They're basically just running straight into enemy fire so why not. It’s insane.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3670098&forum_id=2#33736849)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_personnel_shield

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3670098&forum_id=2#34438094)

high T Slavs raining death from above on hapless Pomeranian potato farmers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3670098&forum_id=2#41414216)

Speed>lives

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3670098&forum_id=2#34438182)

Also there was all kinds of armour in use back then, just not on a wide scale. Steel armour is both lighter and more effective than laymen realise. See:

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-tactical/ridiculous-wwi-body-armor/

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/790944753284427586/

Shields/armour would've saved countless lives in any number of wars imo, the issue is (was) cost. It would probably work today but generals are inside-the-box thinkers and have 90 IQs unless they major in Engineering at west point or are Robert E Lee.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3670098&forum_id=2#41411076)

Torch would have made no sense, except Hitler took the bait and kept reinforcing defeat, leading to tens of thousands of his top troops getting stuck on Tunisia, without supplies, and surrendering

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3670098&forum_id=2#41414223)

Cuirasses were out there in WWI. Really no authentic reason why George Washington or Napoleon to not have worn one other than he would be one of very few so equipped. Imagine Pickett's Charge but with plate armour, they'd be invincible. No one thought of this for some reason.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3670098&forum_id=2#41412410)

Modern armies have decided that they will cover the head and torso. If you lose a limb the good news is that army medics can probably save you. Afterwards, you get a crazy robo-limb, a medal, lifetime "hero" status, and a much hotter wife than you had coming to you as a dirt-poor 18-year-old enlisted guy with two arms and two legs.

Historic armies would have used armor if it was a decent idea. Once guns got decent, armor was a garbage investment because the stuff that would actually protect a bro was expensive to make, heavy as fuck, and required training to use. Much more cost-effective to just recruit more Irish and try to keep anyone important out of the line of fire. You probably could armor the front of guys sufficiently to block most shots from the fairly primitive rifles issued to civil war infantry. But those guys are going to be marching at like 1 mph. Once the artillery guys start dropping shells on them and they get outmaneuvered and flanked/encircled by better-armed cavalry or lighter infantry, the result is not going to be pretty. Also the confederates in particular were in no position to use a bunch of metal to armor up their starving prole shithead troops. They were perpetually short of more important things like guns, train tracks, a navy, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3670098&forum_id=2#41413334)