[Aptorian]

This question has always bothered me, so I thought maybe some of you warbuffs on here can give me some ideas.

I know that things like the medieval steelarmor went out of style pretty fast when the armies started growing to massive sizes and you could put a bullet through them a twenty yeards. But what about shields?

I realise that it wasn't practical to equip every musketeer/rifleman with a shield that is thick enough or expensive enough to protect a soldier, but I don't understand why the armies didn't have front lines of shieldcariers. To give the soldiers a barrier to duck down behind when the enemy is firing back at you.

I remember seeing drawings of old noblemen who were balancing their muskets on a shield, so there must have been attempts at developing them.

Now a days we can see swat-teams in america using them when they enter a hostile room/house in urban warfare. Yet you don't see American troops using them in Iraq. Is it not possible to make a shield that is light enough to effectively use but still be able to stop heavy caliber rounds from something like an AK47?

EDIT: I'm guessing that it's not cost effecient to make a shield strong and light enough?

[Macros]

Well for a start, why the musket got so ridiculously popular has always been beyond me. A good battalion would churn out 4 shots a minute, effective at 40 yards at best. The devistation wrought by the english longbow over the years prove it to be a far superior weapon than the gun up until about the 1850's when gun design started taking leaps and bound forward.
As for shield, simply impractical for usage in modern warfare, Kevlar body armour is the replacement.

[Camel]

Macros, on Jan 5 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

Well for a start, why the musket got so ridiculously popular has always been beyond me. A good battalion would churn out 4 shots a minute, effective at 40 yards at best. The devistation wrought by the english longbow over the years prove it to be a far superior weapon than the gun up until about the 1850's when gun design started taking leaps and bound forward.
As for shield, simply impractical for usage in modern warfare, Kevlar body armour is the replacement.

One thing that's interesting about the American Civil War is that America hadn't really fought in any major wars since the War of 1812, and before that the Revolutionary War. When the Civil War came around, guns had started taking those leaps and bounds forward, and they were using 19th century guns while using obsolete 18th century tactics. It's one of the reasons why the war was so bloody and so violent. They were literally getting within a hundred or so yards of each other and firing weapons, when their weapons could be used at a much larger range. There were a few commanders out there that used the new weaponry to their advantage, but those were mostly for small skirmishes and such. The larger battles were old tactics and such. At least, that's what the History Channel said the other night. I'll be the first to admit that I need to brush up on my history.

[Macros]

No thats quite right. Similar to why WW1 trench warfare was so bloody, outdated tactics with more modern equipment. Up and at em attitude which really is foolish against a gun that can be rapidly fired.

[Illuyankas]

Training a longbowman had to start from a ridiculously early age up to around 20, where you can get a convict or someone silly enough to enlist trained up in several weeks with a musket. It's just the evolution of the crossbow's ease of use.

[HoosierDaddy]

Well, I can imagine 2 reasons.

The first reason is that men carrying shields solid enough to deflect a bullet would really slow down deployment, making flanking attacks against an established position of shields very viable.

The second reason is that the key to early gun warfare was amount of guns being levelled at a target and rate of fire. The use of shields would seriously subtract from both of those key factors.

[The Tyrant Lizard]

in those standoffish battles defense seemed to take a back seat. they just stood there shooting at each other. a rank of riflemen would make a much smaller target if they were laying on the floor, but then I suppose they would have had problems reloading then.

Riot police still use shields. Some die hards still like doing things the old fashioned way.

Oh, armed police raided my house once and they had one of those big shield things. I think it took three of them to carry it.

[Macros]

Basic archery (leaving the fabled longbow aside) would take little more basic training to launch the hail of arrowy death down upon foes from further ditances than ye olde musket, indeed, a combination of the two would have been a marvelous plan.

[Sparkimus]

Kevlar is a suitable replacement, though it only covers your vitals, excluding your head. The problem with that is, it's expensive, so much so that the families of soldier are having to provide them with it, the military just doesn't find the average soldier valuable enough to warrant supplying them. Sad really.

