WW1 Helmets vs. Modern Helmets

[TexDanm]

The thing is WW1 was trench warfare and that isn't how wars are fought now. We also don't stand in lines and march into battle either. The uniforms and personal armor and weaponry reflect, mostly, the needs of the last war.

 

[Paulm]

It would interesting to see the performance specification and verification matrix for US Army helmets. That spec would tells us what shock wave levels, if any, the helmet if required to withstand, and exactly what testing is done to show the requirement is met. To the best of my recollection, there was no such requirement/testing for USAF aircrew flight helmets.

that would be interesting to see. the kevlar helmet for most troops is mainly designed for shock wave / concussion blasts, they aren't really designed to be bullet proof, actually, anything over 9 mm will penetrate them. they were made to be lighter than the old steel helmets of the past.... Kevlar was made to take the place of the old flack jackets and steel helmets to cut down on weight. the s.o.p for a soldiers weight to carry was somewhere around 80 pounds, but in actuality a fully loaded grunt carries around 120 pounds when loaded out, so weight had to be cut from other areas., the helmet for specwar soldiers is only half the size of the standard issue Kevlar, more of a beany style with integrated comms. which around a year ago the army was looking to make those standard issue as well, but hasn't happened just yet.

 

[Paulm]

The thing is WW1 was trench warfare and that isn't how wars are fought now. We also don't stand in lines and march into battle either. The uniforms and personal armor and weaponry reflect, mostly, the needs of the last war.

trench warfare is still very effective and is still used to this day, in 1990 at ft. Irwin there was an exact replica of the iraqi trench systems built..satellite imaging was used for the dimensions, lengths, shapes, depths...etc, every soldier went through the desert warfare course there before being deployed for desert shield / storm.... ft Irwin is the national training center where all soldiers go before being sent to a hot zone, very vast and multiple training types there. in areas such as the deserts or arctic zones, trench systems are the best , least visible structures to have.

 

[Duke]

the kevlar helmet for most troops is mainly designed for shock wave / concussion blasts

That's a surprise, my understanding was the primary purpose of helmets and body armor was to protect the wearer from shrapnel and shell framents. I would be curious to see how the performance requirement specifically for shockwave/blast effect is expressed, would probably have to include magitude in force per unit area (like psi), onset rate, and duration.

 

[Paulm]

That's a surprise, my understanding was the primary purpose of helmets and body armor was to protect the wearer from shrapnel and shell framents. I would be curious to see how the performance requirement specifically for shockwave/blast effect is expressed, would probably have to include magitude in force per unit area (like psi), onset rate, and duration.

You would be correct there, I was including shrapnel with the 9 mm reference, just wasn't at all very clear with that...lol..

 

[TexDanm]

Trench warfare as practiced in WW1 will never happen again. If you gather up your troops in mass and put them in ditches that is where they will die. In WW1 the airplanes didn't have the sort of bombing capability that they had by the time we got into WW2. Then the "fronts" were much more fluid and the speed of the armor was so much faster than troops didn't have time to dig in to the level of WW1.

For another thing, the charges used in WW1 where the troops just climbed out of the trenches and charged the enemy line would be suicide now. Back then you were charging people with bolt action rifles and bayonets with a few placed heavy machineguns. Now every man has the ability to put a lot of lead in the air and light machineguns are more common and mobile.

The shelling in WW1 was not as dense as the carpet bombing that we do now. I hate to think of what something like the MOAB would have done to people in trenches. In the Middle East, there isn't even a front of any kind and the enemy has very little in the way of artillery that is surface to surface directed.

One of the problems that we are having there is that our troops are fighting in a desert with weapons designed for jungle warfare. The M-16 was pretty good for spraying bushes where you couldn't actually see your target clearly but is extremely lacking for shooting long distances in an open field of fire. The Marines have pulled the old m-14 out of retirement to give us a better weapon at long ranges. The 22 caliber round in the M-16 is ineffective after 300 yards against people in flack jackets while the 30 caliber AK-47 is still lethal. The government is talking about a new battle rifle. The M-16 never was a battle rifle it was and is an assault rifle primarily designed to create casualties rather than bodies.

 

[Debi]

OK boys! I'm gonna give this thread a ride out of Science and into the Open Lines for you all. Carry on.

 

[TexDanm]

Trench warfare as practiced in WW1 will never happen again. If you gather up your troops in mass and put them in ditches that is where they will die. In WW1 the airplanes didn't have the sort of bombing capability that they had by the time we got into WW2. Then the "fronts" were much more fluid and the speed of the armor was so much faster than troops didn't have time to dig in to the level of WW1.

For another thing, the charges used in WW1 where the troops just climbed out of the trenches and charged the enemy line would be suicide now. Back then you were charging people with bolt action rifles and bayonets with a few placed heavy machineguns. Now every man has the ability to put a lot of lead in the air and light machineguns are more common and mobile.

The shelling in WW1 was not as dense as the carpet bombing that we do now. I hate to think of what something like the MOAB would have done to people in trenches. In the Middle East, there isn't even a front of any kind and the enemy has very little in the way of artillery that is surface to surface directed.

One of the problems that we are having there is that our troops are fighting in a desert with weapons designed for jungle warfare. The M-16 was pretty good for spraying bushes where you couldn't actually see your target clearly but is extremely lacking for shooting long distances in an open field of fire. The Marines have pulled the old m-14 out of retirement to give us a better weapon at long ranges. The 22 caliber round in the M-16 is ineffective after 300 yards against people in flack jackets while the 30 caliber AK-47 is still lethal. The government is talking about a new battle rifle. The M-16 never was a battle rifle it was and is an assault rifle primarily designed to create casualties rather than bodies.

 

[Debi]

OK boys! I'm gonna give this thread a ride out of Science and into the Open Lines for you all. Carry on.

You guys are now in your new home position.

 

[TexDanm]

LOL, People of my generation were born in war and war has been an endless possibility for most of our life. I remember learning about and studying the wars of my Fathers and Forefathers' times. I like weapons and collect them. I sold guns as a licensed dealer and gunsmith mostly to allow me to play with all sorts of weapons. I see them a little differently than most. I am a machinist and have a fascination with all sorts of mechanical things. There are few things that people have put as much creativity into as our weapons and all things military.

When I was a kid my first fascination was watches and clocks. I used to clean and work on them for people. The inside of an 18 jeweled watch was a thing of amazing beauty. The many guns of John Browning had a similar elegance in function.