"Why Was The Mantlet Not Reintroduced In 20th Century?" Topic

This may be a really, really stupid question …

But why didn't troops in, say, WWII come out of landing craft and other vehicles with some sort of "mantlet" or shield that would afford some protection until they established themselves on the ground?

Perhaps something like this, but reinforced against firearms like the front of a landing craft:

Three or four put together would have created an instant, albeit temporary, bunker until they dug in and sand-bagged properly, right?

Thanks,

Dan

My guess is that it's too heavy. So to make it practical, you'd need to put an engine on it. Since you have an engine on it, might as well put some guns on it too. Oops, just reinvented the tank… :)

Damon.

Yes – trying to push a wheeled anything up the sand is an exercise in futility.

But couldn't some sort of shield have been rolled or pushed a short distance (even if just a few feet) after coming out of the landing craft?

It would be temporary, of course, and not meant to be a vehicle itself.

Dan
PS. Tim, check out the one on the right in this illustration:
link

I think they tried similar things in the trenches of WWI but they have to be pretty heavy to stop a rifle or machine gun bullet. I guess in WWI they were resigned to not moving very far at the best of times.

Why not just follow a tank out of the landing craft?

In a way perhaps the early anti-tank guns eg 37mm were the equivalent. Often manhandled, had a shield, also a little canon that will perforate anything short of a mid-war medium tank.

Another possible descendant is the tankette – here's a very cute 2.5 ton one that the Soviets made but thought better of using…. link

"In a way perhaps the early anti-tank guns eg 37mm were the equivalent. Often manhandled, had a shield, also a little canon that will perforate anything short of a mid-war medium tank."

Excellent example!

* Shielded
* Wheeled
* Human powered
* Moved a short distance

Perhaps something like this but with wheels:

Even with wheels added, I wonder how heavy something like that would be.

Dan

For infantry, the best ways of protecting yourself are making intelligent use of the terrain, and suppressing the enemy's observation and fire. An unpowered shield such as is suggested here would prevent infantry making best use of terrain, providing cover (and only frontal cover at that) but not concealment, and taking up an awful lot of dead weight that would be better carried as ammunition. It does not make sense to sacrifice large parts of your two best protections in order to benefit from a poor third kind.

The nearest thing to this I can think of is the mobile pillboxes used by both sides on the Russian front; but those, of course, were used in static defensive roles.

All the best,

John.

Mobile pillboxes?

Never heard of those before. But, like you say, that would turn too much like a more permanent defensible position.

Dan

Yep … proper use of cover and concealment & suppressive fire … I agree JDS !!

It is reintroduced. It's called "Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé", or "Armoured Vanguard Vehicle", or any Panzergrenadier-carrier you might like.

Part of the problem is space. If you put things other than troops in a landing craft you need more landing crafts to carry the men displaced by the shields/mantlets. Too many landing crafts cause a log jam at the beach and also increase the number of targets for enemy artillery. Just a thought.

Excellent feedback, guys! Great points and very practical.

See! It was a stupid question after all.

Thanks again,

Dan

Mobile pillboxes?

They are called "tanks".

"German Mobile Steel Pillbox" from Intelligence Bulletin

Allied intelligence report on the German mobile machine-gun pillbox including Russian notes on attack methods, from the July 1944 issue of the Intelligence Bulletin.
[Editor's Note: The following article is wartime information on enemy equipment published for Allied soldiers. More accurate data on German weapons and equipment is available in postwar publications.]

GERMAN MOBILE STEEL PILLBOX

1. INTRODUCTION
In Italy the Germans have been using a mobile steel pillbox, nicknamed the "Armored Crab," which made its first appearance on the Russian front in 1943. This pillbox (see figure) is mounted in an inverted position on wheels, and usually is hauled by tractor to a designated site, where it is overturned into a prepared cavity. After this, the exposed upper half of the pillbox (which is non-rotating) is camouflaged with rocks, earth, or local vegetation.
The pillbox accommodates two men, and is armed an M.G. 42.
2. TABLE OF CHARACTERISTICS
The following characteristics of the German mobile steel pillbox are worth noting:
a. Dimensions
Overall height . . . . . . . . . . 6 ft 3 inOverall length. . . . . . . . . . 5 ft 10 inOverall width. . . . . . . . . . 5 ft 7 inInterior height. . . . . . . . . . 6 ft 1 inInterior length. . . . . . . . . . 5 ft 1/2 inInterior width. . . . . . . . . . 5 ft 3 inDoor. . . . . . . . . . 1 ft 11 in by 1 ft 11 inGun slit. . . . . . . . . . 3 in by 5 inVision slit (front). . . . . . . . . . 2 in by 5 inOpenings for periscopes. . . . . . . . . . 4 in diameterVentilation slit. . . . . . . . . . 8 1/4 in by 2 1/2 in
b. Armor
Front . . . . . . . . . . 7 1/2 inRear and sides. . . . . . . . . . 1 3/4 inTop. . . . . . . . . . 1 3/4 inDoor. . . . . . . . . . 1 in

