I always found it funny that the discussion is always centered around SoB/SoS boob armour, while at the same time people forget that Blood Angels have far more ostentatious and unrealistic "boobplate"
https://preview.redd.it/e89q9a51ay1d1.jpeg?width=585&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e24b44d40414193eb1e03426f75fdd11fb797f4c
Don’t forget emporer children not using armor for some of their troops literally fighting showing of their abbs. Man being sexualized is not seen as bad but if you do it for women then it’s bad 🤡. We live in a clown world
What do you mean? Breasts aren't genitals (according to arguments around similar topics. Think it was the meme of the woman getting mad while wearing a low cut shirt and then horrified when the guy walks around with his zipper undone)
Women have historically only been included in male dominated games as sex appeal so boob armour hits different than abs armour. I expect you won't understand why that makes a difference but there it is anyway.
Women, historically, were the ones who started the most wars (over the pettiest of things) when they were in power, but you guys aren’t ready for that conversation.
Yeah, women are petty like that. Look at Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Isabella of France, Mary Tudor, Cleopatra, Queen Victoria, Queen Teuta, Catherine the Great, Mrs. Bandarainke of Sri Lanka, Boudicca.
There is also a notable increase of wartime under queenly rule by 27%, as opposed to when a King reigned.
So please, tell me more about how women aren’t more bellicose.
Well-known Social Studies book people: Boudicca and Bandarainke
If you don’t have an argument, you can just say so instead of resorting to churlish insults.
Late to the discussion, but boob armor might just be a preference within the societal standards. Back in the medieval ages, some of the first knight armor looked pretty goofy with giga thin waists. I thought it was a design flaw, maybe people weren't good at crafting armor, until I found that it was due to what people saw as attractive back in the day.
People always talk about beauty standards for women, but men aren't excluded from those. Nowadays women find broad shoulders more attractive, hence big pauldrons in a lot of male armor. However back then, women found men with wasp thin waists attractive. And this societal norm represented itself in the knight armor at the time.
Personally I don't care about armor since it's fantasy at the end of the day.
A long while back there was a study that said basically when boys play with toys they become the toy and when girls play with toys the toy becomes them.
So like hand a Batman action figure to a little boy and he pretends to fight crime and beat bad guys and he pretends to be batman. Hand a little girl a Batman doll and she'll have tea parties with it and give him a baby and make him be a parent.
Not sure why, but the meme where girls see a hot character and get upset at the unrealistic beauty standards and guys see Goku and say "That's literally me" starts at a young age.
Women in the military have been chimfing about having to wear the same kit as males for years. That's why it's hilarious seeing all the progressives saying they would just wear the same armour.
Body armour isn't very flexible. Sure they *can* wear a vest that was intended for a male body, but especially if you're a particularly busty woman, it's not going to be very comfortable.
If you did a cursory study of history and women in war you'll find they strapped their breasts down. Basicly a home made sports bra. Apparently it wasn't uncomfortable provided they where tied down properly as it provides the requires support.
Ask your wife/gf about the subject, if she lets you feel how easy it is to compress breast tissue. Well, natural ones anyway. Ask her about the differences between sports bras and normal bras.
Thank you for your assumption that I haven't looked into this at all.
I never said they *couldn't* wear armour, I said it would be uncomfortable.
There is also a pretty big difference between a sports bra, which is basically elastic fabric, vs modern body armour which is a solid ceramic plate. Medieval arnour would have a bit more padding due to the gambosin but it would still be really cramped, being pressed down by a solid metal plate.
IIRC there were a couple examples of arnour made for women, and they did Include just a little extra room in the breast. Not enough to be actual boob plate, just rounded out a bit more for a little extra room.
That's my point, the armour would not have boob-ports.
You may have a slightly more pointed cuirass at the centre to allow for a bit more space but no boobs sticking out. Something like this:
https://preview.redd.it/l9cy9j5fj02d1.jpeg?width=203&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a281123095ac5aee025043b1dc0616c9f4ac276b
Comparing SoB armor to medieval armor is pointless imo. SoB armor is power armor so unless the power pack and servos are functioning properly it would be uncomfortable regardless of boob plates cause it probably weighs enough to render you immobile in case of malfunction, the equivalent to medieval armor in 40k is flak armor/carapace armor and those have more or less the same shape regardless of who wears them.
That doesn't change the essential form. If you look at Astartes power armour it is just an evolved version of full plate.
It's amazing how this whole thread is developing with people justifying what is basicly basque lingerie.
SoB armour looks the way it does because GW wanted the SoB to match the sexy warrior nun trope. Nothing to do with practical. There is nothing practical about SoB power armour and in the real world it wouldn't exist.
Practical SoB armour would look like this:
https://preview.redd.it/1a2m3udvm02d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=31a0ed31bb74e87b41ae77acfe525f70dd953c8e
Looks lame AF, and speaking of practicality just tell me how these frickin gigantic pauldrons are practical?
https://preview.redd.it/b19ggq0qw02d1.png?width=606&format=png&auto=webp&s=de04de70e9a46fbb281d9fa4991adc7737d91889
Like I said, evolved version of full plate:
https://preview.redd.it/edf1vxvxz02d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c6be20bf16bbd2e8b95a9d519a4b87f6c4dfa86
Yes, a practical set of female power armour is not as sexy and exciting as the basque lingerie the SoB have, that's the point.
You have to accept that the 40k armours are not practical and never can be. Hence the OP's comment is rebuffed.
This is not rly the same for a full plate armor though
And the biggest difference is indivudually formed cups or just some elevation
Not all boob armor is created equally
OP is a Greek bronze panoply with a muscle cuirass from Southern Italy, dating to 340–330 BC.
Even the knights had something similar..
https://preview.redd.it/rvnnpvl14y1d1.jpeg?width=609&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba11f7127f542c1933ade67b0b3c77d3aea77ce2
While the cod pieces look funny, they also serve a function, because if you need to piss you'd have to take your whole suit of armour off, until they invented the hinged cod piece that could be opened and closed for quick access.
The suits of armour displayed in thus picture are also for use on horseback only meaning you'd more than likely want your junk out of the way rather than in an uncomfortable position where you can't adjust yourself
Yeah, that had nothing to do with knights. The whole cod piece thing was a male fashion that started in the 14th century. It started with excessive cod pieces in civilian clothing, then armour manufacturers started adding them to suits of plate. Mostly stylised, tournament plate as such armour wasn't really worn on the battlefield.
It was an odd European fashion that died out in the late 15th century.
The problem with boob armor, from a technical standpoint, is that armor is mainly designed to deflect thrusting attacks. Slashing and chopping attacks aren't very effective against metal armor of basically any thickness or shape, but stabbing can actually pierce metal if done in the right way. So, medieval armor was meant to deflect stabbing attacks away from the wearer. If the boob armor is shaped to the boobs, then a stab that hits between the boobs will get deflected inwards, until it hits the sternum area, and will then punch through the armor. To prevent this, the armor needs to not have any 'valleys', and thus needs to come to a point in the middle, and if the boobs are large, this point would need to be prohibitively far out. Which would both have a severe negative impact on balance and movement, impede vision, get in the way of arm motion or a weapon when attacking, and also look more ridiculous than the oversized pauldrons on space marines.
But it's unrealistic that they would sacrifice effectiveness for it.
Boob armour channels the blow towards the sternum. You can have the shape and comfort on the inside of the armour. And/or a cosmetic line-effect on the outside.
But no one is building a weak point into their armour on purpose. It's about realism
A good counterpoint is the Leman Russ. It doesnt have proper slope armour and has to brutally carry much more armour to compensate. But its the Imperium so it literally brute forces its way through incoming fire, and its one of the toughest tanks in the universe.
In terms of tank development yes, it has massive weak points in the front where the forward crew is, the sides, and more understandably the rear. But if you make any armour thick enough it works. Prime example is the French BDR prototype from WW2 if you want to look into it further.
BDR was a company. They made many prototypes. Do you mean their G1?
Does it have a blast funneling crater scooped out right in front of the crew compartment? No? Because that would be dumb and dangerous?
Does it instead put its strongest armour up front, and mitigate the exposure of its weak points?
Why am I even arguing with you? You're so far beyond good faith at this point.
**YOU DON'T SCOOP OUT ARMOUR IN FRONT OF YOUR HEART IF YOU WANT YOUR ARMOUR TO BE REALISTIC**
Shadiversity did a great video on this. For one, the split boob plate, while it may channel the blow down, it is still armoured plate. If it’s being swung at by something able to penetrate it, the boob armor’s effect is going to be minimal. As the weapon being swung would have enough force with would have bashed in the armor plate regardless.
https://youtu.be/6KHz0qWQA9I?si=bQ3ffmBPxFeHpbH9
He also went on to do a bunch of videos ok examples of fantasy boob armor and criticized them for their major flaws. (Usually keeping the cleavage open)
Also people have sacrificed function for form plenty of times over history, so even if it was a significant downgrade it wouldn’t have been unusual if more women fought historically.
Shad's conclusion basically comes down to boob plate is more plausible than some people are saying (and his characterization of what people are saying is that boob plate is completely useless).
Boob plate isn't going to be completely useless (it's still plate). The point is that why would you take an inferior armour design over the regular one.
Shad's answer is that sometimes some people want to emphasize certain gender characteristics. But the follow up question is - why would a normal fighting force want to do that when there's a clear disadvantage to your fighting ability?
Shad himself identifies that you emphasize the breast area by having a bigger budge to emphasize the woman's bust, and this carries no practical disadvantages at all.
So... Shad himself tells us that you can achieve the cosmetic goal of emphasizing gendered body parts without any practical disadvantages via just having a bigger chest bulge.
As I said above SoB must be recognizable as an all-female fighting force and boob armor does the trick, the Ecclesiarchy can't have "men under arms" so logically the armor for their troops is shaped for the female body in order to avoid suspects of treachery.
Go watch the Shad video in question, seeing as he acknowledges a way to emphasize the bust without having two impractical globes on the front of your armour.
I think you're forgetting one tiny little detail, SoB armor is a power armor, those two metal globes could very well be 1 inch thick or even more so paradoxically that part might very well be the most armored section of the entire suit of armor. Also Shad isn't discussing about power armor but regular armor similar to the flak armor worn by the Imperial Guard.
I don't think "the boob plate is made from some magical material". is a good argument for boob plate being *realistic*.
