Anyone else feel like if they hadn't changed their helmets in WW1 they would have won?

SaltyNuts

Golden Member
May 1, 2001
1,544
75
91
They started WW1 with the TOTALLY badarse helmets having a giant spike sticking out the top. The kind of shiat that sends shivers down your spine when you see it, that gives you nightmares. About half way through they shifted over the the helmets like they wore in WW2. You know, the ones without a scary spike, and that flared out towards the bottom. That is right, what most of you think of as Nazi helmets today the Germans actually used during a good part of WW1, if not most of it.

Anyways, I am pretty sure the switch to those helmets cost them the war. I can already hear you nerd guys saying stuff like, "oh, the new helmets gave better protection to the rear neck and ears", and "oh, a spike coming out of the helmets was so impractical because it could not be used functionally, and could hinder an infantryman's operations in the field and while raiding trenches, the spike could get caught on all sorts of stuff."

Yea, I dunno, maybe. But you know what else not having the spike did? Helped your enemy to NOT be shitting bricks at the sight of you. The spike put that extra scary edge on those German troopers, those mofos were not just troopers but CRAZY troopers with spikes coming out the tops of their helmets for no apparent reason, other than because THEY ARE FEROCIOUS AND CRAZY AS FUK. Lacking that fear/intimidation factor in the latter half of the war probably cost the German army the war.

Agree? Disagree (you'd be wrong)?
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
4,108
152
106
Stahlhelm was really ahead of its time in terms of head/neck protection. Our current helmet has a lot of the same design features.
 

SaltyNuts

Golden Member
May 1, 2001
1,544
75
91
Stahlhelm was really ahead of its time in terms of head/neck protection. Our current helmet has a lot of the same design features.

LOL, I *literally* predicted your appearance in my OP. And you are right. But it still cost them the war IMHO...
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
6,468
421
126
It wouldn't have mattered. Now they believe the end of WW1 was more to do with the Spanish Flu than anything else on the battlefield. Way too many sick soldiers.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
74,693
8,048
126
It wouldn't have mattered. Now they believe the end of WW1 was more to do with the Spanish Flu than anything else on the battlefield. Way too many sick soldiers.
most wars see more deaths from disease or exposure or starvation or accidents than from combat. I think thats why America has been reluctant to engage in full-scale war for so long.
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
6,468
421
126
Luckily we are moving constantly towards wars of technology and letting the remotely controlled units do the dying.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
100,462
14,485
136
maybe those spikes made it easy to spot Germans along thetrench line because they would always poke up over cover. Maybe they lost too many from that early on and were just too late in switching to proper helmets?
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
6,468
421
126
Considering how many WW2 non-axis put their helmets on the ground to have a heat on, I always found those German WW1 ones too funny because of the consequences. But then again, maybe it was a weapon of last defense.
 

mopardude87

Platinum Member
Oct 22, 2018
2,013
707
96
If it worked for Vlad the Impaler, why not here. Intimidation and fear is often times motivators.
 

OccamsToothbrush

Golden Member
Aug 21, 2005
1,361
791
136
Sauron had a fancy spiked helmet too, how did things work out for him? Seen any viking raiding parties pillaging Europe lately? Napoleon's forces had really ornate helmets, they didn't help at Waterloo.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
14,773
608
126
LOL, I *literally* predicted your appearance in my OP. And you are right. But it still cost them the war IMHO...

What do you think they could have done to win the war with the pointy helmets?

Skewer the allied troops with a rhino-like head first charge? :D
 

SaltyNuts

Golden Member
May 1, 2001
1,544
75
91
If it worked for Vlad the Impaler, why not here. Intimidation and fear is often times motivators.

