Throughout thousands of years of human history, the use of the shield during battle has been a staple in nearly every region in the world. Yet as we entered the 20th century, the act of a soldier carrying a shield into battle seemed to vanish completely.
Today we have body armor, which does provide a modicum of protection. But in the 20th century, most notably in the two World Wars, soldiers would run into the fray all but naked to the world in terms of individual protection.
Why is this?
I understand that metal was at a premium, but why not use wooden shields to block bullets and shrapnel? At least it would be something.
This occurred to me after reading The Thin Red Line and watching Saving Private Ryan. I can't help but picture myself there and imagine what it would be like to storm the hills of Guadalcanal or take the beach at Omaha. And I would always come back to the idea of carrying a shield.
So what happened? Too expensive? Too unwieldy? Was it cultural or simply practical?
I'd appreciate any reply!
Simply put, a shield in modern warfare would be useless, more of a hindrance than anything else
Yes, SWAT teams use ballistic shields but that's because they dont have to carry them for too long. Maybe 3-5 minutes maximum during a mission. And only the front man who opens the door carries a shield. One of those shields weights between 7 and 10Kg. A modern soldier carries with him around 20-30kg of equipment during normal missions, if not more (if the mission is behind enemy lines with no/limited access to supplies like ammo and water).
Another drawback of a shield today when comparing it with antiquity or medieval periods is that its not that great. Shields used to be as much armor as weapons, but today, they would be at best defensive items.
Also, shields used to be great because you used to be able to see from where you were attacked and you could essentially "wall off" that area. Now, the bullet will hit you before you will be able to position the shield.
Another extremely important aspect is that almost all weapons today are meant to be handled with two hands. Besides really small weapons like some sub machine guns and pistols, you wouldn't be able to use anything else with any decent amount of accuracy.
Wood would not stop bullets or shrapnel unless you use either a very thick (and heavy) shield. Think along the lines of over 20kg worth of weight, only for the shield. You cant run forward 100m through mud, ditches, explosions and hope to make it in the enemy trench (think battles in WW1). And you wont be able to see anything in front of you anyway.
Reality is really different from movies. An AK-47 bullet will go through both metal doors of a car and still kill or severely injure the person behind the 2nd door. Its not like in the movies when the good guys hide behind a plastic barrel and everything seems to bounce of it.
Unwieldy seems to be the most apt response that you mentioned.
Pretty much every gunpowder weapon up until the 20th Century required the use of two arms if you wanted to reduce recoil and have any degree of accuracy. You also need two arms to reload. Moreover, the shields of the time would provide variable protection against a direct musket hit, and would probably be best at deflecting shrapnel.
A shield would only be useful in the specific circumstance when the following criteria were met:
1: You were at risk of being attacked.
2: The shield granted you some protection against the risk.
3: You had no need to fire or reload your weapon.
These three criteria rarely coincided for an infantryman on a pitched battle in, say, the Napoleonic wars. At every stage you would be either advancing, charging, preparing to fire, firing, or reloading. If your unit was exposed to an enemy attack and unable to return fire, any sensible leader would either advance to within range or retreat. Shields would probably just slow down your unit without providing any real protection.
The only real shields that remained popular in post-medieval warfare were small, light shields that were useful in hand-to-hand combat whilst not sacrificing one's mobility.
Also, plate armor provided full-body protection whilst still allowing the wearer to use a two handed weapon.
Factor in that shields are heavy, use up lots of metal, impair your vision, act as a big shiny object to draw enemy fire and you can understand why military leaders of the modern era aren't baying for the return of the shield.
Because they'd have to be too heavy to be easily carried, and shields just don't work the way you think.
You use a shield to close off certain line of attack and force an opponent to attack somewhere else. This allows you to only have to make a limited number of actions ot defend your entire body.
You can't do this with gunpowder weapons. I can't see your shoulder tensing up, look at where you eyes are, and realize I need to take a take half a step back with me left leg, bend my knees, and raise the shield up.
I'd just die. On second, man with shield. Next, man with shield and no head.