Could shields stop bullets back then?

[caddux]

I found another thread about shields and bullets, but it was about the ingame mechanics. http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=168515.msg4087302#msg4087302
What I want to talk about here is how was it in reality.
So, was it possible, at the time represented in the game, for a shield to stop a bullet from a musket or a pistol? Because in the game we know it is possible, depending on the shield and/or player shield skill.
And, if it was possible, why then shielded units weren't used more often against musketeers?

I started the same kind of thread some time ago at Steam's forum, and people there garanteed that it was really possible to stop bullets with shields: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1901788
But I already read at this forum (couldn't find where it was) people saying that it was not possible. That bullets would almost always pass right through the shield.

So, what do you guys know about this?

 

[Knight of the Rose]

I am no expert but I think a shield with enough reinforcement to stop a musket ball at closer ranges would be too heavy to be practical in use.

 

[Alpha Zeke]

cal .50 guns are used for armor piercing. Muskets fire cal .60 I believe. Now of course, not as fast, but then again the armor they are hitting is much weaker as well. I think it is safe to conclude that bullets would indeed pass through shields.

 

[jackx]

Depends on the range, as those large projectiles slow down quickly, and aren't that fast to begin with. Since body-armour could be made to both stop and deflect bullets, it's reasonable to assume that a similar piece of metal held in front of the body would perform similarly.
Due to the large calibre (15-20mm, give or take, on military longarms) and being made of lead, chances of stopping the bullet at long(er) ranges would be good, but the chances for deflection at close range (where it can't be stopped successfully) would be fairly low...

The main reason for the lack of shields is probably in close combat going out of style, as it is both psychologically more demanding on the soldiers and tactically inflexible, and "bullet-proof" armour was costly, and available only in limited quantities anyways - much more (cost-)effective to have ever-increasing numbers of musketeers...

 

[Kneed]

cal .50 guns are used for armor piercing. Muskets fire cal .60 I believe. Now of course, not as fast, but then again the armor they are hitting is much weaker as well. I think it is safe to conclude that bullets would indeed pass through shields.

I think it has more to do with the shape of the projectile, muzzle velocity and energy than caliber.  The energy produced by modern muzzle loading .50 cal is in the neighborhood of 700-950, the .50 BMG (i.e. sniper rifle) is close to 3000 ( I'm no expert but a friend has one).

I think you'd have to be fairly close to penetrate with a musket ball.

 

[DanAngleland]

I don't think there was any shield which you could count on stopping a bullet from any distance. Besides which, it wouldn't have been feasible to try or even hope to intercept a bullet with a shield. How do you know which part of your body to cover with the shield? Even if you saw an individual musketman fire at you, you aren't going to be able to judge the precise trajectory of his shot, and of course the projectile is too fast to watch in flight for even an instant, so unless you had a huge pavise style shield you couldn't even count on getting your shield in the right place. The shields of this time were generally small buckler types, designed for help in melee I believe, deflecting melee weapons. So you would need a pavise shield (don't think these were used anymore, though I could be wrong) with a reasonably thick metal covering, thick as the best armour at least (a shield couldn't realistically be given such a thick coating of metal, as it is much harder to lift something up in front of you and carry it on your arm than it is to support that weight by wearing it). I doubt any shield that existed, even a metal one, could stop a bullet. The best thing I can imagine happening (if you somehow intercepted a bullet with your shield) would be that it struck at an angle and flung the shield into you or a comrade. More likely would be the shield getting penetrated and bits of shrapnel from it flying into your face along with the bullet.

 

[Silencer74]

there's a study on the net (can't find the link anymore, so if anyone has it, plz post), showing the incease of breastplate as time progressed (and the penetration power of the bullet), up to 8mm thickness en V shaped. Because of the added weight, these plates where mainly used on cavalry troops.
German troops (Pioneers) again started to use them in WWI. They where quite effective for protection, but the 1cm breastplates where to heavy to be used effectively.

 

[jackx]

As I said, they were perfectly capable of making "bulletproof" body armour, and just because you hold a piece of metal like that at arms length, it's not suddenly going to be easier to penetrate - if anything, harder, because it'll be moved more easily/further by the impact, dissipating more energy. Deflection of course, as you've pointed out, causes its own set of problems in a formation...

