Yeah, I'm kind of getting the sense that that's the case. I just don't think you've managed to make a very good comparison and I don't think that "the ability to make nearly instantaneous decisions on the battlefield to split forces, perform flanking maneuvers, coordinate with allies and so on" is a very useful metric. Anyone can make instantaneous decisions or walk from one place to another. What matters is making the right decisions in the first place, or at least knowing how to follow the lead of someone who's making the right decision.

Regarding armor, some armors during the 15th century and earlier could reach 3 mm or more at their thickest but many were closer to 2 mm, even dropping to <1mm in many places. Many 15th century armors were also meant to incorporate mail or very thick padding as well which would have further limited the thickness of plate which could be worn comfortably.

No armor was "bullet proof", just "bullet resistant", and I highly doubt that the armor of most 15th century knights as "bullet resistant" as the 6mm cuirasser breastplates worn in the 17th century when guns were a much more common threat, even if the latter is of a lower quality metal.