Why was there such a long period of time when guns were the default army weapon, but helmets weren't common? They only became universal in WWI. Everyone in the Civil War was using normal fucking hats.
>>651913631. as armies grew bigger and more lower-class, manufacturing armor for them would also be more expensive.2. armor was not the most useful for a while, which is part of why they were phased out, and then they simply took a while to readopt them when they became very necessary.also, helmets protected more from fragments than actual rifle fire, though ofc it would protect you much better than nothing.
Because helmets that could stop bullets were far too heavy and cumbersome for practical use for about 200 years after guns entered widespread service.Light helmets that reliably stop rifle rounds didn't exist until the 80s.
>>65191371>and then they simply took a while to readopt them when they became very necessary.to add on to what i was saying, the period between 'maybe helpful but expensive' and 'holy fuck we need this RIGHT NOW' was crossed very quickly.also, WW1 was THE artillery war. helmets, as I said, protected primarily against fragments and the like. if there was any gunpowder war to adopt helmets in, it was WW1.
Ww1 was an artillery war brought about by the machinegun stopping cavalry charges in their track.So you had mostly artillery duel Nd guys waiting in trenches.The biggest risk to your life aas shrapnel falling on ya head and shoulder, thats why the helmet(the cool german one) looked like it did to ricochet shrapnel
>>65191373Then why did everyone have helmets in WW1, you dummy?
>>65191401As everyone else has said they were to stop frag and soil thrown by arty shells.
you can win the stanley cup without it
>>65191363>when guns were the default army weapon, but helmets weren'Artillery has always been the Goddess of war, but shrapnel and mortars didn't hit their stride in the black powder era enough to make it worth it (either canister was splatting you, a large ball, or fragments so large a helmet wouldn't matter). WW1 casualties being mostly mortars/artillery, and of those cranial being over represented, it started to make sense, in addition to pistol calibers being deployed at significant levels, and having some resistance to them at least at glancing angles and at some distance.
>>65191363Artillery completely changed during WW1 as it became mastered by the Germans against the French. The French army became so decimated by German artillery that they would have taken over France. It annihilated any marching army with the new technique and better exploding shells called curtain fire.
Overhead shrapnel while covering in trenches. In that situation, your head is the most endangered part of your body. That's why in 1915 deaths from head injuries went down, but head injuries went up; shit loads of men who'd otherwise have died of head wounds were instead wounded and recovered.Before WWI and trench warfare, it just wasn't needed to wear a helmet
>>65191384>the machinegun stopping cavalry charges in their trackTrenches do more to stop cav charges than machine guns.
>>65191363I think it was actually the Japanese to first use modern military helmets in their troops as a response to artillery as far back as the Meiji period, but their use was never widespread across the army over the Imperial era since they always had other uses for their iron.
>>65191379People nowadays forget that up to WWI, most artillery were direct fire cannons, i.e., the projectile hit you from the front. No amount of helmet or PPE will protect you from that. In WWI, trench warfare meant howitzers became popular to lob shells from up above into trenches. Helmets then became useful to protect from shell fragments and debris.
>>65191407So artillery didn't exist between 1700 and 1900, right?
>>65191363They're mostly to protect from shrapnel. They won't save you from a bullet. Shell entering widespread use (rather than solid shot or grapeshot), as well as increases in the use of artillery overall (and more static battlefields where artillery was often the main threat) prompted the reintroduction of helmets, due to shrapnel.>>65191870Explosive shells have been around for ages, but they weren't used with such intensity until WW1, and battlefields were less static.
>>65191878ww1 also saw wide use of trenches and airburst shells. No more shooting infantry blocks with ball and grapeshot rather than raining shrapnel on heads and upper bodies. Helmets became useful again.
>>65191881It doesn't even need airburst. Normal artillery still throws a ton of shit into the air that's going to come back down, potentially on your head. But prior to the trenches, if you were close enough for that to be a concern, you were close enough to be eating direct shrapnel anyway.
>>65191870Yes. People just threw rocks at each other really fast. Also cars were only invented three weeks ago. But the internet was around for thousands of years - haven't you heard of the famous greco-roman forum QuartusDioryx?
>>65191870Not indirect fire artillery dumping shrapnel shells on them from overhead like you're thinking of>cannons shoot a solid cast-iron ball (or sometimes stone depending on time/place)>rather than firing in an arc to land amongst the targeted infantry, they aim lower>ball skips across the ground like a flat stone on a still lake, travelling for quite some distance at between ground and waist level, taking off limbs as it goeshelmets aren't going to do shit about an eight pound lump of cast iron slamming into your waist/pelvis/legs
>>65191363guns got better and armor couldn't realistically protect against long guns anymorebreastplates and helmets remained in limited use with heavier cavalry, but primarily for protection against pistols and swords when fighting other cavalry, rather than infantry muskets
>>65191401>(you)
>>65192087Shrapnel shells are ancient but yeah, they were uncommon until the late 1800s
