3 ms·
> No, the comparison to an APC (armored personnel carrier) is apt- knights were armored enough to be nearly invulnerable to the weaponry a peasant would have ac
by brazzy 6y ago
> No, the comparison to an APC (armored personnel carrier) is apt- knights were armored enough to be nearly invulnerable to the weaponry a peasant would have access to.
No. A knight prone on the ground was very easy to kill very quickly - just stick a dagger through the visor. There is nothing comparable a civilian today can do to an APC.
Additionally, a single knight on a horse was not that hard to take down using relatively easily-available polearms, at least to a group of peasants. It doesn't scale down linearly - 40:9000 is a very different matter than 1:200, because a charge of 40 mounted knights is still inescapable death to the part of the enemy force they're charging at. A single knight would be much less terrifying even to a relatively group of peasants.
- C1sc0cat 6y agoLob a molatoff cocktail from above and hit the engine intakes and you can get a Mobility kill. Armour in built up areas is very risky with out infantry support and the APC's would not be just driving around with out having dismounts supporting them.
- zrobotics 6y agoThis, or spray paint in windows and periscopes. Or, smokey fires in air inlets, crews carry gas masks but not hours of supplemental O2. Modern armor isn't invulnerable, but as I suggested it isn't easy to take out and likely would achieve similar to 40:9000 or worse in confrontations with civilians. Thankfully armor rolling over civilians like that isn't common enough for me to pull actual statistics, so we have to guess at efficacy compared to knights fighting peasants.
- fencepost 6y agoAnd a knight would frequently be either backed by other knights or have men at arms as well - effectively dismounts.