I just watched the beginning of Saving Private Ryan again, and noticed in the opening scenes on Omaha Beach that a bunch of soldiers were killed by bullets that punched neatly through their helmets.
I’m probably being naive here, but I’d have thought the helmets would have provided at least some protection. Was it the caliber of the ammo that made a difference in this case (I assume somewhat large, from the German machine guns on the beach)? Or were the helmets never really meant to protect soldiers from gunfire? And what about modern helmets?
The helmets were for protection against shrapnel. Not much an eight-inch of steel can do to stop a high-powered rifle bullet.
Modern Kevlar helmets are better. I remember reading in a magazine back in the '80s that a Kevlar helmet was shot with a .45 and a 9mm. The .45 bounced off and the 9mm stuck in the near side. But that’s not really what they’re designed for, and the won’t do much to stop a 5.56mm or 7.62mm round (which is less powerful than the 7.92mm rounds the Germans were using in WWII).
[quote]
III. General Knowledge:
Warriors have utilized metallic helmets and body armor since the ancient times of Greece to the days of the medieval knights for personal protection against arrows and blows from a sword. It was the invention of firearms and the rifled bore in the 16th Century that their use in combat became less due to the tremendous penetrating effects of the bullet. By the 19th Century they were no longer the norm in battles and were relegated to ceremonial functions in the world’s military organizations. At the outset of the First World War in the 20th Century the major powers involved namely: France, Germany and Great Britain started the war without any type of metallic helmet. The initial battle engagements in this conflict showed considerable casualties (30%) on infantry from head wounds caused by shrapnel and fragmentation brought about by the introduction of the air burst artillery shell. Faced with this dilemma, the military in its desire to lessen casualties reintroduced the helmet in modern warfare. Modern military helmets are still intended for protection against shrapnel and fragmentation and not against a rifle round. Though it is possible to manufacture a helmet of such - present technology is still not feasible to create one of practical use due to the considerable weight it adds to the infantryman.
As I understand it, armor in the post-gunpowder age has always been primarily intended to protect the soldier against shrapnel and debris, rather than bullets, since there’s a lot more of the former than the latter on a typical battlefield. Even at that, though, I would expect armor to provide some protection against glancing shots.
It is possible for a metal helmet to deflect a bullet that hits it at a sharp angle. But, as mentioned above, it is from schrapnel wounds that you get most of your protection.
I imagine a WWII era helmet would also protect against bullets that didn’t hit straight-on - bullets that might have caused a badly bleeding furrow in the side or top of your head. They might also be able to stop a bullet that was fired from extreme range and had lost a lot of it’s velocity.
Also helmet help in lots of other ways. The industrial accident things that soldiers are exposed to (low-order explosions, things dropping from heights, banging your head in a vehicle) are all mitigated by wearing a helmet.
Still, I miss the steel pot’s liner. The helmet could be used as a sink or toilet or whatever. Those days are gone.
Actually, there was the one dude who got hit in the head with a bullet which ricocheted off. He took off his helmet to look at it and then got his head blown up JFK style.
In this respect, it was notable that in the past, the crews of armored vehicles generally wore soft padded helmets of leather and foam, as in a tank, one’s overriding concern was not shrapnel from the air, but banging your head on hard metal bits in the tank.
You can tell by the design what the major threat was to a helmet-wearer. The WWI Tommy helmet was designed to give protection from shrapnel coming from above, as would be encountered in trench warfare. The Fritz model worn by US troops today reflects the change in approach, to protect the neck and sides of the head from incoming fragments.
were the helmets never really meant to protect soldiers from gunfire? And what about modern helmets?
[/QUOTE]
No, the WWII/Korean War/Viet Nam War helmets with liner were not designed to protect against gunfire but to protect against shrapnel.
Modern US military helmets made of Kevlar are designed to protect against gunfire and shrapnel and are much thicker than the old helmets. I have worn both. If you get the opportunity, see the 82nd Airborne Museum at Ft. Bragg North Carolina where you can see the ass end of a bullet stuck in the Kevlar helmet which saved the life of a soldier in Granada.
The Box O’ Truth tested a standard kevlar helmet against several kinds of ammunition. .22 LR, 9m, .45 & even .357 magnum rounds failed to penetrate the helmet. 7.62x25mm was the only handgun round that was able to penetrate. Both the rifles they tried (7.62x39mm & 5.56x45mm) went through both sides of the helmet.
Kevlar helmets are not designed to protect against rifle fire, the helmet quoted above at the 82nd Airborne Museum is a very rare exception. That’s why it’s on display in a museum. The helmets we wear now are actually a bit thinner and lighter, due to improvements and advancements in the use and application of kevlar.
Very informative, everyone - thanks! In googling around with the info provided above, it seems like the Marines have the best current option with their Lightweight Helmet, but the wiki article on it doesn’t say anything about being able to stop rifle rounds. And going off a bit on a tangent here, it seems that modern SWAT teams also aren’t any better protected from rifle fire, since they’re using the same kinds of helmets as the US Army. Interesting, and a little scary.
Throatwarbler Mangrove, have those soft helmets for use by men in tanks been replaced by a more standard helmet?
That’s true, but the ceramic plate inserts in your more upscale modern body armors are in fact designed to stop direct hits from rifles and light machine guns. However, since these plates are very thick and heavy, they only protect the vital organs, and only from the front and back. That’s one reason, for instance, the current conflict in Iraq has such a low KIA count, and a relatively high number of wounded.
The modern armor crewman is dashing in CVC (Crew, Vehicular, Communication?) helmet. It is like an aviator’s helmet in that is built around hearing protection, earphones and microphones. The exterior is some sort of fiberglas stuff. It will keep you from bonking your head, but that is about it.
Tankers use a special tank helmet, with no chin strap and built-in earphones and mic so they can communicated with their crewmates. It’s basically a subsystem of the tank; they also keep regular infantrty helmets in storage, in case they have to leg it.
Well, that picture is of Russian troops currently in Georgia, so no, not in this instance. Western crewmen’s helmets, as the others have said, look somewhat different because of the fibreglass outer shell, but are more or less the same deal. I used the Russian picture because the Russian version better shows the actual composition (soft foam) than the western type.
