>>607876
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.
>You can't move in it.
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).
>It can be light.
Some of the technical steel are stupidly tough and light.
"It won't be cheap" is a much better argument…