Earlier use of combat helmets and body armour in WW1

BlondieBC

Banned
http://flashbak.com/world-war-1-body-armor-1914-1918-32670/

Too long to quote, but it shows what was used IOTL. Evidently, the Germans issue 500K sets of body armor in WW1. The armor was generally not effective against rifle rounds, and was so heavy it was mostly useful on the defensive. But since some are talking about writing a TL, here are my thoughts. Instead of doing some radical new technology, start with where the Germans were in 1916, and move the funding up. We know the ideas that got used. So have the Germans fund it prewar, say 1904 or so. You have time to test alloys, figure out some of the concepts. Or you could have any other power do it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...or-have-saved-millions-in-world-war-i/275417/

Enter Bashford Dean and his team. Met armorers crafted a battle harness with complete torso protection, front and back, for about 8.5 pounds With pauldrons (shoulder guards), couters (elbow) and vambraces (forearm), add another 4 pounds With helmet -- and Dean offered the two finest battle helmets of modern times -- it all came to just over 15 pounds Quite wearable, you would think, given that U.S. soldiers' full panoply today can reach 40pounds, close to 15th century full-body plate armor.


Moreover, Dean's panoply was fully cushioned with "vulcanized sponge-rubber," and with the latest alloys, could stop a .45 ACP at 1000 ft. per second (and a rifle ball at 1250 ft. per second). In terms of coverage, ease and comfort, and raw protection, this was as close as anyone in the war came to the Holy Grail of personal body armor. Deployed in the big American Expeditionary Force (AEF) offensive at the Meuse-Argonne, it could have cut 26,000 battle deaths by one third or more.

So now you have something that is achievable. It protects from roughly 1250 FPS bullet. A 30-06 round is a little below 3000 fps. Things tend to develop slower in peace time, mostly due to funding. But given 10 years of peace, you should easily be able to get 3 years of wartime research. It is probably a little much to get it into mass production, but you could have it develop, and deployed in a few regiments. Then ramp up in wartime. I tend to think more from a German perspective, so I would deploy it where a more static defense was expected, A-L.
 
The article states that "...[the helmet] was fine so long as the enemy didn’t go for the body!". But the Brodie helmet was ineffective against rifle calibre fire and designed purely for splinter protection.
It also points out that the German assault armour was generally ineffective, being both heavy and unable to stop rifle/MG rounds.

The materials of the period couldn't deliver protection against rifle calibre fire at an acceptable cost and weight.

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...or-have-saved-millions-in-world-war-i/275417/

So now you have something that is achievable. It protects from roughly 1250 FPS bullet. A 30-06 round is a little below 3000 fps. Things tend to develop slower in peace time, mostly due to funding. But given 10 years of peace, you should easily be able to get 3 years of wartime research. It is probably a little much to get it into mass production, but you could have it develop, and deployed in a few regiments. Then ramp up in wartime. I tend to think more from a German perspective, so I would deploy it where a more static defense was expected, A-L.
Firstly the peacetime military didn't have the money or incentive to develop such armour, plus it was contrary to tactical doctrine of the period.
Secondly physics intervenes; a 3000ft/s bullet has six times the energy of the same bullet at 1200ft/s, requiring a similar increase in thickness of material and hence weight. Unless the material used was replaced by something much less dense. There's a reason that wearable body armour that could stop even pistol rounds only became common after the development of para-aramids with their far superior strength/weight ratio.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
ddd vgggg0 d
The article states that "...[the helmet] was fine so long as the enemy didn’t go for the body!". But the Brodie helmet was ineffective against rifle calibre fire and designed purely for splinter protection.
It also points out that the German assault armour was generally ineffective, being both heavy and unable to stop rifle/MG rounds.

The materials of the period couldn't deliver protection against rifle calibre fire at an acceptable cost and weight.


Firstly the peacetime military didn't have the money or incentive to develop such armour, plus it was contrary to tactical doctrine of the period.
Secondly physics intervenes; a 3000ft/s bullet has six times the energy of the same bullet at 1200ft/s, requiring a similar increase in thickness of material and hence weight. Unless the material used was replaced by something much less dense. There's a reason that wearable body armour that could stop even pistol rounds only became common after the development of para-aramids with their far superior strength/weight ratio.

