I'm not an expert, but it's worth considering that you can't ramp the production of armor in the same way you can ramp conscription. So to have enough armor, you'd need to be buying armor for nobody in times of peace, which is a tough decision, especially if you're living in an era where firearms are improving rapidly.
Unless there are pretty good odds the risk of getting shot is worth the payoff (and the real costs are therefore worth paying), it’s way easier to just not use it.
Ain’t nobody running an obstacle course in good time in Level 4 armor (or plate).
https://digg.com/video/knight-firefighter-soldier-obstacle-c...
The plate armour guy was marginally faster than the guy in modern soldier's gear. Plate armour was less cumbersome than most people imagine and the weight is more evenly distributed than a modern soldier (where it is nearly all on their back).
And those folks actively trained with that armor on. A noob would have a MUCH worse time.
They also would have been a LOT faster without any armor at all on (once they adjusted for the lack of weight/restriction). Also, probably dead if they got hit with whatever the armor would protect them from.
I know, I’ve had to do courses like that with and without body armor, and wore Level IIIA body armor for years. You get used to it, but it is ‘friction’ that you’d be faster without.
I think that migth be another one of those myths we can blame the Victorians for. Also the black and white film of Henry V (?) where knights are shown being winched on to their horses. They weren't going to wear armour so heavy they couldn't get up in - they weren't stupid!
>A noob would have a MUCH worse time.
Indeed. People wearing plate were professional warriors, trained from childhood.
If your conscripts die, no big deal; conscript more!