Why did Starfleet security stop wearing body armor?

File: The Three Stooges Get A Phaser.webm (2MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x720px

>>83139362
>And don't say weapons became deadlier or whatever
Okay, but that is why. You'd need a personal forcefield generator for it to make any difference, and those probably aren't standard issue, if they even have any on board.

>>83139362
agility and perception are blocked by armor usage, which are far more important for almost all star fleet officer situations.

they should have used EVO suits or something like that for dangerous missions, but regular mission usage would be harmfully redundant

>>83140956

Armor isn't just for getting shot. Without a helmet, if you hit your head on something, you get knocked unconscious. People wear helmets riding bicycles through the park. But they won't wear one fighting a war. That's dumb.

>>83139362
They look like American football players from the 30s

>>83139362
In real life people stopped wearing armor once guns became widespread, when arms reach a point where they make armor useless people will stop using armor.

>>83139362
>Why did Starfleet security stop wearing body armor?

I don't think Roddenberry ever liked them having it. The only project he was closely involved in where they wore it was TMP.

>People confuse lore with budgetary reasons
Jesus christ, trekkies.

>>83141883
leather skullcaps aren't going to help much for that so that's clearly not what the old body armor is for

>>83142450
gene roddenberry had one goal and one goal only: absolute realism

Because body armor would cover up Tasha's tits.

>>83142113

People stopped wearing armor when they started using mass infantry.

>>83142113
Medieval plate armor was bulletproof. The term bulletproof is reference to a dent in the armor were it was tested.
It's more than just spread of firearms.

>>83142960
Where* it was

File: 142639994231.jpg (127KB, 801x690px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 801x690px

>>83142954
Not in Star Trek

File: porco_rosso_image.jpg (42KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x300px

>>83142960
This is incorrect. A shot from a gunpowder weapon fragmented early armor, usually embedding shrapnel in the body of the unfortunate wearer. In an age that predated germ theory, without antiseptic, this meant armor was more likely to get a soldier killed than save his life. A battlefield gunshot wound was almost always fatal, if not immediately then following infection. This combined with the importance of mutability on the battlefield meant that it was far more important to move to advantageous positions on the battlefield than to protect against melee attack. Most dragoons and pikemen stopped wearing armor entirely or wore very light armor.

Interestingly, wearing armor at all came to be a sign of cowardice by the mid 17th century.

>>83142767
Rick Berman would have gone insane.

File: 1483670849886.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>83143219
Tell that to Ned Kelly

>>83143219
Breastplates were worn specifically to stop shrapnel, you boob. It was the precursor to flak jackets.

File: Hazardsuiteffiles.jpg (77KB, 819x614px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 819x614px

>>83139362
>Why did Starfleet security stop wearing body armor?

Only the best of the best keep using armor .

File: 214xz6w.jpg (46KB, 651x551px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 651x551px

>>83143606

>>83143456
>>83143554
I suggest you review your sources. You may be basing your claims on popular fiction rather than historical records. The presence of a unique piece of armor crafted for a single, wealthy patron is not indicative of the military strategy of the time. Source: I am a medievalist.

>>83143456
Yeah, his armour was made from ploughs, it was so fucking thick and heavy they couldn't do more than shuffle forwards.

And the policemen were using low calibre carbines and pistols, not military rifles.

Zero practical battlefield applications, as demonstrated by the fact they killed zero cops before having their unarmoured legs ventilated and being captured.

Even the famous 'bulletproofed' cuirasses of the 1600's with the bullet dent in the metal, were only 'proofed' against pistols, which were notoriously shit even at point-blank range.

>>83139362

This is why STO is superior, the game is basically a continuation of Enterprise where every faction including Federation are heavily militarized.

Everyone is rolling around with mobile armies, carrier swarms and ridiculously advanced mobile weaponry.

>>83143683

this anon is correct though, most people did not have super plate armor, only wealthiest could afford that for long periods of time.

Most wore mismash of things during battle, and stuff like chainmail which was highly effective was more commonly worn than what you see in tv or movies since it helped prevent sword slashes and arrows.

File: 1281997726675.gif (1MB, 360x288px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 360x288px

>>83143456
>>83143554
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygaSMeTh-f0

>mfw someone is wrong on the internet.

File: F3kdwBV.jpg (25KB, 545x394px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 545x394px

Can the casuals please leave?

>>83143843
>let's shoot a gun at a replica of a early medieval helmet, that will prove that armored units were not used in combat well into the Napoleonic wars
Brilliant

>>83139362
When they realized those tiny pistols vaporize anything they fire at, a fucking leather helmet and vest will do nothing.