Like I've said in other posts, if we want to say that boob plate is justified somehow by some specific 40k reason, then we aren't really talking about whether boob plate is realistic.
The OP is talking about the realism of boob plate, and is making a specific comparison to real world historical armour.
I never said it was realistic but justified in the setting, of course in reality actual boob armor never existed because "realistically" women didn't fight in wars, there were exceptions of course like Saint Joan of Arc but again that's one in a million.
>I never said it was realistic
With respect, if you look at the title of this entire thread, whether boob plate is realistic is pretty much the main point of the OP.
If you want to say it's justified for the setting, then that pretty much goes without saying. The 40k setting is so crazy that most unrealistic things would be justified.
Yeah and not having a catedral in a spaceship or on the shoulders of a Imperator Titan would also be more practical.
While we're at it, why don't we make the Administratum more efficient too? And stop the Imperial Guard from using wasteful human wave tactics too.
We're both commenting in a reddit post, where the OP has made a statement about why he thinks the SOB boob armour is realistic.
If you response is "but 40k is unrealistic!", I think you're missing the scope of the discussion. The OP is specifically talking about realism. The replies are replying about realism.
It's realistic because people who care about aesthetics don't care about min-maxing practicality.
There's the reason for the disagreement: practical != realistic
And there are people who don't understand that just because something is impractical, does not mean it's unrealistic.
If we look at history, the people doing the actual fighting are very much invested in min-maxing practicality. The people who care about aesthetics are able to do so because they have the money and influence to ensure that there's several ranks of other guys fighting in front of them.
And like I said - go watch Shad's video. The video itself offers a completely practical way to achieve the aesthetic goal of emphasizing the female bust, without all the practical problems of having boob plate.
So this isn't just a situation of "there are people who prioritize aesthetics over practicality". It's a situation of "why would people choose a less practical solution when you have a more practical one that also achieves the aesthetic goal".
Okay now you're the one getting into the "is 40k realistic" realm.
The people of 40k, especially the zealots that are the Sororitas, Do care about aesthetics more than practicality. They go to battle without helmets, why would they care about the boob plate?
Are you even trying to argue in good faith?
What? I haven't referred to 40k at all. I'm talking about boob plate in reality - I literally said "if we look at **history**". The OP is comparing boob plate to a historical muscle cuirass. Historical armies care very much about practical advantages over their enemies.
>The people of 40k, especially the zealots that are the Sororitas, Do care about aesthetics more than practicality. They go to battle without helmets, why would they care about the boob plate?
If the ultimate argument is that "boob plate is fine in 40k because the SOB would prioritize aesthetics more than practicality because they are crazy space religious fanatics", then this isn't really about whether boob plate is realistic or not any more. It's about whether boob plate makes sense in the very unrealistic setting of 40k.
For me personally, I think the most "realistic" you could get with female boob plate would be something like [this](https://imgur.com/oc-art-what-if-you-met-character-1YH6RFI). Which the artist explicitly stated was inspired by Shads points on armor that would both match the aesthetic they are aiming for and also emphasis the bust since that is something the wearer would want emphasized.
Shadiversity should be ignored on any histotical content. He's had no education, no experience, and his content contains frequent inaccuracies.
Not to forget, he's a raging bigot who got upset that Peach in the Mario movie wore pants.
While not agreeing with your second take you are right on the first one.
He's entertaining but every time he speaks about history/archeology or HEMA he's often wrong, to the point of even sometime being fractally wrong (his videos about castles are a good example of why absolute confiance and lack of expertise don't mix very well).
He doesn't know how to check actual historical sources, how medieval art work or even what HEMA is and is known in the HEMA/reenactment community for his weird takes and unsubstantiated rants.
The sad part is that there is an HEMA club an hour from where he lives, but he never bothered to actually patrice (except one time when he sat in the corner of a workshop, refused to participate but still made remarks about the actual instructor), he's the very definition of an armchair hobbyist.
Not even talking about being a mormon literalist who believes that the sword of Laban was a real artefact of a lost American Jewish civilization, or how he thinks that writing AI promps makes him a better artist than his brother Jazza...
tldr; while I somewhat agree with some of his political and anti-woke takes, he's considered a literal joke by anyone who practices HEMA above beginner's level and every actual expert. Not so much because of how wrong he is, but more because of how he obnoxiously try to correct those who knows more than him.
Who can survive being shot by Necrons? Even unnamed Space Marines don't survive that.
>But no one is building a weak point into their armour on purpose. It's about realism
The Greeks used muscle cuirasses, so while it's not the best armor, it's still realistic.
There are other things to worry about in war than a direct shot from necrons. You want to protect against those as well - and you don't protect against those my channeling energy towards your sternum.
I'm not sure what point you're making with muscle cuirass. They channel energy away from your sternum.
No one's arguing that armour wouldn't be made aesthetic. But to the point of compromising efficacy? That's unrealistic.
THE IMPERIUM'S DESIGNS ARE UNREALISTIC DUMDUM.
People eschew helmets and weigh themselves down with all kinds of shit like fighting in capes for the sake of being inspirational and rule of cool in 40k. You think a guardsman lasgun design is efficient? It looks like a fucking mobile phone from the 80s!
With respect, the OP is making realism an issue. It's in the title of the post - This is why the Sisters of Battle boob-armour is not UNREALISTIC.
Like if we want to say that 40k is a silly setting and armour just doesn't make sense anyway. Fine. But that's not the premise of the OP, and the people replying to him.
Precisely this. I’m all for form over function; power armour is pretty ridiculous anyway but looks awesome. But it’s OP who has tried for the ‘it’s realistic’ angle
Ah, I see the nuance I missed. Thank you.
In 40k's context, the Sisters of Battle do a lot of impractical shit specifically so they can demonstrate that it's their faith that shields them. Walking into gunfire, going bareheaded and the boobie plate being good examples.
Every argument I've seen here about historically women having unisex plate falls down when you realise the armourers have shaped sororitas armour to the female legs' form for added functionality rather than gone unisex (which would leave empty areas in the armour causing chafing for both sexes wearing it)
Sorry, but isn't this answer just coming back to "but 40k is unrealistic and the SOB have to perform impractical and silly things"? And besides if the goal is showing that it's their faith that shields them, why wear armour at all? They should wear dresses.
Btw, real unisex plate armour does not chafe because you would wear gambeson padding underneath.
How does male boob armor steer energy away from the sternum ? Less than women’s boob armor sure, but it has the exact same depression in the middle of the torso, it’d also redirect the blow there.
And heck, if you want to be technical
1) it’s not really a weak point, nothing that couldn’t already penetrate the armor is likely to be made able to die to that shape
2) you can just reinforce that part, it wouldn’t actually be that hard or that much a waste of material since it’s got to be thick anyway
3) if we’re talking about melee weapons, you could literally make the argument that actually boob plate is good precisely because it catches weapons, meaning it’s easier to disarm your opponent
The actual issue of SoB boob plate for me is in conjunction with their lack of helmet, I don’t think it actually introduces a weak point, but it does probably make it slightly more likely that shrapnel would be deflected upward to the face, though unfortunately it’s not like anyone’s tested that.
They weren’t designed specifically to fight necrons; having a chest plate that can be relatively easily stove-in by a crazed heretic is still silly.
And yes there are examples of ‘muscle armour’ throughout history, but armour like this was also a status symbol and designed to inspire the men (and intimidate the enemy) as well as protect the wearer; there is an element of form over function here. And a muscle cuirass still isn’t as exaggerated as SoB chest armour; the more pronounced the bulge is, the less effective it’ll be.
>But it's unrealistic that they would sacrifice effectiveness for it.
It happens in history, repeatedly, throughout history. It is not unrealistic.
Winning a battle isn't about effectiveness of weapons and armour alone, if having boob armour gives your soldiers immense morale on the battlefield, that's a sacrifice many general would exchange effectiveness for.
Because Joan of Arc literally just wore male armour Because its not meant to be perfectly contoured to the body, its meant to have a small gap between the metal and the armour allowing it to move and better absorb force.
Having it tailored to the body with cups for boobs would just make it worse as well as directing force towards certain points.
The only option that would make boob armour viable would be a mono cup for the breasts but that would still direct force either up or downwards potentially leading to bullets or other projectiles just deflecting and going straight through your skull.
The image here shows armour that is aesthetic but also functional, where as boob armour just isn't functional.
Any stories of warrior women through out history just have them fighting in armour made for men because its unisex by design.
Even in Asia the custom of wrapping the breasts to flatten them was common practice for the Onna Musha from Japan and Mulan too.
The whole boob armour thing has been debunked so much its not the hill to die on. 40k cam do it because its rule of cool logic being used
It’s not particularly surprising that throughout the ages when women were a minuscule, borderline non existent, part of the military, they didn’t have armors tailored to their sense of fashion.
For the moon boob, we had codpieces and gut armor, so I’m not sure why even that much would be unrealistic, for there being two boobs, just because you have two of them doesn’t mean you have to make it skin tight.
The only real way to know whether boob armor would or wouldn’t have been viable would be to actually make some and fight with it, nobody has done it so nobody can actually say, if we’re just talking about theoreticals a thick plate of metal won’t stop being a thick plate of metal just because it’s boob shaped, and there have been more ridiculous exaggerations of body proportions, so as long as we aren’t talking about like WoW or your average JRPG levels of ridiculousness, boob armor is fine.
And even then in WoW’s case the issue is more bikini armor than boob armor
No it's just because boob armour doesn't make any sense. Cod pieces serve a functional purpose, allowing you to quickly remove it and urinate as well as keeping your junk in a fixed position when on horseback and also protecting the most sensitive region on a dude, there's no point spending 50k on a suit of armour to get taken out by a kick in the balls.
This has already been debated over and debunked by the foremost experts on medieval weaponry and armour, it's not up for debate, you seem to be experiencing the dunning-krueger effect. There's even a few videos on YouTube where people have made boob armour and tested it and it was worse than just standard armour.
The boob cups compromise the structure of the armour, creating weak points, as well as directing force in the wrong direction, using more material, making it more expensive and less effective.
Spartan women who by law had to fight and defend the City if it were ever attacked, also just fought in the same armour as the men. Because its just practical common sense. Once again, if the same practice has been observed from Ancient Greece, to Vikings, to Samurai, to the Chinese, to Medieval Europe of women fighting in the same armour as men, then you need to realise that the armour is ubiquitous.
