PDA

View Full Version : OT: Why Did D-Day Assault Troops NOT use Shields?



hmkim
04-26-2006, 11:12 AM
Is there any reason why they were not provided with steel shields (something like those used by police nowadays)? The German MG-34 machine guns were reportedly responsible for half the American casualties at Omaha beach. Simple, low-tech steel shields could've saved a lot of lives. Just curious...

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-26-2006, 11:21 AM
And how, pray tell, would the average G.I. operate his weapon with one arm used by said sheild?

Not running into a German unit on exercise in the area would have saved a lot more.

Lodovik
04-26-2006, 11:25 AM
Because an armor plate shield capable of stopping a heavy, supersonic rifle caliber round, like those fired by an MG42, would have weighted too much for the soldiers to carry and fight properly. Let alone wade into the shore from the landing craft.

Besides, the modern day riot shields used by police forces tend to be made out of durable plastics and light alloys. They are meant to deflect slow, thrown projectiles likes rocks and debris. Most of them aren't bullet proof.

StG2_Schlachter
04-26-2006, 11:28 AM
Yeah, solid steel. A little bit too heavy if you are to carry another 30 pounds or so additional gear.
How many soldiers landed on the invasion beaches?
How many tons extra weight should the landing craft carry.Not enough space aboard the landing craft. Shields won't protect you from mortars.

BSS_Goat
04-26-2006, 11:32 AM
Hold on, hold on, I got it! The shield could double as a surf board and they could ride them into the beach! Not only would it save troops but think of the cost savings in higgins boats and naval resouces. The SURFSHIELD (tm) could also be redesigned as a paratroop hanglider version the SKYSHIELD (tm).

For more info please send 40 rupies. PM for address.

georgeo76
04-26-2006, 11:32 AM
For the same reason they didn't carry swords

Waldo.Pepper
04-26-2006, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by hmkim:
Is there any reason why they were not provided with steel shields (something like those used by police nowadays)? The German MG-34 machine guns were reportedly responsible for half the American casualties at Omaha beach. Simple, low-tech steel shields could've saved a lot of lives. Just curious...

Are you Raaaid?

Breeze147
04-26-2006, 11:38 AM
I wonder why they didn't use lasers?

panther3485
04-26-2006, 11:42 AM
Hi there, hmkim

You gotta be kiddin, right?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

But just in case you are serious.....

(a) The size and weight of shield needed would be far too heavy and unweildy. The thickness of steel required, multiplied by the area needed, would be heavier than carrying another soldier + his gear.
(b) For amphibious operations in particular, the extra weight would be a serious penalty. If you didn't drown when you stepped off the ramp, how quickly could you move through the water and up the beach?

Other points, like hampering the soldiers' use of his own weapon and the nature of the projecties being faced, have been raised by others already.

Of course, there's always body armour but if it had to be made of steel, much the same problems would apply.

Body armour was rendered largely obsolete when the use of firearms became widespread centuries ago. The main reason we've seen a revival of the concept since WW2 is the development of new super-tough but relatively light materials, such as kevlar, that give reasonable levels of protection without a ridiculous weight penalty. But you still can't wear enough of it for full protection and if you try, it seriously restricts your mobility.


Best regards,
panther3485

BSS_Goat
04-26-2006, 11:45 AM
One sq ft of carbon steel 1/2 inch thick is 20.42 lbs. To hide behind lets say you need a 3'x3' shield. 9 sq ft x 20.42 = 183.78lbs


BTW 1/2" probably would not stop a direct hit under 100 yards.

hmkim
04-26-2006, 12:01 PM
I was not kidding at all. I recently had a chance to pick up a police shield and was surprised by its light weight. So, I wondered, "why couldn't landing troops use shields like that?"

panther3485
04-26-2006, 12:04 PM
Hi, BSS_Goat

I don't think 3ft x 3ft would be the go, somehow. You might be able to squat behind it but how would you move and still stay 'covered'.

In my 'mind's eye' I was picturing something about 2ft 6ins wide x 5 ft high, and curved side-to-side. You couldn't leave your legs unprotected and, allowing for a slight crouch as you moved, it would still need to cover your head all the way up with a little margin for higher angles (defenders from shore emplacements often shooting downwards against assaulting troops) That's 12-and-a-half sq ft which, by your figures, would weigh 255.25lbs!

Yeah, I know it's not a serious proposition either way but the exercise of thinking about it was vaguely interesting and slightly amusing (wouldn't be amusing if you had to do it though!).

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

RCAF_Irish_403
04-26-2006, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by hmkim:
I was not kidding at all. I recently had a chance to pick up a police shield and was surprised by its light weight. So, I wondered, "why couldn't landing troops use shields like that?"

Because the stuff hadn't been invented yet

stathem
04-26-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by hmkim:
I was not kidding at all. I recently had a chance to pick up a police shield and was surprised by its light weight. So, I wondered, "why couldn't landing troops use shields like that?"

Because they hadn't invented carbon fibre at that point?

Breeze147
04-26-2006, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by hmkim:
I was not kidding at all. I recently had a chance to pick up a police shield and was surprised by its light weight. So, I wondered, "why couldn't landing troops use shields like that?"

Because:

A. They had yet to be invented.

B. Ike didn't think of it.

C. Monty would have insisted he did think of it.

D. There is no choice D.

panther3485
04-26-2006, 12:12 PM
Against bullets (rather than bottles or rocks), it would need to be stronger and you'd need just about a full body height shield and full body width + a bit. At those dimensions, even carbon fibre/kevlar starts to become unwieldy!

panther3485

GR142_Astro
04-26-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hmkim:
I was not kidding at all. I recently had a chance to pick up a police shield and was surprised by its light weight. So, I wondered, "why couldn't landing troops use shields like that?"

Because:

A. They had yet to be invented.

B. Ike didn't think of it.

C. Monty would have insisted he did think of it.

D. There is no choice D. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


D: Patton would have wanted to paint them metallic gold.

Breeze147
04-26-2006, 12:15 PM
You know, in all seriousness, about 95% of the shields would have been chucked overboard about 100 feet from the transports. The other 5% would have been chucked about 5 feet from the landing craft.