[Mentalist]

the firearms originally took over from bows, b/c of the armor-piercing ability--the very reason why they reduced the heavy armored knigthly cavalry into nonexistance.
considering that the firearms themselves were initially RIDICULOUSLY heavy--up to the 17th century, when they were first revolutionized by Gustav Adolph of Sweden in the 30 Year war. since this was BEFORE the age of nationalism, and the massive national armies (That came with the French Revolution). in the mid-period, when shields lost their importance, armies were generaly pretty small, and having extra people working ONLY as shield-bearers would be a strain on the military unit's supply.

[amphibian]

Keep in mind that Lost Marine could do a better job than I with this stuff, as he is actually in the military. But here's my attempt:

Aptorian, on Jan 5 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

This question has always bothered me, so I thought maybe some of you warbuffs on here can give me some ideas.

I know that things like the medieval steelarmor went out of style pretty fast when the armies started growing to massive sizes and you could put a bullet through them a twenty yeards. But what about shields?

I realise that it wasn't practical to equip every musketeer/rifleman with a shield that is thick enough or expensive enough to protect a soldier, but I don't understand why the armies didn't have front lines of shieldcariers. To give the soldiers a barrier to duck down behind when the enemy is firing back at you.

I remember seeing drawings of old noblemen who were balancing their muskets on a shield, so there must have been attempts at developing them.

Now a days we can see swat-teams in america using them when they enter a hostile room/house in urban warfare. Yet you don't see American troops using them in Iraq. Is it not possible to make a shield that is light enough to effectively use but still be able to stop heavy caliber rounds from something like an AK47?

EDIT: I'm guessing that it's not cost effecient to make a shield strong and light enough?

People have long been able to punch arrows through metal personal armor from a distance. Crossbows, longbows and the Mongolian recurved bow come to mind.

Plus, with the slow evolution to the war tactics today, mobility is prized much more in individual soldiers. We have tanks, APCs and other armored land, sea and air vehicles to transport people around safely. Like Genghis Khan's siege tactics obviating the need for walled cities, quick-moving calvary, motor corps and urban warfare have pretty much made heavy personal armor useless.

I don't know why those 18th and 19th century armies bothered with the antiquated line up and shoot at each other tactics. That "noble" retardedness would have me deserting or joining a Swamp Fox-style squad in a heartbeat.

Rifles these days generally require two hands to operate. Lugging a shield around in a firefight situation is not a good idea because not only are you stuck with a handgun (less power, less bullets, longer to reload), your mobility is decreased and it's harder to see (situation awareness, acquiring target). However, if it's a hostage situation with one maniac in the middle of the room, then maybe it's a better idea for the first guy in line to have a shield.

It's not really the caliber of the rounds - it's shot placement. Those fighting the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (and even the Iraqi/Afghanistani allies) are notoriously inaccurate and have poor fire discipline. It's better to rely on vehicle armor, body armor, getting the heck out of the lines of fire and using available cover (vehicles, urban warfare usually gives plenty of strong cover for both sides ie. buildings) than to put up a shield.

Sparkimus: not really. The military does provide body armor, but it's not always the best stuff and sometimes, not all of the body armor is put on. Some soldiers have been leaving certain elements of the armor out, citing heat or discomfort (particularly in the back), only to get injured in those places. The armoring of certain vehicles is a different situation, and one that is getting better.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 05 January 2009 - 11:14 PM

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Actually, troops being inadequately armored has been an issue. I remember seeing a fundraiser trying to get money together to buy body armor for soldiers who were going without, and heard interviews with people who had to buy their own armor online, or have family members buy it and send it to them. Not sure if it's still an issue though, but it was at the beginning of the iraq war.