File: louis XV.jpg (47KB, 414x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 414x500px

>>83143219
>Interestingly, wearing armor at all came to be a sign of cowardice by the mid 17th century.
Yeah, that's why this guy that waged war to every other power of his time had himself portrayed wearing armor, he just wanted everyone to know he was a big fat pussy

File: Reiter_gdanski_2.1.jpg (70KB, 512x600px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 512x600px

>>83143843
>19th century weapon
>medieval helmet
They did use armor well after gunpowder was invented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiter). It was just cheaper to equip people with firearms than to train and equip armored knights.

File: 618px-Oliver_Cromwell_by_Robert_Walker.jpg (126KB, 618x768px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 618x768px

>>83143219
>>83144171
And look at this guy, I bet he was a total pushover, he is wearing a fucking full set of plate armor!

>>83143219
motherfucker, every general and king wore ceremonial armor into the 1700s

>>83139362
they're all cucks in a totalitarian brainwashed society they don't need logic

>>83144222
Older gunpowder weapons used heavier shot and more powder.

>>83144171
>>83144247
>>83144278
Politicians back then, much like today, liked to play dress up. This should surprise no one.

>>83144222
Armor was indeed expensive, and had its uses, but it was largely ineffective against gunpowder weapons.

File: 166062_DieletzteRuestungMaximilians_1.jpg (129KB, 427x865px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 427x865px

>>83144247
>>83144171
Not saying you are wrong about the military stuff but "knighthood" really god popular when the importance of knights diminished. It's a rather complex social process but basically those guys were compensating.

Pic related. It's Maximilian Is armor. /his/ and /k/ keep posting it but it was never really used in battle.

>>83144359
>>83144222
>Older gunpowder weapons used heavier shot and more powder.
Meant that for>>83143954

>>83144359
>Politicians back then, much like today, liked to play dress up. This should surprise no one.
Don't try to pretend you didn't say something retarded like "wearing armor at all came to be a sign of cowardice by the mid 17th century" you boob

>>83144359
>Older gunpowder weapons used heavier shot and more powder.
>implying those are the only two factors determining the efficacy of weapons
> largely ineffective against gunpowder weapons.
You can repeat your claim as often as you want but it won't convince anyone if you don't bring anything new to the table.

>>83144359
>Oliver Cromwell, who fought in a dozen battles, is just "playing dressup"
Never mind, just another shitposting troll who knows nothing.

>>83143730
Most bulletproof vests today are only good against pistols too
>>83143683
You suck as a medievalist

>>83144432
Why don't you bring something new to the table and prove your claim?

>>83139362
>Why did soldiers stop wearing full plate? And don't say weapons became deadlier or whatever.

File: Gericault-carabiniere-cavallo.jpg (109KB, 500x645px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 500x645px

>>83144412
And their shot also had terrible aerodynamic, that's why they had to compensate for it with heavier balls and higher loads of powder. And again, using armor from before guns were widespread as antipersonnel weapons to prove that armor from the XVI century onward was bad against guns is laughable.

In the ENT episode "Hatchery", what the fuck happened to the Xindi-insectoids at the end? Did they just let them die? It was never explained

>>83144366
How can white bois even compete?

File: 00roundhead.jpg (60KB, 350x703px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 350x703px

>>83144501
My claim was that the video is shit and I don't see any refusal for that argument.

Here is a pic of a soldier from Cromwells New Model Army. Although musketeers didn't were armor, I already explained why, horse units and pikemen were armored

>>83143200
>tfw this war is supposed to take place soon

>>83139362
Because it looks fucking retarded, that's why

File: dontlaugh.png (367KB, 716x401px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 716x401px

>>83144462
>medievalist
>17th century

File: 1280px-Battle_of_Borodino.jpg (222KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1280x960px

>>83143219
>what are the cuirassiers
Heavily utilized during the Napoleonic Wars (16 French regiments and the other powers usually employed a few regiments each). They used an armored breastplate/backplate with a helmet and cuirassier sword/pistol.

They were the best French cavalry unit type for the entirety of the wars due to their shock attack power as heavy cavalry and status as the senior-most regiments.

File: Antoine-Fauveau.jpg (55KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 700x500px

>>83144703
*blocks your whole ribcage*

>>83144700
I was replying to the guy claiming he was one, dipshit

>>83144459
>Implying he'd wear his battlefield armour for a portrait

I bet you think Sir Francis Drake sailed into battle wearing a giant fuck-off ruff and lacey pantaloons.

>>83144561
Almost as laughable responding to evidence contrary to your belief by ignoring it and merely doubling down on your incorrect assumptions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGj0M-NJDGA

>>83144700
This is the correct response. Honestly, past the early 16th century I start to get out of my depth. What should be clear, however, is that the use of gunpowder weapons changed warfare dramatically.

