• [VIDEO] Female armor: Fantasy vs Reality
    43 replies, posted
Came for the breastplates, stayed for the cods.
jesus henry VIII had a masive cockdpiece
Typical female fantasy armor with the separation to the breasts as opposed to one solid piece on front is also structurally bad because it's a big fucking weak spot. The armor is more likely and will more easily fold where the separation is. Say goodbye to your sternum if you're struck there.
Surely a highly decorated artificer boob-armor doesn't matter when you got a whole retinue under your control to take the hit for you.
Sci-fi armor does the same shit, especially in video games. Mass Effect's accentuating boob armor is the norm for video games, where Halo's more sensible female spartan armor is the exception. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/205174/70ab0556-233a-4824-a815-e873d14da1e8/image.png Vs. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/205174/c4c8e0e1-4e43-49f6-9bf8-7555db3dd4ce/image.png
This has been debunked several ways and times, and assumes that armor makers were generally shit at their job, which was basically never the kind of case other than edges, as armoring was a job like every other military endeavor throughout history, for every maker that was amateur junk there were ten other either employed by the state or the local big penis to have their shit literally together in the tippest toppest form. One horizontally curved piece being superior doesn't imply two individualized pieces being crap, and any amount of piercing power able to get through any point would marginalize the armor to being with, which is why daggers and other pointy things designed to go through face plates, visor and eye holes existed. If you'd finished watching the video yourself you'd note his comments about rounded domes being superior at slow ablation resistance, something that doesn't apply at all to modern unisex armor at all, cause high velocity rounds particularly scifi ones, do not give a fuck about the societal attractiveness of the surface they're penetrating. The notion that swinging hits would somehow magically slide into the center of the chest when they have enough speed and force to make any dent at all has also been debunked rather handily by actual people smashing on other people in armor.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1844/944ed79f-2824-4612-8ccc-04b01b98d33d/Armor threads.jpg
You're right the armorers weren't shit at their job so they never made boobplate because it's fucking stupid. Curved surfaces do make for a better glancing blow but your female warrior probably isn't going to be doing parries with her tits. Citation on people bashing on boobplate please
It's not only about swinging hits, but also stabs. Guess where they glide towards if you got two spheres on either side.
No stabbing implement would go through a plate piece no matter how guided.
A good war pick probably could if the person using it got the right leverage and a solid hit, but having boob armour wouldn't do much to make it more (or less) likely. That said the main danger when in plate armour is blunt weapons, since they can dent the armour, squeezing the wearer inside. That and just getting worn out to the point where someone could slip a dagger or a short sword in the gaps of the armour. Someone getting a cut in at the knee or elbow could result in a very unpleasant death.
I didn't watch the vid but I honestly don't get the circlejerk about trying to figure out the most useful wear for females in [historical period]. There are extremely few examples of a common armed female populace in many cultures, with the big exception probably being the Onna-Bugeisha, historically (and at least images of them seem to actually show armour looking very similar tothe male counterpart, but this cuold be as much about homogenity as anything else.). IF we want to look at alternative history, then if the greeks and romans had 100% egalitarian societies with similar opportunities for women to be in the military, we absolutely would have recovered boob plates from those eras. The codpiece obv isn't practical either, so the precedence is there. The picts fought naked despite most likely having access to some armaments, at the very least cloth, which is on some level effective. The choice of armour arguably has a cultural stake in it and not just a practical one, especially in those days when people honestly did not have the grasp for physics we have now. It's a decent argument i guess for sci-fi stories, as we know that already know that women in armed or police forces now get armour similar to the male counterparts. Of course, if you're making a contemporary modern armour you should simply reference what is used currently, simple. That being said, its not 100% universal. Check out this chest protector for a female fencer: https://www.thefencingshop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/products-Femail-chest-protector-straight-on-white(400-x-600).jpg Google "female chest protector" and you will see similar models for a variety fo sports).
That's not real armor meant to protect from a real fatal blow you big dummy
I thought "Shadiversity" was going to be about very different topics
It's a decorative piece, it doesn't ACTUALLY house the user's fucking junk in them, and on top of that it's located in quite possibly one of the most guarded areas on the body?
Nice snipe, you should maybe know that equipment like this and the plastron was made mandatory after people literally died without them.
I admittedly, stupidly, had the mental image of the user going against a proper weapon, when that isn't the point at all of sports fencing. The armor would protect in a spar, yeah, but you're still not exactly trying to deal mortally wounding blows in a spar. It's also for an entirely different subject than medieval plate armor.
Ahahaha. Agree!
I feel like I need to reiterate the point to you that people actually died. And my point isn't about overall practicality. Had you read my post at all more than just the image you would understand that I'm talking about that had female armour been common, so would weird things like boobplate also be. Armour design is literally never perfect thanks to the competition against weapons. But historically and especially in Europe we can see a big tie-in between armour and fashion. I wouldn't be surprised if there were plates with illustrated cleavage on the front (while still covering the neck of course). Yeah, we have hindsight now, we know some stuff the people back then didn't. But the choice of armour wasn't just a physics race to figure out the most efficient way to stop or deflect or anything else with blows. It was simply to create an efficient fighter in the moment, considering what your current environment is. Sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong, but it gives us the weird variety of armours, weapons and fighting styles in history that we see today.