Hawgdog
04-26-2006, 12:19 PM
Maybe they should have waited till the Germans just left the area.

Malice1.RD
04-26-2006, 12:21 PM
Well we can start with the fact that the MG42 had a rate of fire of 1200RPM, so while the shield MAY have been able to with stand that its very unlikely any human could. By that I mean you would need to hold the shield using your arms and move up the beach and would be unable to use your body to brace it. I dont know about you but I'm not sure I could hold a 50lbs metal shield, run up the beach and keep holding it while an MG42 is shooting at 1200RPM at me. The shear force would of the bullets hitting it would make it very hard to hold.

Then there is also the case that they were already carring alot of weight on them and the shield wouldnt have helped. The deaths on the D-day beachs where caused from many things, MG, rifle fire, mines, Artillery, snipers. The shield while for a short period stopping MG fire would leave them open to a whole host of other dangers. The whole D-day plan rested on surprise and speed. Heck the entire Allied army was designed around mobility and speed. Having mean slowly move up the beaches may very well have caused more causualties then they prevented by delaying there movement and allowing the germans to call down more arty fire into a small localized area.

Then there is the last case that speed was the key and there were suppose to be DD tanks and tanks brought in by LSD on Omaha. While they did make it to the other allied beachs very few it any made it onto Omaha. the tanks were there to provide coverfire and disable the MG along with providing a moving shield for the troops on the beaches.

panther3485
04-26-2006, 12:44 PM
Hi, Malice1.RD

Very good points you've made there.

On the question of weight, based on BSS_Goat's figures (and I'm taking his word for it), a 50lb shield would only be about 2-and-a-half square feet.

F***ed if I'd go forward into machine gun fire behind a shield that size! (Wouldn't want to do it behind a shield any size, actually!)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

A.K.Davis
04-26-2006, 01:13 PM
Why did they not use solid steel...



...ROBOTS!!!?

J_Weaver
04-26-2006, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
One sq ft of carbon steel 1/2 inch thick is 20.42 lbs. To hide behind lets say you need a 3'x3' shield. 9 sq ft x 20.42 = 183.78lbs


BTW 1/2" probably would not stop a direct hit under 100 yards.

Your right. I've personally punched holes the size of a dime in 3/8" steel plate with the 8X57mm Mauser round. IMO it would take at lest a 5/8" or 3/4"plate to stop the round. If a chap is big enough to carry around a 5/8" steel plate that is big enough to hid behing then it would take more the Mg-34/42 to stop him. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Max.Power
04-26-2006, 01:19 PM
I don't think the soldiers would have much problem shielding themselves from an mg42. The impulse of the rifle rounds are not that much, especially if the shield is heavy.

I don't think that those police riot shields are proof against rifle calibre rounds, by the way. They are for protecting officers from low energy projectiles like beer bottles and garbage.

Doug_Thompson
04-26-2006, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Against bullets (rather than bottles or rocks), it would need to be stronger and you'd need just about a full body height shield and full body width + a bit. At those dimensions, even carbon fibre/kevlar starts to become unwieldy!

panther3485

This is the correct answer. Police shields are designed to be effective against thrown objects and bludgeons. Notice that when the SWAT teams of police are called out against people with guns, those teams rely on concealment and superior firepower €" not shields.

The unavailability of alloys and carbon fiber by mid-1944 provides the rest of the explanation.

major_setback
04-26-2006, 04:28 PM
They wore helmets though. They could have strapped any spare helmets to the rest of their body http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif....all over themselves really. Oh God, I can feel more time in Photoshop coming up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

J_Weaver
04-26-2006, 04:36 PM
Helmets are worn to protact a soliders head from debris and shrapnel not bullets.(at least during WWII) Some modern helmets may be "bullet proof" though.

Skycat_2
04-26-2006, 04:49 PM
A soldier with helmets strapped all over his body would look like one of the Fruit-of-the-Loom guys.

Speaking of underwear, I don't care if a guy walks off the Higgins boat ramp with nothing but his skivvies and a 3'x4' piece of boiler plate as a shield ... as soon as he hits shoulder-deep, waist-deep or knee deep water that 'shield' is going to be impossible to push through the water.

The Army should have built a special regiment of giant Mechs with 88mm cannons for arms to storm the beaches. Better yet, toss a bottle with a commando genie in it toward the enemy-held beach and hope a footsoldier on patrol picks it up and rubs it.

Max.Power
04-26-2006, 04:53 PM
No modern helmets are proof against (assault) rifle calibre rounds of any kind. Some helmet manufacturers or sales people will claim that their equipment has stopped certain rounds, but has stopped and will stop are very different things, depending on angles and range. There recently an article on military.com about the prohibitive weight and price of developing a helmet that can stop a 7.42x45 soviet round at combat ranges. Modern helmets are also chiefly designed to stop fragmentation and debris.

Chuck_Older
04-26-2006, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by hmkim:
Is there any reason why they were not provided with steel shields (something like those used by police nowadays)? The German MG-34 machine guns were reportedly responsible for half the American casualties at Omaha beach. Simple, low-tech steel shields could've saved a lot of lives. Just curious...

Oh I can't resist this one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You mean, aside from all the accidental drowning deaths of soldiers who would never see the beach?

WTE_Galway
04-26-2006, 05:00 PM
on the plus side:

- if any over-enthused Hitler Youth fanatics had abandoned the machine guns and ran down the beach and threw frag grenades the shield may have done something

- if they had stuffed up "Market Garden" style and landed on a beach where a couple of SS panzer divisions were sunbaking next to their tigers drinking Pina Colada's they could quicly dig holes in the sand and pull the shields over them

- shields would also be good for writing messages for the airforce to read when the radio's failed (as they usually do) and you could have pockets at the back for storing cigarettes, french phrase book and hotel guide etc etc

faustnik
04-26-2006, 05:01 PM
If they had perfected the cloaking device, shields would been unnecessary.

Nimits
04-26-2006, 05:21 PM
Why didn't they just use the Stargate (which the Army evidently turned on in 1943) to contact the Asguard, borrow some beaming technology, and teleport the 101st airborne to Berlin, skipping the entirely unnecessary "Western Front" campaign?

