Shields

[rbasin]

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.

You may actually end up with more dead and wounded. Your pace would have to be slower and steady for the shields to be effective. You'd give artillery more time to devastate an attack force.

Better off using your time changing battlefield tactics.

 

[JohnnnyReb]

Again, I think pouring down tons of smoke to cover the charge would have been much more feasable. But if you could at the time, a flame thrower woulda been nice back then. LOL

 

[thomas aagaard]

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

But you would cut your own firepower by 50% since they soldier carrying the shield would not be able to do anything ells because of the weight. then add the logistical problems with having half your men using an item they can't carry on the march.

 

[Brendan]

Often in trench warfare, especially that which was seen at the Siege of

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/

Proving once more that there are few things for which hemp (or certain variations thereof) is not the cure.

("Battle at the Hemp Bales" by Dale Gallon)

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

And as the other poster showed with hemp bales and saps the troops thought of this to.

Now you're talking about fortifications, not shields; there's a fairly important distinction there.

 

[rbasin]

The other issue you may have, is that I don't know if shields would stop a bullet. They really had a hard time with bolts from crossbows. Also, the shield holders would have short careers due to damage from absorbing bullets.

 

[Bob Owen]

I think that they should have been issued electronic shields as our current crop of ufo's are using!

 

[rob63]

This is from Edward Porter Alexander's Fighting for the Confederacy.

I think you can reasonably conclude from this observation that the breast plates were relatively effective against musket balls, but not so much against artillery fire. I suspect that they fell out of favor largely because they were extremely heavy and experience showed that they weren't perfect protection against every weapon on the battlefield. The soldiers spent considerably more time marching than they did fighting so they decided that the amount of protection provided wasn't worth the extra weight.

It does bring up the question of whether they would have been considered valuable if the army had adopted them as a standard issue item and had provided separate transportation for them so that the soldiers didn't have to carry them. Ultimately, I think the army had enough issues with transporting materials anyway so it is not a realistic proposition to think they could have had them close at hand when fighting happened to spring up.

Perhaps a good gaming scenario; a regiment wearing breast plates, carrying a small shield on one arm, and a revolver in the other hand leading an assault on a fortification. I can picture it now, the initial assault is successful, but the soldiers are too exhausted to press the advantage and the drunken commander fails to send in the reserves so gamers everywhere are left to ponder "what if."

 

[james99]

Thanks rob63, great find. I figured they could make an iron shield strong enough to stop a bullet. I like your scernio. Like I said before, this wouldn't have been used to enuresis total protection, but to give an attacking force that much better chance of success against dug in troops. Some protection vs zero protections is just better

 

[rbasin]

This is from Edward Porter Alexander's Fighting for the Confederacy.

View attachment 44396

I think you can reasonably conclude from this observation that the breast plates were relatively effective against musket balls, but not so much against artillery fire. I suspect that they fell out of favor largely because they were extremely heavy and experience showed that they weren't perfect protection against every weapon on the battlefield. The soldiers spent considerably more time marching than they did fighting so they decided that the amount of protection provided wasn't worth the extra weight.

It does bring up the question of whether they would have been considered valuable if the army had adopted them as a standard issue item and had provided separate transportation for them so that the soldiers didn't have to carry them. Ultimately, I think the army had enough issues with transporting materials anyway so it is not a realistic proposition to think they could have had them close at hand when fighting happened to spring up.

Perhaps a good gaming scenario; a regiment wearing breast plates, carrying a small shield on one arm, and a revolver in the other hand leading an assault on a fortification. I can picture it now, the initial assault is successful, but the soldiers are too exhausted to press the advantage and the drunken commander fails to send in the reserves so gamers everywhere are left to ponder "what if."

You're talking body armor, not shields. I would imagine that if these were standard, the evil of warfare would unfortunately produce more powerful guns or bullets

 

[rob63]

Thanks rob63, great find. I figured they could make an iron shield strong enough to stop a bullet. I like your scernio. Like I said before, this wouldn't have been used to enuresis total protection, but to give an attacking force that much better chance of success against dug in troops. Some protection vs zero protections is just better

Yes, however it is worth pointing out that my scenario was offered partly in jest because there were other things tried like the mine shaft at Petersburg that also worked initially, but failed in the end. The over-riding problem, imho, during the Civil War was always command and control issues that prevented any victories from being exploited. The successful use of armor may have made a difference for a particular soldier, but I don't think it would have changed the outcome of any battles. There have been some interesting threads lately about what even counted as a victory during the war? The outcomes in terms of casualties were often so even and the strategic situation so unchanged that it is often uncertain which side to count as the winner. I think the inability to effectively coordinate large bodies of troops and to command follow-up actions in a timely manner was always the biggest factor in any attack.

I have been reading about the Seven Days battles recently. General McClellan literally did nothing at all to try to control his army during Lee's attacks, he simply sat in his tent. Yet when you study them you can't help but notice that Lee had little more influence on the outcome of any of the battles once the initial orders had been given than what McClellan did. Communication was so poor and the armies so large that the fog of war just took over. You see it time and time again throughout the war.

I guess what I am trying to get at is that even if I were 100% convinced that the use of armor could have been done in a practical way I still don't think it would have mattered, but it certainly is interesting to think about it.