[Cause]

I think the reason armour and shields were left behind in the arms race had less to do with the advance of the penetration of firearms, than it had to do with money. The levee en mass and the loss of the fuedal system etc meant armies were more than twice the size they used to be and growing. Further soldiers were no longer providing their own equipment or if they were they were not landed knights with fortunes at their disposal. They could not afford it and the state could not or cared not to afford it. Though a wooden pavise as you suggest would appear to be pretty cheap and effective. Perhaps as offered it would interfere with the firing of the guns too much?

Whatever we hear, yes arrows could at the right ranges penetrate plate and bullets were better, but armour could be made and worn that was tested to withstand the impact of bullets. Of course fireamrs did rapidly advance to the point that armour was not really practicle at ater periods. So I suggest the answer is mish mash of several factors.

[Soulessdreamer]

Shields were phased out by the advent of well made fully articulated plate armour (gold Period) that could withstand most arrow storms. The only way to defeat this Armour before the cranquin xbow or gunpowder weapons was with mass impact weapons usually two handed which given that the armour was so impervious made the sheild redundent. Pervaises (sp?) large shields with spikes designed to be planted as mobile cover were used for a time but had to be carryed by a seperate person to the Gunner/xbowman they were so heavy and unwieldy.

The standard size of a one man musket was 91 caliaber or .91 of an inch and would remove entire limbs. The biggest killer as with todays guns was hydostatic shock which is what kevlar is designed to absorb (penitration being a whole other issue handeled by plate inserts). Old fashioned armour could not prevent penitration and did nothing to absord or stop hydrostatic shock was uncomfortable, constricting, slowed movement and above all cost lots of money in both manufacture and maintainece so was abandoned.

The idea behind the musket formations strated with the spainish tesserio (sp?) a large square/phalanx mixed with pikes. The idea was to break the enemy with the co-ordinated volley and to volley as quick as possible. No aiming really happened at this point becuase to leave your eyes open was to risk blindness from the muskets discharge. Unfortunately this become accepted wisdom and then tradition so continued long after it was made redundent.

As to why anyone would stand there and take it, we are talking about illiterite, uneducated unskilled boys and men who didn't know any better and who were terrorised and "broken to the whip" by their DIs. Life was nothing but suffering to most of these men and they were conditioned "to do or die" anyman not towing the line was if lucky shot then and their by the sgt. A modern comparison would be the conscript and penal batallions of the USSR during WW2.



To equip a modern soldier with body armour costs between 1/2 to 1 million $ depending on the level of protection afforded, then add in replacement every time the armour is damaged (though the dragonscale model undergoing testing by th US Army claims to minimise this by using smaller indervidual plates like old fashioned scale mail), the fact that it weighs alot, encumbers agility and dexderity and is damn hot and fateguing to wear (when you can get the fuckking squdies to wear it) and the PTB reckon it is cheaper to train more grunts and build APCs than armour troops.

Until power armour becomes a reality modern armour is not cost effective for basic troops as it is not a sufficient force multipler or protecting a valuable enough asset (ie Spec ops whose training costs 2 mill +). In other words if your a grunt -Sucks to be you. Shitty but there it is.

Oops didn't mean to ramble or lecture hope this has been informative.
TTFN

[Aptorian]

Very good post. Body armor for a marine really costs half a million dollars? Any one want guess that's a fraction of the manufacturing cost? Silly american war industry.

[HoosierDaddy]

Yes, but just like with drugs, the costs of designing & testing get passed along with mere production costs.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

'Cos someone would just throw a grenade over the top of the shield. Then you're fucked and encumbered with a heavy shield.

[Illuyankas]

But then, TT, you can drop the shield on the grenade, jump on it, get shot, and when the grenade explodes it'll propel your dying body through the air and turn you into Supercorpse! AWESOME

[Aptorian]

Whilst screaming "RAAAAAAANNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLL!!!"

[Ain't_It_Just_]

Apt, you pistol...

I think it's a shame that the shield has gone out of business. Yeah, we have plastic riot shields but still. Maybe if we made something like this
Boomshield
we could reintroduce heavy infantry. That'd be awesome.