After keeping relative parity for probably 5000 years, when did

>>3076294
Somewhere in the 1600s or 1700s gunpowder weapons rendered even the thickest wearable armor (4 mm) ineffective. It wasn't all at once, though.

>>3076294
Never; effective body armour has always existed. It just went through periods of being either too impractical or too expensive to use. Most if not all modern armies are equipped with armour that can stop rifle rounds.

>>3076294
I mean. We still have Kevlar vests and helmets in the modern day that are fairly effective. I think even some Soviet shock troops in WWII sometimes wore bulky ceramic armor if thats the kind of stuff you want.

File: 1488778084681.jpg (27KB, 375x383px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 375x383px

>>3076320
>>3076322
Kevlarmind

>>3076294

It didn't. It just got moved onto vehicles. Armoring tanks and personnel carriers makes much more sense then trying to armor each individual soldier.

>>3076320
>Most if not all modern armies are equipped with armour that can stop rifle rounds.

More like pistol rounds. Also in modern war people don't die from getting shot with low caliber guns, they die from explosions.

File: history armor.jpg (218KB, 1592x479px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1592x479px

>>3076294
Metatron used this graphic, idk if he is the original creator. So armor became a lot less used between 1525 and 1610, according to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhIP6dfr_FE

>>3076330
But then the bunkers and forts also went obsolete, and they are the big AoE armor buff thing.
Modern "castles" are fucking bags of dirt piled up just over a man's height for fucks sake. Or a hole with a net on it.

>>3076341
>armor declined as the aristocracy stopped being a warrior caste and became a bureaucrat caste

Hmmm...

File: History armor 2.jpg (134KB, 470x400px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 470x400px

>>3076341
Encyclopaedia Britannica seems to agree, which is a good sign.

>>3076346
>And in places, where nobles were still fighting, armours were doing really fine.
Hmmm...

>>3076322
That ceramic armor was cool as fuck even if it was a bit goofy

>>3076336
Military grade plates can stop a rifle round. I've seen a guy take a sniper round to the chest and come out of it with just a bruise.

>>3076383
Was the sniper packing M1891?

File: NORMANS_GET_OUT_REEEEEEE.png (99KB, 755x682px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 755x682px

>>3076352
I think its hilarious that the Brits are so butthurt over the Norman invasion that they have 1066 as if its some special year for armor.

File: ground target sight.jpg (510KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1920x1080px

>>3076342
it's called technological advances, modern weapons are simply too powerful to justify building heavily armored buildings. Also a very important part of modern warfare is mobility, as seen in WW2 the Maginot Line wasn't of much use when the attacking Germans simply drove around them.

File: russian power meme concept.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>3076294
>Will armor ever reclaim parity or superiority over weapons ever again?
Power armour (exoskeletons). Modern soldiers already have chest protection that can reliably stop most rifle rounds and the only reason more of the body isnt covered is because of weight restrictions, which power armour could alleviate. Another way full or 3/4 body armour could come back is if massive strides are made in the ability to mass produce certain materials like carbon nanotubes or diamondoids or synthetic spider silk although thats unlikely to happen anytime soon.
>Some sort of kinetic shield a la Dune maybe.
Physically impossible, the only things which could resemble sci-fi energy shields that can exist would be some form of very gimmicky and probably unpractical plasma based magnetic thing.

>>3076406
Yes, this is the entire point of this thread. Good that you got it.

>>3076839
Oh sorry, just read your post again, thought that was a question, nevermind.

>>3076893
I am sorry too, that came out meaner than I intended. I was actually going to delete that post, but forgot to.

Cheers.

>>3076909
Hahaha <3

File: armored column.jpg (1MB, 2790x1860px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2790x1860px

>Will armor ever reclaim parity or superiority over weapons ever again?
It already has.
What do you think this is, the 1800s?

File: 14935537082090.jpg (106KB, 497x576px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 497x576px

Nah armor will be needed while there is conflict in the world. Survivability of troops is important...

>>3076921
Yeah thats just a modern mounted knight.

>>3076352
>1066 doesn't wear a belt
Why did he mean by this?

File: Cuirassiers.jpg (62KB, 758x500px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 758x500px

In infantry : Mid-17th century
In cavalry : 1914