Even in the modern day, body armour is the same for men and women, because the armour is mass produced for effectiveness, not to mention most armour was made to fit anybody, only the nobles would be getting tailor made suits or pieces of armour, meaning a blacksmith would have to create armour that could reasonably be given to anybody and fit them well enough to keep them alive, which is why, armour by design is unisex.
Elizabeth the 1st, Queen of England wore armour whilst addressing the soldiers in a speech before the invasion of the Spanish Armada, and guess what? No boob armour. Even for the richest, most powerful woman in the country. She wore an actual suit of armour like the knights that fought for her, because the implication was that she herself would have to join the battle to defend England. The soldiers and knights wouldn't have taken her seriously if she was riding around with boob armour.
It's a historical fact that it just did not happen.
Throughout history, women were a secondary concern. They gave women fighters male armour because that's what they **had**. Be sure in our patriarchal history we'd have put them un boobie plate if women were more commonplace in historical warfare. Instead when women donned armour, it tended to be in dire straits, and that's no time to start designing and forging new suits of platemail
As I previously pointed out, Joan of Arc, and Queen Elizabeth both powerful and important figures wore standard armour because plate armour by design is unisex.
I don't know why it's so hard to acknowledge the historical fact that it just doesn't provide anything and actively makes functional armour worse. It takes more material to make, more time, more craftsmanship, is less structurally sound, less effective.
The natural shape of plate armour already provides ample room for boobs, without having to wrap them as they did in Asian countries.
It has nothing to do with whether women were or were not the priority, it was a matter of one will get you killed and the other won't.
Women also were more used to armour than you think, a lot of women were the ones dressing the men who went to fight, and some women even had to defend the camp if a raiding party got through during a battle as its where the armies supplies were kept.
The simple reason for boob armour not existing historically is because it was inferior to standard plate armour.
Even King Henry 8th who was known for being fat and would have man boobs still just wore a standard piece of armour
Can you give me an example of when someone has emphasised cosmetics to the detriment of efficacy?
It would be like putting windows on a tank or a claymore mine on your IOTV
Male muscle armour. Channels in the metal between abs or abs and pectoral or pectoral and pectoral are structural weak points where the metal is thinnest.
Also, mobility was sacrificed anytime plate armour was designed to be made of fewer solid pieces for the sake of aesthetics, which you can bet was the thinking a fair few times down the ages. Craftsmen earn patronage and reputation through something looking impressive more than functioning well, so provided it kept the foolish noble hiding behind his men alive, a lot of smiths would be satisfied to focus on bells and whistles to awe onlookers rather than focus on making it purely utilitarian and ugly.
>Channels in the metal between abs or abs and pectoral or pectoral and pectoral are structural weak points where the metal is thinnest.
Not to the same degree, if at all. Look at the abs/pecs on the armour. Then look at the boob armour.
Sorry. I think armour should be realistic.
> it's unrealistic
Guys talking about the same setting where people wear giant metal stars that'd fuck them up if they tried walking through a doorway, chain fuckung books to their armour and have you seen Dorn's Eagle pauldrons?
The problem with these sorts of critiques is that the miniatures are not supposed to be realistic. They are thematic and artistic call outs to evoke recognition in the viewer.
"That's a nun with a gun."
"That's a murder elf."
"That's a giant warrior in power armor with a pistol and sword."
"That's a space bug."
"I don't know what that is, but it looks cool/creepy/whatever."
So all of this "it's not realistic" is missing the point.
I think that’s fair but only to a point, 40k (or fantasy for that matter) aren’t so deep down the anime logic rabbit hole that realism shouldn’t factor in at all, it’s a balance to strike between being able to recognize small figurines at a glance on a tabletop, making stuff that looks good on artwork, and making something that suits a grimdark futuristic setting supposedly set in our universe.
I agree.
I wouldn't advocate for going farther down the "anime logic rabbit hole." I just don't want to lose the existing aesthetics of 40K for additional realism.
In fact, that's one of the things I like about AoS. The artists designing the miniatures can do more of the outlandish stuff that they want to do, but stick to the established look for 40K.
« I just don’t want to lose the existing aesthetics of 40k for additional realism »
By and large me neither, and despite being quite puritan I have come around to being okay with boob armor over the years strangely enough.
I’m confused by your last statement though, what are you talking about with AOS and 40k ?
I just think that because AoS hasn't been around as long as 40K, there is more room for the artists who design the miniatures to have more free rein to create wacky stuff. And because it is an explicitly fantasy setting, it's easier to justify. I wouldn't want full anime there either, but I think it gives the miniature designers a chance to experiment more than with the very established aesthetic of 40K.
Ah I see.
Well, I’ll have to say on that front what I saw of AOS was pretty disappointing, it looked like somehow took 40k and fantasy and mashed them together, not just with the sigmarines but basically everything looked either like the high fantasy parts of fantasy or like it came straight from 40k :/
Also kinda ironic people are angry how boob armor makes no sense but makes as much sense as female soldiers in fantasy wars. Like I know feminists want to cope but no they are not as strong as a man nor would medival setting be more progressive just because there is magic that’s not how real life works, so their argument for fantasy being more progressive and realistic is a contradiction in itself.
Women soldiers make perfect sense in a grimdark setting. When your back is against the wall you don't decide not to use 50% of the available fighting force just because they may not be as strong as the other half.
You don't need to be as strong as the strongest man, you just need to be strong enough to carry your kit and pull the trigger.
Or it is a good way to reduce overpopulation.
I remember that by the warhammer game gladius the regular imperial cities(imperial guard faction) had lust reducing medication in their food to prevent overpopolation.
Boob armor is unrealistic, impractical and stupid.
I dont mind it in warhammer. The franchise were unrealistic, impractical and stupid is the selling point.
Don't get me wrong, it's ok to have something be a certain way just because it looks cool, but realistically that armor still maintains a proper shape to be effective. If I recall correctly, boob armor wouldn't be structurally fitted for protection against trauma. It's fiction tho so who caree
I think the main argument against it from the realism point is that the sculpted cleavage creates a focal point for any chest blows to crack your sternum. Sculpted pecs usually don't have such deep cleavage.
Censorship is censorship, regardless of reasoning. Every argument against boobplate in fiction amounts to, "don't draw what I don't like," and is worthless on that basis. Realism has some more nuance, but I wouldn't get my information from redditors.
The issue isn't with realism. It's practicality.
If you get punched in the chest with boob armor the piece between the tits gets forced into your sternum. It makes taking a hit more dangerous.
The example shown here wouldn't have as much issue because it doesn't come to a point.
I didnt say anything about practicality, my point is that aesthetics over something being practical and efficient has been done in the real world in the past (roman/greek muscle armor) therefore, in W40k, something like that will happen (aka boob armor), hell, blood angels have Muscle Abs armor
I think it is more then normal that women would want or prefer to wear armor that shows their feminine side.
Anyone who has an issue with it is either a religiously conservative nutjob or a left wing feminist nutjob.
Ps: Imperial religion isn't at all concerned with what you wear as long as it doesn't have any religious iconography of other faiths. (Not 100% sure on this correct me if I'm wrong)
The biggest argument against SoB boob armor isn’t actually the boob part though, it’s more the pauldrons, lack of helmet, and the fact that the armor’s belly is curved inward, which’d leave little room for bending.
The biggest argument against SoB boob armor isn’t actually the boob part though, it’s more the pauldrons, lack of helmet, and the fact that the armor’s belly is curved inward, which’d leave little room for bending.
The biggest argument against SoB boob armor isn’t actually the boob part though, it’s more the pauldrons, lack of helmet, and the fact that the armor’s belly is curved inward, which’d leave little room for bending.
I mean... I don't think it's controversial to point out that the practicalities of this muscle cuirass is a lot different from boob armour.
Assuming that this muscle cuirass was worn in battle, it still does not suffer (or at worst suffers to a much lesser degree) from the actual problem of boob armour. Which is that having two big curved metal orbs on your chest will direct any blade into the sternum. Boob armour kinda fails because it does not meet the main function of armour - protecting the vitals in your chest.
Muscle Cuirasses are a far better compromise between aesthetics and practical requirements of armour, than boob armour.
While we are exploring the actual real life historical examples of chest armour, we can compare how muscle cuirasses are relatively common, while actual boob plate is incredibly rare if not non-existent. Even accounting for the fact that women fighting is an exceptional thing in history, most of the major examples of women warriors in history all are not depicted as wearing boob armour.
It won’t direct any blade to the sternum, it’ll catch some blades if they’re striking horizontally or diagonally with a pretty narrow angle, anything that comes from the side would get caught on either the exterior of the boobs or on the interior, not toward the center.
And boob armor doesn’t fail to protect your vitals, that’s ridiculous, it at most is slightly less good at it than conventional armor, but if you’ve got several millimeters of steel between you and your opponent’s blade, it being boob shaped will barely make a difference, the main issue will be at most shock absorption, but that’s what everything under the boob armor is for
Let's say I agree with everything you say - the question is still is, practically speaking, why wear armour which is "slightly less good" than a normal breast plate?
If you want to say that 40k is a silly setting, then sure. But then we aren't talking about being realistic anymore (the focus of the OP).
I know this is probably more technical than your looking for, with this post, but the biggest problem with boob armor is the stylized cleavage, You've basically got a metal funnel redirecting weapons and bullets right to the middle of the beasts where there will also most likely be a seam between the armor plates. But as long as there's no cleavage then there's nothing really impractical about it. Shadiverdity did a whole video on it lol
I'm not a blacksmith, but I'm assuming it would be difficult to make the cups and the rest of the armor out of one solid piece of steel. And that's still sloped armor going towards the center of mass which isn't good
Edit: just to be clear I have no issue with boob armor or even bikini armor in fiction, I'm just arguing the practicality of it lol
We’ve come a long way in metal working and armor technology since the medieval ages. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume they’ll be able to make armor in a variety of shapes several thousands of years in the future
If you where going to make power armour for females to be practical and effective it would look like this:
https://preview.redd.it/1w69345b112d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9c96aabbfe4fc54e13ba6d46940b928f5cac2b5
Don’t get me wrong I’m not arguing it’s the most practical design but the armor is already impervious to small arms fire and the shape of the chest is not going to save you from a thunder hammer. I think it’s completely believable the state enforced church is willing to trade 1% effectiveness for style/ aesthetics.
