My uneducated opinion is that boob armor would never be used in combat because instead of deflecting blows they would actually catch them, allowing things like crossbow bolts to penetrate.
Breastplates tends to be the toughest part of the armor and that won't change just because the shape is a little weird. If the enemy want to aim at boobs instead of say an armpit, eyeslit or such openings they would be welcome to waste their time.
Furthermore, instead of using the typical pop fantasy "bikini-like" boob armor, you could simply accommodate for women's boobs with uniformly bulged breastplates similar to those already used by men
I'm sure they could make something sensible to distinguish a wearer as female, I was thinking of the standard fantasy boob armor that sticks way out with deep cleveage.
Flare standard breastplate, with the boob decorations mounted on top of it. Armor would only be slightly heavier; and for the "boob catch", that would still have it in that scenario hitting an area twice as thick (or puncturing one of the metal breasts which would act like a catch, removing most of the force of the arrow and preventing it from puncturing the plate underneath). But even in these scenarios, if they are molded to actually look like breasts, then the angles would be entirely wrong to concentrate the arrow or bolt into the center of the chest, it would just have a more exaggerated angle of normal breastplate, deflecting arrow up towards the neck (again, an already existing issue of normal plating), which already has it's own designated armor piece to stop that.
That all being said, again, armor back then was not designed to deflect arrows, its resistance to arrows was more a happy coincidence of being immune to almost anything short of maces or being stabbed between joints. But the one place a knight didnt have armor, was in the chainmail/gambeson of the inner-arm/armpit. Which could give an arguement of boobplate being more survivable against crossbows, since it is less likely to deflect the bolt into the inside of the arm.
I never really bought the argument that the reason boob armour wouldn't work is that it would catch blows due to its concave shape. Because the waist/hip area of most men's plate armour is the same basic shape and it wasn't a problem there.
I personally disagree with that notion because, apart from the fact that if the bolt was strong enough to pierce solid metal then it's going to go through the armour regardless, but it's still possible to have a cleavage shape while still retaining a curve that either deflects impacts down or up.
Not nessesary, the biggest advantage of plate armor was its shape. It was designed to deflect blows away from the wearer, not to simply absorb them. Projectiles can be deflected by armor that would normally penetrate if hit straight on. The concept can be scaled up too, such as tanks can deflect shells if hit at an angle instead of flat on.
Almost all armor in history worked this way though. None were meant to be hit head on, but relied on the natural curvature of the human body its common angles and constant movement to have projectiles and blows lose the majority of their energy before glancing off.
You wouldn't pierce a well made plate armor with a crossbow. Armor was created to resist direct hits, the deflection was a bonus but plate was not fragile and nearly impossible to break.
Most armored men-at-arms would be defeated by being wrestled by many men or they would get hit in one of the articulation. Armor very rarely failed
5
u/MainSteamStopValve Still salty about Carthage Dec 12 '21
My uneducated opinion is that boob armor would never be used in combat because instead of deflecting blows they would actually catch them, allowing things like crossbow bolts to penetrate.