Wearing of WW2 US helmet strap.

[blinky]

"The chin strap release accessory was developed in response to a report that came from the field in the spring of 1943. The report had stated that the blast of an exploding bomb or shell near the vicinity of a helmeted soldier would cause the M-1 helmet to capture the force of the blast, and in some instances this force was large enough to break the neck of the wearer. At the request of Army Ground Forces, a research project was undertaken to develop a new chin strap device which would be released by the force of such a blast. Numerous tests were begun on a model of a human head constructed of wood and rubber and mounted on springs.
"As a result of these extensive tests, which also included the use of slow motion pictures, a new chin strap release was designed and samples were made up for further testing. At the conclusion of these tests it was decided the chin strap release which would release at the force of fifteen pounds would be satisfactory. It was felt that this release would allow the helmet to come off when acted upon by a strong blast, but would also hold the helmet on during ordinary combat maneuvers."

From The M-1 Helmet by Mark Reynosa, pages 24-25.

eric

[101combatvet]

So you really believe that if these two Para’s were not wearing chinstraps they would have survived that explosion?

JL,
Two Para's at Arnhem had their heads above a slit trench when a shell exploded nearby, ... both were decapitated by the concussion/shock wave .... I believe that no direct wounds were found.

Regards

Gary J.


"Finaly, I have heard of concussions knoking helmets off peoples heads before, without the person even being wounded."

JL

[/QUOTE]

[Gary Jucha]

British

Hello,
The para's were actually British para's who would have been wearing the standard British 1st pattern WW2 "Crap Hat" with leather chin strap.
... I was just quoting about the shock wave from a blast.

No doubt, with or without helmets, these chaps wouldn't have survived.

I see by your forum name your a 101st Vet. ... may I ask what time period did your serve, and did use use the M1 style helmet ?

Regards

Gary J.

So you really believe that if these two Para’s were not wearing chinstraps they would have survived that explosion?

[/quote]

[Jim McCauley]

For what it's worth. We were still wearing the M1 steel pot when I first joined the Army. (I still like it better than the kevlar.)

There is no way you could keep the helmet on your head when you needed to run, jump and roll without the chinstrap being fastened.

Best regards.

Jim

[101combatvet]

Hello,
The para's were actually British para's who would have been wearing the standard British 1st pattern WW2 "Crap Hat" with leather chin strap.
... I was just quoting about the shock wave from a blast.

No doubt, with or without helmets, these chaps wouldn't have survived.

I see by your forum name your a 101st Vet. ... may I ask what time period did your serve, and did use use the M1 style helmet ?

Regards

Gary J.

[/QUOTE]

I served from Oct 1975 to April 2007.... and yes I wore the steel pot. I have also seen on several occasions what the blast of an explosion has done to a human body (actually over 100).... heads are not the only thing that rolls. My point being that most maybe not all but most blasts will kill you if the pressure is great enough to rip your helmet off your head. Again, Army tests at ARL and Natick Labs have proved that the best protection is a secure and proper fitted helmet.

[kfields]

I also wore the M1 when I was in the service 75-78 with the 1st Division.
Running or jumping, in and out of helicopters, river crossings, anything like that where there was the potential for lots of movement, we wore the helmet straps fastened under the chin as you were definitely in danger of losing your helmet. Otherwise we generally wore it fastened back riding in personnel carriers, road marches, patrols, foxhole or guard duty.
That said and for whatever reason, my buddies and I have our straps hanging down in the photo below taken in 1975! Kim

[blinky]

All of that proves the point...during WWII they discovered there were problems with the original chin straps (real or perceived). These problems were first recognized during WWI, you find several M1917 helmets with the chin straps cut almost in half by the soldiers in order to break more easily from the effects of concussion. The Army realized these problems and developed the T-1 connector. With the introduction of the T-1 it WAS safer to wear the helmet with the chin strap connected at all times but this wasn't really introduced until the end of the war.
The next pattern chinstrap employed snaps rather than a clip that also released at much less pressure than the original hooks....also for what the army must have seen as being a good reason.

eric

[Jean-Loup]

" Again, Army tests at ARL and Natick Labs have proved that the best protection is a secure and proper fitted helmet."

You are forgetting that it is probably those very same labs that issued the orders NOT to wear the chinstrap with the WW2 model M1 because of the risk of neck wounds. What these same labs have to say about latter models of helmets or different battle conditions is irrelevant.

The doctors in the field probably noticed several cases of severe injury to the neck on soldiers who would otherwise have survived, or been less severely injured; and so a new chinstrap was develloped.

JL

[pbuchh7715]

Just for a point of interest:

Current doctrine (or 670-1) requires Soldiers to have their chinstraps fastened (at least on the Army side) when wearing the PASGT helmet.

