I was watching Band of Brothers last night, and thinking that English helmets looked like flying saucers and relatively non-protective due to their shape. American helmets look effective, but seem to wobble on the soldier’s head and would impair vision. German helmets looked more stable, but seemed like they would impair the soldier’s peripheral vision.
Which one was the most effective in combat?
You have to remember that British helmets were a hold-over from WW1, where the primary concern was shrapnel exploding overhead.
The most effective was likely the German helmet, since the US Army has adopted a kevlar model that greatly resembles it.
I am certainly no expert, but Soviet troop repeatedly commented on how light and cheap the German helmets were. Unless they were made out of Krell Metal, I would suppose this lessened their effectiveness.
FWIW, I have a relative who has a few WWII artifacts. One of them is a German helmet with a bullet hole right through it (one surface only – IIRC, behind the right ear). I suppose that given a heavy enough bullet, any of the WWII helmets would fail – right?
And I thought that helmet was plenty heavy; but then, I was a young kid at the time I held it.
The Pentagon spent a boatload of money to research a design to replace the WWII helmet. The design they came up with was almost identical to the German WWII helmet. I don’t know about materials but apparantly the design was superior to anything else out there.
Did the helmets really help? I mean, I can’t really see one stopping a bullet, unless it was going to be a glancing blow anyway. Dunno.
The answer to your question is in the second post of this very thread.
I’m pretty certain a round making a direct hit would punch through most of the WWII vintage helmets. But it’s at the margins where it counts. A glancing hit could either be fatal without a helmet or concussive with…which one would you like?
Helmets, like body armor, aren’t meant to defeat a direct hit by a rifle bullet. They are designed to protect the wearer from “incidental damage.” Grenade fragments, shrapnel, random crap kicked up by incoming rounds, etc. can wound very easily if you aren’t wearing protection, but are easily stopped by modern body armor.
The strength of the German helmet was simply that it protected a greater portion of the head, i.e., the ear and neck portion. Lay face-down on the ground and what’s most vulnerable is not the top of your head, but the back of it.
Modern body armour is meant to, and does very effectively, defeat direct hits from rifle bullets, sometimes suprisingly large ones.
About time the troops were wearing it then. The old-style flak jackets didn’t do squat about stopping aimed fire.
There was a shot in Saving Private Ryan, where a grunt gets hit in the helmet with a
glancing bullet, stops to take off the helmet to examine it, and another bullet hits him right
between the eyes…
Just an anecdote here, when I was a child, my paternal grandmother took me out to one of her storage sheds and showed me a complete (I recall) doughboy uni, with helmet. It disappeared, of course, but the toy she gave me that day, a handmade, handpainted doughboy machinegunner I still have. Sigh. 
No WWII helmet, US, British, German, Russian, Japanese or whatever, was designed or intended to defeat a square hit from a high velocity projectile. They all did a pretty good job of what they were intended to do: keeping low velocity missiles from penetrating the skull. The US helmet, because the suspension straps and headband were attached to the removable lightweight helmet liner, had the added advantage of allowing the steel shell to be used as a wash basin, grocery basket or, in times of dire need, a shovel.
Remember that US forces were still using the steel pot helmet through Vietnam and for some ten or fifteen years afterwards. What was learned in Vietnam was that the steel helmet would not stop an overhead burst of anti-personnel artillery fire – think a blizzard of double edged razor blades moving at about 2000 feet per second. I suspect that had a lot to do with the development of the present Kevlar helmet. Unfortunately the new helmet is a single use item. All it does is protect your head. You can’t shave or bathe out of it.
Shave? Bathe?
Rear echelon M. F.s – tell the Old Man we’re going to be late on account of a 300 mile detour. :rolleyes:
Why is it called a “flak jacket” anyway? The “Flak” wasn’t directed at infantry, was it?
Because it was originally developed and worn by an air force, specifically the RAF?
I remember reading about a test in the '80s when the old steel pot was being replaced by the Kevlar ‘Fritz’ helmet. A helmet of each type was shot with a .45 ACP and a 9mm Luger round. I do not remember the range. The 9mm went through both sides of the steel helmet. It stuck in the entry side of the Kevlar helmet but did not penetrate far enough to hit the skull were it being worn. The .45 caved in the steel helmet and bounced off of the Kevlar helmet.
Which is not to say that they were designed for such protection, nor were they designed to withstand a rifle round.