Could steel helmets have been useful for infantry in the 1700-early

File: Japanese_Military_Uniforms_1841-1929-19.jpg (87KB, 352x600px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 352x600px

>>2099866
>Be hit by shrapnel shells.
>In line formation.
>Protect head alright.
>Die anywhere else.

Interestingly enough: the Tokugawa Period in Japan saw the demise of armor usage due to the Tokugawa Peace + proliferation of firearms. As such, the 1700s Tokugawa period soldier - both Samurai and regular-ass soldier- were cunts in Kimono uniforms and helmets, on the logic that "k fine, armor is fucked by bullets, but can we at least have something for the head? you can get one shotted by being hit there."

File: Carabiniers_a_cheval.jpg (71KB, 507x599px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 507x599px

Cavalry used them

File: Prussian_Landwehr.jpg (390KB, 1600x870px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1600x870px

>>2099893
I know. I'm asking about the entire infantry

File: Edo_period_helmet.jpg (41KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x532px

>>2099879
That looks interesting. Somewhat similar to Brodie helmet.

>>2099879
They did have bullet proof armour based on portuguese designs though

>>2099904
Helmet provided little protection against the dangers of 18thC warfare. It is unlikely that musketball would hit you to the part protected by helmet, bayonets would aim for the body and if you get hit by cannon you are dead, helmet or not.

Situation changed when artilery became the main killer on battlefield.

File: Qing Soldiery.jpg (264KB, 503x659px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 503x659px

>>2099912
>Not every Samurai can afford it.
>Forget infantrymen being able to afford it either.
I must also add: the 1700s really took mass armor usage down due to many factors. However, IMO the chief factor was the burgeoning size of armies and centralization of military forces from Europe to Japan unseen before anywhere else (save China I guess, but even they were affected). In almost EVERY CULTURE in the 1700s there was an abandonment of armor, with the exception for cavalrymen and/or officers.

pic related: Qing Chinese soldiers of the 1700s-1800s. Also uniformed, no Armor.

>>2099946
What about sabres from cavalry? A cuirassier is charging at you with his sword and you only have a silly shacko on your head.
>bayonets would aim for the body
Probably true most of the time, but there's still a chance.

>>2099962
Would make sense, but apparently contemponary generality did not considered these dangers serious enough to spent money on dozens of thousands helmets.

File: 2237758b4710b912dcdd75d1cafdfc03924522a3.jpg (151KB, 900x709px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 900x709px

>>2099955
>pic related: Qing Chinese soldiers of the 1700s-1800s.
Osprey is shit tier. Uniforms are descended from Ming surcoats.

Brigandine was partially retained in the 8 banners.

>>2099984
I guess the death tolls still seemed manageable and the deaths didn't look horrific enough. But my uneducated mind still thinks helmets could have made an impact.
The Prussian did introduce the Pickelhaube eventually at some point.

>>2099984
Also metal helmets are pretty heavy
In WW1 it was okay because it was a war of position, but in the Napoleonic Wars, armies were marching through the entire continent, sometimes for weeks
Steel helmets would have made that task much harder

File: Commander Zhao Hui surprises the Dzungars in Oroi Jalatu.jpg (707KB, 1036x631px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 1036x631px

>>2100021
>Dismounted bannermen heavy cavalrymen.
Also in the 1700s, they removed much of the plates in those brigandines save for the chest area and they were effectively uniforms.

The infantry wore uniforms- particularly jackets to the color of their banner- and so did lighter elements of the cavalry. Period art shows us this if you're anal over Osprey's shit.

>>2100026
I was going to post "Prussian infantry with Piclelhelms" but I remembered about trains.

>>2100024
I wouldn't say that Cavalry really posed a threat to infantry formations in actual combat due to the infantry square, but cavalry could be used to secure flanks, ride down skrimishers, take artillery and chase routing enemies. If cavalry engaged in melee with an infantry regiment, a helmet would most likely help but such a "normal" engagement would be rare. I'm no historian though so don't take what I say as fact.

File: Cuirassiers_attack.jpg (203KB, 968x694px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 968x694px

>>2100039
>If cavalry engaged in melee with an infantry regiment, a helmet would most likely help but such a "normal" engagement would be rare.

Except cavalry engaging in melee with infantry was anything but rare

First there's the rout, which as you described saw cavalry attack infantry.
It wasn't rare in anyway and happened dozens of times per battle.

But it wasn't the only occasion in which cavalry would attack infantry
Cavalry would often attack non-routed infantry formations as well (especially when in line formation).
Sometimes (if the infantry was well disciplined and the commander competent) the infantry would form squares and survive the attack, but it was far from the norm and cavalry attacks more often than not resulted in the massacre of a great part of the targeted infantry

>>2100066
Also, French heavy cavalry was well reputed for charging into squares, and sometimes destroyed them
So even when forming squares, survival wasnt guaranteed

File: 3e82b3de9c82d158116db164800a19d8be3e4280.png (580KB, 647x310px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 647x310px

>>2100034
>Also in the 1700s, they removed much of the plates in those brigandines save for the chest area and they were effectively uniforms.
The Green Standard Army from the Revolt of the Three Feudatories wore brigandine.

The gradual transition from brigandine to surcoats already began in the late Ming.

>Also in the 1700s, they removed much of the plates in those brigandines save for the chest area and they were effectively uniforms.
Mail was still used to some degree.

>The infantry wore uniforms- particularly jackets to the color of their banner- and so did lighter elements of the cavalry.
Maybe during Qianlong's reign,armor was used during the Kangxi and Yongzheng Emperors.

>Period art shows us this if you're anal over Osprey's shit.
Still doesn't change the fact that Osprey is of less than stellar quality.

>>2100024
>The Prussian did introduce the Pickelhaube eventually at some point.

Industry and artillery advanced enough to make them worhwhile.

>>2100079
...the Three Feudatories was in the beginning of Qing rule in the 1600s. No shit armor was around.

One of the niggers were fighting Wu Sangui ffs.

>>2100104
>August 1673 – November 1681
>your proposed date of 1700s-1800s.
wew lad there's only a 20 year difference.

File: 3236242dd42a283402b3c8a85bb5c9ea14cebfef.jpg (66KB, 1284x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1284x600px

>>2100120
Japanese depiction of Qing soldiers in antiquated armor c1810.

>>2100078
So, did they just butcher infantry/ or at leat have them suffer heavy losses?
In that image >>2100066 the cavalry have steel plates and helmets while the infantry just cloth.
Also wouldn't pieces or armor give more confidence to a soldier?

>>2099912
You're thinking of an earlier time period.

>>2100026
>Also metal helmets are pretty heavy
They really aren't. The stalhelm is about as heavy as it gets, and the largest size comes in around three pounds. PASGT helmets-made from kevlar-meanwhile, are 3lbs for the smallest size.
Brodie helmets were around 1.3lbs.
For comparison, a quart of water weighs 2lbs.
Steel helmets weigh absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

>>2100625
>Also wouldn't pieces or armor give more confidence to a soldier?
Who cares? Most of them will die to cannon or disease anyway, and the armor won't help when they rout.

>>2099866
>Could steel helmets have been useful for infantry in the 1700-early 1800s period?
No, not really.

Whether your men are shot in the chest or in the head makes little difference. In fact, if they're shot in the head it may make your life easier because they don't waste resources while being taken care of.