The relationship between speed/mobility, armor protection, and firepower is the "measuring stick" for determining the overall combat effectiveness of an armored fighting vehicle. Too much, or too little, of any of the three measurable categories produces a vehicle that has limitations that can be easily exploited by an enemy.
An example would be the German Tiger tank (all variants). Although extremely well armored, and carrying the incredibly potent 88mm gun, the Tiger in effect was nothing more than folklore legend when it comes down to true battlefield statistics. It's incredible lack of speed/mobility and extreme mechanical reliability problems turned what was originally designed as the ultimate ground superiority weapon into nothing more than an ambush gun hidden in barns covered with hay to fire from a concealed position.
It's allied counterpart would be the Sherman. Although the Sherman received bad press during the war, it in all effects was quite possibly the most well balanced tank of WW2. It had better than average speed/mobility, it had reasonable armor protection, and the ease of which the main gun could be changed out based on the original design, it proved that the tank could mount multiple guns with acceptable firepower throughout the war. However, not one single thing "shines" about the Sherman. It simply did everything "OK". While the Tiger "shined" when it came to armor protection and firepower, it's lack of mobility proved to be it's Achilles's Heel.
Speed/mobility, armor protection, and firepower must be used in "relative terms" to the enemy forces AND the terrain the which combat is taking place in order for the formula to be used accurately and correctly. For example: If the combat terrain is the grounds of a large international airport with lots of stretches of paved concrete, and the combat forces being faced are infantry in shorts and T-shirts throwing marbles with their bare hands, a bicycle mounted man wearing Carharts, with a face shield, carrying a slingshot, completely overwhelms the opponent on all facets of speed/mobility, armor protection, and firepower. However, if someone were to show up to that same fight driving a Ferrari, with bullet proof glass, mounting a 9mm handgun... That would go down in the historical record as "the greatest armored fighting vehicle to ever take the field".
This is why it is so important to take into account the opponent and the terrain when using this formula. A perfectly designed vehicle could be able to outmatch any possible opponent in any possible terrain in all of the categories. The difficulty of achieving this balance is:
-As you add more speed/mobility, you must sacrifice weight which reduces both armor protection and firepower.
-Armor protection increases weight, sacrificing speed/mobility and/or firepower.
-Firepower increases weight but also adds to the chassis size, meaning you loose both armor protection and speed/mobility.
The armoured vehicle listings are primarily organized by country of origin. Over 200 tanks listed have detailed and standardized specifications of armor protection, fire-power, mobility and general information.while heavy armer and all-terrain mobility provide protection for the tank and its crew, allowing it to perform all primary tasks of the armoured troops on the battlefield. Tanks were first made by the French,
Armor. A knight in shining ARMOR.
Various armor and shields. - plate armor - chainmail - leather armor - scale armor - brigandine (cloth armor) - several types of shields from wood or iron The target was a protection from arrows and weapons in the fight man against man.
they wore chainmail armor, steel helmets and a red cross over that armor
The Spartans wore gold helmets, gold armor around their legs and gold armor around their waist to the middle of their thighs, They had silver shields and silver armor from their neck to their shoulders to their waist.
Mobility, heavy weapons, terrain
Knights started wearing plate armor for better protection against arrows and weapons in battle. This armor increased their defense but also reduced their mobility. Additionally, plate armor allowed knights to display their status and wealth.
In terms of armor i'd say the British Challenger II tank But in terms of firepower i think it is Equal to USA's Abrams tank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2
The Panzer tank went through three main redesigns during World War II: Panzer I, Panzer II, and Panzer III. These redesigns involved improvements in armor, firepower, and mobility as the war progressed.
Soldiers stopped wearing armor primarily due to advancements in weaponry such as firearms, which made armor less effective and impractical. Armor was also heavy, cumbersome, and limited mobility, making soldiers vulnerable in modern warfare tactics. Additionally, the cost of producing and maintaining armor became unsustainable for military budgets.
The skin allows the armor to be flexible.
how are you going
Consider why bulletproof vests were invented. They serve merely as a measure of protection. Otherwise it wouldn't be the Grand Army--it'd be the Grand Sacrifices. Yes, the armor slows them down, but it also allows them to survive long enough to compensate for that lack of speed in devastating rains of firepower.
Militaries still use tanks for artillery from the guns or newer tanks with rockets, infantry support, they can easily maneuver and are able to smash through structures, and can break through infantry lines because of the infantry's lack of being able to take out an armored vehicle.
For Guns: Damage, Bullet Speed, and mobility(just guessing) For Armor: Excess Damage, Excess Speed, and Level of Health
Aztec armor was primarily made of cotton padding or quilted fabric. It was then adorned with materials such as feathers, animal skins, and sometimes pieces of copper or bronze to provide protection during battles. The armor was typically lightweight to allow for greater mobility in combat.
A suit of armor protects the body's vital organs and provides structure and support, similar to how the skeleton system protects organs and provides support for the body. Just as a suit of armor can be flexible and allow for movement, the skeleton system allows for mobility and flexibility through joints and muscles. Both the suit of armor and skeleton system can also be damaged and require maintenance to function properly.