I read somewhere that helmets are also worn unstrapped, or at least were back in Nam, because the pressure wave from a nearby explosion could blast away the helmet, and if it happened to be attached to the head…well you know.
The story seams a little shaky, does anyone know if it’s true?
Couldnt they integrate ceramic layer within the helmet?
Tell that to [http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12276106,00.html](this guy.)
Also, a little bit from a company that manufactures ceramic body armor.
More can be found www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/business/2002/04/14armorprotectsne.html+ceramic+body+armor+us+marines+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]here
Sounds like BS. If I come up behind you and yank your helmet real hard, do you think the strap or your head will break first? IMHO, any blast strong enough to blow your head off will blow it off with or without the helmet.
Just thought I should throw it out there that the ceramic plates make the armor heavier and bulkier. Like any body armor, you want a nice mix between mobility and protection. Sometimes your best protection is just being able to get out of the way.
Keep in mind that front line infantry ALREADY carry about 80 pounds of gear on their back. The additional weight and limited effectiveness of body armor is prohibitive.
I guess I should clarify, I don’t expect a nearby explosion to necessarily decapitate a soldier, but a broken neck doesn’t seem terribly unlikely, does it?
Seems to me that a helmet would increase the inertia of a head, and make it less likely to be blown around as hard in an explosion. Unless the direction of the explosion was from underneath, where it would provide more area to catch the blast wave. But since that is where your body is, your odds of survival aren’t all that high anyway.
The first time I was in Kuwait, we were issued flak jackets, but we never wore them. They seemed to weigh in at around 40 pounds or so, and had rigid plates of something. The bloody desert was quite hot enough without wearing armor to make it hotter ( did I mention I was there in July/ August?), and it seemed silly for maintenance people to be wearing flak jackets anyway. 
http://www.bulletproofme.com/ has tables of armor effectiveness.
From what I understand, the advantage of helmets is not in the hope that they’ll stop a round going straight for your forehead, but in the idea that they’ll stop shrapnel, ricochets, low velocity bullets, or bullets flying by that don’t hit nearly head on. The point of the helmet is to cause the object to skip off instead of penetrating.
Yeah - keep in mind, as counterintuitive as it might be - small arms fire accounts for roughly 15% of the casualties inflicted against enemy forces (on average). Artillery comes in at a whopping 70-75%, which is what a helmet is good for.
Yeah, lucky guy - still, my comment about Royal Marines’ ditching their helmets in the field comes straight from the horses mouth. But I think it is to an extent a macho thing as well.
My flat mate’s ex-army and has just informed me that UK infantry use two types of body armour.
One type is very protective and incredibly heavy and is used very seldomly, by mine sweepers and the like.
The other is the standard issue body armour and he was told by various people in the army that it’s there to keep your guts together when you get shot, no other reason.