You are letting perfection become the enemy of good. And potentially a good ATL for anyone who wants to write it. First, we have a existing item that can stop most artillery fragments, and many/all pistol rounds. And its portable. And given some development year, you might have additional improvements that might push it up to 1500 fps or 1800 fps. At range, a 30-06 round can be dropping into the range of 1300-1700 fps. And some shots come at a glancing angle. Second, if a 15-24 pound one can be made, we can likely greatly increase protection for the non-mobile version.

I doubt it would be issue to attacking units in the early days of the war, since there was the need for rapid marching, but it could easily be an item that came up with the supplies need to build a trench. i.e. At the same time the lumber and steel need to entrench arrives.
 
Indeed. WW1 bullet protection means being able to stop a 7.92mm Mauser at less than 300 metres. The Brodie helmet never attempted any such excess. It was designed to reduce head (and hand) injuries from artillery fire splinters. Physiology also means that, if your helmet can stop such a bullet penetrating, the energy is passed through into the skull via the helmet and thence to the neck. Think of car accident whiplash injuries. A standing soldier may cope by his whole body moving under the impact and transferring the energy over a longer time and moving a larger mass than just the head. Think of the difference in felt recoil from a powerful rifle fired standing or prone at 45 degrees. This allows the body to move and slowly absorb the energy. Then try the same from a bench with the shoulder solidly held in place. If there are any doubters on this I invite them to come and try my Martini Henry at full service charge standing and from the bench. The issues are far more complex than simply strapping enough plate onto the head (or body). Unlike an armoured vehicle you cannot make a more powerful human short of an exoskeleton to carry the extra weight. From literally time immemorial the infantry soldier has carried about 60lb of kit and Roman Legionaries were known as 'Marius' Mules' for a very good reason. As fast as technology and tactics reduce weight something else is added to take up the slack. Todays infantry on foot are now carrying more than that practical maximum which is only alleviated somewhat by keeping some in their MICV.

In WW1 advances and pursuits were on foot in battle (even if they are delivered to the battle in Paris taxis or London omnibuses) and the speed and range of foot infantry, ceteris paribus, is determined by the terrain, fitness and weight carried. WW1 soldiers advancing were not in the mud of the trenches once they broke through the trench lines and the terrain was then generally reasonable. They were, as a group, smaller than us and from a less nourished childhood and gained their fitness from soldiering not structured or practiced physical training. One only has to look at the struggles of the "bantam' battalions of the BEF. An army has to be able to take the fight to the enemy and not just survive and Generals have to judge a balance between speed with vulnerability and the survival of their troops.

I, therefore, am of the opinion that the WW1 helmet was as good a protection as was compatible with the mass technology of the day and the prosecution of the war. Whilst each nation had slight differences in their designs they were all for the same purpose of splinter protection. They could have been introduced earlier had proper note been taken of head injuries in previous wars from the Crimean to the Russo-Japanese wars. Body armour out of a trench would have been simply too heavy for tactical movement. In a trench the trench does the job. They had a means to armour their bodies at will, with a short delay, to whit an intrenching tool which was both lighter than body armour and could upgrade it's protection against anything short of a direct hit from artillery.
 

Driftless

Donor
Indeed. WW1 bullet protection means being able to stop a 7.92mm Mauser at less than 300 metres. The Brodie helmet never attempted any such excess. It was designed to reduce head (and hand) injuries from artillery fire splinters. Physiology also means that, if your helmet can stop such a bullet penetrating, the energy is passed through into the skull via the helmet and thence to the neck. Think of car accident whiplash injuries. A standing soldier may cope by his whole body moving under the impact and transferring the energy over a longer time and moving a larger mass than just the head. Think of the difference in felt recoil from a powerful rifle fired standing or prone at 45 degrees. This allows the body to move and slowly absorb the energy. Then try the same from a bench with the shoulder solidly held in place. If there are any doubters on this I invite them to come and try my Martini Henry at full service charge standing and from the bench. The issues are far more complex than simply strapping enough plate onto the head (or body). (snip)

Good points.

Even modern body armor that can stop penetration, does not prevent traumatic shock to the heart if you take a shotgun blast to the chest at close enough range.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
By the way,
Can somebody explain me a puzzling mystery
Why on earth had German helmets a pointy end ? Did they expected their soldiers to charge head on and pierce ennemy soldiers, boar-style ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickelhaube
"Casque a pointe"
When first version were "designed" one very common injury for soldiers came from sabre-blows by cavalerists.
The spike was purposly designed with its outward flanges lower down to deflect such a blow away from the head. And being a round Spike, when looked from above, it was thought to give protection from blows from all angles, while "Raupenhelm" like that
Raupenhelm.jpg

would give protection mainly from blows from the side but lesser from straight ahead. ... beside being smaller and therefore lighter than a construktion as above.