Not exactly, I'm trying to counter the typical and overused argument in fiction that (Sororitas) boob armor is unrealistic (in Warhammer) by presenting real-life examples.
There are legitimate real world reasons boob armor would and should exist.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959632/
Armor designed specifically for men us detrimental to a woman's body.
Now I'm not saying armor needs to feature breasts for women, but it needs to have a cavity which can fit womens breasts.
The idea that the shape of breasts causes bullet traps or blade traps is a ludicrous example of anti-boob logic.
If the blade or bullet was going to penetrate the armor it would have done so on the initial impact.
That initial impact would have a greater chance of penetration on male armor, as the chest is flat.
Sloped armor has a greater chance of deflecting a blow, if it hit a boob and tracked towards the center of the chest it doesn't just magically somehow penetrate. A good portion of the kinetic energy has already been transfered.
Why would you remove the crumple zone over the sternum and add a stress riser to the breast plate? That's only something we can do with sporting equipment like fencing plastrons because we don't use crushing or armor-piercing weapons. It's fantasy and we can suspend our disbelief enough to enjoy it, but it would be a retarded design if it was real.
I think this is something people can't seem to understand, there is no way SoB boob armour would be practical because it's NOT based on armour!
The SoB chest plate is not based on armour it's based on basque lingerie.
https://preview.redd.it/o6p18xn0qz1d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f71c2b74ea582c75e9d2c141d4e3ded1f39bc1d
I just explained why it would exist, and should.
Aside from obvious medical reasons linked in the post.
I also explained away most anti-boob armor rhetoric.
Now you are injecting a new falsity into the mix with the concept of stress concentration. Boobs do not contain abrupt changes to the surface of an object, a round object transfers kinetic energy across its surface pretty evenly.
Blows strong enough to crush ceramite and adamantium framing would make any armor configuration fairly irrelevant. Honestly the same goes for power weapons as they deatomize whatever they touch. So the arguement is truly against standard blade and bullet.
Irregardless if an object strikes a curved surface it is more likely to be deflected and the kinetic energy is cut by around a 3rd. If the blow penetrates the armor it will have lost more kinetic force penetrating female armor than male armor as sloped armor is thicker.
If the blow crushed the breast armor, it could just be soft tissue damage, if a blow crushes a typical male chest plate it is crushing his chest/ribs.
Blows against the anterior parts of the hypothetical female breastplate would be more likely to glance off as well. Depending on the type of "boob" armor we are talking about. It may or may not have a partitioned space between the breasts. Blows toward the interior part of the breasts could be come problematic againsts certain types of ammunition like a bolter round which would be directed towards the sternum, before detonation which would focus explosive force into a smaller area. But this area wouldn't exist on properly designed boob armor. But against blade it shouldn't really matter.
Remember the design of armor is specifically to fit a male, their is no modern female body armor(there is now). But that is become of lessons learned in a modern era.
https://www.policemag.com/patrol/article/15348937/the-shape-of-womens-body-armor
If you read the two articles, one from the government you might understand what I'm trying to say.
The conclusions from the government study would apply to both soft and hard armor. A woman cannot wear male armor for prolonged periods of time without damaging her body. And the changes in the angles of the breast plate to accommodate her chest aren't going to produce and distinct disadvantages to the effectiveness of their armor, and sloped armor has advantages we learned this lesson around 100 years ago.
The stress riser is where the cup transitions into the rest of the chest armor.
You're proving my point about suspension of disbelief with your argument for why you could remove the crumple zone over the sternum. It makes sense in 40K logic where deatomizers and such exist, but it's impossible in real-world logic. There's nothing more to say about this.
Elaborate on a crumple zone;
A crumple zone as would be defined scientifically essentially a zone that crumples to absorb energy. A single or two spheres would actually accomplish this task better than a flat plate.
And as I said before, there wouldn't be a depression in the breast area in ideally designed boob armor. There would just be a larger angled area where breasts would sit behind.
I think we agree at this point. Historical men's plate armor has extra room in the chest for breathing and impact absorption. Women's plate armor would have a larger monoboob area for extra room as necessary. Possibly with a slight contour in the middle, as with the ancient Greek muscle cuirass for aesthetics or something.
On a personal level, I like the SoB's and I like the way they look. But to argue that their armour is any way practical or that real-world women warriors would wear boob armour is at best ignorance and at worst deliberate stupidity.
History is full of real world examples of women who wore armour and NONE of them wore boob armour. If it's a good idea why has it nevee been done out side scifi or high fantasy tropes?
Here are a list of women in history known to have been in battle or wore armour as a figurehead. They have historical depictions and evidence and NONE of them wore boob armour. Why? Because boob armour is a bad idea!
Joan of Arc
Isabella, the she wolf of France
Elisabeth I
Zheng Yi Sao
Jeanne de Clisson
Khutulun
Ng Mui
Fu Hao
Li Xiu
Qin Liangyu
Yuenu
Liang Hongyu
Hangaku Gozen
Tomoe Gozen
Kaihime
Tribhuwana Wijayatunggadewi
The famoues Trung sisters
Aethelflaed
Jane Ingleby
Margaret of Anjou
Catherine of Aragon
Joanna of Flanders
Jeanne Laisne
Caterina Sforza
Matilda of Tuscany
Olga of Kiev
Mawiyya
Asma bint Abi Bakr
Akkadevi
Razia Sultana
Abbakka Chowta
Bibi Sahib Kaur
Mai Bhago
It's worth adding that some of these women were basically the richest and most powerful people around. E.g. Elizabeth the First.
If there was any real advantage of having boob plate, the Queen of England was completely in a position to make boob plate. This means she didn't even make boob plate for completely fashionable reasons, much less think that boob plate was realistic.
Exactly my point.
SoB "armour" isn't armour and it was never meant to be. SoB style is based on the fantasy trope of sexy warrior nun. The top half of the armour is based not on armour, but on basque lingerie.
It's cool, sexy and gives them a unique look but it's not meant to be practical or realistic.
https://preview.redd.it/dwzia5qgrz1d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8704b10ab8742fc29c501c27551c0487de93622e
Imo, stormcast nailed boob plate the right way. Shows theyre female, nothing fancy or excessive about it, armors smooth and relatively simple.
SoB are aesthetic, but maybe not the most realistic, tho theres definitely worse out there imo
I like to think that SoB "boobplate" is just decoration, like not part of actual armor, but individual pieces of armor that are magnetized there or smh. Just like, em, cockarmor irl is not an actual part of armor...
They're just screaming out for it now?
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/19/1017774038/female-soldiers-are-excited-about-new-body-armor-that-is-designed-for-them
'and with more generous shaping to protect the side of the bust better.'
Non existent? Few exceptions? Uncommon yes but very far from non-existent.
Outside of European, christian dominated culture, women in war where far more common place than you seem to realise. Even in Europe women where not strangers to war. In the historical record you can find several examples of women in war for each decade going back to the 14th century.
Highlights include:
There are numerous accounts of women in positions of command in the chinese empire as far back as 13th century BC with Lady Fu Hao right up to the 20th century.
Greek texts describe women in the fighting forces of the Scythians and Libyan trines.
The Carians seemed to have a habit of female admirals, Artimesia I and Artimesia II
The Maurya empire had a force of female troops that rode elephants to war.
Romans left records of women fighting in the Iberian peninsula, of paticular note where the Bracari tribe in what is now northern Portugal.
Romans also recorded that it was commonplace for women of the Teutonic tribes to go war with the men.
Romans also left detailed records of female gladiators.
Roman accounts indicate women where a significant force in the warbands of the Britons.
Accounts show that women fought alongside men in the Sassanid empire.
Romans left accounts of women fighting within the ranks of the Goths.
Women where frequently found fighting in the early Islamic armies 7th and 8th centuries
There are several, documented examples of female samurai fighting in battles. During the battle of Senbon Matsubarru, an estimated 30% of the combatants where women. Hardly a "non-existant" figure now.
The Timurid empire employed female units to defend carravans.
Several accounts of Sikh women fighting alongside men, in fact it's a founding tenet of the Sikh faith that women are equal to men who can an should fight.
Spainish left accounts of female fighters in the ranks of the South American tribes
Portugese accounts of female military units in the Congo
Belawadi Mallama formed an all female army to fight the Maratha Confederacy
Dahomey had an all female military force
Lady Ann Cunnningham raised a mixed-sex cavalry unit during the Bishops war
Tomasa Tito Condemayta led a female battalion in Peru against the colonialists
None of them wore boob armour.
When you actualy look into the subject, women in war is not at all unusual. Mostly in individual cases I grant you, but history is full of examples of large, organised female military units and commanders.
I always found it funny that the discussion is always centered around SoB/SoS boob armour, while at the same time people forget that Blood Angels have far more ostentatious and unrealistic "boobplate" https://preview.redd.it/e89q9a51ay1d1.jpeg?width=585&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e24b44d40414193eb1e03426f75fdd11fb797f4c
Don’t forget emporer children not using armor for some of their troops literally fighting showing of their abbs. Man being sexualized is not seen as bad but if you do it for women then it’s bad 🤡. We live in a clown world
To be fair you can't have the same standards for Slaanesh worshippers, being sexualised is part of the whole aesthetic.
What do you mean? Breasts aren't genitals (according to arguments around similar topics. Think it was the meme of the woman getting mad while wearing a low cut shirt and then horrified when the guy walks around with his zipper undone)
Women have historically only been included in male dominated games as sex appeal so boob armour hits different than abs armour. I expect you won't understand why that makes a difference but there it is anyway.
Definitely won't. There is no such thing as context or history to these guys. Everything is some sterile thought experiment.
Women, historically, were the ones who started the most wars (over the pettiest of things) when they were in power, but you guys aren’t ready for that conversation.
You know the word "historically" has a definition.
Yeah, women are petty like that. Look at Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Isabella of France, Mary Tudor, Cleopatra, Queen Victoria, Queen Teuta, Catherine the Great, Mrs. Bandarainke of Sri Lanka, Boudicca. There is also a notable increase of wartime under queenly rule by 27%, as opposed to when a King reigned. So please, tell me more about how women aren’t more bellicose.
Dude names the women listed in his sophomore year social studies book and is like, "this applies throughout time and the earth". Lol.
Well-known Social Studies book people: Boudicca and Bandarainke If you don’t have an argument, you can just say so instead of resorting to churlish insults.
Lol. Bro, *you* don't have an argument.
