Why did Napoleonian armies used a Shako instead of using real helmets ? I'd think it's a question of resources but the Shako is quite complex to produce without offering any real protection.
To elaborate on this, why did modern steel helmet take to long to become mainstream on the battlefield ? Even the german army, which has the reputation to be the most modern one in the world in 1914, didn't have those before WWI.
Steel helmets didn't really become necessary until heavy artillery came into the picture. The chances of a musket-ball hitting you in the head is close to zero, and a steel helmet wouldn't have done jackshit to protect you (most musket balls were 40 or 50 caliber by today's standards)
Steel helmets are mostly to protect from fragmentation caused by artillery.
>>872641
>Why did Napoleonian armies used a Shako
Command and control.
Also the fact that most battles in the napoleonic wars were decided by charging after a single volley, and this allowed them to scare the enemy more.
>>872647
Wow, I didn't know musket ball were so powerful, I'd had thought that modern rifle had more perforing power. Still, the Shako is completely impractical, heavy and difficult to make. I guess the fab was really important at the time.
>>872650
Ok, but putting a useless burden on your soldier seems very impractical to me
>>872652
>Wow, I didn't know musket ball were so powerful, I'd had thought that modern rifle had more perforing power.
Yes, muskets packed quite a punch. This was, however, offset by the fact that black powder is significantly less powerful than the smokeless powder used in modern day ammunition. Still, a steel helmet would have been as helpful as paper in actually protecting against a musket ball - this is why steel plate armor pretty much disappeared when muskets became ubiquitous in Europe.
>>872660
So steel helmets were invented specifically against Shrapnel ? It really couldn't stop a bullet ? I know modern Kevlar can but what about let's say a german stahlhelm or the adrian ?
>>872671
Realistically, a steel helmet would only protect a person if the bullet glanced. If we're talking a direct hit, not even a modern day kevlar helmet would save you. Helmets have always been about shrapnel protection, even in modern times. Soldiers over in Iraq and Afghanistan wear their helmets to protect from IEDs mostly - anything from a rifle would easily pierce through. Although I'm pretty certain that modern helmets can withstand pistol rounds. But definitely not rifle rounds.
Thus, I seriously doubt a plain-steel helmet would be able to protect against a 58 caliber musket ball.
>>872671
Even the most modern military helmets only stop pistol rounds, it's still mainly to protect against shrapnel, or to protect the head from impact by tripping, being thrown or simply running into stuff
>>872687
In conclusion: I'm pretty sure soldiers during that time wore Shakos to look fabulous and not much else.
>>872691
It's kinda sad when you think about it. I mean the coolness is nice and all but improving the survival rate is more important
>>872705
>improving the survival rate is more important
Not really at the time.
>>872705
Well, what is more practical?
Dressing all your men in cloth, or spending lots of money and resources on steel armor and helmets that wouldn't even protect them at all?
People often overlook the basic defensive factors of a helmet. It is useful to prevent damage to the head when the soldier falls over, trips on a rock, smacks his head into rubble, gets falling debris to his head. Or if a heavy piece of machinery hits him on the noggin. There are many dangers on the battlefield, not just enemy weapons.
>>872671
>So steel helmets were invented specifically against Shrapnel ? It really couldn't stop a bullet ? I know modern Kevlar can but what about let's say a german stahlhelm or the adrian ?
The conditions of trench warfare in WWI pretty much forced every army to adopt steel helmets. Soldiers' heads were exposed for long periods of time and had to endure shelling almost every day they were on the front line. It had nothing to do with bullets.
>>872652
It's not useless. It makes your troops look impressive when they charge.
>>872647
> most musket balls were 40 or 50 caliber by today's standards
Try 48 to 54 caliber for long arms and 36 to 42 caliber for side arms.
>until heavy artillery came into the picture
The volume and weight of artillery fire wet up during the Napoleonic era. It also became a touch more accurate. For some battles of the era it ended up the main cause of death.
>>872729
Why were they replaced by simple caps in the french army and leather pointed helmets in the prussian army then ?
![Antoine-Fauveau-Cuirass-700x500[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iSpr5ws.jpg "Antoine-Fauveau-Cuirass-700x500[1].jpg")
>>872641
because at the time they were in the current year, c'mon everyone knows that
why would anyone exchange the opportunity to look so fucking cool for the opportunity of not being killed at long range?
still, the cuirassiers did it and they still look pretty sick but probably there wasn't enough horse hair for everyone
>>872647
although the musket ball was huge, the muzzle velocity might not be as high as the modern weapons - since it depended a lot on how much gunpowder you shoved down the pipe and that's why cuirassiers could easily survive a bullet in the chest sometimes without the bullet even piercing the armor (to be on sale a cuirass needed to have a bullet mark - fired by the blacksmith to be sure it didn't penetrate the armor)
>pic slightly related: not a blunderbuss
>>872652
>size = power
No. Muskets and the like tended to have a large bore. It doesn't mean they were "more powerful." A modern rifle cartridge will zip right through a steel helmet with ease as well.
