WW1 Helmet Outperforms Modern Designs

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
This is fascinating, testing on WW1 Helmets have shown they are equal to outperform modern designs in the prevention of traumatic brain injuries from blast shockwaves. The most surprising being the Adrian, which outperformed its contemporaries and modern designs from direct overhead blasts.

 
This is fascinating, testing on WW1 Helmets have shown they are equal to outperform modern designs in the prevention of traumatic brain injuries from blast shockwaves. The most surprising being the Adrian, which outperformed its contemporaries and modern designs from direct overhead blasts.

No mention of weight though?
 
This is fascinating, testing on WW1 Helmets have shown they are equal to outperform modern designs in the prevention of traumatic brain injuries from blast shockwaves. The most surprising being the Adrian, which outperformed its contemporaries and modern designs from direct overhead blasts.

As always, the devil is in the detail. From the article:
"It also might be that, because the pressure sensor was mounted directly under the crest, the crest provided an additional first layer for reflecting the shock wave. And the French helmet did not show the same advantage in pressure sensors at any other location. For locations such as the ears, performance seemed to be dictated by the width of the helmet’s brim and just how much of the head it actually covered."

Interesting research and a clever idea but I'm not sure how much it would directly translate into trauma and injury.

Edit - having just had a very quick skimread through the paper from rampant's link below it looks like they have put some thought into how pressure results would translate to injury.
 
Last edited:

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
No mention of weight though?
Haven't sat down to read the paper yet

But it's here for anyone else who's interested

 
This is fascinating, testing on WW1 Helmets have shown they are equal to outperform modern designs in the prevention of traumatic brain injuries from blast shockwaves. The most surprising being the Adrian, which outperformed its contemporaries and modern designs from direct overhead blasts.

It doesn't surprise me - perhaps because of my ignorance rather than knowledge of such things - To me it was expected that all would be similar - Military helmets not being crash helmets.

As I say here I may have reached the right conclusion despite using flawed science (but that's how the British army eliminated typhoid - belief was it was bad air - so ruled that the cook house x far from latrines so the bad air didn't get to the food - It worked because by necessity the cooks were by the river and so the latrines weren't hence clean water no typhoid - right answer wrong process
 
Iirc, the Adrian was mild steel, the Brodie was a stronger manganese steel ( the US increased the proportion of manganese is comparison with the UK ) and the Stalhelm was nickel steel which required heated dies as opposed the the Brodie which could be cold pressed.
 
I thought Ww1 helmets were designed to prevent injury from airburst shrapnel, not blast. You can survive a burst eardrum, but having half your swede carved away is a bit more terminal.
Modern helmets are designed to give good, all- round protection against shrapnel and SAA, so comparing the two types, in regard to blast only, is somewhat pointless.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I thought Ww1 helmets were designed to prevent injury from airburst shrapnel, not blast. You can survive a burst eardrum, but having half your swede carved away is a bit more terminal.
Modern helmets are designed to give good, all- round protection against shrapnel and SAA, so comparing the two types, in regard to blast only, is somewhat pointless.
Not really, the comparision reveals something that hasn't really been considered in helmet design. Modern Helmets certainly give much better impact resitance against SAA and shrapnel than their WW1 counterparts but by accident of design the Adrian has proven better at blast wave attentuation.

The effect of the shock waves on the human brain has only really started to be understood in this area, what the tests reveal is that there is an extra component that helmet designers now have to take into greater consideration.
 
Surely the WW1 helmets, all being smooth and relatively simply-shaped steel, are going to be more aerodynamic than modern cloth-covered, matt and contoured plastic composites? The overhead blast test throws up this apparently interesting comparison but I wonder if it’s so one-dimensional that a Medieval battle helm or a 5th Century BC Greek Corinthian helmet might do just as well?
 
Surely the WW1 helmets, all being smooth and relatively simply-shaped steel, are going to be more aerodynamic than modern cloth-covered, matt and contoured plastic composites? The overhead blast test throws up this apparently interesting comparison but I wonder if it’s so one-dimensional that a Medieval battle helm or a 5th Century BC Greek Corinthian helmet might do just as well?
Or even Cromwellian lobster pot helmet.
 
Or even Cromwellian lobster pot helmet.
I did think of those but I thought that an overhead blast might turn the components of the lobster tail into shrapnel. I think the ideal shape for this test would be as close to the nosecone of a rocket as possible- perhaps like a Medieval Nasal helmet:-
EB34D8A0-3F88-46C9-9355-500FA4A495A4.jpeg
 

UKTAP

LE
Apparently WW1 helmets keep the rain off better than contemporary helmets.

Which is about the level of scientific rigour applied here.

Blast protection is one of many, many things a helmet is designed to do. And they didn't even do a good job of checking that...
 

Latest Threads

Top