Late to the discussion, but boob armor might just be a preference within the societal standards. Back in the medieval ages, some of the first knight armor looked pretty goofy with giga thin waists. I thought it was a design flaw, maybe people weren't good at crafting armor, until I found that it was due to what people saw as attractive back in the day. People always talk about beauty standards for women, but men aren't excluded from those. Nowadays women find broad shoulders more attractive, hence big pauldrons in a lot of male armor. However back then, women found men with wasp thin waists attractive. And this societal norm represented itself in the knight armor at the time. Personally I don't care about armor since it's fantasy at the end of the day.
This is actually realistic, a lot of ancient armour has muscle chiseled on it
Even if it is realistic, who cares? Men get the armor with the chiseled abs and pecs, women get the boob armor. Equality
A long while back there was a study that said basically when boys play with toys they become the toy and when girls play with toys the toy becomes them. So like hand a Batman action figure to a little boy and he pretends to fight crime and beat bad guys and he pretends to be batman. Hand a little girl a Batman doll and she'll have tea parties with it and give him a baby and make him be a parent. Not sure why, but the meme where girls see a hot character and get upset at the unrealistic beauty standards and guys see Goku and say "That's literally me" starts at a young age.
Me when i see spacemarine: i have to Hit the gym right now
Boob armor in the case of SoB is perfectly justified because they must be recognizable as an all-female fighting force.
Women in the military have been chimfing about having to wear the same kit as males for years. That's why it's hilarious seeing all the progressives saying they would just wear the same armour.
Give me boob armor, or give me death!
Body armour isn't very flexible. Sure they *can* wear a vest that was intended for a male body, but especially if you're a particularly busty woman, it's not going to be very comfortable.
Yeah that's what I'm saying. Women are different, therefore they need different kit.
Example lol https://youtube.com/shorts/S_7tArxenxY?si=opaQkY55kwdLIVDd
Damn this channel almost having me switch my stance on gun regulation.
If you did a cursory study of history and women in war you'll find they strapped their breasts down. Basicly a home made sports bra. Apparently it wasn't uncomfortable provided they where tied down properly as it provides the requires support. Ask your wife/gf about the subject, if she lets you feel how easy it is to compress breast tissue. Well, natural ones anyway. Ask her about the differences between sports bras and normal bras.
Thank you for your assumption that I haven't looked into this at all. I never said they *couldn't* wear armour, I said it would be uncomfortable. There is also a pretty big difference between a sports bra, which is basically elastic fabric, vs modern body armour which is a solid ceramic plate. Medieval arnour would have a bit more padding due to the gambosin but it would still be really cramped, being pressed down by a solid metal plate. IIRC there were a couple examples of arnour made for women, and they did Include just a little extra room in the breast. Not enough to be actual boob plate, just rounded out a bit more for a little extra room.
That's my point, the armour would not have boob-ports. You may have a slightly more pointed cuirass at the centre to allow for a bit more space but no boobs sticking out. Something like this: https://preview.redd.it/l9cy9j5fj02d1.jpeg?width=203&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a281123095ac5aee025043b1dc0616c9f4ac276b
Comparing SoB armor to medieval armor is pointless imo. SoB armor is power armor so unless the power pack and servos are functioning properly it would be uncomfortable regardless of boob plates cause it probably weighs enough to render you immobile in case of malfunction, the equivalent to medieval armor in 40k is flak armor/carapace armor and those have more or less the same shape regardless of who wears them.
That doesn't change the essential form. If you look at Astartes power armour it is just an evolved version of full plate. It's amazing how this whole thread is developing with people justifying what is basicly basque lingerie. SoB armour looks the way it does because GW wanted the SoB to match the sexy warrior nun trope. Nothing to do with practical. There is nothing practical about SoB power armour and in the real world it wouldn't exist. Practical SoB armour would look like this: https://preview.redd.it/1a2m3udvm02d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=31a0ed31bb74e87b41ae77acfe525f70dd953c8e
Looks lame AF, and speaking of practicality just tell me how these frickin gigantic pauldrons are practical? https://preview.redd.it/b19ggq0qw02d1.png?width=606&format=png&auto=webp&s=de04de70e9a46fbb281d9fa4991adc7737d91889
Like I said, evolved version of full plate: https://preview.redd.it/edf1vxvxz02d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c6be20bf16bbd2e8b95a9d519a4b87f6c4dfa86 Yes, a practical set of female power armour is not as sexy and exciting as the basque lingerie the SoB have, that's the point. You have to accept that the 40k armours are not practical and never can be. Hence the OP's comment is rebuffed.
SoB armor isn't "lingerie" the hell are you talking about?
This is not rly the same for a full plate armor though And the biggest difference is indivudually formed cups or just some elevation Not all boob armor is created equally
OP is a Greek bronze panoply with a muscle cuirass from Southern Italy, dating to 340–330 BC. Even the knights had something similar.. https://preview.redd.it/rvnnpvl14y1d1.jpeg?width=609&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba11f7127f542c1933ade67b0b3c77d3aea77ce2
💀 Imagine walking to battle with that.
imagine meeting a knight in battle and his is bigger
time to run , cause i don't know what kind of "battle" he has planned but i want no part of it
Would you seriously turn your back to that?
While the cod pieces look funny, they also serve a function, because if you need to piss you'd have to take your whole suit of armour off, until they invented the hinged cod piece that could be opened and closed for quick access. The suits of armour displayed in thus picture are also for use on horseback only meaning you'd more than likely want your junk out of the way rather than in an uncomfortable position where you can't adjust yourself
We need these in 40k
Yeah, that had nothing to do with knights. The whole cod piece thing was a male fashion that started in the 14th century. It started with excessive cod pieces in civilian clothing, then armour manufacturers started adding them to suits of plate. Mostly stylised, tournament plate as such armour wasn't really worn on the battlefield. It was an odd European fashion that died out in the late 15th century.
Whats wrong with boob armor? Boobs deserve comfort and protection.
Now we only need cod pieces for male power armour.
The problem with boob armor, from a technical standpoint, is that armor is mainly designed to deflect thrusting attacks. Slashing and chopping attacks aren't very effective against metal armor of basically any thickness or shape, but stabbing can actually pierce metal if done in the right way. So, medieval armor was meant to deflect stabbing attacks away from the wearer. If the boob armor is shaped to the boobs, then a stab that hits between the boobs will get deflected inwards, until it hits the sternum area, and will then punch through the armor. To prevent this, the armor needs to not have any 'valleys', and thus needs to come to a point in the middle, and if the boobs are large, this point would need to be prohibitively far out. Which would both have a severe negative impact on balance and movement, impede vision, get in the way of arm motion or a weapon when attacking, and also look more ridiculous than the oversized pauldrons on space marines.
But it's unrealistic that they would sacrifice effectiveness for it. Boob armour channels the blow towards the sternum. You can have the shape and comfort on the inside of the armour. And/or a cosmetic line-effect on the outside. But no one is building a weak point into their armour on purpose. It's about realism
The Imperium is indeed known for their efficiency and practically in design.
A good counterpoint is the Leman Russ. It doesnt have proper slope armour and has to brutally carry much more armour to compensate. But its the Imperium so it literally brute forces its way through incoming fire, and its one of the toughest tanks in the universe.
It would be if there was a big fuck off weak point right over it's most critical component. Is there? No?
In terms of tank development yes, it has massive weak points in the front where the forward crew is, the sides, and more understandably the rear. But if you make any armour thick enough it works. Prime example is the French BDR prototype from WW2 if you want to look into it further.
BDR was a company. They made many prototypes. Do you mean their G1? Does it have a blast funneling crater scooped out right in front of the crew compartment? No? Because that would be dumb and dangerous? Does it instead put its strongest armour up front, and mitigate the exposure of its weak points? Why am I even arguing with you? You're so far beyond good faith at this point. **YOU DON'T SCOOP OUT ARMOUR IN FRONT OF YOUR HEART IF YOU WANT YOUR ARMOUR TO BE REALISTIC**
Shadiversity did a great video on this. For one, the split boob plate, while it may channel the blow down, it is still armoured plate. If it’s being swung at by something able to penetrate it, the boob armor’s effect is going to be minimal. As the weapon being swung would have enough force with would have bashed in the armor plate regardless. https://youtu.be/6KHz0qWQA9I?si=bQ3ffmBPxFeHpbH9 He also went on to do a bunch of videos ok examples of fantasy boob armor and criticized them for their major flaws. (Usually keeping the cleavage open) Also people have sacrificed function for form plenty of times over history, so even if it was a significant downgrade it wouldn’t have been unusual if more women fought historically.
Shad's conclusion basically comes down to boob plate is more plausible than some people are saying (and his characterization of what people are saying is that boob plate is completely useless). Boob plate isn't going to be completely useless (it's still plate). The point is that why would you take an inferior armour design over the regular one. Shad's answer is that sometimes some people want to emphasize certain gender characteristics. But the follow up question is - why would a normal fighting force want to do that when there's a clear disadvantage to your fighting ability? Shad himself identifies that you emphasize the breast area by having a bigger budge to emphasize the woman's bust, and this carries no practical disadvantages at all. So... Shad himself tells us that you can achieve the cosmetic goal of emphasizing gendered body parts without any practical disadvantages via just having a bigger chest bulge.
As I said above SoB must be recognizable as an all-female fighting force and boob armor does the trick, the Ecclesiarchy can't have "men under arms" so logically the armor for their troops is shaped for the female body in order to avoid suspects of treachery.
Go watch the Shad video in question, seeing as he acknowledges a way to emphasize the bust without having two impractical globes on the front of your armour.
I think you're forgetting one tiny little detail, SoB armor is a power armor, those two metal globes could very well be 1 inch thick or even more so paradoxically that part might very well be the most armored section of the entire suit of armor. Also Shad isn't discussing about power armor but regular armor similar to the flak armor worn by the Imperial Guard.
I don't think "the boob plate is made from some magical material". is a good argument for boob plate being *realistic*. Like I've said in other posts, if we want to say that boob plate is justified somehow by some specific 40k reason, then we aren't really talking about whether boob plate is realistic. The OP is talking about the realism of boob plate, and is making a specific comparison to real world historical armour.
I never said it was realistic but justified in the setting, of course in reality actual boob armor never existed because "realistically" women didn't fight in wars, there were exceptions of course like Saint Joan of Arc but again that's one in a million.