Ballistic technology at the time was very crude. You were just flinging a solid metal ball at your enemies. Modern bullets are designed to do all sorts of nasty shit like fragmenting or tumbling when they hit their target in order to create a larger wound.
![70cc6219293621c8a60b85d19f222bc6[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lSverMn.jpg "70cc6219293621c8a60b85d19f222bc6[1].jpg")
>>872650
the napoleonic wars weren't fought on a playstation
there were times when that happened but that might have happened as many times as the battle was over before even starting, since a lot of armies surrendered right after the arrival of the french army - either because they were mostly conscripted militias or a mob to whom weapons were given but no formal training whatsoever
it's either that or the french sheer numbers or even the psychological effect the grande armée had of being indefeatable
but keep in mind those things didn't happen many many times but when it happened it was mostly against broken nations, the rest of the battles were usually won by who had the best artillery or who did the most efficient cavalry charge
>pic related: those fuckers didn't get to fight very often, but seeing those bearskin caps could have a devasting effect on the enemy - no matter how trained they were. not to mention they sang songs about onions while charging
>>872783
Ok that's closer to the preconception I had, but I underestimated the weapons in that time still
>>872748
leather and cardboard is why easier to obtain than steel and iron during war time
>>872792
>songs about onions
Now that's scary. What's the story behind this ?
>>872800
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKRogpFUaY0
i swear, the french had the most amusing war themes i've ever heard (like i said before, this was what the vieille garde sang when they charged - it's mostly about how good onions go with everything and how the austrians dogs will never get a single one because they're suck at war)
the story behind the song is also pretty cool
>>872744
>The volume and weight of artillery fire wet up during the Napoleonic era. It also became a touch more accurate. For some battles of the era it ended up the main cause of death.
True but it was different kinds of artillery. They hadn't really gotten air-burst shrapnel down yet (the original Shrapnel shell was made by the British during the wars, but it required some modifications over the next couple decades before it became really reliable and mass-produced). Death by artillery was still as likely to come from a cannonball as it was a shell, which was itself more likely to crash down in the ranks and then explode as it was for an arty officer to get the fuse perfectly right to explode just above the unit.
Helmets would probably have helped, but I don't know if they would have been valuable enough to warrant inclusion in standard infantry regiments. I've never heard of the cuirassers really being saved from artillery by their breastplates and helms.
>>872671
>It really couldn't stop a bullet ?
>let's say a german stahlhelm
If it has its reinforcing plate on and it takes the hit on from the front then yes, it can stop 7.62×54mmR, .303 British, and 30-06 Springfield. However it is unbalanced and far to heavy with its reinforcing plate for general use.
The first helmet designed and issued to stop bullets was the M-56 helmet. However it was made to stop pistol and ( with a bit of luck) sub machine gun bullets. It did not live up design goals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdqOhqSu7o0
>>872671
>>872680
"modern" Kevlar helmets ( like the US PASGT) did not normally live up to their Type IIIA spec even, which will only stop a .44 mag. That is way most countries are trying thing other then just Kevlar. In the mid 2000s it was mixing in other ballistic fibers and now days it is polyethylene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xVuRb_kGhY
That was of a Advanced Combat Helmet which started to be phased out in 2013. The Enhanced Combat Helmet, which is what is replaceing the Advanced Combat Helmet, will stop the majority of intermediate rifle cartridges will a low rate of failure.
I hope that I did not go full /k on this post.
>>872892
Sorry, here's the pic. Original Shrapnel shell on the left, designed in the 1780's but only adopted by the British in the early 1800's. Improved Boxer shell on the right, designed in the 1850's to not explode prematurely like the original shells. Still a couple for iterations to go before the really deadly ones of 1914.
>>872842
There's the "On va leur percer le flanc" song (we will pierce their side) too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUHCfuIi0ss
>>872641
Shakos and Peaked Caps made you look big and scary and taller than you actually are.
The 1700's and the early 19th Century truly was an era of Silly Hats. All over the globe.
>>872792
>the napoleonic wars weren't fought on a playstation
>there were times when that happened
What I want to know is how they kept all that fancy gear CLEAN.
>White pants and hat made of fur
>not stained and ruined forever the moment you even so much as look at mud
