Shields

[james99]

I'm surprised in a way that no army adopted or tried--that I know of--armored personal shields, the way the ancients used. We know that people like Lee had studied ancient warfare and just think that soldiers carrying iron plated shields in the front could have been useful. Surely they could have protected against rifle fire it get across no man's land I've heard so many stories of soldiers walking and turning their heads as if from a rain storm. I don't know how thick and heavy a shield would to have been but I can't imagine if they were proved useful that the logistics of moving them would of been too great if only the soldiers in front had them.


I have read a book called "The social history of the machine-gun" and the authors main thesis is that "The Spirit of the bayonet" hampered the wider acceptance of machine-guns, the argument being that it was not a manly weapon. I could see that being a problem with shields as well.

Just throwing this out here, hope it doesn't sound too..."Out there!"

 

[Bob Owen]

The shields were the one or two lines in front. They were already encumbered by equipment that was necessary for the style of combat of the times. A shield would be of no use against artillery fire.

 

[Elennsar]

Iron plated shields would be ridiculously heavy if thick enough to stop a rifle bullet, and it would need the use of a soldier's hand - rather inconvenient for someone using a rifle-musket.

 

[JohnnnyReb]

Too heavy to carry and wouldn't provide much protection. Some soldiers actually did use metal breast plates but from what I have read they didn't help. But then you hear stories of someones journal, bible, or wadde paper in their hats that actually saved their lives by pure luck.....

 

[james99]

The shields were the one or two lines in front. They were already encumbered by equipment that was necessary for the style of combat of the times. A shield would be of no use against artillery fire.

Artillery sure, but that was going to kill them anyway. I'd probably just have the troops carrying the shields just have the shields. If you cut down on casualties by just 15% that would be pretty significant

 

[james99]

Iron plated shields would be ridiculously heavy if thick enough to stop a rifle bullet, and it would need the use of a soldier's hand - rather inconvenient for someone using a rifle-musket.

Did rifle bullets at the time go through several soldiers, do you know? I mean at a distance and hitting someone in the full thick part of torso.

I wonder how much the shield would have to weigh, I would love to get those guys from myth busters to try it, lol

 

[JohnnnyReb]

http://discussions.mnhs.org/collections/2011/11/william-leducs-civil-war-body-armor/
Imagine wearing that on a hot day in july...plus while your quick marching....I could see maybe artillery crews benefiting by being able to haul with horses and to help with shrapnel.
I think laying down as much smoke as possible would be more effective for a charge over open ground.

 

[John Winn]

Yes, I've read reports of bullets hitting more than one person. There are also those famous cases where bullets went through a thick wooden door from some distance and still killed someone inside.

I have no idea how thick a shield would have to be to stop a bullet of the day but I'd guess it would be quite heavy. Also, I don't see how they'd really been of any practical use. The bearers would still have been subject to fire from above or on the flanks in many cases long before they could get close enough to be fully protected. And even if they do get to the enemy, what do they do then ?

 

[Miles Krisman]

Yes, I've read reports of bullets hitting more than one person. There are also those famous cases where bullets went through a thick wooden door from some distance and still killed someone inside.

I have no idea how thick a shield would have to be to stop a bullet of the day but I'd guess it would be quite heavy. Also, I don't see how they'd really been of any practical use. The bearers would still have been subject to fire from above or on the flanks in many cases long before they could get close enough to be fully protected. And even if they do get to the enemy, what do they do then ?

There were a surprisingly large number of casaulties caused by friendly fire! Shields would really be a problem with fire from the rear!

 

[CHuDWah]

Here's a link to a page on ACW bulletproof vests and an interesting quote from it:

http://melpor.hubpages.com/hub/Bulletproof-Vests-Were-Used-During-The-American-Civil-War

"The two largest companies, G&D Cook Company and Atwater Armor Company, started the mass production of bulletproof vest when the Civil War broke out. Both companies were located in New Haven, Connecticut. G&D Cook Company was originally a carriage maker, but switch to body armor production due to the high demand for them. Before the switch G&D Cook was the largest maker of horse-drawn vehicles in the United States. Most of it customers were Southerners. The models advertised in their catalogue were "The Pride of The South," "Georgia," and "The Plantation".

There is not too much information about the Atwater Armor Company other than the fact that the company was producing 200 body armors a day at its peak production rate during the war."

Apparently there was enough demand for two companies to dedicate production to the vests. I'd think they would have been more effective against bayonets, sabers, knives, etc than bullets, but still not enough to override the disadvantages.

Google Atwater Armor Company for more vest links.

 

[AUG]

Colonel William P. Rogers of the 2nd Texas Infantry is known to have worn a privately purchased bulletproof vest at the 2nd Battle of Corinth, though he was killed in the attack upon the Battery Robinette fortification. The way he was killed is not exactly known. Some accounts claim he was shot slightly above the vest in the upper left chest. Others say he was hit by a canister ball, which went through his vest.

 

[AUG]

I'm surprised in a way that no army adopted or tried--that I know of--armored personal shields, the way the ancients used. We know that people like Lee had studied ancient warfare and just think that soldiers carrying iron plated shields in the front could have been useful. Surely they could have protected against rifle fire it get across no man's land I've heard so many stories of soldiers walking and turning their heads as if from a rain storm. I don't know how thick and heavy a shield would to have been but I can't imagine if they were proved useful that the logistics of moving them would of been too great if only the soldiers in front had them.