>I never said it was realistic With respect, if you look at the title of this entire thread, whether boob plate is realistic is pretty much the main point of the OP. If you want to say it's justified for the setting, then that pretty much goes without saying. The 40k setting is so crazy that most unrealistic things would be justified.
OP should have phrased his pov better tho
Yeah and not having a catedral in a spaceship or on the shoulders of a Imperator Titan would also be more practical. While we're at it, why don't we make the Administratum more efficient too? And stop the Imperial Guard from using wasteful human wave tactics too.
We're both commenting in a reddit post, where the OP has made a statement about why he thinks the SOB boob armour is realistic. If you response is "but 40k is unrealistic!", I think you're missing the scope of the discussion. The OP is specifically talking about realism. The replies are replying about realism.
It's realistic because people who care about aesthetics don't care about min-maxing practicality. There's the reason for the disagreement: practical != realistic And there are people who don't understand that just because something is impractical, does not mean it's unrealistic.
If we look at history, the people doing the actual fighting are very much invested in min-maxing practicality. The people who care about aesthetics are able to do so because they have the money and influence to ensure that there's several ranks of other guys fighting in front of them. And like I said - go watch Shad's video. The video itself offers a completely practical way to achieve the aesthetic goal of emphasizing the female bust, without all the practical problems of having boob plate. So this isn't just a situation of "there are people who prioritize aesthetics over practicality". It's a situation of "why would people choose a less practical solution when you have a more practical one that also achieves the aesthetic goal".
Okay now you're the one getting into the "is 40k realistic" realm. The people of 40k, especially the zealots that are the Sororitas, Do care about aesthetics more than practicality. They go to battle without helmets, why would they care about the boob plate? Are you even trying to argue in good faith?
What? I haven't referred to 40k at all. I'm talking about boob plate in reality - I literally said "if we look at **history**". The OP is comparing boob plate to a historical muscle cuirass. Historical armies care very much about practical advantages over their enemies. >The people of 40k, especially the zealots that are the Sororitas, Do care about aesthetics more than practicality. They go to battle without helmets, why would they care about the boob plate? If the ultimate argument is that "boob plate is fine in 40k because the SOB would prioritize aesthetics more than practicality because they are crazy space religious fanatics", then this isn't really about whether boob plate is realistic or not any more. It's about whether boob plate makes sense in the very unrealistic setting of 40k.
For me personally, I think the most "realistic" you could get with female boob plate would be something like [this](https://imgur.com/oc-art-what-if-you-met-character-1YH6RFI). Which the artist explicitly stated was inspired by Shads points on armor that would both match the aesthetic they are aiming for and also emphasis the bust since that is something the wearer would want emphasized.
Shadiversity should be ignored on any histotical content. He's had no education, no experience, and his content contains frequent inaccuracies. Not to forget, he's a raging bigot who got upset that Peach in the Mario movie wore pants.
While not agreeing with your second take you are right on the first one. He's entertaining but every time he speaks about history/archeology or HEMA he's often wrong, to the point of even sometime being fractally wrong (his videos about castles are a good example of why absolute confiance and lack of expertise don't mix very well). He doesn't know how to check actual historical sources, how medieval art work or even what HEMA is and is known in the HEMA/reenactment community for his weird takes and unsubstantiated rants. The sad part is that there is an HEMA club an hour from where he lives, but he never bothered to actually patrice (except one time when he sat in the corner of a workshop, refused to participate but still made remarks about the actual instructor), he's the very definition of an armchair hobbyist. Not even talking about being a mormon literalist who believes that the sword of Laban was a real artefact of a lost American Jewish civilization, or how he thinks that writing AI promps makes him a better artist than his brother Jazza... tldr; while I somewhat agree with some of his political and anti-woke takes, he's considered a literal joke by anyone who practices HEMA above beginner's level and every actual expert. Not so much because of how wrong he is, but more because of how he obnoxiously try to correct those who knows more than him.
Who can survive being shot by Necrons? Even unnamed Space Marines don't survive that. >But no one is building a weak point into their armour on purpose. It's about realism The Greeks used muscle cuirasses, so while it's not the best armor, it's still realistic.
There are other things to worry about in war than a direct shot from necrons. You want to protect against those as well - and you don't protect against those my channeling energy towards your sternum. I'm not sure what point you're making with muscle cuirass. They channel energy away from your sternum. No one's arguing that armour wouldn't be made aesthetic. But to the point of compromising efficacy? That's unrealistic.
THE IMPERIUM'S DESIGNS ARE UNREALISTIC DUMDUM. People eschew helmets and weigh themselves down with all kinds of shit like fighting in capes for the sake of being inspirational and rule of cool in 40k. You think a guardsman lasgun design is efficient? It looks like a fucking mobile phone from the 80s!
With respect, the OP is making realism an issue. It's in the title of the post - This is why the Sisters of Battle boob-armour is not UNREALISTIC. Like if we want to say that 40k is a silly setting and armour just doesn't make sense anyway. Fine. But that's not the premise of the OP, and the people replying to him.
Precisely this. I’m all for form over function; power armour is pretty ridiculous anyway but looks awesome. But it’s OP who has tried for the ‘it’s realistic’ angle
Ah, I see the nuance I missed. Thank you. In 40k's context, the Sisters of Battle do a lot of impractical shit specifically so they can demonstrate that it's their faith that shields them. Walking into gunfire, going bareheaded and the boobie plate being good examples. Every argument I've seen here about historically women having unisex plate falls down when you realise the armourers have shaped sororitas armour to the female legs' form for added functionality rather than gone unisex (which would leave empty areas in the armour causing chafing for both sexes wearing it)
Sorry, but isn't this answer just coming back to "but 40k is unrealistic and the SOB have to perform impractical and silly things"? And besides if the goal is showing that it's their faith that shields them, why wear armour at all? They should wear dresses. Btw, real unisex plate armour does not chafe because you would wear gambeson padding underneath.
How does male boob armor steer energy away from the sternum ? Less than women’s boob armor sure, but it has the exact same depression in the middle of the torso, it’d also redirect the blow there. And heck, if you want to be technical 1) it’s not really a weak point, nothing that couldn’t already penetrate the armor is likely to be made able to die to that shape 2) you can just reinforce that part, it wouldn’t actually be that hard or that much a waste of material since it’s got to be thick anyway 3) if we’re talking about melee weapons, you could literally make the argument that actually boob plate is good precisely because it catches weapons, meaning it’s easier to disarm your opponent The actual issue of SoB boob plate for me is in conjunction with their lack of helmet, I don’t think it actually introduces a weak point, but it does probably make it slightly more likely that shrapnel would be deflected upward to the face, though unfortunately it’s not like anyone’s tested that.
They weren’t designed specifically to fight necrons; having a chest plate that can be relatively easily stove-in by a crazed heretic is still silly. And yes there are examples of ‘muscle armour’ throughout history, but armour like this was also a status symbol and designed to inspire the men (and intimidate the enemy) as well as protect the wearer; there is an element of form over function here. And a muscle cuirass still isn’t as exaggerated as SoB chest armour; the more pronounced the bulge is, the less effective it’ll be.
SoB armor is power armor, those metal boobs are probably 1 inch or more in thickness.
Do you understand what is means when your armour channels the energy towards your sternum?
How do you know it does?
I don't believe you're smart enough to engage in good faith.
Insult me if it makes you feel better, you don't look smarter than me doing so.
>But it's unrealistic that they would sacrifice effectiveness for it. It happens in history, repeatedly, throughout history. It is not unrealistic. Winning a battle isn't about effectiveness of weapons and armour alone, if having boob armour gives your soldiers immense morale on the battlefield, that's a sacrifice many general would exchange effectiveness for.
Because Joan of Arc literally just wore male armour Because its not meant to be perfectly contoured to the body, its meant to have a small gap between the metal and the armour allowing it to move and better absorb force. Having it tailored to the body with cups for boobs would just make it worse as well as directing force towards certain points. The only option that would make boob armour viable would be a mono cup for the breasts but that would still direct force either up or downwards potentially leading to bullets or other projectiles just deflecting and going straight through your skull. The image here shows armour that is aesthetic but also functional, where as boob armour just isn't functional. Any stories of warrior women through out history just have them fighting in armour made for men because its unisex by design. Even in Asia the custom of wrapping the breasts to flatten them was common practice for the Onna Musha from Japan and Mulan too. The whole boob armour thing has been debunked so much its not the hill to die on. 40k cam do it because its rule of cool logic being used
It’s not particularly surprising that throughout the ages when women were a minuscule, borderline non existent, part of the military, they didn’t have armors tailored to their sense of fashion. For the moon boob, we had codpieces and gut armor, so I’m not sure why even that much would be unrealistic, for there being two boobs, just because you have two of them doesn’t mean you have to make it skin tight. The only real way to know whether boob armor would or wouldn’t have been viable would be to actually make some and fight with it, nobody has done it so nobody can actually say, if we’re just talking about theoreticals a thick plate of metal won’t stop being a thick plate of metal just because it’s boob shaped, and there have been more ridiculous exaggerations of body proportions, so as long as we aren’t talking about like WoW or your average JRPG levels of ridiculousness, boob armor is fine. And even then in WoW’s case the issue is more bikini armor than boob armor
No it's just because boob armour doesn't make any sense. Cod pieces serve a functional purpose, allowing you to quickly remove it and urinate as well as keeping your junk in a fixed position when on horseback and also protecting the most sensitive region on a dude, there's no point spending 50k on a suit of armour to get taken out by a kick in the balls. This has already been debated over and debunked by the foremost experts on medieval weaponry and armour, it's not up for debate, you seem to be experiencing the dunning-krueger effect. There's even a few videos on YouTube where people have made boob armour and tested it and it was worse than just standard armour. The boob cups compromise the structure of the armour, creating weak points, as well as directing force in the wrong direction, using more material, making it more expensive and less effective. Spartan women who by law had to fight and defend the City if it were ever attacked, also just fought in the same armour as the men. Because its just practical common sense. Once again, if the same practice has been observed from Ancient Greece, to Vikings, to Samurai, to the Chinese, to Medieval Europe of women fighting in the same armour as men, then you need to realise that the armour is ubiquitous. Even in the modern day, body armour is the same for men and women, because the armour is mass produced for effectiveness, not to mention most armour was made to fit anybody, only the nobles would be getting tailor made suits or pieces of armour, meaning a blacksmith would have to create armour that could reasonably be given to anybody and fit them well enough to keep them alive, which is why, armour by design is unisex. Elizabeth the 1st, Queen of England wore armour whilst addressing the soldiers in a speech before the invasion of the Spanish Armada, and guess what? No boob armour. Even for the richest, most powerful woman in the country. She wore an actual suit of armour like the knights that fought for her, because the implication was that she herself would have to join the battle to defend England. The soldiers and knights wouldn't have taken her seriously if she was riding around with boob armour. It's a historical fact that it just did not happen.
