Would a Victorian World War One see an earlier introduction of metal helmets?

[Ofaloaf]

Exactly what it says on the tin. Would a general, prolonged European War anywhere in the latter half of the nineteenth century-- between 1870 and 1904, give or take-- see the introduction and mass production of metal helmets? If, for instance, France went to war with Germany again in 1887 and dragged half of Europe into the mess, is it likely that the kepi would've been discarded in favor of something with a bit more armor?

Or is this period too early for the (re-)introduction of helmets? Why?

 

[MrP]

Well, they're good at saving lives from potentially fatal head wounds caused by shrapnel, so all you need is a long enough war and metal at the right price, really.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

As war spurs innovation, and as warfare would evolve over the course, I say its logical. Not necessarily assured, but logical, and they may arrive upon it as the war progresses just as the OTL WWI nations did.

 

[hzn5pk]

Was the industrial technology there for production for Union units during the ACW in 1864? I am not saying that the entire Union army would be fitted with helmets, is there the industrial technology and industrial base to outfit some units with helmets?

 

[BigWillyG]

If the wars early enough say 1870s I wonder if you'd see sappers armor used as the conflict goes into trenches? I'm not sure if any armies were using sapper armor in the 1870s but it would still be in a lot of old armories since they'd be taken out of service a relatively short time before. Helmets based on those issued to early modern sappers might make different helmet designs then the ones we know which were made off medieval models ( French Adrian) or covering the head scientifically ( Stahlhelm & Tin hat).

 

[wilcoxchar]

Could we possibly see combat helmets in the style of the capeline?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capeline

 

[BigWillyG]

Could we possibly see combat helmets in the style of the capeline?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capeline

I've seen Napoleonic sappers helmets in that form. Would it take hits by shrapnel well though?

 

[wilcoxchar]

I've seen Napoleonic sappers helmets in that form. Would it take hits by shrapnel well though?

Not sure, but it could probably be adapted to.

I had another thought of the Pickelhaube being made into a combat helmet. It's even got a built-in bayonet.

 

[Cook]

I've seen Napoleonic sappers helmets in that form. Would it take hits by shrapnel well though?

Lieutenant Shrapnel’s original design was more like Canister ammunition in its effect then later Shrapnel rounds.

I get the feeling that the use of later Shrapnel and then High Explosive artillery rounds are required for helmets to become necessary and useful. A helmet is not going to be much use to you if the opposition has rifles firing minie balls and cannons with solid ball or canister ammunition.

Accelerate the development of Shrapnel artillery rounds perhaps?

 

[robertp6165]

Exactly what it says on the tin. Would a general, prolonged European War anywhere in the latter half of the nineteenth century-- between 1870 and 1904, give or take-- see the introduction and mass production of metal helmets? If, for instance, France went to war with Germany again in 1887 and dragged half of Europe into the mess, is it likely that the kepi would've been discarded in favor of something with a bit more armor?

Or is this period too early for the (re-)introduction of helmets? Why?

The capability to mass produce helmets was present at least as early as the Civil War. But the mere ability to make something doesn't spur it's adoption in most cases. There also has to be a perceived need.

What really spurred the reintroduction of helmets was the development of indirect fire tactics by artillery between 1870 and 1914. In that interim, artillery went from being a mostly direct-fire weapon which fired cannister and shell primarily over a flat trajectory, to being an indirect fire weapon which fired primarily shell and shrapnel rounds on a high, arcing trajectory. The effect of this was a lot more metal coming down onto troops' heads from above, rather than directly at them from the front. Therefore, helmets began to make sense as a way to counter that deadly rain from above.

The change from direct to indirect fire artillery really didn't occur until just before World War One. Indeed, some armies (the British are a prime example) still had not come around to that way of using artillery when World War One started. So unless something happens to change this, it is difficult to see armies adopting helmets before 1914.

 

[Fenwick]

Well assuming anyone has the ability to support a multiyear war with massive reserves I see no reason not to have the helmet come about. Yet as conflicts only started to return to mass armies the issue may come about in which me who die are replaced without looking into wounds.

Was the needed medical corps there for soliders in 1870?

 

[BigWillyG]

Lieutenant Shrapnel’s original design was more like Canister ammunition in its effect then later Shrapnel rounds.

I get the feeling that the use of later Shrapnel and then High Explosive artillery rounds are required for helmets to become necessary and useful. A helmet is not going to be much use to you if the opposition has rifles firing minie balls and cannons with solid ball or canister ammunition.

Accelerate the development of Shrapnel artillery rounds perhaps?

The Shrapnel type shells you're talking about with balls inside a matrix were still the main artillery round until 1916 or so when high explosive replaced it because it was better at taking down barbed wire.
By 1870 we'd be talking about high explosive and shrapnel not that different from those of 1914 except running off black powder. Solid shot died out in an anti-personel role with the end of the smoothbore artillery piece in the 1860s. Rifles still used bolts against fortifications and for counter-battery but not for hitting troops.

