Here's a "realistic," historically accurate set of female body armor

not in the times where plate armour was worn because it was accompanied by chivalry and christianity. Mail was the armour of choice for centuries before and its not exactly tailored to fit. Danes and celts have examples of women fighters

>. If there was a siege, then women would help defend the wall, or if there was an army supply line, then women might help defend that.

Those sound like going into battle. So 'Didn't go into battle, period' is kinda undermined by your own post.

I didn't say that. I said you've never made a woman actively want any part of you inside her.

Not as a vanguard force they don't. Not on their warships they don't.

Previous poster is a time traveler, who posted that pic from 300 years in the future.
It's historical to him.

There's a difference between getting caught in the middle of something and seeking it out under lawful employment.

NO U

I would consider the Gulf War to be historical, and we have examples of body armor, worn by women, from that conflict.

Still reserves, still shit tier. Still wearing gear made for men by men.

Wow, it's the amazing moving goalposts. Went from 'no women wore armor ever' to 'but not in a way I think was important'

That's not what was said. What was said was 'Didn't go into battle, period'. Not that they were mercenaries.

Didn't Joana wear armor?

Not saying she fought, but pretty sure she did. Also I think it would be standard and not custom.

>he thinks men and woman are so physically different that they need custom carriers
I'd say I'm disappointed, but I expect nothing more from Veeky Forums

Not him but come on, dude...
army.mil/article/87464/

Wrong conflict. Also they're being fitted for comfort, not functionality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birka_female_Viking_warrior

>i-it's just a meme!

Wait, so OP is even more wrong? No surprise.

>That left vulnerabilities where the body armor left gaps, particularly under the arms. But it also made the vests uncomfortable enough to affect performance, Hennessey explained.
>In some cases, women were reporting bruising on their hip bones because the side plates dragged down to their hips, she said. "And when they were sitting down, it was riding up to their chins, because the torso was so long."
Is that not a functionality concern?

I think she went into battles but she just bore the standard and not a sword.

I didn't say that they were mercenaries. Because they sure as fuck weren't. They were civilians that happen to be around at the time, a last resort.

It's a sizing concern.
Most body armors are massed produced to fit sized A-D, and if you aren't A-D, it fits like shit.

And if you're wearing the wrong size of body armor, and the plate inserts don't line up with the areas they're supposed to protect, is that not a functionality concern?

She was a political figure that got turned into fire wood when her purpose was served. That's now a combatant. >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birka_female_Viking_warrior

LOL, wikipedia. Nice historical revisionism. Bitch was probably the fuckers wife they choked out and sent to the afterlife with him. But, I bet you didn't know they did that...

>left gaps
>implying modern carriers aren't full of fucking gaps

And they still went into battle, defeating your point that women didn't go into battle period. When you try to set an absolute, PLEASE don't let your only lime of defense be semantic.

Where the gaps are located matters just as much as how many gaps there are.

>Most body armors are massed produced to fit sized A-D

AKA, the body size of the average MALE soldier.

Then get smaller armor and stop bitching about bruised hips.

>"The size extra-small was too large for 85 percent of the females, so they weren't getting a good fit. It was too loose and too long."
Did you even read the article?

Woman wore 'male' carriers just fine through the 80s and 90s

No, they didn't. If somebody kicks in your home and attempts to kill you because your home is ground zero for a conflict. That isn't going into combat. That's called getting attacked, and women happened to be at locations that were attacked.

Funny enough, I can't seem to locate any photos or articles on females wearing PASGT vests, so you've got me there I suppose.

Then get double X small and stop bitching.

So defensive troops don't go into combat because the fight came to them?

Here you go.

>get a size that doesn't exist and stop bitching
Par for the course I guess.

No, they dress in armor and use weapons. Then precede to follow a military strategy of conflict at a designated location. Often being paid for their services or even being professionally employed as a lifetime soldier. That didn't exist for women, and has only in the 20 years technically existed. Which, if you speak to female marines, you can ask them how much "action" they end up actually seeing. Not much. Also, you can check the employment rates for female soldiers in modern PMCS that involve active combat roles.

I wonder what could've changed about body armor in the late 90s...

It's funny, because smaller males have the same issues even with X-small gear. I've seen it. No amount of adjusting straps helped my smaller male students. So you know what we did? Duct taped shit until it stayed where it needed to be and told them to suck it up. Did the same for female students. Cost a few dollars a roll.