However, with the advance of real fire-power they became ... traditional decoration.
 
Last edited:
For early lightweight moulded formable sheet I offer Linenoid as used from the 1860's. Once popular as gramophone horns and canoe hulls. Essentially very thick linen paper moulded and subject to heat and pressure. However I can see the press having a field day with 'our boys given paper armour' headlines. For the paper boat aficionados this differs from simple shellacked paper layering and also papier mache. Packed paper sheets work as armour by gripping the bullet as it enters and slowing it by friction on the sides of the bullet. This concept is now offered as pierced armour by drilling lots of hole through the armour plate so that an incoming bullet impact causes the plate to locally deform and divert the bullet into the nearest hole where it is gripped by the edges of the hole. Wool (and other fibres) packed 'jacks' formed medieval body armour from which we get the lightweight version today as the 'jacket'. The more I learn the more I find that most things new were done before and our forefathers were no less clever than us.

Protection from projectiles is an exceedingly complex subject. The 6mm side armour of WW1 tanks could be penetrated sometimes by a reversed ordinary rifle bullet punching a hole by shearing force at the edge of the flat rear face edges rather than deforming the steel but more injuries came from internal spalling of the inside face of the armour through the shock wave of the outer impact passing through the steel plate itself. Hence the issue of armoured goggles to crews. More modern HESH tank rounds remove whole plates of internal armour face which is now reduced by layered and reactive armour and kevlar spall curtains to contain the spalling. Heavy helmet and body armour didn't work for Ned Kelly against much less powerful guns than a WW1 rifle. Had the Police thought things through they need only have followed him around at a distance until he collapsed from exhaustion, heat and dehydration. Plus his legs and arms stuck out.
Nedkellysarmour1882.jpg
 

Driftless

Donor
Between the ARW and the Franco-Prussian War, US military dress uniforms often cued off French designs: Baggy Zouave pantaloons, Kepis, etc. After the Franco-Prussian war, the dress uni's seem to model after the Prussians/British styles(minus the red coats).
 
You are letting perfection become the enemy of good. And potentially a good ATL for anyone who wants to write it. First, we have a existing item that can stop most artillery fragments, and many/all pistol rounds. And its portable. And given some development year, you might have additional improvements that might push it up to 1500 fps or 1800 fps. At range, a 30-06 round can be dropping into the range of 1300-1700 fps. And some shots come at a glancing angle. Second, if a 15-24 pound one can be made, we can likely greatly increase protection for the non-mobile version.

I doubt it would be issue to attacking units in the early days of the war, since there was the need for rapid marching, but it could easily be an item that came up with the supplies need to build a trench. i.e. At the same time the lumber and steel need to entrench arrives.
Not an option - this isn't a WW2 scenario where you can have say a Bren carrier turn up later with supplies. Men need to carry everything forward, and they're already loaded to the practicable maximum. Allowing for the requirement for personal kit (rifle, minimum ammunition and helmet) then each suit of armour would require an additional porter to carry it forward. That's one less rifleman available to do anything useful, and one more man exposed to danger from enemy artillery and gas. The net result on casualties will be small, and may even be negative.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Not an option - this isn't a WW2 scenario where you can have say a Bren carrier turn up later with supplies. Men need to carry everything forward, and they're already loaded to the practicable maximum. Allowing for the requirement for personal kit (rifle, minimum ammunition and helmet) then each suit of armour would require an additional porter to carry it forward. That's one less rifleman available to do anything useful, and one more man exposed to danger from enemy artillery and gas. The net result on casualties will be small, and may even be negative.

yes, it is an option. They come up with the Wagons. The same wagon that had the materials needed to build the trenches. Or the wagons that bring up the artillery ammo.
 
yes, it is an option. They come up with the Wagons. The same wagon that had the materials needed to build the trenches. Or the wagons that bring up the artillery ammo.
Hmmm... not quite sure what happened there, apologies. I was objecting to the idea of troops attacking without the armour on, then having it delivered to them later on the objective - which is fantasy. What I can't work out is who (if anybody) actually said that!
 
Top