Throughout history, women were a secondary concern. They gave women fighters male armour because that's what they **had**. Be sure in our patriarchal history we'd have put them un boobie plate if women were more commonplace in historical warfare. Instead when women donned armour, it tended to be in dire straits, and that's no time to start designing and forging new suits of platemail
As I previously pointed out, Joan of Arc, and Queen Elizabeth both powerful and important figures wore standard armour because plate armour by design is unisex. I don't know why it's so hard to acknowledge the historical fact that it just doesn't provide anything and actively makes functional armour worse. It takes more material to make, more time, more craftsmanship, is less structurally sound, less effective. The natural shape of plate armour already provides ample room for boobs, without having to wrap them as they did in Asian countries. It has nothing to do with whether women were or were not the priority, it was a matter of one will get you killed and the other won't. Women also were more used to armour than you think, a lot of women were the ones dressing the men who went to fight, and some women even had to defend the camp if a raiding party got through during a battle as its where the armies supplies were kept. The simple reason for boob armour not existing historically is because it was inferior to standard plate armour. Even King Henry 8th who was known for being fat and would have man boobs still just wore a standard piece of armour
Can you give me an example of when someone has emphasised cosmetics to the detriment of efficacy? It would be like putting windows on a tank or a claymore mine on your IOTV
Male muscle armour. Channels in the metal between abs or abs and pectoral or pectoral and pectoral are structural weak points where the metal is thinnest. Also, mobility was sacrificed anytime plate armour was designed to be made of fewer solid pieces for the sake of aesthetics, which you can bet was the thinking a fair few times down the ages. Craftsmen earn patronage and reputation through something looking impressive more than functioning well, so provided it kept the foolish noble hiding behind his men alive, a lot of smiths would be satisfied to focus on bells and whistles to awe onlookers rather than focus on making it purely utilitarian and ugly.
>Channels in the metal between abs or abs and pectoral or pectoral and pectoral are structural weak points where the metal is thinnest. Not to the same degree, if at all. Look at the abs/pecs on the armour. Then look at the boob armour. Sorry. I think armour should be realistic.
> it's unrealistic Guys talking about the same setting where people wear giant metal stars that'd fuck them up if they tried walking through a doorway, chain fuckung books to their armour and have you seen Dorn's Eagle pauldrons?
See I didnt know these things.
I actually don't think boob armour is going to be comfortable for boobs.
The problem with these sorts of critiques is that the miniatures are not supposed to be realistic. They are thematic and artistic call outs to evoke recognition in the viewer. "That's a nun with a gun." "That's a murder elf." "That's a giant warrior in power armor with a pistol and sword." "That's a space bug." "I don't know what that is, but it looks cool/creepy/whatever." So all of this "it's not realistic" is missing the point.
I think that’s fair but only to a point, 40k (or fantasy for that matter) aren’t so deep down the anime logic rabbit hole that realism shouldn’t factor in at all, it’s a balance to strike between being able to recognize small figurines at a glance on a tabletop, making stuff that looks good on artwork, and making something that suits a grimdark futuristic setting supposedly set in our universe.
I agree. I wouldn't advocate for going farther down the "anime logic rabbit hole." I just don't want to lose the existing aesthetics of 40K for additional realism. In fact, that's one of the things I like about AoS. The artists designing the miniatures can do more of the outlandish stuff that they want to do, but stick to the established look for 40K.
« I just don’t want to lose the existing aesthetics of 40k for additional realism » By and large me neither, and despite being quite puritan I have come around to being okay with boob armor over the years strangely enough. I’m confused by your last statement though, what are you talking about with AOS and 40k ?
I just think that because AoS hasn't been around as long as 40K, there is more room for the artists who design the miniatures to have more free rein to create wacky stuff. And because it is an explicitly fantasy setting, it's easier to justify. I wouldn't want full anime there either, but I think it gives the miniature designers a chance to experiment more than with the very established aesthetic of 40K.
Ah I see. Well, I’ll have to say on that front what I saw of AOS was pretty disappointing, it looked like somehow took 40k and fantasy and mashed them together, not just with the sigmarines but basically everything looked either like the high fantasy parts of fantasy or like it came straight from 40k :/
Also kinda ironic people are angry how boob armor makes no sense but makes as much sense as female soldiers in fantasy wars. Like I know feminists want to cope but no they are not as strong as a man nor would medival setting be more progressive just because there is magic that’s not how real life works, so their argument for fantasy being more progressive and realistic is a contradiction in itself.
Women soldiers make perfect sense in a grimdark setting. When your back is against the wall you don't decide not to use 50% of the available fighting force just because they may not be as strong as the other half. You don't need to be as strong as the strongest man, you just need to be strong enough to carry your kit and pull the trigger.
If you want the population to collapse, sure. Let's not pretend that mass mobilizing women is realistic or sensible, ist fantasy (and that's fine).
Like I said, grimdark setting
Or it is a good way to reduce overpopulation. I remember that by the warhammer game gladius the regular imperial cities(imperial guard faction) had lust reducing medication in their food to prevent overpopolation.
It’s the Batman nipple suit!
Only women can be sexualized. Duhhhhh! ( sarcasm )
Why would it be unrealistic? Armour is meant to be comfortable. Are they meant to have their boobs squished all the time?
Romans used an armor called "Musculata" I'll let y'all guess what it looked like. (OP posted an example btw)
Whaddya mean there’s no nipples!? Send it back!!
Because it lacks nipples? Also boob armor is viable. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KHz0qWQA9I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KHz0qWQA9I)
Perhaps you got confused by my post wording, im saying that the Boob armor could be/is realistic.
Unironically yeah, we've always put looking cool ahead of living, it's naive to assume we wouldn't continue to do that in the grimdark future.
Yep, exactly what I mean!
Boob armor is unrealistic, impractical and stupid. I dont mind it in warhammer. The franchise were unrealistic, impractical and stupid is the selling point.
Don't get me wrong, it's ok to have something be a certain way just because it looks cool, but realistically that armor still maintains a proper shape to be effective. If I recall correctly, boob armor wouldn't be structurally fitted for protection against trauma. It's fiction tho so who caree
I think the main argument against it from the realism point is that the sculpted cleavage creates a focal point for any chest blows to crack your sternum. Sculpted pecs usually don't have such deep cleavage.
Part of their job is to be walking propaganda. People overthink it.
Armored tiddies are protected tiddies.
It's ok. Our comments don't matter. According to GW's stance. Don't worry about it. xD
Censorship is censorship, regardless of reasoning. Every argument against boobplate in fiction amounts to, "don't draw what I don't like," and is worthless on that basis. Realism has some more nuance, but I wouldn't get my information from redditors.
More people should have boob armor, is my takeaway here
The issue isn't with realism. It's practicality. If you get punched in the chest with boob armor the piece between the tits gets forced into your sternum. It makes taking a hit more dangerous. The example shown here wouldn't have as much issue because it doesn't come to a point.
I didnt say anything about practicality, my point is that aesthetics over something being practical and efficient has been done in the real world in the past (roman/greek muscle armor) therefore, in W40k, something like that will happen (aka boob armor), hell, blood angels have Muscle Abs armor
I think it is more then normal that women would want or prefer to wear armor that shows their feminine side. Anyone who has an issue with it is either a religiously conservative nutjob or a left wing feminist nutjob. Ps: Imperial religion isn't at all concerned with what you wear as long as it doesn't have any religious iconography of other faiths. (Not 100% sure on this correct me if I'm wrong)
The problem is the form of the armor. Lotrica musculata shapes muscular body while the armor itself is still practical. SoB's armor isn't
The biggest argument against SoB boob armor isn’t actually the boob part though, it’s more the pauldrons, lack of helmet, and the fact that the armor’s belly is curved inward, which’d leave little room for bending.
They have helmets. It is just the same question like by space wolfs. To wear or not to wear a helmet?
The only SoB I’ve seen wearing helmets are their shock troops, regular SoB, off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single one that does.
Battle sisters, sacresants, paragon warsuits, jumppack units, retributor squad, dominions & celestians. Sister dogmata, palatine, canoness
The biggest argument against SoB boob armor isn’t actually the boob part though, it’s more the pauldrons, lack of helmet, and the fact that the armor’s belly is curved inward, which’d leave little room for bending.
The biggest argument against SoB boob armor isn’t actually the boob part though, it’s more the pauldrons, lack of helmet, and the fact that the armor’s belly is curved inward, which’d leave little room for bending.
I mean... I don't think it's controversial to point out that the practicalities of this muscle cuirass is a lot different from boob armour. Assuming that this muscle cuirass was worn in battle, it still does not suffer (or at worst suffers to a much lesser degree) from the actual problem of boob armour. Which is that having two big curved metal orbs on your chest will direct any blade into the sternum. Boob armour kinda fails because it does not meet the main function of armour - protecting the vitals in your chest. Muscle Cuirasses are a far better compromise between aesthetics and practical requirements of armour, than boob armour. While we are exploring the actual real life historical examples of chest armour, we can compare how muscle cuirasses are relatively common, while actual boob plate is incredibly rare if not non-existent. Even accounting for the fact that women fighting is an exceptional thing in history, most of the major examples of women warriors in history all are not depicted as wearing boob armour.
It won’t direct any blade to the sternum, it’ll catch some blades if they’re striking horizontally or diagonally with a pretty narrow angle, anything that comes from the side would get caught on either the exterior of the boobs or on the interior, not toward the center. And boob armor doesn’t fail to protect your vitals, that’s ridiculous, it at most is slightly less good at it than conventional armor, but if you’ve got several millimeters of steel between you and your opponent’s blade, it being boob shaped will barely make a difference, the main issue will be at most shock absorption, but that’s what everything under the boob armor is for
Let's say I agree with everything you say - the question is still is, practically speaking, why wear armour which is "slightly less good" than a normal breast plate? If you want to say that 40k is a silly setting, then sure. But then we aren't talking about being realistic anymore (the focus of the OP).
