impact of a fucking LANCE, YOU STUPID gay, that happens to be fucking relevant.
                What do YOU think the set of plates that went on the front and back of a plate armored knights chest was called, in French, as a single object?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                cuirass is just a word for complete, normally metal, torso armor, not from a specific time or a specific type of armor. the breastplate and the back of 15th century steel plate armor is a cuirass. a bronze breastplate and back piece from the 5th century BC is a cuirass.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >not from a specific time or a specific type of armor.
                In the early firearms period -topic in discussion- means the (whole) armor of the curassier (from french) calvary.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                cuirassiers, which just means man wearing a cuirass, are from the 16th century when early firearm usage with hand cannons in europe dates from the 14th century.

                the first widespread use of firearms in europe was around the same time as the first development in plate armor, including widespread usage of iron and steel cuirasses.

                your weird attempt to be pedantic about the term cuirass is extremely stupid. there's nothing else to say but the term cuirass never meant a specific piece of 16th century armor worn by cuirassiers. this is something you've made up in your mind

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm talked about arquebus and muskets, especially muskets, for very good reasons.

                >the first widespread use of firearms in europe was around the same time as the first development in plate armor, including widespread usage of iron and steel cuirasses.
                Ay lmao, comparing hand cannons with arquebuses or muskets........... and "widespread"....

                Small firearms didn't play a major role in battles until the mid-italian wars (using the pike and shot tactic).

                The same goes to the artillery and the development of the bastion.

                The only important thing of the armor is that the weight was almost constant even if the full suit plate armor was reduced to only a cuirass. And then dropped altogether when the musket and especially the flintlock musket was widespread.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            a cuirass is just another word for metallic both sections of torso armor in general. there are fucking bronze cuirasses from antiquity

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The term bulletproofing literally came from shooting at a breastplate and marking the dent as a proof it would stop bullets
        Most weapons of the day couldn't beat well made plate, even the longsword designed specifically to beat armor could only penetrate lighter maille
        You really needed a specialised weapon like a warhammer or war pick and even then they didnt exactly do so with ease

        >arrows
        Not a chance
        Even a bodkin loosed from an english bow can only defeat the thinner parts protected by maille

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Most weapons of the day couldn't beat well made plate,
          Knights had no change against arquebuses, let alone against muskets. At first the fireamrs were used from very close distances and as auxiliary, but afterwards with the muskets infantry could one-shot any curassier from far away and even reload.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There was over a hundred years between the appearance of long arms and the phasing out of chest armor even on infantry.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              European started using handheld firearms on a mass scale during 1450s, under Czech Hussite and Burgundian influence - those were simple hand cannons, with short barrels ignited by cord or wick, often used by two man teams. After the introduction of simple match lock and then wheellock in early 1500s, armour was quickly relegated to front ranks of pike block and increasingly fewer cavalry troops. Moreover the rank and file pikeman breastplates were not bulletproof, they were cheap simplyfied things mass produced in the arsenals, designed to protect against blades and pike thrusts. Bulletproof cuirass was at that time several times more expensive and pretty much only infantry officers or some kind of well off burgher militiamen were able to afford them. Their weight also would make them unpopular for ordinary soldiers that did not have personal horses or pack animals to carry them on the march.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              By the time that the musket was effective from 100m the plate armor and even cuirass was phase out in all western europe, some countries still used it but mainly as parade thing.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because that shit's easier to penetrate than your mom.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The term bulletproofing literally came from shooting at a breastplate and marking the dent as a proof it would stop bullets

    Bullet proof cuirasses ceased to be relevant after the end of Napoleonic Wars. And even before that they werent really popular outside cavalry shock troopers and few niche applications where officers used them to counter sharpshooter tactics during naval battles and sieges. During last decades of XVI-th century Dutch and Spanish infantry experimented with bulletproof shields, but those were also deemed impractical due to their weight.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't you have math homework to do?

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Would only protect vs light pistol rounds unless at extreme angles, they also make gunshot wounds actively worse due to spalling from the armour. If they were made as thick as modern rifle resistant plates, you'd be unable to move. Although an argument could be made for rifle resistant torso/upper limb armour, and pistol resistant joint+lower limb+neck armour, tho i think there are polymers which can do that better and for less weight, maybe not less bulk.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can openers. BIG ones.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Australian bushranger Ned Kelly and his gang in the 1870s equipped themselves with armour and duked it out with the police, and whilst the armour wasn't penetrated and it a number of flaws, namely that it didn't cover the legs and in one case the groin.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour_of_the_Kelly_gang

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      bmp

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      NONE SHALL PASS

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *