Context and Assumptions

Let's assume that the person making this choice is not a monster (want their soldiers to live) but has a budget.

We are also assuming that, being in some future situation, the weapons of war overcome any amount of armor. Scary!

The Answer is Neither!

We saw something like this, collectively, with the advent of common and powerful firearms and plate armor. Plate armor, though more mobile than many people think, did make people slower than unarmored. The coverage of plate armor was slowly reduced and eventually abandoned because being more mobile was more important than easily overcome protection.

The same situation seems to be going on here. Of the common weapons of war overcome your armor easily, ditch the armor and become more mobile!

As a side note, armor in modern conflicts saw armor reintroduced to protect against shrapnel and incidental contact. Incidental contact here would be things like hitting the top post of a door, getting hit by a falling rock, or being in the zone of shrapnel. See the history of the famous Brodie helmet, which arguably didn't protect against direct fire yet still made a difference.

If You Must Choose, Choose Armor Over Sand

Why? Because sand (generally) protects less than armor per unit of weight. This is because armor disperses forces better by having a much larger shear strength. This means it will have a greater set of weapons it can protect against. More protection means a more effective soldier which can translate into a more effective army.

While it may be true most weapons of war overcome armor in this conflict, the armor has the benefit of (potentially) protecting against arms available to civilians. Since taking and controlling land/civilians is one of the main objectives in a war, this armor may pay for itself once you get outside of the major military actions.

Context and Assumptions

Let's assume that the person making this choice is not a monster (want their soldiers to live) but has a budget.

We are also assuming that, being in some future situation, the weapons of war overcome any amount of armor. Scary!

The Answer is Neither!

We saw something like this, collectively, with the advent of common and powerful firearms and plate armor. Plate armor, though more mobile than many people think, did make people slower than unarmored. The coverage of plate armor was slowly reduced and eventually abandoned because being more mobile was more important than easily overcome protection.

The same situation seems to be going on here. Of the common weapons of war overcome your armor easily, ditch the armor and become more mobile!

As a side note, armor in modern conflicts saw armor reintroduced to protect against shrapnel and incidental contact. Incidental contact here would be things like hitting the top post of a door, getting hit by a falling rock, or being in the zone of shrapnel. See the history of the famous Brodie helmet, which arguably didn't protect against direct fire yet still made a difference.

If You Must Choose, Choose Armor Over Sand

Why? Because sand (generally) protects less than armor per unit of weight. This is because armor disperses forces better by having a much larger shear strength. This means it will have a greater set of weapons it can protect against. More protection means a more effective soldier which can translate into a more effective army.

Additionally, the armor can be formed to take advantage of geometry of incoming projectiles. It can even become active armor and do an even better job of negating the force and concentration of incoming projectiles.

While it may be true most weapons of war overcome armor in this conflict, the armor has the benefit of (potentially) protecting against arms available to civilians. Since taking and controlling land/civilians is one of the main objectives in a war, this armor may pay for itself once you get outside of the major military actions.

Context and Assumptions

Let's assume that the person making this choice is not a monster (want their soldiers to live) but has a budget.

We are also assuming that, being in some future situation, the weapons of war overcome any amount of armor. Scary!

The Answer is Neither!

We saw something like this, collectively, with the advent of common and powerful firearms and plate armor. Plate armor, though more mobile than many people think, did make people slower than unarmored. The coverage of plate armor was slowly reduced and eventually abandoned because being more mobile was more important than easily overcome protection.

The same situation seems to be going on here. Of the common weapons of war overcome your armor easily, ditch the armor and become more mobile!

As a side note, armor in modern conflicts saw armor reintroduced to protect against shrapnel and incidental contact. Incidental contact here would be things like hitting the top post of a door, getting hit by a falling rock, or being in the zone of shrapnel. See the history of the famous Brodie helmet, which arguably didn't protect against direct fire yet still made a difference.

If You Must Choose, Choose Armor Over Sand

Why? Because sand (generally) protects less than armor per unit of weight. This is because armor disperses forces better by having a much larger shear strength. This means it will have a greater set of weapons it can protect against. More protection means a more effective soldier which can translate into a more effective army.

Context and Assumptions

Let's assume that the person making this choice is not a monster (want their soldiers to live) but has a budget.

We are also assuming that, being in some future situation, the weapons of war overcome any amount of armor. Scary!

The Answer is Neither!

We saw something like this, collectively, with the advent of common and powerful firearms and plate armor. Plate armor, though more mobile than many people think, did make people slower than unarmored. The coverage of plate armor was slowly reduced and eventually abandoned because being more mobile was more important than easily overcome protection.

The same situation seems to be going on here. Of the common weapons of war overcome your armor easily, ditch the armor and become more mobile!

As a side note, armor in modern conflicts saw armor reintroduced to protect against shrapnel and incidental contact. Incidental contact here would be things like hitting the top post of a door, getting hit by a falling rock, or being in the zone of shrapnel. See the history of the famous Brodie helmet, which arguably didn't protect against direct fire yet still made a difference.

If You Must Choose, Choose Armor Over Sand

Why? Because sand (generally) protects less than armor per unit of weight. This is because armor disperses forces better by having a much larger shear strength. This means it will have a greater set of weapons it can protect against. More protection means a more effective soldier which can translate into a more effective army.

While it may be true most weapons of war overcome armor in this conflict, the armor has the benefit of (potentially) protecting against arms available to civilians. Since taking and controlling land/civilians is one of the main objectives in a war, this armor may pay for itself once you get outside of the major military actions.