German Mobile Steel Pillbox
3. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES
In the front of the pillbox, there is a small embrasure for the machine gun, with an observation peephole above. When necessary, these openings are covered outside by a heavy metal shield, which can be moved either to the right or left of the embrasure by means of a lever inside the pillbox. On top of the pillbox are two collapsible periscopes, also regulated from the interior. The entrance to the pillbox is a small door in the rear; this is locked from the inside by means of two brackets.
The machine gun is mounted on a single bracket mounting which allows a free horizontal traverse on a semicircular grooved slide. The field of fire is 60 degrees. Elevation and depression, which are limited, are accomplished by a small handle to the left of the machine gun.
Forward of the machine-gun trigger, there is a leather cover to channel off the gases from the gun and also to receive spent cartridges. Attached to the cover is a metal tube. In turn, this tube is connected to a metal box fastened to the floor. The gases are expelled by a small fan situated beside the metal box. The fan is operated by two small foot pedals, one on each side of the pillbox. Each pedal may be worked independently. Air is expelled through a slit above, and to the right of, the door. Fresh air enters through a vent in the ceiling.
Two folding seats are provided for the crew. There are two iron rungs which serve as steps to facilitate entering and leaving. Two leather straps are hung from the ceiling, near the periscope openings.
At the rear of the pillbox, and near the top, there are two holes into which steel bars may be inserted to lift the pillbox on and off its trailer. When these holes are not in use, they are closed by metal plugs.
Ammunition is stored on shelves below the machine gun, in the forward part of the pillbox. There are also two boxes for tools and spare parts for the gun. Space is provided for a field telephone.
4. HOW THE RUSSIANS COMBAT IT
The following is a paraphrase of a Red Army discussion of the best methods of combatting the German mobile steel pillbox:
Inasmuch as only a small portion of the pillbox may show above ground level, the installation may be somewhat difficult to detect. Thorough reconnaissance is necessary. The pillbox can best be detected by the outline of its embrasure, its periscopes, and its flue pipe, and by flash and powder smoke when the machine gun is fired.
Riflemen or mortar squads should demolish the periscopes, thus leaving the crew without means of observation, apart from the embrasure peephole. Rifle fire should be aimed at the embrasure. In a number of captured pillboxes, armor-piercing rifle bullets had made holes in the lower half (the walls of the base). Obviously, such fire is possible only if this portion has been uncovered by artillery or if it was not completely covered with earth when the pillbox was emplaced. Antitank guns should aim at the sides of the pillbox about 20 to 24 inches from the top, since the thickness of the armor there is only 1 inch. The most practical method of destroying these pillboxes is by point-blank fire from antitank or artillery guns. Since the field of fire is only 60 degrees, separate pillboxes may be destroyed by assault troops moving in on the vulnerable and unprotected sides and rear. As a rule, these pillboxes are used in groups, but, by neutralizing the supporting pillboxes, it is possible to isolate any particular one. When assault troops come up to these pillboxes, they should first clog the embrasure with earth and throw hand grenades at the trap door in the rear. If the crew refuses to surrender, the pillbox should be blown up. In attacks on these pillboxes, Molotov cocktails may be used against the periscope openings. If no explosives or gasoline bottles are available, stones or logs should be wedged against the door, to trap the occupants.

link

They make great arty targets.

It doesn't seem like a silly idea to me. As long as they could make something bullet proof, but still be reasonably portable.

I suspect whether it's silly or not depends upon whether you're part of the general staff or one of the grunts expected to take the beach.

Give each guy a shield and re-introduce Testudo drill?

The bullet proof police shield are really heavy. Imagine trying to run with a 50 pound shield. In the sand. Carrying a rifle. With artillery going off all around.

Not really practical.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek

bunkermeister.blogspot.com

A lot of the gun emplacements in Normandy were designed to offer enfilading fire, so the mantlets would be useful for the odd gun firing directly at the landing craft, but once the guys got on the beach they would be mowed down from fire coming left and right. Ten or so guys huddling behind their mantlet would be a perfect target for mortars …

A police riot shield is generally only taken on from the front and not with large calibre weapons. Throwing fruit at such a shield rarely ends well.

A mantlet is heavy and inherently cumbersome, just at the time when you want to go all squirrelly and small target or be nimble feets-do-yo-stuff.

A mantlet is therefore a flak magnet. In an amphibious landing it would be the tactical of requesting a bullet to be inserted here, please as you be landing with a snootful of equipment plus a big heavy object.

