I’ve seen pictures and videos of US combat troops not wearing a helmet. They just wear a regular type hat. Is there any reason for this other than just trying to carry less weight?
for example
http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20120929/mbadakhsh20120929105940063.jpg
They are usually light troops or scouts (special forces, etc) that do this, and yes, it’s to reduce weight (as well heat, since full load combat gear is heavy AND hot) and better protection from the sun. The ones I know of are called boonie hats.
According to wiki the boonie hat (the type those fellas have on) was introduced in Vietnam for camouflage and comfort reasons, as well as weight.
Ninja’d!
Look at the picture. By the men’s knees are the helmets.
A lot of troops don’t like wearing helmets in combat. They are not brain surgeons.
Helmets are uncomfortable; they are heavy and hot. Grunts often don’t wear them unless combat is considered a definite possibilty.
I knew a guy who was in Vietnam and things were going ok in his unit until they got a new Lieutenant who insisted they wear helmets. That was somewhat unpopular, but not as unpopular as when he decided they should start wearing small lights on their helmets so they could see each other at night. I always take “fragging” stories with a grain of salt, but supposedly that Lieutenant had an accident that solved their helmet problems.
And as a result of budget cutbacks, those eleven guys have to share two helmets. 
That photo looks like it was taken “inside the wire”. I am confident that when they go out, they are buttoned up better.
They are wearing boonies for the picture, that’s it. They will put on their helmets right after.
Yes helmets are heavy and hot and nobody likes wearing them. But that is not an option. Soldiers can’t even ride inside vehicles without wearing a helmet, let alone go into combat without it. Doesnt matter if its a walk through a permissive village with no chance of a firefight, the helmet will be worn.
I saw a soldier relieved of duty for not wearing eye protection (sun glasses). Imagine if someone didnt wear a helmet. Its not taken lightly.
I’ve got no idea – but of course you wear a helmet inside a vehicle, not outside. The hazards are different.
Helmets were mostly decorative, and to keep the rain off, until the WWI. In WWI, most of the casualties were by shelling, and the helmet offered critical protection. In WWII, I assume that there were a lot of casualties from bombing and shelling, and the helmet offered critical protection.
Have they got bullet-proof helmets now? Because in WWI and WWII, helmets didn’t offer any protection against getting shot.
The web gear I was issued had straps in the back designed to hold a helmet. Useful for extended marches, especially in the Middle East.
Armoured knights would probably disagree with you.
This guy in particular.
[Enemy at the Gates]The one with the helmet charges ! The one without follows him somewhat more carefully ! When the first one gets shot, the second one picks up the helmet and keeps advancing ! The one with the helmet… [/EatG]
[QUOTE=Melbourne]
Have they got bullet-proof helmets now? Because in WWI and WWII, helmets didn’t offer any protection against getting shot.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. Helmets are still about shrapnel, loose earth & masonry, glancing shots, the occasional bits and pieces of your fellow man… Getting shot in the helmet dead on is still pretty much a closed casket proposition.
The helmet has two parts: the shell (the heavy metal outer piece) and the helmet liner (made of plastic and contains the suspension). You can wear the liner alone, but it will only protect to the extent that a hardhat will. It always makes me roll my eyes when I see combat troops in a movie wearing just the liner, and trying to pass it off as a full helmet.
In what movies have you seen this?
If it’s from movies about recent conflicts, perhaps this is something which is actually done in the US military given that the main reason troops use helmets is the same that construction workers and people who practice dangerous sports do. Special forces commonly wear something that resembles a hockey/skateboard helmet and they’ve been doing that since at least 1993.
What different special operations outfits wear isn’t really a good representation of the norm, but yeah they have worn smaller helmets and often lighter body armor as well (often with no ceramic plate.)
Depending on what they’re doing in country the needs of a unconventional force will be far different than a typical infantryman. Not to denigrate the special operations guys but often times they have things easier than a grunt. Infantrymen are often tasked with forward force projection, basically moving around in, patrolling, and in essence “occupying territory” in places that may have enemy forces at any turn, hidden in holes in the ground, on rooftops or etc. They need heavy protective equipment because they could be shot at pretty much at any time.
Some special operations units largely spend most of their time on base in between missions, where they are sent out to do things like (admittedly quite dangerous) high value target raids into a building, rescue operations, or etc. These are different than a grunt being on patrol in that they know they’re going to engage the enemy, but they also know they’re going to engage the enemy at relatively close range and in a scenario where they need to be fast and deadly. Heavier protective gear just weighs them down, they are trained to go in and have everyone dead quickly enough they likely won’t need it anyway. Whereas a grunt is basically, by design, a big moving target for anyone in country that dislikes our military being there.
Sure.
I should have made my point explicit and said that gear and methods that are first experimented with by special forces have a way of trickling down into conventional forces. Perhaps helmets optimized for weight and ventilation rather than ballistic protection is the latest manifestation of that.
Ha! I wish!!