If they're that small why even give them armor? Just have squat down and they won't even be a target anymore!

Checked. Never got old seeing the faces on the soldiers being told their armor is fragile.

I don't know if you know this, Ivan, but most Americans can't squat.

I know you're joking, but we drill into their heads that staying out of sight and under cover is the best way to avoid getting shot, because it is.

Of course we also have to teach them that a bush is not cover. Same with a sheet of plywood.

Though it IS concealment, which is often better than nothing.

No shit Sherlock.

...

Is it better to have no armor and be able to move for hours and hours at three times with significantly more SA and less fatigue. Or, is it better to have the armor that might catch the bullet with your name on it?

So have we established that female armor does, in fact, exist. And that there are women around the world who have seen more combat ad killed more people for a living than OP has?

Can we agree he's probably just some assblasted little pussy who got DQd at MEPS for being too fat for even the chair force?

Dat ass.

Dem calves.

Depends on your role and current mission. Endurance is much less a concern for tooling about in the APC for example.

You idiot, there was no other skeleton in the grave.

Have the armor that might catch that bullet or piece of debris. Even if the armor is uncomfortable, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the mission. And no, complaining that it's heavy, itchy, or chaffing is not the armor getting in the way, it's you.

depends on the mission

>They didn't go into battle, period

Man, I love it when people phrase things poorly.

Okay, so defining "going into battle" as "deliberately taking part in an aggressive attack action" as opposed to "defending a point where fleeing is not a viable option" or "being in the middle of a battle and defending oneself", but also allowing for the idea of armies that were led by a woman who might not have directly participated but certainly were on the battlefield and in harm's way, we have...

Jeanne d'Arc
Jeanne de Clisson
Tirgatao of the Ixamotae
Pingyang
Catalina de Erauso (a lesbian, to boot!)
Boudicca, of course
CHING SHIH, motherfucker!
Tomyris (the most likely killer of Cyrus the Great)
Sparethra (who also fucked up Cyrus the Great a few years earlier)

>So have we established that female armor does, in fact, exist.

No, it didn't. The one example given was for a woman that never saw combat. Which, may not have even been real. Also, if it doesn't exist nowadays. How the fuck would it have existed back then?

>And that there are women around the world who have seen more combat ad killed more people for a living than OP has?

Can you name a single woman serving in the army that even has a kill record from an active assault or raid?

>Can we agree he's probably just some assblasted little pussy who got DQd at MEPS for being too fat for even the chair force?

Well, I can tell you've never been in the service. Chair force is a cute little nick name that will get your ass cited faster than you can say whiplash.

Because it was torched... God damn, you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

Were there "standard issue" armors in medieval times? Since everything was done locally, wouldn't you just go to your local armorer and get armor made to fit you?

You're borderline incoherent here, mate. You're not engaging at all with the point your opponent's making.

When people go to fight defensively, are they or are they not engaging in battle?

The one thing that's relevant that you do bring up is that military service as we understand it in modernity has only existed recently, and armies were generally levied in previous times. Which means there is even LESS of a difference between people called up to fight on a battlefield a few miles away and people called up to fight in defense of their homes.

By the way, there's probably more, I just didn't feel like spending all day on this.

Ching Shih can generally represent any female pirate, of course, though Ching Shih is herself the most successful pirate in history and so takes the cake. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Golden Age of Piracy Caribbean pirates...but render unto Ching Shih that which is Ching Shih's.

I was a combat comm tech in the chair force for a decade. 'Chair force' isn't going to get you cited for shit.

>Man, I love it when people phrase things poorly.

Nobody phrased anything poorly. You are arguing with yourself based on assertion nobody made other than you. All those examples you gave are hotly debated and questionable at best.

>he doesn't even know who Lady Death is.

Can you provide a link to these hot debates?

...The remains of a burning (and, yeah, there were remains) were buried, you absolute moron. They were placed under a tumulus of stone and dirt. Additionally, a slave buried alongside her master's remains would never been buried in the central position of the corpse in the Birka grave, flanked by shields, as this is literally how it was often traditional to enshrine an actual warrior, depending on the specific time period.

It is you that doesn't know your shit.

of course

>Also, if it doesn't exist nowadays. How the fuck would it have existed back then?