[To those unfamiliar with the Stargate TV series, I apologize]

faustnik
04-26-2006, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Nimits:
Why didn't they just use the Stargate (which the Army evidently turned on in 1943) to contact the Asguard, borrow some beaming technology, and teleport the 101st airborne to Berlin, skipping the entirely unnecessary "Western Front" campaign?

[To those unfamiliar with the Stargate TV series, I apologize]

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif That is an unrealistic suggestion.

ImpStarDuece
04-26-2006, 05:42 PM
Canadian infantry and artillery men, at least, were given white plastic body armour that was effective agaist SMG rounds, but not really much good against rifle calibre rounds.

George G. Blackburns "The Guns of War" has some interesting tid-bits about the use, and general abandonment, of body armour after D-Day.

"Adding to his sweaty discomfort, under his batledress hs is wearing the body armour that was issued to all infantrymen and artillery carrier crews coming into Normandy: the fabric covered, moulded pieces of dense plastic, designed to yield but not break on catching the impact of a bullet or shell fragment. Unlike the medieval variety, body armour in Normandy, 1944, is made up of sepertae pieces that dangle on shoulder straps, and is usually (but not always) worn underneath battledress pants and blouses. Your back is protected by one piece, an upside-down "T" across te kidneys and lungs, with the perpendicular part running up the spine between the shoulder blades. Across the chest s a breast protector, and from it a belly pad hangs down loosely, sot hat when you bend over, the two will fold. But whne jumping down in a trench with knees bent, you can knock your wind out, since the lower piece is inclined to get jameed up and strike you acoss the belt line.

For this and other reasons- not the least of which is the very disturbing psychological effect of being constantly reminded of the vulnerability of you vital, life-sustaining, and life giving, organs - some men have quite using it after only a few days

.....

And very shortly Brit will learn that his new body-armour really works, that the long fibre plastic, when hit, wil stretch inwards, forming a bulge that can bruise (and bruise painfully when it strikes where only a thin layer of flesh covers the bone) but absorbing and restraining otherwise lethal force"

"There are some stubbor SS in the farm buildings, and as they are being cleared out, I take a Schmessier burst along my chest that could of been very bad except of the body armour. Two 9mm bullets leave indentations in my breast plate about an inch deep (deep enough Quarter Stores will replace it withou argument), but i'm only bruised."

"While body armour largely disappeared from use by the end of the summer - as much left behind with the wounded and the dead as was discarded by the survivors of Normandy - some men who came through it all unscathed or who actually knew they'd been saved from death by it were still wearing it in October along the Scheldt. And some looked like ghosts from the past as they wore flapping outside thier battledress - boldly, without apology, almost as if it were the mark of a long serving veteran. On eof the men who wore it in this fashion was a Royal's stretcher bearer- a man of proven, outsanding courage."

faustnik
04-26-2006, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Canadian infantry and artillery men, at least, were given white plastic body armour that was effective agaist SMG rounds, but not really much good against rifle calibre rounds.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/imp_stormtrooper.jpg

HOWZAT_99
04-26-2006, 06:31 PM
Well didn't some sit in tanks? Are they not considered a shield? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

I think I remember reading something about shermans on D-Day, of course I could have been daydreaming it...

Ernst_Rohr
04-26-2006, 06:36 PM
The problem with all types of body armor is that your trying to protect a fairly large area while still keeping weight down.

Opposed to that, you have a very high velocity projectile with a very small cross section.

There is indeed body armor availible NOW that can stop rifle caliber rounds. It is also very heavy, hot, and bulky, and tends to be issued only in very specific circumstances, where there is no expectation of foot travel.

The body armor availible in WW2 was steel, ceramic, or plastic composites. While it would stop a 9mm round (which has fairly poor penatrative capability compared to a rifle) any battlefield rifle chambering would punch through it like it wasnt there.

7.92mm x 57mm (8mm Mauser) ammo WILL punch through sheet steel at range of 200 meters/yards pretty easily, using standard ball ammo.

Modern "rifle proof" vests are capable of stopping modern assault rifle ammo (5.45, 5.56, 7.62, and some 7.62 nato) but fail completely against "obsolete" military rifle cartidges. 8mm Mauser, .30-06, and 7.62x54mm rounds WILL punch through a vest, unless its superheavy barricade armor.

TAW_Oilburner
04-26-2006, 06:41 PM
Another cold yet realistic reason is that having a shield would lead one to hunker down and try and protect himself. It was imperative that the invasion force MOVE IN and not bottle up on the beaches.

SeaFireLIV
04-26-2006, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by hmkim:
I was not kidding at all. I recently had a chance to pick up a police shield and was surprised by its light weight. So, I wondered, "why couldn't landing troops use shields like that?"


Ah, the innocent thought, how nice. But something that seems like a good idea at the time can turn out to be highly unfeasible.

Reminds of the time I first started working in a Mall as a security guard. I noticed that the security blokes wore these lite-weight almost trainer like shoes to patrol in. I thought I`d be clever, so wore these steel-toe capped dock-martins - my feet would be safe from any potential store criminal, I thought, smartly.

A week or so later, got my first call to grab a `suspect` leaving the store. He saw me and ran. I pursued, into another store and down the escalaters, on he ran and on I chased. I was so close to capturing him... then I noticed my error in the steel toe-caps. My feet started to feel like they were carrying bricks, after a bit I just couldn`t keep up and he fled away. Stopped by my own boots. Without them boots I would have got him.

That`s why the other guys walked in those lighter shoes. The Police do it too.


Of course, the fact that those Police shield you`re looking at didn`t exist cos the material didn`t exist (or the technique) is another flaw in your reasoning.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2006, 07:15 PM
Werent the Americans on Omaha offered armour from the swimming tanks and funnies but refused? I know the Brits and Canadians used them on their beaches.

I thought I heard something about this, but cannot be sure.

