"Silva etc are good for general use, but beware of their inherent lack of robustness."

What constitutes a 'lack of robustness' may be in the eye of the beholder, but many would disagree with you depending upon the compasses you are comparing and the abuse to which they are put (drops, compression by heavy weight, extreme temperatures, etc.) No compass is immune to abuse or environmental effects, least of all the issue lensatic. The lensatic compass is frequently rated highly by its owners for its ruggedness, but remember that today it is issued by a relatively small number of military forces. There are reasons beyond simply cost and its need for a separate protractor:

I. It is more subject to card/pivot freezing in extremely cold temperatures (one reason the Finns chose a liquid-filled compass years ago).

2. It is more subject to malfunctions/inaccuracy in rainy/humid environments than liquid-filled baseplate compasses, since its capsule is NOT waterproof.

3. Because of its metal housing, it is assumed to be sturdy, but in fact a compass is only is strong as its weakest link. In this case, the compass' deep-well design results in a pivot that tends to bend when subject to impacts on hard surfaces, resulting in compass inaccuracy. The government acceptance tests call only for the lensatic compass to be drop-tested from moderate height onto a table covered with fine sand.

"..use a baseplate compass to obtain bearings on a map, but I for one can do it faster with a protractor. Takes practice, but practice does make perfect."

I would assume that most people find it faster and easier to use a full-size protractor than using a small baseplate compass in the role of protractor. The point is, you can save carrying a protractor by carrying a dual-purpose instrument. 'Standard' or full-size baseplate compasses come with large diameter dials and 3.5" or longer baseplates, which do make things a bit easier. But it's strictly a personal preference thing.