Well shit boys, someone tell the press Dinosaurs never existed, it was all a lie to get more funds for 'research'

Ooh, found another great one: Mai Bhago, a Sikh warrior-saint who led 40 deserters against a Mughal army in order to save the Sikh guru. And won, and was the only survivor.

>your ass cited
Yeah, you're fucking dumb. Probably did get turned back at MEPS.

>Also, if it doesn't exist nowadays. How the fuck would it have existed back then?

There have been females fighting in the Middle East against IS for the last few years, you stupid mong.

Let's also not forget the females fighting FOR those shit bags.

I'm sure they'd go out and grab them up you stupid fuck. Ash and minor pieces of bone left aren't going to as intact as the slave girl's non incinerated remains.

Do you have any evidence for your conjecture?

No matter how cringey and stupid SJWs can be, it's good to know the anti-SJW counter culture will always be 40x worse.

Low testosterone levels does weird things to a boys mind.

Sure... DELUSIONAL. Pointing out propagandized historical figures as actual warriors. Take one look some ye olde are from the middle ages. See any fucking women fighting? Didn't think so.

>underestimating modern archeology this hard

If there were the remains of a guy in that grave, we'd know it. How do you think we know that the Norse generally buried the burned remains of their men? Because we fucking find those remains under burial mounds.

Here is op of this thread.

Seeing how no evidence has presented to qualify your assertion, none shall be provided for mine, either. Just good luck dredging a lake for the remains to bury.

Except this grave is a singular freak occurrence that contradicts everything we know about their culture. Or... maybe the man's body was displaced, destroyed, or non recoverable.

So what's your point? That aside from the women who fought, no women fought? I think I can live with that.

Hatshepsut, probably.

Clearly no women fought and any woman who potentially fought is a lie!

Generally when you are trying to displace the current theory, you want some evidence for it.

That I can give hundreds of thousands of examples of no women participating in warfare of this age other than as a last resort, and you pull up about five examples of mythological figures that may not have even existed or were grossly misrepresented like Joan D'arc. Yeah, I think I can tell who has the stronger position on this one. Also, modern times, women still don't have custom made gear or serve on active combat raids. Food for thought. Even with guns women aren't trusted with anything other than reserve work as a desperate last call.

By that logic I don't think Richard the Lionheart or Saladin ever fought either. There's way too much propaganda around them for me to believe that. It's all fake. They're all fake.

Seriously, dude. 200,000 years of modern h. sapiens existence, 53.5 billion women have ever lived in that time, and you mean to tell me that you don't think that even once in that time, before the 20th century, women charged into an aggressive battle willingly? That's its purely an aberration brought on by modern times?

Wow, there's some huge ass misconceptions about viking burial rituals up here in this thread.

First, and most importantly: burial by fire was not how every man or warrior was seen off into the afterlife. Not even every man who had gone viking in his life - even DIED in the profession - was buried in this way. It wasn't a universal tradition.

Secondly, only a small percentage of those cremated after death were burned 'at sea'. It was more common for the corpse to be burned on a pyre. Those remains that could be retrieved have often been found in central positions beneath Norse barrows.

Thirdly, human sacrifices were generally thralls, but rarely sex slaves. It was actually quite common for a warrior's concubine to have an active role during a funeral as a sort of symbol of life and fertility. Wives were sometimes sacrificed but, man, that was not common at all.

Fourthly, human sacrifices were generally burned with the deceased man if he was being cremated.

>mythological figures

From my list, Jeanne d'Arc, Catalina de Erauso, Boudicca, and Ching Shih are all people that we are 100% certain existed and actually took part in battle as you appear to define the term (that is, an aggressive attack, as opposed to "mere" defensive action).

The fact that you can list a bunch of battles where no women fought does not mean no women fought Period. If you stance is 'X never happened', then 1 example is sufficient to disprove that.

Except there's historical evidence of him fighting and leading a group of men to war. Because men actually fought wars, and no amount of PC, SJW Disney horseshit will ever change that reality. Also, I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Russian female snipers. Or that you lasted this long in this entirely ridicules thread I created to kill some time. Keep in mind my original point, was there was no female armor. Which, given the fact that women not wanting to get ass raped in raids, would probably have put on some gambeson or anything else they could in order to not die.