>>83144818
>implying an upstanding Puritan like him would have had any other armor

>>83144462
>Most bulletproof vests today are only good against pistols too
http://www.ar500armor.com/ar500-armor-body-armor/level-iii-body-armor.html
>conditioned armor protects against
8.0 g (123 gr) 7.62×39mm (the ubiquitous AK-47 round) FMJ at a velocity of 738 m/s (2,421 ft/s.
> 9.6 g (148 gr) 7.62×51mm NATO M80 ball bullets at a velocity of 847 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s).
>19.7 g (305 gr) .45-70 solid copper bullets at velocity of 610 m/s (2000 ft/s).[30][31]

Notice how massively expensive these are...

>>83143606
>>83143661
Why does it have a pattern buffer?

>>83144703
Cuirassiers wore armour for defence against other cavalrymen with swords and infantry with bayonets. Their armour couldn't stop musket shot.

>>83144762
Turns out a thin piece of steel CANNOT stop a cannonball. Who knew?!

File: cersei3.jpg (31KB, 353x399px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 353x399px

>>83144762
>post the armor of someone that was killed by artillery in 1815 to prove that 17th century armor didn't protect against muskets
Wanna know how I know that you never read a proper history book?

File: gif2.gif.cf.gif (762KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

762KB, 500x280px

>>83144762
>a breastplate will stop cannonballs

File: 1245228550_jack_nicholson.gif (1MB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x200px

>>83144939
>>83144940
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGj0M-NJDGA
Enjoy.

>>83144939
>>83144929
>>83144940
Calm your tits, I was just bantering the Curaissierfag

>>83144869
I don't know what that image is from/about but my guess would be that you could use a squadron of troops as a clustered portable transporter pad/pattern enhancer, their suits will link up and form a single pattern buffer that can be used when someone beams to their location.

More likely though, they needed some technobabble to fill up the screen.

>>83142701
I thought it was

S P A C E

P

A

C

E

C O M M U N I S M

O

M

M

U

N

I

S

M

>>83144762
>cannonball isn't blocked by a breastplate
The situation was shitty enough to where they couldn't move out of artillery fire and the British had good cannoneers.

The armored regiments were best used against enemy light cavalry regiments and as shock cavalry.

>>83144880
The post I was replying to stated: "wearing armor at all came to be a sign of cowardice by the mid 17th century", and this is completely incorrect.

They were definitely vulnerable to musket and rifle fire, but if utilized correctly this never became an issue which caused high casualties.

>>83140956
Ill take chest shrapnel for $400, Alex

>>83144962
>17th century armor breaks when subject to the kind of energy exerted by the equivalent of a point-blank shot of a late 18th century weapon
wow

>>83144962
>the only thing he comes up with a youtube channels by some /k/ fags
What am I even supposed to draw from this except for the facts that the dude who made that video doesn't know much about history?

>>83145051
From what? Everyone they meet uses energy weapons.

>>83144962
>Stops the bullets
Wow, thanks for proving me right

>>83144600

they put on a distress signal after fixing it so they would be fine for a few years.

Even if the breastplate could stop penetration, at some point the sheer concussive force of taking a cannon to the chest is just going to fuck you up anyway.

File: 1279164548318.png (215KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 400x400px

>>83145067
>>83145068
>I'm proven wrong again guess I'd better just keep digging in my heels.

>>83145104
Did you pay attention to the little notes before each test? It stops low powered projectiles from under-powdered pistols, but is penetrated by correctly powdered pistol shot and is completely destroyed by musket fire.

File: 757.jpg (28KB, 680x364px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 680x364px

>>83145194
>he thinks that a ball fired by a 17th century musket could exert 2500 joules of energy when hitting something farther than 5 meters
Learn about physics, kid

File: 1296601290830.png (110KB, 900x891px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 900x891px

>>83145295
>I'm losing an internet argument!
>Better call the other guy "kid" that'll show him. :)

>>83141883
You can still tko yourself with a helmet on.

Remember the time that T'pol became addicted to crack?

>>83145385
>he still hasn't learned that spheres have a terrible aerodynamic coefficient
Keep browsing youtube, maybe you'll learn about it there

>>83145194
If you actually read the paper that video footage comes from, you'll know the conclusion reached was that the real breastplate protected against 17th century pistols at all ranges, and muskets beyond 30 meters.

>>83139362
I think these are just production-side decisions senpai. Sometimes they don't jive with consistency.

>>83139362
too be honest, boobs

>>83145552
*stops penetration beyond 30 meters

It'd still be like getting hit with a war hammer swung by Gregor Clegane. You'd have all kinds of internal damage.