WW1 Helmets vs. Modern Helmets

Paintman

Go Go White Sox
Tier-1 Mod
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Messages
24,806
Reaction score
33,686
Points
203
Location
Chicagoland
“Shocking” Results When WWI Helmets Were Compared to Modern Military Designs
What the scientists are doing is measuring the amount of damage from a shock wave following an exploding shell. The shock wave is essentially pushing air around at a very rapid rate. So they devised the test to determine the amount of brain injury from the shockwave.
Click the above link to find out what happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozentity and Debi
“Shocking” Results When WWI Helmets Were Compared to Modern Military Designs
What the scientists are doing is measuring the amount of damage from a shock wave following an exploding shell. The shock wave is essentially pushing air around at a very rapid rate. So they devised the test to determine the amount of brain injury from the shockwave.
Click the above link to find out what happened.
This is very interesting. Though I'm somewhat puzzled at how the experiment was performed.

The article states that "The researchers took turns placing different helmets on a dummy’s head outfitted with pressure sensors at various locations. They then placed the head directly underneath a shock tube, which was pressurized with helium until a membrane wall burst, releasing the gas in a shock wave. The helmets were tested with shock waves of varying strength, each corresponding to a different type of German artillery shell exploding from a distance of one to five meters away."

One to five meters? I would think that even the smallest German WWI artillery shell (7.7 cm) would cause instant death if it exploded one meter over a soldier's head. I'm not sure about five. And that would be through just the shock wave alone, the blast and shrapnel notwithstanding. Some of the larger shells within that range would result in a soldier being effectively vaporized or grievously maimed. But it's all in the physics and given all the variables involved maybe there is a lot here I don't understand.

What I always thought was that in an explosion the shock wave precedes the blast and compresses the air though which it travels to a density greater than that of concrete and that this wave travels at supersonic speed. The shock wave always proceeds the actual chemical blast which typically results in burns. After that comes the puncturing and lacerating effects of the shrapnel. So imagine being clobbered over the head with a cinder block traveling at several thousand meters per second. The shock wave is also why people lose their fingers and hands when mishandling fireworks. There's no shrapnel and it's not the chemical blast. Or at least that's how I understand it.

But could that much energy be dissipated over such a short distance of one to five meters? If not, I don't understand how even the best designed helmet could offer much protection under realistic conditions.

But maybe there are different and less destructive ways of creating a similar shock wave that can then be measured in the lab. Someone with more knowledge in this area will have to explain this to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paintman
This is very interesting. Though I'm somewhat puzzled at how the experiment was performed.

The article states that "The researchers took turns placing different helmets on a dummy’s head outfitted with pressure sensors at various locations. They then placed the head directly underneath a shock tube, which was pressurized with helium until a membrane wall burst, releasing the gas in a shock wave. The helmets were tested with shock waves of varying strength, each corresponding to a different type of German artillery shell exploding from a distance of one to five meters away."

One to five meters? I would think that even the smallest German WWI artillery shell (7.7 cm) would cause instant death if it exploded one meter over a soldier's head. I'm not sure about five. And that would be through just the shock wave alone, the blast and shrapnel notwithstanding. Some of the larger shells within that range would result in a soldier being effectively vaporized or grievously maimed. But it's all in the physics and given all the variables involved maybe there is a lot here I don't understand.

What I always thought was that in an explosion the shock wave precedes the blast and compresses the air though which it travels to a density greater than that of concrete and that this wave travels at supersonic speed. The shock wave always proceeds the actual chemical blast which typically results in burns. After that comes the puncturing and lacerating effects of the shrapnel. So imagine being clobbered over the head with a cinder block traveling at several thousand meters per second. The shock wave is also why people lose their fingers and hands when mishandling fireworks. There's no shrapnel and it's not the chemical blast. Or at least that's how I understand it.

But could that much energy be dissipated over such a short distance of one to five meters? If not, I don't understand how even the best designed helmet could offer much protection under realistic conditions.

But maybe there are different and less destructive ways of creating a similar shock wave that can then be measured in the lab. Someone with more knowledge in this area will have to explain this to me.
Very good points but I still want a helmet if going into battle. Getting the best one may make a difference in the right circumstance.
 
Very good points but I still want a helmet if going into battle. Getting the best one may make a difference in the right circumstance.
Me too! And I wasn't suggesting otherwise. It's just the experiment that I'm not understanding.
 
This is very interesting. Though I'm somewhat puzzled at how the experiment was performed.

The article states that "The researchers took turns placing different helmets on a dummy’s head outfitted with pressure sensors at various locations. They then placed the head directly underneath a shock tube, which was pressurized with helium until a membrane wall burst, releasing the gas in a shock wave. The helmets were tested with shock waves of varying strength, each corresponding to a different type of German artillery shell exploding from a distance of one to five meters away."

One to five meters? I would think that even the smallest German WWI artillery shell (7.7 cm) would cause instant death if it exploded one meter over a soldier's head. I'm not sure about five. And that would be through just the shock wave alone, the blast and shrapnel notwithstanding. Some of the larger shells within that range would result in a soldier being effectively vaporized or grievously maimed. But it's all in the physics and given all the variables involved maybe there is a lot here I don't understand.

What I always thought was that in an explosion the shock wave precedes the blast and compresses the air though which it travels to a density greater than that of concrete and that this wave travels at supersonic speed. The shock wave always proceeds the actual chemical blast which typically results in burns. After that comes the puncturing and lacerating effects of the shrapnel. So imagine being clobbered over the head with a cinder block traveling at several thousand meters per second. The shock wave is also why people lose their fingers and hands when mishandling fireworks. There's no shrapnel and it's not the chemical blast. Or at least that's how I understand it.

But could that much energy be dissipated over such a short distance of one to five meters? If not, I don't understand how even the best designed helmet could offer much protection under realistic conditions.

But maybe there are different and less destructive ways of creating a similar shock wave that can then be measured in the lab. Someone with more knowledge in this area will have to explain this to me.

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.
 
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.

One of the ironies of military history is how closely the modern US helmets came to look like the German WW II helmets. If I recall, this was because of the superior protection that these helmets provided. As I understood it, It was a case where concern for the soldiers finally overcame the political obstacles of adopting your "enemy's" weapons and tactics even if they were superior to your own.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Paintman and Lynne
I always thought that the clam shell down the back of the neck was a good idea.
As a member of the hard hat set, I think about those things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lynne and Paulm
Lobster tail was the word I was looking for.:(
Bonhams_4215 (2).jpg
 
Lobster tail was the word I was looking for.:(
View attachment 22688

looks like a samurai helmet, usually the neck covers were for a time when swords were still widely used,. usually in metal or thick leather...the term "leather neck" for the marine corps comes from this, when they fought the barbary pirates way back when.....