Personally (and most of my Soldiers would agree), whenever I can get away with NOT wearing my chinstrap fastened, I do. It gets pretty uncomfortable, especially after a fresh shave. While not the best practice, I'm guilty of it

Pete

[101combatvet]

" Again, Army tests at ARL and Natick Labs have proved that the best protection is a secure and proper fitted helmet."

You are forgetting that it is probably those very same labs that issued the orders NOT to wear the chinstrap with the WW2 model M1 because of the risk of neck wounds. What these same labs have to say about latter models of helmets or different battle conditions is irrelevant.

The doctors in the field probably noticed several cases of severe injury to the neck on soldiers who would otherwise have survived, or been less severely injured; and so a new chinstrap was develloped.

JL

Assuming a lot of "probably".... technology is more irrelevant today then it was 60 years ago.... its guys like you who perpetuate misconceptions based on "probably".

[blinky]

It was the "ancestors" of these labs that recognized a problem with the original chin strap connection and worked to correct it......no probably about it, no perpetuatal misconceptions.

[Jean-Loup]

"its guys like you who perpetuate misconceptions based on "probably"."

Since all of us here exept you seem to be victims of a misconception, can you please explain to us why the ball chinstrap was develloped so rapidly after the M1 helmet was invented? Can you give us a reliable source of information either then your own claim, that explains why the neck injury theory is barracks BS? Are all those books written about M1 helmets also just perpetuating barracks BS and misconceptions?

JL

[Jean-Loup]

Here is an interesting source of misconceptions and barracks BS: "Demining research at the university of Western Australia". http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demin...t-support.html

Deminers no longer use the helmet chin strap since the visors are fastened down (an adjustment made following some deminers being injured as a result of keeping their visors half or fully up). The chin strap might cause a broken neck if a blast wave catches the visor and pushes the helmet off the head.<o =""></o>
Deminers can, therefore, easily lose their helmet which would be a great inconvenience if the helmet falls off on, say, a steep mountain path. Potentially the helmet may roll down into a minefield.<o =""></o>
The strap consists of a length of elastic "bungee" cord secured to the deminers belt in the middle of the back. It can also be secured to the helmet support harness. With suitable adjustment, it can also help prevent the helmet falling off the deminer's head forwards (perhaps onto a mine) during prodding.<o =""></o>

[Jean-Loup]

More misconceptions I suspect: http://www.combatreform2.com/chinstrap.htm


Ask the Australian Airborne, which uses the Kevlar(r) helmets with the Fastex chinstrap. Australian SAS members now in the desert report to us that these helmet's buckles will give way in the event of a nearby explosion, saving injuries from necks being snapped.


During the course of the North African campaigns in 1943, the rigid hook fastener of the chinstrap was found to be a source of potential danger by remaining intact under the impact of a blast wave resulting from a nearby detonation and thereby jerking the head sharply and violently with the production of fractures or dislocations of the cervical vertebras. Therefore, it was necessary to redesign the helmet strap with a ball-and-clevis release so that it would remain closed during normal combat activities but would allow for. a quick voluntary release or automatic release at pressures considerably below the accepted level of danger. Following extensive tests by ordnance engineers, a new release device was developed which would release at a pull of <st1:metricconverter productid="15 pounds" w:st="on">15 pounds</st1:metricconverter> or more. This device (fig. 308) was standardized in 1944<o =""></o>
<o =""></o>
The numerous casualty surveys conducted during the Korean War provide more accurate anatomic localization of wounds in the head region covered by the helmet as related to the total head, face, and neck region, but again it was not always possible accurately to determine whether the man was wearing a helmet at the time of wounding. One survey was conducted by Capt. George B. Coe, Cm1C, in an attempt to determine more accurately the relationship between incidence of head wounds and the wearing of the helmet. One interesting observation was related where men wearing the helmet would assume a prone position to escape missiles from a mortar or an artillery shell and upon striking the ground the helmet would be released from the head and they would sustain a head wound from a second group of shells detonating in the same area.<o =""></o>

[101combatvet]

"its guys like you who perpetuate misconceptions based on "probably"."

Since all of us here exept you seem to be victims of a misconception, can you please explain to us why the ball chinstrap was develloped so rapidly after the M1 helmet was invented? Can you give us a reliable source of information either then your own claim, that explains why the neck injury theory is barracks BS? Are all those books written about M1 helmets also just perpetuating barracks BS and misconceptions?

JL

Here's a test for you or anyone who thinks otherwise. Place an M1 helmet on your head with the ball chinstrap and have someone hit the helmet off your head with a baseball bat. If your theory is correct then you shouldn't have a neck injury.... right? I can guarantee that before the ball chinstrap breaks free.... you will be going to the emergency room for a neck brace.