As someone who fences, and has fenced with women who've had to wear chest protectors before, you end up wearing a thick ass fencing jacket anyways, so in the end it doesn't look all that defined and it's just a slight bulge over a male one with no defined curves. The problem is largely just making specific boob plates is just kind of stupid from a practical perspective. It's much easier, much more cost effective, and doesn't allow for any weakpoints or errors to just put a general bulge there instead of specific place for each breast, which is basically what the video maker suggests. Problem fucking solved. You still have definition for the female form but it's not stupid.
Sure, I fence too, albeit historical types, so I'm aware of how it can end up. Of course I agree that making a general bulge makes life easier for everyone. But as can be seen sometimes some people simply feel it worth for the added aesthetics.
No, you. The standardized plastron G-Strogg posted is designed by a woman btw, so you can go ahead and stow your fedora and glasses and m'lady macInnes beard while you're at it, never mind your entire conflation attempt by bringing a scifi example to a medieval setting. 'I don't like boob cavities' has nothing to with 'boob cavities get women killed' has per the last time you tried this same tact on this same subject. A quick google brings up Fecht Yeah and Iron Maidens, both groups of whom have been using shaped plate or flat cavity interchangeably as the situation demands, so apparently it's not big a deal as you make it out to be. A quick hit on Leon Paul brings up cups and shaped plastron straight up on the front page. Also https://www.fscclub.com/history/images/armor-boob-plate03.jpg https://www.fscclub.com/history/images/armor-nicole-leigh.jpg Hmm, it almost looks like period armorers accounted for your guided death channel theorycraft and made changes accordingly while still allowing for shaped plastrons, like they had practical experience or something.
Where did I inject my personal opinion into it? I've provided the reasons out that specific boob cavities are stupid. Please reread my post. I just did those 'quick' google searches and nothing of the sort came up. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/239718/6d717b97-2588-4e16-b09a-172a477fb0f6/yourewrong1.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/239718/b8b36df5-f789-4d8b-97c1-ab0c723f5f25/yourewrong2.png Furthermore, HEMA and Fencing are not really valid indicators of actual combat. They're sports with rules and regulations very specific to them. And also once again, yes the plastrons can be shaped but it ends up not mattering. Fencing is not the same armor as full plate mail. None of what you've provided has any proof or indicator to any of the reason's I've stated being wrong. You've just vaguely pointed to modern day sports which you haven't even provided actual proof have proper breast cavities for plate mail armor even in those sports, just gone "go look it up yourself" and walked away. Pretty sure the first image is just a figurine made by someone in the modern day, and the second image just proves my point. Having one large chest cavity just makes more sense and doesn't leave the risk of having a weakpoint. The point I'm making with the weakpoint, isn't even the "guided death channel" bullcrap you're talking about. I'm just talking about basic physics. Any kind of basic blunt force to the chest plate of the armor, even those caused by a sword, all of that energy will be transferred to the strip of metal between the two specific breast plate, no matter how wide or thin or even curved those pieces are, and will cause much more impact and thus potential damage than if the piece was one solid cavity. Combine that with the fact that it'd be extra cost for the material to make boob specific plates in a time where iron was rare and expensive and steel was hard to make, and it'd just be easier to fashion one larger plate. From a practical point of view, specifically shaped boob armor is just stupid. Calm down dude. You've been incredibly incendiary in this post without providing any actual substance, and have actually been an asshole to Stolid whose just trying to discuss the topic at hand. Not cool man.
wtf are you people talking about elf chicks wore armored bikinis in medieval times so men in the future like me could masturbate to them
It's true that modern fencing isn't close to indicating combat at all, but as with that and many other martial arts with female, if the nondomed shape is always better, why isn't that in use? I have received thrusts so hard they've bruised my ribs and at one point it felt like my entire ribcage was just shaking from the ricochet, these things obviously alleviate that in their current shape. And in terms of physics, sorry, the existence of a valley in a geometric shape will not cause all force to magically put its way there. If you hit straight on a domed area it will either disperse the force evenly through all side if there's a cavity underneath, or more likely since there's not supposed to be one most of the force will disperse in whatever padding you're would wear underneath, and some out the sides. The biggest issue with doming a breastplate like this overall is the fact that you're creating a raised surface a strike from above could possibly reach, But again, then 2 domes or 1 doesn't really make a difference. So if one's end goal is to make armour female-form fitting, might as well go for 2, if that's ones wish. Renaissance armours have extremely tight waists in comparison and honestly that is more fashion than function. Theoretically they should suffer from the same issues but they seemingly didn't.
Considering the fact most full plate armor were march/parade armor and not meant for combat, why is this a problem still? Why do people still get so overheated about it?
*Most extant armour. Going by depictions and manuscripts these full plate armours were used where available. In some cases they look to have similar practicality to certain fashion pieces, sometimes more.
But that's not what most media is depicting. They're not depicting bogstandard Knights of the lowest rung with some simple full plate meant for doing fieldworks. Its also always leaders/higher rungs of the feudal ladder so of course they're going to look sexy. And that's most likely where you'd find the boobplates.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.