|
|
Plankowner
Posts: 9164
Location: Upper lefthand corner of the map. | Subject: The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a28088179/army-helmet/
Although soldiers have been wearing head protection since at least the 26th century BCE, the modern military helmet is a fully 20th century invention.
And it's been a rapid evolution. Growing from its WWI origins, the standard issue Army helmet has transformed from a simple ‘tin hat’ into an impenetrable shell that can shrug off high-velocity bullets. What was once a simple piece of steel is now fabricated from space-age composites that can stop a AK47 round dead in its tracks.
Now, more than a century after the first U.S. Army helmet was introduced, the Army’s Program Executive Office for Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment is reimagining the helmet into a piece of gear more fitting today's battlefield.
This is the 100-year journey of the U.S. Army helmet. Follow link!
|
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1576
Location: Wollongong, NSW | Subject: RE: The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
Can't watch/read the story. am not a member of Popular Mechanics.
26th Century - we're waiting patiently. |
|
| |
|
Plankowner
Posts: 9164
Location: Upper lefthand corner of the map. | Subject: RE: The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
Neither am I. Wonder how I was able to read it?
Sorry about that. |
|
| |
|
Historian
Posts: 190
| Subject: RE: The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
Interesting to note re: Introduction of helmets.
The British introduced the helmet for the infantry soldier in WW1. But after the helmet was issued and used they found that there were more head wounds than before the helmet was used. The reason is kind of interesting and illuminates how misleading some facts may be.
So, for homework What was the reason that there were more head wounds after the helmet was used than before?
|
|
| |
|
Plankowner
Posts: 9164
Location: Upper lefthand corner of the map. | Subject: RE: The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
People wouldn't duck and cover? |
|
| |
|
Historian
Posts: 190
| Subject: RE: The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
First reaction-- people thought the soldiers weren't taking cover because they felt the helmet would be more protection than it actually was. However, interviews with the soldiers with head wounds found this was not the case. They were taking cover as before the helmet's introductiion. The answer was actually simpler. |
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1796
Location: Albany, GA. | Subject: RE: The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
Bigger target, especially for shrapnel. They were made of tin and only added to the shrapnel??? |
|
| |
|
COMSUBBBS
Posts: 3667
Location: Kansas City Missouri | Subject: RE: The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
Might be a lot harder to be interviewed and report a head wound iffin yer dead. |
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1576
Location: Wollongong, NSW | Subject: RE: The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
A hit on the helmet could cause severe brain and spinal injuries from the shock of a glancing blow - reason US soldiers in WWII undid their chin straps when they got to the front lines. Helmets could then be 'shot off' without causing severe injuries. |
|
| |
|
Historian
Posts: 190
| Subject: RE: The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
Gary was pretty close. The British army kept statistics which listed the part of the body wounded and the type of wound (Shrapnel, burn, bullet, cutting [bayonet] etc). Wounds that were immediately fatal were not counted in the wound count. After the introduction of the helmet, fewer head wounds were immediately fatal thus they showed up in the wound count. It took a little bit for the statistical evidence to be sorted out. Rover is quite right about the shock injuries. The helmet tended to transmit concussive shock to neck and spine. I don't know whether present day helmets have gotten that straightened out yet. One other reason for the loosening and/or unfastening of the chin strap was so the helmet in close quarter (hand to hand) combat could not be forced upward and back by an adversary thus choking the wearer.
As an aside about the use of weapons. This was a story out of WWII. During basic training in the use of the bayonet the instructor said that if the rifle borne bayonet got stuck in bone while thrusting the soldier was to 'simply fire a round which would dislodge the bayonet'. A voice from the attendees said in a slow southern drawl. "If'n I got a round in my weapon there ain't gonna be no bayonet fight." |
|
| |
|
Historian
Posts: 190
| Subject: RE: The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
I may not have explained the statistical anomaly clearly. After the introduction of the British Army's helmet, the number of not fatal head wounds rose dramatically. This was because without the helmet those wounds would have, for the most part, been fatal thus not counted in the 'wounded' category. These would have simply been listed as 'dead'. Suddenly there were head wounds for which the soldier survived (at least for transport to the rear area hospital). |
|
| |
The Century-Long Evolution of the U.S. Army Helmet