VW-IceFire
04-26-2006, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by hmkim:
I was not kidding at all. I recently had a chance to pick up a police shield and was surprised by its light weight. So, I wondered, "why couldn't landing troops use shields like that?"
Remember that we're talking about 60 years ago. Lightweight materials that they use to construct things like the riot shields weren't invented yet. 60 years is a long time in the modern day of technological invention. Things have changed considerably.

The US army is currently working on materials that are as light as fabrics and are worn as a uniform but are resistant to kinetic energy so something like a bullet makes the material extremely hard while a soft touch gives little resistance. But this is something that may be used in 10 or 20 years...back then...not even remotely possible.

The D-Day assault was in the planning stages for a very long time. Some of the best military strategists of the time we're working on this and the wartime resources of three major armies went into making the assault work (not to mention the naval and air assets). I'm sure if they had something that would have helped their troops in such a way they would have used them.

A fair question indeed and a fun one to consider but try and remember how different things were.

luftluuver
04-26-2006, 07:19 PM
I worked for a company that made body armour(bomb) and riot helmuts. The helmets used special lexan face shields.

Btw, the company's owner explodes a bomb with him beside the bomb to show how tough the body armour is.

One of the suits, http://www.med-eng.com/sub.asp?id=47

ColoradoBBQ
04-26-2006, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Werent the Americans on Omaha offered armour from the swimming tanks and funnies but refused? I know the Brits and Canadians used them on their beaches.

I thought I heard something about this, but cannot be sure.

THey refused the funnies but acceptd the swimming tanks. As Malice1.RD mentioned, most of them sank when they hit water and only a few of them were able to land at the beach.

ImpStarDuece
04-26-2006, 08:21 PM
Actually most of the Duplex Drive tanks were a failure at Omaha because they were launched too far out from the beaches and couldn't handle the rough seas for a prolonged period of time and were swamped. There were 31 DD tanks launched at Omaha, but only 4 made it to shore. In comparison, there were 28 launched at Utah and all made it to shore, 34 launched at Sword and 32 made it ashore. On Gold beach, the commanders of the LSTs saw that the seas were too high for the DD tanks to be used as planned and so landed them directly on the beach with the first assault waves, which was highly sucessful.

The British and Canadians launched their DD tanks much closer to the beaches and as a result had much more sucess with them reaching the beaches and providing support for the troops.

Treetop64
04-26-2006, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by hmkim:
Is there any reason why they were not provided with steel shields (something like those used by police nowadays)? The German MG-34 machine guns were reportedly responsible for half the American casualties at Omaha beach. Simple, low-tech steel shields could've saved a lot of lives. Just curious...

Wow! You figured out what many experienced war generals never had the noodles to come up with!

Maybe YOU should have planned the D-Day landings, eh?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I_KG100_Prien
04-26-2006, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:
The problem with all types of body armor is that your trying to protect a fairly large area while still keeping weight down.

Opposed to that, you have a very high velocity projectile with a very small cross section.

There is indeed body armor availible NOW that can stop rifle caliber rounds. It is also very heavy, hot, and bulky, and tends to be issued only in very specific circumstances, where there is no expectation of foot travel.

The body armor availible in WW2 was steel, ceramic, or plastic composites. While it would stop a 9mm round (which has fairly poor penatrative capability compared to a rifle) any battlefield rifle chambering would punch through it like it wasnt there.

7.92mm x 57mm (8mm Mauser) ammo WILL punch through sheet steel at range of 200 meters/yards pretty easily, using standard ball ammo.

Modern "rifle proof" vests are capable of stopping modern assault rifle ammo (5.45, 5.56, 7.62, and some 7.62 nato) but fail completely against "obsolete" military rifle cartidges. 8mm Mauser, .30-06, and 7.62x54mm rounds WILL punch through a vest, unless its superheavy barricade armor.

Actually the level 4A vests (ceramic shock plates backed up by kevlar) that combat troops wear these days are not exceptionally heavy, and if you are in shape you can wear that all day long and not really notice it's there.

The particular vest that I have weighs in at around 16lbs and is good up to 7.62mm in the front and back, and smaller calibres on the sides where it's just the kevlar w/o shock plates.

HellToupee
04-26-2006, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, hmkim

You gotta be kiddin, right?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

But just in case you are serious.....

(a) The size and weight of shield needed would be far too heavy and unweildy. The thickness of steel required, multiplied by the area needed, would be heavier than carrying another soldier + his gear.
(b) For amphibious operations in particular, the extra weight would be a serious penalty. If you didn't drown when you stepped off the ramp, how quickly could you move through the water and up the beach?

Other points, like hampering the soldiers' use of his own weapon and the nature of the projecties being faced, have been raised by others already.

Of course, there's always body armour but if it had to be made of steel, much the same problems would apply.

Body armour was rendered largely obsolete when the use of firearms became widespread centuries ago. The main reason we've seen a revival of the concept since WW2 is the development of new super-tough but relatively light materials, such as kevlar, that give reasonable levels of protection without a ridiculous weight penalty. But you still can't wear enough of it for full protection and if you try, it seriously restricts your mobility.


Best regards,
panther3485

What use was the soldiers weapon when landed on an open beach vs a concrete pill box or something? Thick ness would not have to be that thick, it didnt have to stop 20mm cannon rounds or tank projectiles, they carry amour plates into todays soldiers vest perfectly capable of stopping bullets.

A large shield big enough for serval people to carry and hide behind i woulda welcomed if i was one of the soldiers landing.


ts very unlikely any human could. By that I mean you would need to hold the shield using your arms and move up the beach and would be unable to use your body to brace it. I dont know about you but I'm not sure I could hold a 50lbs metal shield, run up the beach and keep holding it while an MG42 is shooting at 1200RPM at me. The shear force would of the bullets hitting it would make it very hard to hold.

bullets dont have alot of momentium, a person could easily hold it IMO.


ire, mines, Artillery, snipers. The shield while for a short period stopping MG fire would leave them open to a whole host of other dangers.

i shield would just be useful for moving up the beach open beach, better than getting pined down by mg fire.

