Assuming that weighs the same as a normal ballistic insert plate, you just doubled the weight of the rifle and moved its balance point to the worst possible position wrt fatigue.
Well, I have no doubt that the subject is controversial, especially when ideas cannot be refuted without argument.
Firstly we have to resolve the issue:
- Is the type of Ukrainian combat true or false in which the backpacks and equipment there are not carried by soldiers the overwhelming majority of the time? With advances in the field of less than 1 km at best or even just a few hundred meters in cities? Backpacks are in vehicles and trenches in the overwhelming majority of missions, right? They only walk with protective vests and ammunition, right? or not? Is it right to bring the image that the soldiers are walking with 40 kg of kit in that scenario? no, they don't load...we are not seeing this...
On a second point, it is not yet the time to discuss the size of the shield and obviously the impact of the weight it will bring. The images are posted precisely to clarify what exists in large, medium or small volume and weight. The truth is that no one, absolutely no one, imagined the return of WWI trench warfare mixed with drones and real-time imaging. A large, medium or small shield? Engagement occurs between 5 m to 25 m. Totally outside the normal standards of the last 40 years...
Among the examples there is one of the plate applied as a frontal protector of the rifle... without a doubt it increases the imbalance in the weapon's weight, but we cannot fail to make two connections:
1) The feasibility of supporting the rod mounted on the coast, similar to that used for mobility with a heavy machine gun, has already been demonstrated (I don't think it might be necessary, but there is a hypothetical solution)
2) Sandbag there, does not allow the soldier to travel to the firing points in the trench, it is absurdly common there for the soldier to raise the rifle and fire in bursts without sights, precisely because of this lack of protection