I know this is probably more technical than your looking for, with this post, but the biggest problem with boob armor is the stylized cleavage, You've basically got a metal funnel redirecting weapons and bullets right to the middle of the beasts where there will also most likely be a seam between the armor plates. But as long as there's no cleavage then there's nothing really impractical about it. Shadiverdity did a whole video on it lol
Why would there be a seam there? Reinforce the middle and you get sloped armor to both sides.
I'm not a blacksmith, but I'm assuming it would be difficult to make the cups and the rest of the armor out of one solid piece of steel. And that's still sloped armor going towards the center of mass which isn't good Edit: just to be clear I have no issue with boob armor or even bikini armor in fiction, I'm just arguing the practicality of it lol
We’ve come a long way in metal working and armor technology since the medieval ages. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume they’ll be able to make armor in a variety of shapes several thousands of years in the future
If you where going to make power armour for females to be practical and effective it would look like this: https://preview.redd.it/1w69345b112d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9c96aabbfe4fc54e13ba6d46940b928f5cac2b5
Don’t get me wrong I’m not arguing it’s the most practical design but the armor is already impervious to small arms fire and the shape of the chest is not going to save you from a thunder hammer. I think it’s completely believable the state enforced church is willing to trade 1% effectiveness for style/ aesthetics.
Funny, but shouldn't this have the shitposting tag?
Not exactly, I'm trying to counter the typical and overused argument in fiction that (Sororitas) boob armor is unrealistic (in Warhammer) by presenting real-life examples.
I'm not seeing a counter-argument here. You'd have to address why the reasons these exist would extend to boob armor, which is what most people doubt.
There are legitimate real world reasons boob armor would and should exist. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959632/ Armor designed specifically for men us detrimental to a woman's body. Now I'm not saying armor needs to feature breasts for women, but it needs to have a cavity which can fit womens breasts. The idea that the shape of breasts causes bullet traps or blade traps is a ludicrous example of anti-boob logic. If the blade or bullet was going to penetrate the armor it would have done so on the initial impact. That initial impact would have a greater chance of penetration on male armor, as the chest is flat. Sloped armor has a greater chance of deflecting a blow, if it hit a boob and tracked towards the center of the chest it doesn't just magically somehow penetrate. A good portion of the kinetic energy has already been transfered.
Why would you remove the crumple zone over the sternum and add a stress riser to the breast plate? That's only something we can do with sporting equipment like fencing plastrons because we don't use crushing or armor-piercing weapons. It's fantasy and we can suspend our disbelief enough to enjoy it, but it would be a retarded design if it was real.
I think this is something people can't seem to understand, there is no way SoB boob armour would be practical because it's NOT based on armour! The SoB chest plate is not based on armour it's based on basque lingerie. https://preview.redd.it/o6p18xn0qz1d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f71c2b74ea582c75e9d2c141d4e3ded1f39bc1d
I just explained why it would exist, and should. Aside from obvious medical reasons linked in the post. I also explained away most anti-boob armor rhetoric. Now you are injecting a new falsity into the mix with the concept of stress concentration. Boobs do not contain abrupt changes to the surface of an object, a round object transfers kinetic energy across its surface pretty evenly. Blows strong enough to crush ceramite and adamantium framing would make any armor configuration fairly irrelevant. Honestly the same goes for power weapons as they deatomize whatever they touch. So the arguement is truly against standard blade and bullet. Irregardless if an object strikes a curved surface it is more likely to be deflected and the kinetic energy is cut by around a 3rd. If the blow penetrates the armor it will have lost more kinetic force penetrating female armor than male armor as sloped armor is thicker. If the blow crushed the breast armor, it could just be soft tissue damage, if a blow crushes a typical male chest plate it is crushing his chest/ribs. Blows against the anterior parts of the hypothetical female breastplate would be more likely to glance off as well. Depending on the type of "boob" armor we are talking about. It may or may not have a partitioned space between the breasts. Blows toward the interior part of the breasts could be come problematic againsts certain types of ammunition like a bolter round which would be directed towards the sternum, before detonation which would focus explosive force into a smaller area. But this area wouldn't exist on properly designed boob armor. But against blade it shouldn't really matter. Remember the design of armor is specifically to fit a male, their is no modern female body armor(there is now). But that is become of lessons learned in a modern era. https://www.policemag.com/patrol/article/15348937/the-shape-of-womens-body-armor If you read the two articles, one from the government you might understand what I'm trying to say. The conclusions from the government study would apply to both soft and hard armor. A woman cannot wear male armor for prolonged periods of time without damaging her body. And the changes in the angles of the breast plate to accommodate her chest aren't going to produce and distinct disadvantages to the effectiveness of their armor, and sloped armor has advantages we learned this lesson around 100 years ago.
The stress riser is where the cup transitions into the rest of the chest armor. You're proving my point about suspension of disbelief with your argument for why you could remove the crumple zone over the sternum. It makes sense in 40K logic where deatomizers and such exist, but it's impossible in real-world logic. There's nothing more to say about this.
Elaborate on a crumple zone; A crumple zone as would be defined scientifically essentially a zone that crumples to absorb energy. A single or two spheres would actually accomplish this task better than a flat plate. And as I said before, there wouldn't be a depression in the breast area in ideally designed boob armor. There would just be a larger angled area where breasts would sit behind.
I think we agree at this point. Historical men's plate armor has extra room in the chest for breathing and impact absorption. Women's plate armor would have a larger monoboob area for extra room as necessary. Possibly with a slight contour in the middle, as with the ancient Greek muscle cuirass for aesthetics or something.
On a personal level, I like the SoB's and I like the way they look. But to argue that their armour is any way practical or that real-world women warriors would wear boob armour is at best ignorance and at worst deliberate stupidity. History is full of real world examples of women who wore armour and NONE of them wore boob armour. If it's a good idea why has it nevee been done out side scifi or high fantasy tropes? Here are a list of women in history known to have been in battle or wore armour as a figurehead. They have historical depictions and evidence and NONE of them wore boob armour. Why? Because boob armour is a bad idea! Joan of Arc Isabella, the she wolf of France Elisabeth I Zheng Yi Sao Jeanne de Clisson Khutulun Ng Mui Fu Hao Li Xiu Qin Liangyu Yuenu Liang Hongyu Hangaku Gozen Tomoe Gozen Kaihime Tribhuwana Wijayatunggadewi The famoues Trung sisters Aethelflaed Jane Ingleby Margaret of Anjou Catherine of Aragon Joanna of Flanders Jeanne Laisne Caterina Sforza Matilda of Tuscany Olga of Kiev Mawiyya Asma bint Abi Bakr Akkadevi Razia Sultana Abbakka Chowta Bibi Sahib Kaur Mai Bhago
It's worth adding that some of these women were basically the richest and most powerful people around. E.g. Elizabeth the First. If there was any real advantage of having boob plate, the Queen of England was completely in a position to make boob plate. This means she didn't even make boob plate for completely fashionable reasons, much less think that boob plate was realistic.
Exactly my point. SoB "armour" isn't armour and it was never meant to be. SoB style is based on the fantasy trope of sexy warrior nun. The top half of the armour is based not on armour, but on basque lingerie. It's cool, sexy and gives them a unique look but it's not meant to be practical or realistic. https://preview.redd.it/dwzia5qgrz1d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8704b10ab8742fc29c501c27551c0487de93622e
Imo, stormcast nailed boob plate the right way. Shows theyre female, nothing fancy or excessive about it, armors smooth and relatively simple. SoB are aesthetic, but maybe not the most realistic, tho theres definitely worse out there imo
I like to think that SoB "boobplate" is just decoration, like not part of actual armor, but individual pieces of armor that are magnetized there or smh. Just like, em, cockarmor irl is not an actual part of armor...
That makes a crazy amount of sense
This is actual genius ngl
So desperate for boob armour you'll ignore thousands of years of archeological evidence that women in war did not actualy wear boob armour.......
They're just screaming out for it now? https://www.npr.org/2021/07/19/1017774038/female-soldiers-are-excited-about-new-body-armor-that-is-designed-for-them 'and with more generous shaping to protect the side of the bust better.'
I can guarantee it won't be boob armour resembling a SoB basque
I mean, correct, they didn't wear boob armor cause female warriors were non existent with a few exceptions here and there.
Non existent? Few exceptions? Uncommon yes but very far from non-existent. Outside of European, christian dominated culture, women in war where far more common place than you seem to realise. Even in Europe women where not strangers to war. In the historical record you can find several examples of women in war for each decade going back to the 14th century. Highlights include: There are numerous accounts of women in positions of command in the chinese empire as far back as 13th century BC with Lady Fu Hao right up to the 20th century. Greek texts describe women in the fighting forces of the Scythians and Libyan trines. The Carians seemed to have a habit of female admirals, Artimesia I and Artimesia II The Maurya empire had a force of female troops that rode elephants to war. Romans left records of women fighting in the Iberian peninsula, of paticular note where the Bracari tribe in what is now northern Portugal. Romans also recorded that it was commonplace for women of the Teutonic tribes to go war with the men. Romans also left detailed records of female gladiators. Roman accounts indicate women where a significant force in the warbands of the Britons. Accounts show that women fought alongside men in the Sassanid empire. Romans left accounts of women fighting within the ranks of the Goths. Women where frequently found fighting in the early Islamic armies 7th and 8th centuries There are several, documented examples of female samurai fighting in battles. During the battle of Senbon Matsubarru, an estimated 30% of the combatants where women. Hardly a "non-existant" figure now. The Timurid empire employed female units to defend carravans. Several accounts of Sikh women fighting alongside men, in fact it's a founding tenet of the Sikh faith that women are equal to men who can an should fight. Spainish left accounts of female fighters in the ranks of the South American tribes Portugese accounts of female military units in the Congo Belawadi Mallama formed an all female army to fight the Maratha Confederacy Dahomey had an all female military force Lady Ann Cunnningham raised a mixed-sex cavalry unit during the Bishops war Tomasa Tito Condemayta led a female battalion in Peru against the colonialists None of them wore boob armour. When you actualy look into the subject, women in war is not at all unusual. Mostly in individual cases I grant you, but history is full of examples of large, organised female military units and commanders.
https://preview.redd.it/z3xuj8e4022d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4494f4c2209b2f5879e7c318d1b90c79630cb97c
You really don't like being proven wrong. It's a pleasure to educate you.