Copperhead310th
04-26-2006, 11:19 PM
Unfortunatly the men did have Shields.
It was thier buddy in front of them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Let us remember that these beaches were one by strength in numbers, courage, & sacrafice alone.
and nothing else. Some were lucky, and some were not so lucky. Ask any Vet. and they'll tell you that it was just plain dumb luck that they survied the landings or by the sacrafice of thier budedies next to them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Esel1964
04-26-2006, 11:37 PM
Don't forget the weight of the 'power pac' that would be necessary to make a really nice shield;you've got to power the headlights,stereo,map light(rarely used in combat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif,and the 'observation slit' wipers.

Friendly_flyer
04-26-2006, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Canadian infantry and artillery men, at least, were given white plastic body armour that was effective agaist SMG rounds,

Wow, I have never heard about that! Do you have any pictures of such armour?

panther3485
04-27-2006, 01:55 AM
Hello, HellToupee

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Another joker?
But, just in case you are serious too:


Quote 1:
"What use was the soldiers weapon when landed on an open beach vs a concrete pill box or something?"

Of course it was of very little use against a concrete bunker or pill box, short of being able to put small arms/sniper fire through the slits, if you got the chance, which might have some effect.

The main point is, not all the defenders were in pill boxes or bunkers. Depending on the precise location/sector and what beach, anything from perhaps 30% at least, to as many as 70% or more of the defending troops were in trenches, firing pits etc - open positions. Obviously, still having a significant advantage in terms of cover, but defenders usually do! How soon after landing you could engage them would again vary a lot from one place to the next but once spotted and engaged, these were vulnerable and the attackers would need to use their rifles/BAR's etc pretty soon after landing, if not immediately.


Quote 2:
"Thick ness would not have to be that thick, it didnt have to stop 20mm cannon rounds or tank projectiles, they carry amour plates into todays soldiers vest perfectly capable of stopping bullets."

(a) Oh yeah? And just what sort of thickness of steel do you think would be required, to give a reasonable assurance of stopping high velocity machine-gun and rifle bullets at close range? Data are available to answer this question. Think I haven't checked it out?
(b) As for modern body armour, haven't you read anything here? Materials with today's levels of protection and lightness simply were not available in WW2. They had yet to be developed. Even the primitive plastic body armours mentioned by another member - which were advanced for their day - would only stop low velocity pistol or SMG rounds. Rifle and MG bullets would not be stopped.


Quote 3:
"A large shield big enough for serval people to carry and hide behind i woulda welcomed if i was one of the soldiers landing."

Naturally, one would welcome any protection in that situation! Trouble is, would this be feasible? What about:

(a) Carrying it off the ramp of the landing craft, possibly into waist or shoulder deep (or even deeper) water?
(b) Moving with it, and your personal equipment and weapons, up through the water, around beach obstacles etc and onto the softer sand?
(c) Fire coming not just directly from the front but from enfilade angles as well?
(d) Mortar and shell fire in front, to the sides and behind you?
(e) With such a shield, you could never move quickly. Is sheltering behind it for any length of time, or even creeping it forward, going to be a real option? Would the defenders not start to concentrate on you with mortars, light guns, etc?

Bottom line is, casualties are going to be heavy. If the shore defences are not adequately suppressed, they will be very heavy. In a similar situation it wouldn't be much better today, even with the modern body armour. War is like that!


Best regards,
panther3485

civildog
04-27-2006, 02:15 AM
Well, since I actually use ballistic shields at work for high-risk entries and similar events I can tell you that they are too heavy for running up a sandy wet beach.

The things are not usable with any weapon heavier than a pistol (we have the guys with the MP5's and carbines behind the shield carrier) and are not very good for cover if you are exposed to the sides or from above. And you have to look out a little window to see in front of you so in all the confusion you'd probably just end up running in circles.

The ones capable of stopping a rifle round weigh in at 20+ pounds and are 4' long. Try running around with that strapped to your arm on unsure ground for a while. It doesn't sound like much, but you'd be surprised how heavy that is when you are crouched behind it while searching for a bad guy.

I'd rather trust my felony shoes and cat-like reflexes while sprinting up the beach carrying a decent rifle in both hands than crawling along holding a pistol and a shield. Talk about a bullet-magnet!

Maybe if you strapped a bush to the front of the shield for camoflage!? Some could be bushes, some could be made to look like rocks, some piles of seaweed. Just move slooooowly towards the enemy.

Friendly_flyer
04-27-2006, 02:15 AM
Hah, I found some pictures of body armour!

British/Canadian armour:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/british_body_armour_1.jpg

and a Russian variant:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/panzerniks2.jpg

(Nicked from Axis discussion forum)

Fork-N-spoon
04-27-2006, 03:01 AM
Along the lines of stopping bullets that are fired at people; why can Superman stand tall and stop bullets with his brawny chest yet when the villian runs out of bullets (click, click, click,) the villian throws the empty pistol at Superman and he ducks as if he is afraid of being hurt by the flying pistol...

Back on topic, 1940s technology didn't keep pace with protecting infantry from high velocity rifle caliber rounds.

Considering that an 8x57mm round is easily capable of defeating 1/4 inch plate at 100 yards and that armor piercing 8x57mm rounds can easily defeat 1/4 inch boiler hardened plate at 100 yars, imagine how heavy the armor vest would have been in order to defeat 8x57mm projectiles...

In my experience 150 grain .30 caliber and 8mm soft point round nose bullets that have a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps (823 meters per second) will easily penetrate 3/8 inch (9.5mm) mild steel plates at 100 yards/meters.

Interestingly, if more effort would have been placed in protecting infantry by providing effective yet comfortable body armor that wouldn't cramp an infantryman's ability to fight, I wouldn't doubt that by 1940 somebody could have produced a decent bullet proof vest.

panther3485
04-27-2006, 03:06 AM
Good pics, Friendly_flyer

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And what's interesting about them is, how little of the body is protected.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Of course, in certain situations a little protection is better than none at all, and occasionally lives may have been saved.

But.... not much of an advance, if any, on Ned Kelly's armour!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

x6BL_Brando
04-27-2006, 03:07 AM
I worked for a couple of years in an iron foundry in Northern England. The work was hard & dangerous, and casting-time involved carrying ladles of molten iron to the moulds. One man per ladle (like a bucket on a stick) which weighed about 90lbs full. Great fun if you're young & fit.

