Trench melee not a tactic, no helmets in WWI

what if trench raids with melee weapons were not used in the early 20th century, would that butterfly away helmets in the first world war? how would that change technologies? what would the new caps look like?
 
Helmets were there to stop you from being disenbrained by shrapnel. They'd stay.

i read it was because of trench raids, many people brought shovels and hammers and bashed open enemy skull. i've read accounts where helmets decapitated soldiers, and other soldiers being hit by flying helmets.

And shrapnal is more likely to hit your face or your lungs and heart than it is to hit the top of your head.
 
i read it was because of trench raids, many people brought shovels and hammers and bashed open enemy skull. i've read accounts where helmets decapitated soldiers, and other soldiers being hit by flying helmets.

And shrapnal is more likely to hit your face or your lungs and heart than it is to hit the top of your head.

Trench raids were insignificant, logistically speaking; they didn't affect equipment that much. Artillery was a continual fact of life on the front.

Yeah, but full body-armour is expensive and heavy. Also, chest hits are survivable (well, more often than not, at any rate) whereas a hit to the head will kill you every time. Hence, helmets are a decent compromise.
 
Yeah, but full body-armour is expensive and heavy. Also, chest hits are survivable (well, more often than not, at any rate) whereas a hit to the head will kill you every time. Hence, helmets are a decent compromise.

So is there any other way to butterfly out helmets?
 
i read it was because of trench raids, many people brought shovels and hammers and bashed open enemy skull. i've read accounts where helmets decapitated soldiers, and other soldiers being hit by flying helmets.

Indeed in trench raids anything that could be used in close quarter fighting would be pressed into use. I know a lot of soldiers from British regiments would simply carry Mills grenades, a 14in bayonet and an entrenching tool with the edges honed to a razor edge on a trench raid. Rather medieval actually and helmets were quite popular among the combatants in medieval times.

And shrapnal is more likely to hit your face or your lungs and heart than it is to hit the top of your head.

Actually the fragments from an airburst are most likely to hit you from above.
 
i read it was because of trench raids, many people brought shovels and hammers and bashed open enemy skull. i've read accounts where helmets decapitated soldiers, and other soldiers being hit by flying helmets.

And shrapnal is more likely to hit your face or your lungs and heart than it is to hit the top of your head.

Have you read any first hand accounts of WWI Western Front veterans, or any historical surveys of Western Front tactics?

The (deliberate) damage inflicted on the men was mostly arty, then machine guns, then gas, then trench mortars, then rifle fire and grenades, and then at the end of the chain of violence are trench raids and patrols in no-mans land; only then were bayonets and other tools used on humans.

PS: I think this is the order of descent for casualties, per weapons. John Keegan & others have the figures. Not my specialty.
 
Last edited:
So is there any other way to butterfly out helmets?

I wouldn't think so... they're a fairly sensible piece of equipment (witness their 4000 year + history) and it would take something significant to get rid of them.

Totally unstoppable weaponry, phasers or whatnot, would do it, I guess; but as long as you keep explosives the helmet will be useful.
 
A helmet may not stop a bullet, but if you're lucky it may help deflect one.
between flying Bullets, and strapnel, I'ld like a helmet, thank you very much.
 
Actually the fragments from an airburst are most likely to hit you from above.
Airbursts wouldn't have been much of an issue in WW1 (no proxy fuses, so setting a weapon to airburst would require adjusting the fuse manually... not much good when you're firing off a barrage at >3 rpm per gun).

But point still holds: If a shell lands nearby but outside of a trench the big worry is shrapnel falling from above... if a shell lands in the trench then the helmet isn't going to make much differance. But given the accuracy of WW1 era artillary you can expect the former much more often than the latter.
 

MrP

Banned
How long did they go without the helmet? And never completely either...

I don't think all the combatants managed to equip their troops with them, but they're certainly ubiquitous on the Western Front. I forget precisely when, but some time in '16. It took a while to design and mass-produce them.
 
Top