 

[Cook]

The British had medical services in the Crimean war, which Florence Nightingale did her best to screw up.

And the Union Army had a considerable ambulance and field hospital service by the later part of the American Civil War.

I’m of the same mind as Robertp6165, the helmet was introduced in response to new indirect fire weapons. Prior to them it would have been a hindrance.

We should be asking, Could explosive artillery rounds and indirect fire be introduced earlier?

 

[BigWillyG]

The capability to mass produce helmets was present at least as early as the Civil War. But the mere ability to make something doesn't spur it's adoption in most cases. There also has to be a perceived need.

What really spurred the reintroduction of helmets was the development of indirect fire tactics by artillery between 1870 and 1914. In that interim, artillery went from being a mostly direct-fire weapon which fired cannister and shell primarily over a flat trajectory, to being an indirect fire weapon which fired primarily shell and shrapnel rounds on a high, arcing trajectory. The effect of this was a lot more metal coming down onto troops' heads from above, rather than directly at them from the front. Therefore, helmets began to make sense as a way to counter that deadly rain from above.

The change from direct to indirect fire artillery really didn't occur until just before World War One. Indeed, some armies (the British are a prime example) still had not come around to that way of using artillery when World War One started. So unless something happens to change this, it is difficult to see armies adopting helmets before 1914.

Indirect fire might come earlier with a big war since high casualties among artillery crews and the need to have big siege guns to destroy trenches are what spurred it in WWI. Those same issues should still exist in a 19th or earlier 20th century Great War, especially if the conflict goes into trenches. Coehorns in a trench morter role and grenades were used in the trench fighting in the ACW IOTL.
Biggest issue I think would be black powder artillery not having the range for indirect fire and guns without recoil systems not being consistent enough.

 

[BigWillyG]

The British had medical services in the Crimean war, which Florence Nightingale did her best to screw up.

And the Union Army had a considerable ambulance and field hospital service by the later part of the American Civil War.

I’m of the same mind as Robertp6165, the helmet was introduced in response to new indirect fire weapons. Prior to them it would have been a hindrance.

We should be asking, Could explosive artillery rounds and indirect fire be introduced earlier?

Explosive shells are already old technology by the 1870s. Indirect fire though is a lot harder IMO.

 

[Cook]

Explosive shells are already old technology by the 1870s. Indirect fire though is a lot harder IMO.

I did try to say that in my earlier note. Mustn’t have been clear.

Explosive shells and Shrapnel shells when they are direct fire are going to have pretty much the same effect as Canister. A helmet isn’t going to help you against it.
It’s like sticking your face in front of a blowtorch and hoping your sunglasses will help.

 

[Falastur]

The British had medical services in the Crimean war, which Florence Nightingale did her best to screw up.

I acknowledge that Florence made no difference at all until after the war, but I find it hard to believe that anyone, let alone Florence Nightingale, could possibly have made the British medical services any worse than they were already in that period.

 

[67th Tigers]

Exactly what it says on the tin. Would a general, prolonged European War anywhere in the latter half of the nineteenth century-- between 1870 and 1904, give or take-- see the introduction and mass production of metal helmets? If, for instance, France went to war with Germany again in 1887 and dragged half of Europe into the mess, is it likely that the kepi would've been discarded in favor of something with a bit more armor?

Or is this period too early for the (re-)introduction of helmets? Why?

The British issued steel helmets in 1900 in response to the Boer artillery that caused the bulk of their casualties.

 

[BigWillyG]

I did try to say that in my earlier note. Mustn’t have been clear.

Explosive shells and Shrapnel shells when they are direct fire are going to have pretty much the same effect as Canister. A helmet isn’t going to help you against it.
It’s like sticking your face in front of a blowtorch and hoping your sunglasses will help.

Not quite. Yes shrapnel was designed to be long range canister but even when used in direct fire it still causes mostly head wounds. Shrapnel is fired above and in front of the troops you are firing at in order to rain the balls down on them.
Helmets will help with stopping those but not canister which is fired directly or even slightly below troops so the projectiles bounce into them.

 

[Cook]

Not quite. Yes shrapnel was designed to be long range canister but even when used in direct fire it still causes mostly head wounds. Shrapnel is fired above and in front of the troops you are firing at in order to rain the balls down on them.
Helmets will help with stopping those but not canister which is fired directly or even slightly below troops so the projectiles bounce into them.

I think we are both stating basically the same thing. That metal helmets were a defensive response to the new offensive weapon.

Not sure about the comment regarding mostly head wounds with Canister and direct fire Shrapnel rounds. Canister and early Shrapnel rounds produce a cloud of large, .50cal and larger, rounds travelling at quite high velocities and carrying a lot of momentum. It’ll take a hell of a helmet to stop them. I believe that the helmets of World War One were able to deflect and stop smaller pieces of fragmentation only.