But once a year the officials from the Health & Safety Department descended on our works, and we would all have to don the regulation safety equipment and work in it. It was a nightmare!
We had to wear ... leather 'chaps', a leather apron, long woolen shirts buttoned at the wrist, leather gauntlets, safety goggles and yellow safety helmets. As well as the steel-capped boots which we all wore anyway 'cos they were good for bikibg home. I'm not talking Gucci by the way - these garments were made from unsplit hides and as rough as a bear's ***, and heavy.

Try to imagine a couple of dozen men stumbling around carrying half-hundredweights of molten iron at the end of a stick? No-one could see because the goggles filled with sweat. No one could move properly so hampered with (insufferably hot) cowhide. The castings that day were more than half spoiled because working in all this gear made everyone clumsy. Metal got spilt dangerously several times, which never happened on a normal day when we were in jeans and shirtsleeve order.

When the little bowler-hatted ****s had gone back to their Ministry we all threw off the safety gear and got on with the bloody job. Safety at work IS important, don't get me wrong, but if a regulation is stupid then it will just get ignored by the people who actually do the job.

It's a sure bet that most fighting soldiers would have thrown away their minimum 60lbs of armour plate in preference for the ability to run & dodge - not to mention you needed both hands to load & fire a Mk IV Lee Enfield or any other service rifle, or do any of the myriad carrying tasks that everyone was required to do that day(s).

There's a childish naivety to this suggestion that would probably make survivors weep or laugh out loud. The writer seems to think that the LCs just cruised up to the beach, delicately lowered their ramps and everybody just marched up the beach in file. The reality was quite different. I'll try to tell it how my father, twenty years old at the time, saw it.

"The swell was about 3 foot and the LCT was pitching a bit. I was right up by the ramp because my job was to jump in the water once the matelots had decided the boat was close enough to the shore. The unit joke was that if I disappeared it was definitely too deep to proceed! (At 6'3 he was the tallest in the boat). When the ramp went down the men either side of me were killed instantly by gunfire. (Here he names them, and tells me what good mates they'd been) But I couldn't hang about, nobody could on that day, so I jumped in. It was bloody cold son, but it only came up to my chest, so everybody else came too ... it was only about a cricket pitch (22 yards) to the shore but it felt like it took hours."

Then he would go on to talk about the underwater obstacles - steel spikes, barbed wire, mines and concrete blocks - that the Germans had scatterd along the beaches, out of sight under the murky water. They were the reason why the Navy didn't want to bring the LCs too close in. These landing-craft were definitely not expendable and had many trips to make to get an entire army onshore.

So you see it was not a walk in the park, or even an advance across level ground with shields locked together, Roman phalanx-style, it was an assault course from start to finish. Given that everyone had to carry a personal weapon plus ammo plus whatever specialist load was required - and this had to be done in soaked serge uniforms across rough terrain - I think there could only have been one reply to any bowler-hatted **** who turned up insisting that everyone carry an extra 50-60lbs of plate steel the size of a small table. A loud and universal raspberry followed by a hail of gunfire!

B

"All right lads, form up over there and wait for your shields to arrive. The quarter-master's office has made a ****-up and sent us three miles of mosquito netting."

1.JaVA_Hornet
04-27-2006, 03:49 AM
If the shipsartillery had bombed the
beaches better there weren`t so much
casualties.

HotelBushranger
04-27-2006, 04:04 AM
Strange, I ws just thinking about tactics for D-Day myself last night. For a bit of trivia, in the Winter War the Russians were issued with ski shields. These were very uneffective, there was a hole for the rifle and a hole for your eye, but they weren't together. Also, the men tended to stay behind them and not advance. So snipers would flank them and shoot them in the legs.

Personally, instead of giving the infantry shields, I would have got fighter bombers to destroy the bunkers as much as they could, then lay a smoke screen in the German lines, and well as use fighters to destroy the barracades on the beach so the infantry could get through the breach.

luftluuver
04-27-2006, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Hornet:
If the shipsartillery had bombed the
beaches better there weren`t so much
casualties. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Care to explain?

alert_1
04-27-2006, 04:27 AM
It seems that the more stupid question, the more vital seed has... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

whiteladder
04-27-2006, 04:44 AM
This is the exact problem face by soldiers in the first world War when faced with fixed positions defended by machine guns. How that got round the problem went something like...


Soldier: Bloody machine guns are murdering us,

Boffin: Use this shield,

Soldier: Still getting hit from the side,

Boffin: I`ll add side to the shield,

Soldier: Damn things to heavy to carry,

Boffin: have some wheels,

Soldier: keep getting bogged down,

Boffin; Tracks?

Soldier; no hands free to shoot,

Boffin; Private Tomkins can sit behind you with a machine gun while you steer.

Soldier; Great but if Jerry catches wind of this they`ll want one.

Boffin; No problem we will say they are Water Tanks bound for Abysinian.

Soldier; Jolly good show.

And there you have the birth of the Tank a Vehicle to shield soldiers while they assault a fixed position. That it evolved into something else is beside the point. What the solders need on Omaha wasn`t personal shields it was more armour support. The beaches where that was avilable had significantly less casualies.


It should also be pointed out that a longer bombardment by ship, aircraft etc would have caused there own problems. The same beaches that the assault wave went over were then needed to bring the thousands of tons of equipment support the landing, the shelling was planned so as not to compromise this by turning it into a moon scape.

HellToupee
04-27-2006, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hello, HellToupee

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Another joker?
But, just in case you are serious too:


Quote 1:
"What use was the soldiers weapon when landed on an open beach vs a concrete pill box or something?"

Of course it was of very little use against a concrete bunker or pill box, short of being able to put small arms/sniper fire through the slits, if you got the chance, which might have some effect.

