I never said I hadn't worn armor of any kind, I was directly referring the plate armor I had mentioned in the previous sentence when I said that I hadn't worn any. I have worn chain armor, and I have worn a plate curiass, just not a whole set. While true, I haven't worn an IBA either, I was commenting the weight recorded by multiple sources based on their own research for full gear, prepped for battle with extra ammo, rations, IFAK, and other essential combat equipment, which would weigh in to pretty close to 60 pounds, if my research is correct. And that is all hung off of the MOLLE straps on the chest piece, whereas on plate armor, the weight is distributed evenly across the entire body, with a tiny bit extra hanging off the belt. So, comparitively, a combat-ready chest piece of modern armor weighs in at about 40-60 lbs, while a medieval chest piece, with all the trimmings, weighs in at under 20. Plus, most plate armors, especially early plate armors, contained joints that allowed a knight to bend over and touch his toes. But of course, since I have never worn any of these, my points are all moot. I apologize for not bowing down to your obviously superior mind. Now let's get over this petty pissing match and get on with this topic. Ok, sure, because a man in a plate harness is COMPLETELY analogous to a man in IBA with full kit. It's not like a man-at-arms would have the funds to have pack horses and therefore wouldn't be carrying everything he needs to carry when campaigning, and we all know that soldiers carry EVERYTHING they can at ALL times.