I have slight autism and and wondering if going medieval with plate armor in SHTF, EDC, or Boar hunting? My great grandpa wore knight armor into battle, and maybe putting it under a plate carrier would work.
Plate armor general
Bentley Perry
Other urls found in this thread:
Ayden Perez
they look good but:
"Speed is the essence of war"
t.some vietnam fucking shit
Liam White
Christopher Williams
Metal armor was phased out when they figured out when they figured out how to make flexible materials with better tenacity and resistance to impact.
Joseph Walker
outta my way
Bentley Miller
Things it might be useful for:
Things it's not useful for:
Plate armor fucking sucks to wear unless it's something thin and therefor not at all practical for anything other than looking cool as fuck with. I've worn a curiass, it sucked. But I looked like the baddest dude around, and that's what gives you the inspiration to keep wearing it until you actually have to do something with it on. Then you just instinctively take it off.
Bentley Anderson
It's like you people actually want to survive the final war or something.
Carter Perez
Who know, this might get a revive when power armor becomes viable.
Ian Butler
Dragon skin.
Kayden Fisher
Plate armour really isn't that heavy, but it does restrict your movement somewhat. Honestly I'd just go with a UHMWPE vest. If you need more than that, get a plate carrier. If you're super autistic, make a UHMWPE bodysuit like the North Hollywood shootout guys (though I think they used Kevlar). From the research I've done, a satin weave is probably best.
Owen Cruz
Never understood why they didn't used proper armor shapes (the guys in the 4th photo seem to have some a bit more shaped, but IIRC it's a test on how older heavy horsemen armor held up).
Even for just ballistic plates…
The angled shape means more protection from the front, the rounded sides means more protection from the sides (because physics and geometry).
So doing the same shit with proper bulletproof steel would increase protection for no weight difference compare to your classic front/side plates.
It's not worse than rifle plates, in fact if you do shit properly (like look were the articulation of the arm is… it's almost center of the breastplate meaning raising your arm force the gravity center of the arm armor to shift and lever on the breastplate assisting your arm. It's 1000 times better than current arms modules…)
Pic related is one of the last design of plate armor meant for practical fighting on foot in late 1800 early 1900 (austrian made for swiss guards).
Some of the technical steel are stupidly tough and light.
"It won't be cheap" is a much better argument…
Hunter Gutierrez
Maybe I just finally lost my mind, but many of the ideas of combatreform.com seem to be very good, the writer just autistically overcomplicates them and then fails to write a good essay about the merits of his proposals. The relevant one here is gunshields.
combatreform.org
You could make an AR500 plate that mounts to a rail, and then you'd have something much better than a plate over your chest. You can angle the shield so that it gives you even more protection. In a standing position you can turn your side towards the enemy, and then you will present a smaller target that is even better protected by the plate. And it also protects you if you are kneeling or laying prone, which is something a bulletproof vest isn't capable of. Although it would make the weapon heavier, but you can at least claim that it makes the felt recoil lighter. The only real downside is that it does nothing if your gun isn't pointed towards the enemy, and so you are more vulnerable in an ambush.
William Butler
This guy is definitely autistic, but I like the idea. Would work even better with modern UHMWPE armor as it would decrease the weight.
Brody Campbell
I will never let you forget you said that.
Why not attach the shield to a GPMG tripod?
Easton Barnes
How effective is it tho? Like I was shooting straight through about quater inch steel with my .22mag so any decent sized round woukd fuck shit up. You'd have to be wearing some seriously thick armour, to the point where its kinda useless
Gabriel Long
I also have spent sleepless nights wondering why modern armour insists on being flat. The only reason I can come up with is going prone/carrying things on your chest. But I think the more likely reason is the people designing them never bothered to look at old amour and insisted on starting from step 1 again. The real question is when will they discover the muscle cuirass again because that will be dope
Anthony Morales
Its because making bulletproof folds in that type of steel is not easy. Its also a lot more of the material, making it more expensive, and it often involves compound curves increasing the price a lot more.
The real problem is lack of demand and the fact nobody has mad a working prototype
There's also the chance that a straight-on shot would bounce left or right and hit your arm, but a shot hitting your plate straight-on is probably pretty rare. In addition to that, it restricts chest rig space and you can't hang your rifle on your chest as comfortably as most soldiers do.
It's mostly about price. I do think a Renaissance style breastplate would sell like fucking hotcakes though.
Justin Reed
It's like you don't want to equip your light infantry with handcarts.
You know, the Hungarian army completely dropped bipods for the PKM, because that makes it too heavy for the infantry to carry, and there are lots of them on vehicles anyway. What I want to say is that I firmly believe that machine guns on tripods are obsolete.
Henry Young
Damn, I obviously wanted to write tripods there. Unfortunately the average Hungarian is not enough of a Hung Aryan to go full Rambo.
Ayden Reed
Bullet-resistant armour made from modern armour-grade steel isn't prohibitively heavy, just uncomfortable. Against 19th century police weapons, even junk steel was good enough.
It also makes you look like a trash can of death, which is awesome.
It's just that people realized that intercepting bullets in fraying and shattering layers is more efficient per weight and money with current tech than bouncing it, hence modern ballistic armours.
This carries over even to armoured combat vehicles. Chobham armour is not sloped, see.
The old harnesses were made to protect mainly from hand weapons and arrows, and sometimes from black powder pistols and long-range musket fire.
Noah Sanders
To reduce weight. Modern rifle plates are tiny comparing to the peascod breastplates.
Angled shape means more weight. Thicknesses of plate would be such to stop bullet impacting at perpendicular angle. Angled plate would have larger surface than flat plate of same thickness and would weight more (because physics and geometry). Or thickness of plate would be not enough to stop bullet at perpendicular angle only at angled impact, than user have to accept that armor can be penetrated with side shot.
There are different form of plate armor, people mash them together because they looks kinda the same. Pre guns era full plate suit from 1-1.5mm steels were 25-35 kgs, and were light and convenient enough.
After guns era required 5-6mm steel to stop musket balls (BTW AR500 plates have similar thickness). Full suit from such steel would weight 120kg… So compromises in coverage must be made. 16th century bullet proofed plate armors has much lees coverage of that bulletproofed part and they still weighted 50-60 kg and users bitched and moaned about how this weights are beyond reason and eventually guns won and armors were dropped.