Which would be a better armor design?

Question

Have a thick plate to stop the impact then a soft layer under it to absorb the impact.

Or, have a soft absorbent layer first and then a thick plate?

Answer 1

I would think something with a soft outer.

A bendable object will absorb more force (i.e., the soft outside). The hard object inside will not buckle under the force, so instead of just protecting yourself, you're protecting the hard shell - which would end up protecting your skin better than the soft, since it can be cut through easier.

Answer 2

Depends on the energy of the projectile and it's type. Normally the requirement is to dissipate the energy of the projectile before it can physically compromise the Armour.
If it does not take much energy to vaporise the soft layer the projectile will still have enough energy to compromise the hard layer. The soft layer would not therefore protect the hard layer.
With the hard layer on the outside it would probably take more energy to vaporise it and the projectile will have less energy available to compromise the soft layer.
It is only the innermost layer which needs to survive, the outer layers are there to absorb energy.
Better would be a honeycomb sandwich which can absorb energy by deformation. You also need to worry about the inner wall of the Armour breaking away (called spalling). There may be no hole in the Armour but high speed pieces of Armour moving past your ears is not a desirable consequence.
For low energy protection like against a sword it needs hard on outside to stop it and soft inside to spread the load over your body.

Answer 3

The Israelis have something called reactive armor with a soft outer layer with a hard middle, or so says my husband the Army guy...He says it has been around since the 70's and that the soft outer layer absorbs impact and the hard layer protects....

Answer 4

I would go with thick plate soft absorbent then another thick plate.
But if thats not possible for you then the second one

Answer 5

Thick then soft.