The main point is, not all the defenders were in pill boxes or bunkers. Depending on the precise location/sector and what beach, anything from perhaps 30% at least, to as many as 70% or more of the defending troops were in trenches, firing pits etc - open positions. Obviously, still having a significant advantage in terms of cover, but defenders usually do! How soon after landing you could engage them would again vary a lot from one place to the next but once spotted and engaged, these were vulnerable and the attackers would need to use their rifles/BAR's etc pretty soon after landing, if not immediately.



attackers still were landed in a open position with no cover, a shield of sorts would just allow them to advance to a better position, no point sitting around in the open shooting off bars and rifles while u get slaughted by machine gun fire in the open.



Quote 2:
"Thick ness would not have to be that thick, it didnt have to stop 20mm cannon rounds or tank projectiles, they carry amour plates into todays soldiers vest perfectly capable of stopping bullets."

(a) Oh yeah? And just what sort of thickness of steel do you think would be required, to give a reasonable assurance of stopping high velocity machine-gun and rifle bullets at close range? Data are available to answer this question. Think I haven't checked it out?
(b) As for modern body armour, haven't you read anything here? Materials with today's levels of protection and lightness simply were not available in WW2. They had yet to be developed. Even the primitive plastic body armours mentioned by another member - which were advanced for their day - would only stop low velocity pistol or SMG rounds. Rifle and MG bullets would not be stopped.


"bullets at close range?" close range? no more like long range, they wernt all that close to the defensive positions of the germans at landing, it wouldnt of had to be something of todays lightness and size of todays offerings didnt have to be something they fought with only something to stop bullets while they milled around infront of german machine guns.




Quote 3:
"A large shield big enough for serval people to carry and hide behind i woulda welcomed if i was one of the soldiers landing."

Naturally, one would welcome any protection in that situation! Trouble is, would this be feasible? What about:

(a) Carrying it off the ramp of the landing craft, possibly into waist or shoulder deep (or even deeper) water?
(b) Moving with it, and your personal equipment and weapons, up through the water, around beach obstacles etc and onto the softer sand?
(c) Fire coming not just directly from the front but from enfilade angles as well?
(d) Mortar and shell fire in front, to the sides and behind you?
(e) With such a shield, you could never move quickly. Is sheltering behind it for any length of time, or even creeping it forward, going to be a real option? Would the defenders not start to concentrate on you with mortars, light guns, etc?


purpose would be something to allow you to move up the beach quicker than just charging and hopeing u survive by some fluke, defenders are no more likely to concentrate on a handful of people than they would others, they would pick and choose venerable targets at their will being target rich an all.



Bottom line is, casualties are going to be heavy. If the shore defences are not adequately suppressed, they will be very heavy. In a similar situation it wouldn't be much better today, even with the modern body armour. War is like that!


Best regards,
panther3485

casualties didnt have to be heavy, they had amphibous tanks they didnt land enough in the americans case, which infantry used like shields.

loppenainen
04-27-2006, 05:57 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/marine_dday_underwater_01.shtml

loppenainen
04-27-2006, 06:09 AM
Same reason we dont use them in combat today. A shield leaves you with a single handed weapon. Body armor is worn, but size and weight can cause detrimental hinderance of movement. Speed of response/agility being a better trad-off to limiting protection.

Once saw a guy do a 'cartwheel' in full medieval plate-armor so it was not as restricting as once thought, but it wouldn't stop firearm projectiles therefore the armored knight disappeared.

panther3485
04-27-2006, 06:40 AM
HellToupee

Choose to naysay my posts if you wish - your prerogative - but read again the recent post from whiteladder. Read again all the others who have made excellent, well informed, sensible posts clearly exposing this 'shield' idea as being at least seriously flawed, if not totally absurd.

So, ignore what I've said as you please but for your own sake, just look again at all their posts. You could learn something from them if you wanted to but if you can't appreciate the collective wisdom and value of what's been imparted here, then that's your loss (but you could just be trolling, of course - in which case the whole thing is a joke anyway).

And, when I was referring to casualties being heavy in that situation (surely, if you read things properly, you would notice in my post I said, "In a similar situation" ), the conditions in question obviously include the lack of adequate armoured support, such as happened on Omaha!

In situations like this, where someone appears to want to cling to an idea long after it has been shown to be nonsense, I often get a gut feeling that tells me I'm wasting my time either with a troll or with an *$@&^. On previous occasions when I ignored that voice, it has been to the detriment of the thread in question because the irrational rantings of the *$A&^ not only continue but actually get worse.

So, this time I'm going to stop, even if you post again with further nonsense that you appear to believe is rational (or, in the case of your being a troll, further deliberate baiting). This means you'll get the last word, but I'm confident that just about everyone here will see it for what it really is.

Anyone else who wants to waste their time with you is welcome, but this is the last second of my valuable time you'll get.

major_setback
04-27-2006, 06:51 AM
The mk1 Asterix Invasion Shield:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ft20Mac200320testudo.jpg

Max.Power
04-27-2006, 06:51 AM
If there were ballistic shields that worked, the men with shields would not be using their weapons. They would be using their shields. Why use a shield in a half-assed way and a weapon in a half-assed way at the same time?

It's correct to say that sending up human waves against entrenched machineguns is bound to be costly. A machinegunner named Heinrich Severloh is creditted with personally killing over 1000 americans. He is apparently haunted by the carnage to this day, and makes pilgrimages to the D-Day memorials.

It's not like they were running blind up the hills to machinegun nests, though. They hard artillery and mortar suppression, and I'm sure that the battle plan was carefully crafted.

I think that those armours were probably throwbacks to world war I experimentation in armour. Out of all the experiments, the german project was the most extensive. The product of it was the 'Sappenpanzer' for machinegun crews, sentries and 'stosstruppen' trench raiders. Here's what it looked like:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/leminen/sappenpanzer.htm

As you can imagine, none of these armours were effective enough to warrant their production. Also, covering the body in patches isn't so bad. They're attempting to cover the vitals with armours of a reasonable thickness/weight. I'm sure that troops with those armours were more effective fighting men than people shambling around with their torsos and legs shrouded within a cast iron coal stove. If that armour covers 75% of the torso, that decreases your chance of being wounded by 75%, provided the armour is effective- which I'd wager it wasn't.

panther3485
04-27-2006, 06:56 AM
Thanks for the links, loppenainen and Max.Power

Interesting stuff!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Friendly_flyer
04-27-2006, 07:02 AM
That, Major Setback, is a Roman tank like Whiteladder explained.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-27-2006, 07:02 AM
Wow Major Setback! How d'you get your copy of Rome - Total War to look like that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Interesting stuff about Canuck body armour, I didn't know that and like to think of myself as pretty well up on matters.

