SpeedRather ThanArmor ( Or, How To Learn To Hold Two Diametrically Opposing Conclusions At Once ) !

     ...is a disaster in armored combat.  Let us take the case of the British Battlecruisers.
     During the race up to the First World Nightmare, the British diverted production for a rakish, fast big gun vessel called a Battlecruiser.  These were lightly armored ships with Battleship ordnance.  The idea was to use them for commerce raiding and picking off smaller enemy (German) warships.
     But the British navy was deceived!
     For the temptation to use the ships in line of battle combat was overwhelming.  Forgetting about the light armor, they lost 3 of these expensive capital ships at Jutland when German shells ignited their main magazines due to to minor but distressing flaws in the design of the Ammunition Hoists, causing flashover.  Oh dear.  The Germans lost one battle cruiser.  The German gunnery during the battle achieved hits of two percent as compared to the British tally of one percent.  The British lost twice the tonnage and men, but still won, because the German fleet never left harbor again. (they sortied at the end of the war but the crews mutinied, canceling that idea).
     This holds true for tank warfare but not infantry combat.  A soldier's armor could be made bullet proof, but became so heavy in doing so that mobility was negated.  The toughest warrior is useless if he cannot be placed where and when he is needed.
     The lessons learned here, Comrades, are obvious!

HMS Invincible, BattleCruiser, lost at Justland. (blown in half)!

Invincible standing on seabed while sinking.

A Hare in Armor.
 (ask the Scots)!