I have read a book called "The social history of the machine-gun" and the authors main thesis is that "The Spirit of the bayonet" hampered the wider acceptance of machine-guns, the argument being that it was not a manly weapon. I could see that being a problem with shields as well.

Just throwing this out here, hope it doesn't sound too..."Out there!"

Often in trench warfare, especially that which was seen at the Siege of Vicksburg, Siege of Port Hudson, Petersburg etc. they would dig what is called a Sap. Basically it was a smaller trench extending out from a larger trench facing across no man's land, which worked it's way closer and closer to the enemy entrenchments. Saps have really been in use since the medieval era, such as when besieging a castle. In the ACW they would often construct gabions, which could be rolled forward for protection while digging a sap. The whole point was to move closer and closer to the enemy entrenchments, then an assault could be launched from there rather than from farther back.

A good example here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Sap_Roller.jpg

Also to add, at the Battle of Lexington, Mo the Missouri State Guard used hemp bales to assualt the Federal fortifications - soaking them in water then slowly pushing them toward the entrenchments, while firing from behind them as cover.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/battle-of-the-hemp-bales-lexington-mo.90576/

 

[Bob Owen]

Artillery sure, but that was going to kill them anyway. I'd probably just have the troops carrying the shields just have the shields. If you cut down on casualties by just 15% that would be pretty significant

A shield would cause more casualties by impeding their ability to fire their guns. Riot police carry shields to ward off thrown objects, but they would not be a match for a well placed rifle bullet.

 

[rob63]

I'm not real sure how it compares to steel, but here are the figures for how well the weapons of the day penetrated wood:

 

[rhp6033]

Here's a link to a page on ACW bulletproof vests and an interesting quote from it:

http://melpor.hubpages.com/hub/Bulletproof-Vests-Were-Used-During-The-American-Civil-War

"The two largest companies, G&D Cook Company and Atwater Armor Company, started the mass production of bulletproof vest when the Civil War broke out. Both companies were located in New Haven, Connecticut. G&D Cook Company was originally a carriage maker, but switch to body armor production due to the high demand for them. Before the switch G&D Cook was the largest maker of horse-drawn vehicles in the United States. Most of it customers were Southerners. The models advertised in their catalogue were "The Pride of The South," "Georgia," and "The Plantation".

There is not too much information about the Atwater Armor Company other than the fact that the company was producing 200 body armors a day at its peak production rate during the war."

Apparently there was enough demand for two companies to dedicate production to the vests. I'd think they would have been more effective against bayonets, sabers, knives, etc than bullets, but still not enough to override the disadvantages.

Google Atwater Armor Company for more vest links.

My understanding was that the iron shields were purchased by the soldier's families and shipped to them in order to protect them in battle. I understand they had little effect, and a soldier wouldn't carry around a hunk of iron while on the march if he didn't have to do so.

 

[Elennsar]

Interesting data, Rob.

 

[Southron]

Lets be logical...

Soldiers normally have two arms and hands. Carrying a shield in battle would require at least one hand/arm-hence the soldier could NOT carry nor use a Rifle-Musket. So infantrymen carrying shields could only carry a pistol in the other hand!

 

[rbasin]

There's a big historical subject on why armor was dropped fairly soon after the west started using gunpowder. You get into why forts and walled towns basically stopped being erected (artillery), costs, battlefield tactics, etc.

The closest example I can think of in history would be the use of heavy crossbows, where the users had medium shields strapped to their backs so when they had to reload, they had a better chance of not getting hit on the enemy volley. Very impractical with a long rifle.

 

[rbasin]

I'm surprised in a way that no army adopted or tried--that I know of--armored personal shields, the way the ancients used. We know that people like Lee had studied ancient warfare and just think that soldiers carrying iron plated shields in the front could have been useful. Surely they could have protected against rifle fire it get across no man's land I've heard so many stories of soldiers walking and turning their heads as if from a rain storm. I don't know how thick and heavy a shield would to have been but I can't imagine if they were proved useful that the logistics of moving them would of been too great if only the soldiers in front had them.


I have read a book called "The social history of the machine-gun" and the authors main thesis is that "The Spirit of the bayonet" hampered the wider acceptance of machine-guns, the argument being that it was not a manly weapon. I could see that being a problem with shields as well.

Just throwing this out here, hope it doesn't sound too..."Out there!"

Don't forget that the crossbow was thought to be pure evil. The Catholic Church in its infinite wisdom disallowed their use, excommunicated people for using or even possessing them.

 

[james99]

Lets be logical...

Soldiers normally have two arms and hands. Carrying a shield in battle would require at least one hand/arm-hence the soldier could NOT carry nor use a Rifle-Musket. So infantrymen carrying shields could only carry a pistol in the other hand!

It's also logical that dead soldiers can't carry anything. If the first row of troops is going to die anyway why not have them be the armored front to reduce as far as possible the number of casualties on the initial attack. But I do recognize all the good points against the idea: shrapnel, hits in the side , weight, would it stop a bullet anyway?

But look at the results without shields! Cold Harbor, Fredericksburg, Picketts Charge, Battery Wagner, Franklin and on and on. If I was the Secretary of War I know I would have been open to the idea of testing to find the lightest weight, highest protection shield in whatever form just to try it. And as the other poster showed with hemp bales and saps the troops thought of this to.