The main issues I see are with mobility and manufacture, anti-bullet shields are simply not worth it in the context of 17th century armies...  given the right circumstances, however, such shields are feasible, and being used even today.

 

[Jubalsquirrelly]

depends on the gun and caliber. A machtlock  loses more gas out the priming whole than a wheellock or flint lock. under the right circumstances a shield could stop a bullet but you wouldn't be able to rely on it

 

[Archonsod]

I don't think there was any shield which you could count on stopping a bullet from any distance.

Most would prevent it entering the body, it'd flatten on the shield (and even if it did punch through the shield it certainly wouldn't push through any armour behind it afterwards). Kinetic force is a different story though. I'd be surprised if you could take a bullet on the shield at less than a hundred yards and still be capable of using the shield arm afterwards. As you say though, getting the shield between you and the bullet would be more of an accident than any deliberate action.

 

[Gungho]

I'm a former army explosives and ammo technical officer, as well as a currently serving law enforcement firearms specialist.  I hold both military and civilian qualifications in firearms and explosives.

I consider it highly unlikely that the in-game shield style would stop a slug at short to medium range, and ballistically at long range the balls are coming down onto the target from a parabolic trajectory, therefore limiti.g the usefullness of a shield.

Edit:

Just to clarify a mistaken myth:  bullets don't knock people over...they neither have the energy or mass to do so.  Rather, people fall over from the effect of having a metal slug driven through their body at speed.

 

[Helmuth]

Read  this article i found on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly (see  Kelly Gang armour in the bottom). This guy did not have a shield but full body armor instead , and in modern times times even (1900). Metal armor then can be made to stop pistol bullets at least but muskets have  a very diferent fire mecanism, ammo and ballistics than modern firearms. I read in a book written by spaniard Cervantes that a gunshot from a 1570s gun could completely destroy a man arm or leg with just one hit. It seem guns got more accuracy , faster reloading and better range in time than firepower. Muskets may be more simmilar to shotguns (wich have poor penetration) but i am not a gun expert.

 

[Gungho]

Kelly's armour was beaten out of plough blades, and he was only capable of walking in it.  Comparing that to a shield and you'd be struggling to lift the thing.

 

[wannyboy]

i think shields were rather used to deflect bullets than to stop them

 

[Majestic7]

I think the realistic way would be to treat shields as extra armor against gunshots. If the musket ball hits the shield, it might provide extra protection and combined with heavy armor, even stop it completely. Of course, that isn't possible with the current game mechanics (I assume).

 

[Archonsod]

Metal armor then can be made to stop pistol bullets at least but muskets have  a very diferent fire mecanism, ammo and ballistics than modern firearms. I read in a book written by spaniard Cervantes that a gunshot from a 1570s gun could completely destroy a man arm or leg with just one hit. It seem guns got more accuracy , faster reloading and better range in time than firepower. Muskets may be more simmilar to shotguns (wich have poor penetration) but i am not a gun expert.

Muskets are essentially man-portable cannon. The principle is the same, use explosive force to propel a rock or lead ball fast enough to hurt someone. Modern firearms are more like bows; they operate by driving the projectile into the target. A shotgun is probably the most comparable modern weapon, albeit scale up the individual pellet to the calibre of the gun.

 

[caddux]

A little off-topic: Coincidently, yesterday the movie The Patriot was on TV here in Brazil, and I saw just the last battle scene. I just love that part where a cannon ball go through the battlefield rolling like a bowling ball and at a point just rips a leg off of a soldier.

 

[Gungho]

Blackpowder velocity lies between modern handgun velocity and modern rifle velocity...it drives a big soft lead slug between 1200 and 1600 feet per second...that's a lot of power.  Using Kelly's armour as an example, there are a lot of dents in it, and very few deflection scratches, but that armour was pretty solid.  As I stated before, if you made that into a shield, you would be lucky to lift it.

17th century shields aren't meant to stop musket balls...they are meant to stop blade weapons, where you have a lot of cutting edge and low blade velocity.  I would put good money on a ball to punch through most if not all shields of the time...anything capable of stopping them would probably be unusable for the real purpose of stopping a blade.