VFA-25_Cobain
04-27-2006, 07:15 AM
And for modern real life application. I have pieces of Stainless steel , appx the size of your normal computer screen, that are about 1/2 inch to 1 inch thick, that I shoot with an M1 Garand from 75-150 yards. The 30-06 rounds go right through, much to the suprise of a Korean War Vet that I shot with about a year ago. They told them that the helmets were couldn't be harmed by small-arms fire. On top of the penetrability of bullets, it is fairly heavy. This shield isn't practical at all by any means.

djetz
04-27-2006, 07:59 AM
Anyone mentioned Hobart's "funnies" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart%22s_Funnies) yet? Saved a lot of lives on the British and Canadian beaches, but the way I hear it, the Yanks felt they weren't macho enough for the US Army or something.

HellToupee
04-27-2006, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
HellToupee

Choose to naysay my posts if you wish - your prerogative - but read again the recent post from whiteladder. Read again all the others who have made excellent, well informed, sensible posts clearly exposing this 'shield' idea as being at least seriously flawed, if not totally absurd.

So, ignore what I've said as you please but for your own sake, just look again at all their posts. You could learn something from them if you wanted to but if you can't appreciate the collective wisdom and value of what's been imparted here, then that's your loss (but you could just be trolling, of course - in which case the whole thing is a joke anyway).

And, when I was referring to casualties being heavy in that situation (surely, if you read things properly, you would notice in my post I said, "In a similar situation" ), the conditions in question obviously include the lack of adequate armoured support, such as happened on Omaha!

In situations like this, where someone appears to want to cling to an idea long after it has been shown to be nonsense, I often get a gut feeling that tells me I'm wasting my time either with a troll or with an *$@&^. On previous occasions when I ignored that voice, it has been to the detriment of the thread in question because the irrational rantings of the *$A&^ not only continue but actually get worse.

So, this time I'm going to stop, even if you post again with further nonsense that you appear to believe is rational (or, in the case of your being a troll, further deliberate baiting). This means you'll get the last word, but I'm confident that just about everyone here will see it for what it really is.

Anyone else who wants to waste their time with you is welcome, but this is the last second of my valuable time you'll get.

i try to have an open mind, instead of putting down possible ideas as nonsense i try to think of ways they might work.

panther3485
04-27-2006, 08:12 AM
Hi djetz,

No, nobody has specifically mentioned the 'funnies' yet, as far as I remember anyway - having been with this thread from the start.

But you make a good point. They certainly did help a lot on the British and Canadian beaches. In fact, their employment allowed the conventional armour to be used most effectively in many instances!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Worf101
04-27-2006, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by georgeo76:
For the same reason they didn't carry swords
ROTFLMBBAO I love you man but you are without a doubt the most sarcastic, droll, caustic SOB on this forum.. Salute...

Snorf... snicker... chortle..

Da Worfster

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Actually most of the Duplex Drive tanks were a failure at Omaha because they were launched too far out from the beaches and couldn't handle the rough seas for a prolonged period of time and were swamped. There were 31 DD tanks launched at Omaha, but only 4 made it to shore. In comparison, there were 28 launched at Utah and all made it to shore, 34 launched at Sword and 32 made it ashore. On Gold beach, the commanders of the LSTs saw that the seas were too high for the DD tanks to be used as planned and so landed them directly on the beach with the first assault waves, which was highly sucessful.

The British and Canadians launched their DD tanks much closer to the beaches and as a result had much more sucess with them reaching the beaches and providing support for the troops.

You are an endless source of knowledge, Impstar, thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Where do you fly online?

CD_kp84yb
04-27-2006, 01:54 PM
Here is all the ammo that is ever made in the 7.92 x 57 mauser (and machine guns ) til 1945

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/98kpatroon.jpg

rounds 2,3,4,5 are not used in WW2 they are 1914-1918
Same goes for 6 its the 13mm T-patrone WW1
21 and 15 are experimental

Now the round you dont wanna meet is number 14,
the S.m.K.H. , its the best armour piercing round in the mauser family (7.92).
For us flightsimmers the numbers 9,10,11,13 are in interest, they were used by the machine guns and gunners of the LW ,
funny are the blanks for the LW they are number 17 and 18 (not sure if 18 was in service)
there were also some gluhspur (glowing tracers) but they are not shown in the pic.

22 is a dummy for practising (exercise) and 23 is a blank round with a wooden bullet.

regards

DarkCanuck420
04-27-2006, 02:07 PM
im sorry to admit but at one point in my life I asked the exact same question. why not use shields. simultaneously, i answered my self. speed is of the essence, too heavy for soldiers, too heavy for boats. They are invading they need to carry as much usefull stuff as possible. a plate of steel would not be in agreence with this.

then I thought...Trebuchets, use catepults!

darkhorizon11
04-27-2006, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Hornet:
If the shipsartillery had bombed the
beaches better there weren`t so much
casualties. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Care to explain? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell that to the guys on the destroyer than ran aground to get close enough to blast the Germans guns that were killing the soldiers on the beach.

panther3485
04-28-2006, 03:51 AM
Hi there, DarkCanuck420

Quote:
"im sorry to admit but at one point in my life I asked the exact same question. why not use shields."

No need to be sorry mate, there's nothing to be ashamed of in simply asking the question. At one time or another, I'm sure most of us have asked similar questions - I know I have, for one! It's an important part of the thinking process.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In general terms, when considering questions of this nature, what's more to the point is:

(a) Our background knowledge/experience in this and related subjects
(b) Our ability to evaluate the idea sensibly, taking the key relevant factors and the situation into account [usually dependent, to some degree at least on (a) above - not always essential but definitely very helpful]
(c) The conclusions we come to [outcome of (a) followed by (b)]

In this instance, you don't seem to have had too much difficulty!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485