After keeping relative parity for probably 5000 years, when did armor finally drop the ball and get totally eclipsed by weapons?
Will armor ever reclaim parity or superiority over weapons ever again? Some sort of kinetic shield a la Dune maybe.
Armor-weapons arms race throughout history thread.
Other urls found in this thread:
Somewhere in the 1600s or 1700s gunpowder weapons rendered even the thickest wearable armor (4 mm) ineffective. It wasn't all at once, though.
Never; effective body armour has always existed. It just went through periods of being either too impractical or too expensive to use. Most if not all modern armies are equipped with armour that can stop rifle rounds.
I mean. We still have Kevlar vests and helmets in the modern day that are fairly effective. I think even some Soviet shock troops in WWII sometimes wore bulky ceramic armor if thats the kind of stuff you want.
Kevlarmind
It didn't. It just got moved onto vehicles. Armoring tanks and personnel carriers makes much more sense then trying to armor each individual soldier.
>Most if not all modern armies are equipped with armour that can stop rifle rounds.
More like pistol rounds. Also in modern war people don't die from getting shot with low caliber guns, they die from explosions.
Metatron used this graphic, idk if he is the original creator. So armor became a lot less used between 1525 and 1610, according to this.
But then the bunkers and forts also went obsolete, and they are the big AoE armor buff thing.
Modern "castles" are fucking bags of dirt piled up just over a man's height for fucks sake. Or a hole with a net on it.
>armor declined as the aristocracy stopped being a warrior caste and became a bureaucrat caste
Hmmm...
Encyclopaedia Britannica seems to agree, which is a good sign.
>And in places, where nobles were still fighting, armours were doing really fine.
Hmmm...
That ceramic armor was cool as fuck even if it was a bit goofy
Military grade plates can stop a rifle round. I've seen a guy take a sniper round to the chest and come out of it with just a bruise.
Was the sniper packing M1891?
I think its hilarious that the Brits are so butthurt over the Norman invasion that they have 1066 as if its some special year for armor.
it's called technological advances, modern weapons are simply too powerful to justify building heavily armored buildings. Also a very important part of modern warfare is mobility, as seen in WW2 the Maginot Line wasn't of much use when the attacking Germans simply drove around them.
>Will armor ever reclaim parity or superiority over weapons ever again?
Power armour (exoskeletons). Modern soldiers already have chest protection that can reliably stop most rifle rounds and the only reason more of the body isnt covered is because of weight restrictions, which power armour could alleviate. Another way full or 3/4 body armour could come back is if massive strides are made in the ability to mass produce certain materials like carbon nanotubes or diamondoids or synthetic spider silk although thats unlikely to happen anytime soon.
>Some sort of kinetic shield a la Dune maybe.
Physically impossible, the only things which could resemble sci-fi energy shields that can exist would be some form of very gimmicky and probably unpractical plasma based magnetic thing.
Yes, this is the entire point of this thread. Good that you got it.
Oh sorry, just read your post again, thought that was a question, nevermind.
I am sorry too, that came out meaner than I intended. I was actually going to delete that post, but forgot to.
Cheers.
Hahaha
>Will armor ever reclaim parity or superiority over weapons ever again?
It already has.
What do you think this is, the 1800s?
Nah armor will be needed while there is conflict in the world. Survivability of troops is important...
Yeah thats just a modern mounted knight.
>1066 doesn't wear a belt
Why did he mean by this?
In infantry : Mid-17th century
In cavalry : 1914