5 ms·

> Armor is an occasional expense ... Soldiers are a constant expense I'm not an expert, but it's worth considering that you can't ramp the production of armor

> Armor is an occasional expense ... Soldiers are a constant expense I'm not an expert, but it's worth considering that you can't ramp the production of armor in the same way you can ramp conscription. So to have enough armor, you'd need to be buying armor for nobody in times of peace, which is a tough decision, especially if you're living in an era where firearms are improving rapidly.

usrusr 3y ago
And unlike armor, a musket is not made to fit. Even if you tried, you wouldn't have been able to stockpile quality armor for a time of need, outside a privileged warrior class (who did wear armor to battle)
- hef19898 3y ago
  Most armor throughout history was not tailor made so. It was mix and match.
- jjk166 3y ago
  This period actually saw the rise of "munition armor" which was meant to be mass produced. This was part of the reason for the transition to 3/4 cuirasses - the arms and legs, in addition to being less vital, are also where a lot of the customization was needed; if you stop armoring them then everything becomes lighter and cheaper.
lazide 3y ago
Also, armor sucks to actually wear. It restricts mobility, wears everyone out faster due to weight, causes issues with heat management in hot climates, etc. Unless there are pretty good odds the risk of getting shot is worth the payoff (and the real costs are therefore worth paying), it’s way easier to just not use it. Ain’t nobody running an obstacle course in good time in Level 4 armor (or plate).
- hermitcrab 3y ago
  Somebody actually did that experiment: https://digg.com/video/knight-firefighter-soldier-obstacle-course https://digg.com/video/knight-firefighter-soldier-obstacle-c... The plate armour guy was marginally faster than the guy in modern soldier's gear. Plate armour was less cumbersome than most people imagine and the weight is more evenly distributed than a modern soldier (where it is nearly all on their back).
  - lazide 3y ago
    Sure, but most people imagine plate armor means you can’t get yourself up off the ground and you’re stuck and dead if you fall. And those folks actively trained with that armor on. A noob would have a MUCH worse time. They also would have been a LOT faster without any armor at all on (once they adjusted for the lack of weight/restriction). Also, probably dead if they got hit with whatever the armor would protect them from. I know, I’ve had to do courses like that with and without body armor, and wore Level IIIA body armor for years. You get used to it, but it is ‘friction’ that you’d be faster without.
    - hermitcrab 3y ago
      >Sure, but most people imagine plate armor means you can’t get yourself up off the ground and you’re stuck and dead if you fall. I think that migth be another one of those myths we can blame the Victorians for. Also the black and white film of Henry V (?) where knights are shown being winched on to their horses. They weren't going to wear armour so heavy they couldn't get up in - they weren't stupid! >A noob would have a MUCH worse time. Indeed. People wearing plate were professional warriors, trained from childhood.
otabdeveloper4 3y ago
Conscripts have to be fed and housed.
- mmh0000 3y ago
  No, they don't. Just ask Russia! If your conscripts die, no big deal; conscript more!

usrusr 3y ago

And unlike armor, a musket is not made to fit. Even if you tried, you wouldn't have been able to stockpile quality armor for a time of need, outside a privileged warrior class (who did wear armor to battle)

hef19898 3y ago
Most armor throughout history was not tailor made so. It was mix and match.
jjk166 3y ago
This period actually saw the rise of "munition armor" which was meant to be mass produced. This was part of the reason for the transition to 3/4 cuirasses - the arms and legs, in addition to being less vital, are also where a lot of the customization was needed; if you stop armoring them then everything becomes lighter and cheaper.

lazide 3y ago

Also, armor sucks to actually wear. It restricts mobility, wears everyone out faster due to weight, causes issues with heat management in hot climates, etc. Unless there are pretty good odds the risk of getting shot is worth the payoff (and the real costs are therefore worth paying), it’s way easier to just not use it. Ain’t nobody running an obstacle course in good time in Level 4 armor (or plate).

hermitcrab 3y ago
Somebody actually did that experiment: https://digg.com/video/knight-firefighter-soldier-obstacle-course https://digg.com/video/knight-firefighter-soldier-obstacle-c... The plate armour guy was marginally faster than the guy in modern soldier's gear. Plate armour was less cumbersome than most people imagine and the weight is more evenly distributed than a modern soldier (where it is nearly all on their back).
- lazide 3y ago
  Sure, but most people imagine plate armor means you can’t get yourself up off the ground and you’re stuck and dead if you fall. And those folks actively trained with that armor on. A noob would have a MUCH worse time. They also would have been a LOT faster without any armor at all on (once they adjusted for the lack of weight/restriction). Also, probably dead if they got hit with whatever the armor would protect them from. I know, I’ve had to do courses like that with and without body armor, and wore Level IIIA body armor for years. You get used to it, but it is ‘friction’ that you’d be faster without.
  - hermitcrab 3y ago
    >Sure, but most people imagine plate armor means you can’t get yourself up off the ground and you’re stuck and dead if you fall. I think that migth be another one of those myths we can blame the Victorians for. Also the black and white film of Henry V (?) where knights are shown being winched on to their horses. They weren't going to wear armour so heavy they couldn't get up in - they weren't stupid! >A noob would have a MUCH worse time. Indeed. People wearing plate were professional warriors, trained from childhood.

otabdeveloper4 3y ago

Conscripts have to be fed and housed.

mmh0000 3y ago
No, they don't. Just ask Russia! If your conscripts die, no big deal; conscript more!