@James Done, as stated all I did was make the bits nobody was reading bold and italicized and added 1 line.

It clearly states that vehicular armaments are not in the universe. Post a picture of you running around holding an anti tank rifle and I will gladly accept you are right.

@RonJohn easily avoided. Gelatinous flyids can disperse the impact and delay it so that it is negligible. Like how woodpeckers avoid brain trauma.

@RonJohn Either my eyes deceive me or that man is standing still. You make it sound like whole armies could use these instead if normal weapons. THEY ARE HUGE. Maybe 1% could equip with these but then they would be looking out for 1 person in an army instead of a huge tank. Impractical.

@RonJohn Hmm it is almost like it is something that is being developed and could be available in the next 50 years. It is almost like the mechanics of spreading impact is literally the main reason why kevlar works. HMMMM

@RonJohn quora.com/Why-dont-we-have-anti-tank-rifles-anymore let other peoplw explain stuff to you.

you can find plenty of pictures of people carrying The boys anti-tank rifle, it only weighs 40 lbs loaded, soldiers often carry upwards of 80 lbs of gear. Also fluids transfer shock they don't disperse it. woodpeckers avoid trauma by having tiny brain and big flexible spring loaded skulls.

@John fluid does disperse shock. If you fire a bullet at water the people in the path of the bullet receive essentially no trauma because the meager energy and momentum of the bullet is dispersed throughout the water. Just watch a video of it.

@John Assuming you have ever seen water ripple you have seen a fluid disperse shock.

sure if you expect your poel to wear body armor several feet thick, that is dispersing it in the same sense hitting a mass of anything disperses it, by drag and mass transfer. A thin layer a fluid behind a hard surface is going to transfer energy nearly identical as if it were not present. fluids are non-compressible they are not absorbing significant amounts of energy they are just transferring it. being underwater is safe becasue you have a huge mass of water between you and the bullet not because water is a good shock absorber.

Ripples are actually evidence for poor energy absorption.

Your problem is the word "flexible" you can't make armor that is both flexible and good at energy dispersal/ absorption, especially not to .50 BMG levels of energy.

@John Shock absorber huh? Inertial dampening? Hmmm what do they have in common OH YEAH A FLUID.

@John The armour is flexible, not necessarily the materials.

actually no they have compressible components in common, a fluid fulled 'shock absorber' is called a hydraulic cylinder, the opposite of a shock absorber.

@John "Most shock absorbers are a form of dashpot (a damper which resists motion via viscous friction)." Oh almost like viscocity is inherently fluid.

I would suggest moving this to chat, or better yet just post a question asking if you can make body armor made of solid components that does not limit mobility. You can also ask someone on physics to explain how energy absorption works.

@John I'm done anyway, anyone who argues that shock absorbers do not have fluid in them is not worth arguing with

something I never said.

@John a fluid fulled "shock absorber" is called a hydraulic cylinder, the opposite of a shock absorber.

filled being the key word, and dashpots go right back to my comment on water mass, a fluid dashpot use fluid flow to disperse energy, very very different than using a layer of water as a mechanical absorber, again mechanically water transfers shock it does not absorb it.

dashpot in which the fluid cannot flow out of the primary cylinder (analogous to a fluid layer on armor) is a horrible shock absorber, worse than just a layer of air.