And considering how they were used, the most effective mobile pillbox in WW2 was the Tiger.

How about this:

So German captured Russian mobile pavisse.

First if you ever see pictures of many of the landings the landing craft dont always beach with the ramp dropped on solid ground. Films from say Normandy landings show the ramps coming down with a fair depth of water still left. Now your protection device becomes an impediment to getting out of the landing craft since impossible to move in the water and block the ramp.

Also such landing pictures show numerous beach obstacles, try maneuvering around those even if not under fire.

You also talk about temporary protection until established on the ground. However on a landing the intent is not to establish a position but to move rapidly inland off the beaches. Any devices encouraging troops to hunker down and not move quickly inland is counter productive.

I am reminded of the words of George A Taylor the commander of the 16th Regiment, 1st Infantry Divsion at Omaha:
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let's get the hell out of here."

Do not forget the sniper shields of WW 1.

A large one is shown here link
While a face mask version is link

I would think three main problems:

1) Speed of advance
2) Weight required to stop the kinetic energy of a bullet
3) High explosives – you would act as a mortar magnet

Bring on a personal force field I say.

The mantlet was not re-introduced in the 20th century because GW is very aggressive about IP rights.

Doesn't the Landing Vehicle Tank (LVT) fill much the same role? Armored (well the later ones were), drives up the beach and is big enough to hide behind.

I remember an old Military Modelling from the 1980's. It had an article on a bullet proof screen trialled by the British Army in the 1880's, I imagine a few Tommies in the Boer War wish they had introduced it!

Yes, that is one advantage of an LVT vs. LCM/LCVP … The LVT's ramp is in the rear … not in front like an LCM/LCVP, like we saw at Normandy … link link Of course, there is the G/W IP thing … Good one Floogle !!!

I can't recall the source where I saw the image, but the Russians had a small one man mantlet, mounted on short skis during the Finnish Winter War. Not sure whether it was very successful or not and obviously it would be easier to operate something on snow than through the surf on a beach.

Cheers,
Andy

When a .30cal rifle bullet can pierce 3/8" armor plate (if not 1/2")? A mantlet is too heavy to move.

The closest comparison would be the gun-shields on infantry guns, like the 37mm. Interestingly enough, the Marines added an irregular top edge when they extended the gun shield, to help conceal the location of the gun (the human eye is very good at shape-recognition, and a square shape does not belong in nature)

Interestingly enough, the Marines added an irregular top edge when they extended the gun shield, to help conceal the location of the gun

Like on the British 6pdr anti tank gun you mean? Which first saw action in May 1942 at Gazala.

What about the Macadam Shovel? does that qualify as a mantlet?

'but the Russians had a small one man mantlet, mounted on short skis during the Finnish Winter War' According to the accounts I have read they were awkward to use, gave no protection from any fire that wasn't from directly ahead and caused many soldiers to lose their aggression. Many of the Russian conscripts had little or no training such was the over confidence of the local party officials. There are accounts of men being press ganged from he streets of Leningrad. Finnish snipers found the men using them to be static targets.

After 9/11, I have seen Mantlets employed, which now have there top half made from Lexan or some other 'bullet resistance glass.' They are commonly used at static checkpoints in 'force protection' roles.

The gun shields on trucks and HMMWVs are 'a type' of mantlet. I think.

I think they were trying to get the men to LEAVE the beach, not find something to hide behind while they are shot at. Plus something that big would draw fire, much like a tank. Most of the infantry was spending that time trying to become very small, or find a hole in the beach, or trying to fit their whole body into their helmets.

Besides, the men were told that the navy and air forces would have suppressed all the enemy forces and they were just going to stroll up the beach and over the defenders. Having a big shield would have been counter to that information.

It had an article on a bullet proof screen trialled by the British Army in the 1880's, I imagine a few Tommies in the Boer War wish they had introduced it!

How many more wagons would they have needed to haul those screens with them on the campaign?

Interestingly enough, the Marines added an irregular top edge when they extended the gun shield, to help conceal the location of the gun (the human eye is very good at shape-recognition, and a square shape does not belong in nature)

IIRC the Swedish Bofors 37 mm anti-tank gun featured a wavy gun shield top edge already in the 1930's. However, Finnish lisence-built copies of the same gun featured a straight top edge.

Like on the British 6pdr anti tank gun you mean? Which first saw action in May 1942 at Gazala.

No, the USMC extended shield was much wavier. Photo from Iwo Jima:

"Soviet soldiers in trench with shields protecting from bullets and frags" Robert

link

Don't give them ideas or some poor grunt will have to hump one.

Lion – I suspect that an artisan with an oxyacetylene torch has been at that gun shield! It's cetainly very irregular in shape & it looks like some of the fittings on the rear of the shield have been modified too.