This guys knows what's up. Allied troops were like 67% more likely to break and flee the battlefield when the Germans had those spiked helmets. Totally intimidated and feared off the battlefield. With the new helmets, the Allies were like, "who are you guys supposed to be? With your helmets carefully designed to protect your precious ears and necks? LOL, we are fighting some scared accountants boys, let's slaughter them!!!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: FreshCrabLegs

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
22,046
793
126
It wouldn't have mattered. Now they believe the end of WW1 was more to do with the Spanish Flu than anything else on the battlefield. Way too many sick soldiers.
Well... it didn't help that the Allied powers were still pouring in fresh resources into the fight from the US and other British colonies in 1918 while Germany's allies were pretty much beaten to a pulp by that time.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
78,883
6,822
126
Logistics wins wars. Germany had no resources and failed to capture the French forces. This led to a war of attrition Germany didn't have the resources to sustain. Even if they had phoenix feather on each helmet it would not have helped them win.
 

OccamsToothbrush

Golden Member
Aug 21, 2005
1,361
791
136
Well... it didn't help that the Allied powers were still pouring in fresh resources into the fight from the US and other British colonies in 1918 while Germany's allies were pretty much beaten to a pulp by that time.
Logistics wins wars. Germany had no resource and failed to capture the French forces, leading to a war of attrition Germany didn't have the resources to sustain. Even if they had phoenix feather on each helmet it would not help them win.
Look who OP is and stop making sense.
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
22,046
793
126
There is a great Hardcore History podcast series on World War I if you're interested in the subject. The whole thing is like 20 hours long, but hey... it's a long weekend and everything fun to do inside is still shut down. Go nuts on it :)
 
Nov 8, 2012
15,375
2,538
126
most wars see more deaths from disease or exposure or starvation or accidents than from combat. I think thats why America has been reluctant to engage in full-scale war for so long.
"Full scale war" in the sense of trenches with just thousands of soldiers charging ahead to gunfire will never ever occur again.

From here on out everything will be with planes, drones, tactical military (air drops of soldiers to strategic places for instance), and...well... nukes.
 
Jun 19, 2004
24,055
1,491
126
"Full scale war" in the sense of trenches with just thousands of soldiers charging ahead to gunfire will never ever occur again.

From here on out everything will be with planes, drones, tactical military (air drops of soldiers to strategic places for instance), and...well... nukes.
Only if the next generation of idiots convinces themselves that drones and smart munitions can replace boots on the ground or that such a thing as "limited warfare" exists.
 

OccamsToothbrush

Golden Member
Aug 21, 2005
1,361
791
136
Only if the next generation of idiots convinces themselves that drones and smart munitions can replace boots on the ground or that such a thing as "limited warfare" exists.
1) "limited warfare" most definitely exists and every war fought since WWII has proven it. There have been hundreds of wars in the last 75-80 years and not one of them has involved nukes or large scale release of WMDs.

2) We're great with drones and smart weapons and generally lose when we rely on boots on the ground. We had lots of boots in Korea and Vietnam and got our asses kicked. We rained death from above on Saddam with nary a scratch to US troops, but everywhere in the middle east where we're relying on boots we're spending lives for no gain. Occupying armies have failed through the entirety of human history.
 
Jun 19, 2004
24,055
1,491
126
1) "limited warfare" most definitely exists and every war fought since WWII has proven it. There have been hundreds of wars in the last 75-80 years and not one of them has involved nukes or large scale release of WMDs.

2) We're great with drones and smart weapons and generally lose when we rely on boots on the ground. We had lots of boots in Korea and Vietnam and got our asses kicked. We rained death from above on Saddam with nary a scratch to US troops, but everywhere in the middle east where we're relying on boots we're spending lives for no gain. Occupying armies have failed through the entirety of human history.
I don't believe you share the same history as everyone else. Open warfare does not include nukes or other weapons of mass destruction because it's suicidal on the face of it. Technology is a force multiplier not a force substitute. There were many boots on the ground against Saddam. What part of warfare don't you understand? Having boots on the ground is no guarantee of success however, relying on technology alone will guarantee failure.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY