This had to hurt!

[CLENTER]

"had To Hurt"

My Grandfather Was In Ww1 And He Told Me Once They Would Go Out On The Battlefield And Pick Up Helmets And Sell Them On Leave In Paris For Booze Money. They Would Get Twice As Much For A German Helmet With Bullet Holes In Them So Thats What They Did And Used Them For Target Practice While Making Extra Money. I Have One Packed Away I Bought When I Was A Kid That Has About Everything Imagined That Could Happen To It. I Have A Little Hat Band On It That Says "**** Happens" It's Pretty Cool. Regards,chris

[Kevin Rakin]

I think that the VELOCITY of the impact caused the curling inside the helmet. You can't swing an axe that fast!

i agree with doug, a cut that clean would have to have been hit at great speed and force, it has to be a shell splinter. i don't believe an axe could do that without warping the helmet.

[Aave Johns]

There is an example like this at the Australian War Memorial, almost exactly the same and it is noted as schrapnel damage.
I have another theory, a German stumbled into an enemy trench by mistake and interrupted a Tommy trying to open his bully-beef tin. So incensed was the Tommy at being disturbed at tea time that he attacked the German with a tin opener and you can see the results for yourself... . About as sound as some of the other theories in this thread.

Regards;

Johnsy

[Hun Helmet]

It looks to me like something the size of a 20mm shell grazed the helmet and at an up ward angle as if the Soldat was manning a trench line on a ridge
. I would say this damage did not cause the soldier to die as the liner system raises the helmet above the head. He might have gotten a bloody scalp but probably only something that required a local medic to dress.

[Jean-Loup]

This is schrapnell damage for sure and there is nothing unusual about either the size, or the angle of penetration, as anybody who have looked around a battlefield a bit should know.
The part that sticks outwards instead of inwards is a bit odd, but several thingscan explain it.
All in all a very impressive and precious helmet.

[MikeP]

also remember, WW1 splinters were larger than modern or WW2 splinters.


Please explain that statement.

I have ducked everything from hand grenade to 240mm rocket shrapnel with a few unidentified ones thrown in for effect. Most chunks have a suface like sharp metal velcro-does a good job of ripping away gobs of flesh.

I don't think an ax made that hole.

[Jean-Loup]

The differences in the quality of steel and in the advances of knoleadge explain the difference between WW1 and WW2 schrpanel.
Here is an illustration of some schrpnel from WW2 and Lebanon (for the very small pieces).
As you can see, the size varies greatly.

JL

[regular122]

Jean-Loup,

Read Chris' thread above. This is not shrapnel. It is fragmentation and shell splinter. Common terminology mistake. Shrapnel is little round balls in a cannister that fly in all directions. HE rounds splinter and throw fragmentation like the impressive chunks you have in your pic. Your point is well taken about these chunks and their effect, but the terminology for these should be fragmentation. Steve

[Jean-Loup]

"Actually, traditional WW1 schrapnell were air bursts with shells loaded with steel or lead balls... and were from above. Explosive shells with splinters were not considered to be schrapnell and were a different thing altogether."

As Chris said, the term "schrapnel" being reserved for lead balls is old, and dates from WW1. In WW2 and nowadays, any type of shell, grenade or bomb splinter is called schrapnel, at least for the general public. Maybe in strict military terminology, calling a shell fragment "schrapnel" is still a mistake, but you get my point I think.

JL

[regular122]

I did get your point Jean-Loup as I think most do. And it is nice fragmentation. Steve

[Dave Alexander]

Techically "shrapnel" is spherical lead or iron balls within a casing. Deisgned by Lt. (later Major-General) Henry Shrapnel, in the late 1700's. It was adopted by the Royal Artillery in 1803. Has been in use ever since.

[ATK]

What makes you think:

a) That this damage was done during WWI?
b) That it was done in combat ?
c) That a person was wearing it when it happened?

[Jean-Loup]

I am almost certain this helmet was damaged on sept 11th in the World Trade Center when those explosive chages put there by the Mossad blew up. It was then sent out a window and picked up by Rudolph Juliany, who then sold it on ebay.

Or, there is always the remote possibility that it was damaged during WW1, like millions of other helmets where by the bilions and bilions of pieces of schrapnel that were flying around.

More seriously, the damage was done in WW1 because thats when "Dougs friends uncle" brought it back. It was most likely done in combat, because where esle do you have explosions going on? No one said someone was wearing it at the time, it may have just being lying abandoned on the grounds, with mounds of other equipment.

JL