Wearing of WW2 US helmet strap.

[pbuchh7715]

Hmmm....interesting postings.....

The neck injury that everyone keeps referring to is caused by hyperflexion. I won't go into the actual textbook definition BUT in relating to the "baseball bat to the head" theory there is a critical difference between a compresive blow to the head (in this case) versus an impact force transferred through indirect contact to the head and neck, such as in the case of explosive concusion or a blow to the body such as in a contact sport. Of course you're going to get hurt: someone just cracked you in the head with a bat. It's really kind of a dumb argument. Its really no different then whn I asked one of my Soldiers to hit me with a golf club while wearing my fragmentation vest. Was I protected? Sure. Did I still get hurt? Of course; someone just wacked me with a 5 iron.

In 1997 the Transportation Committee in the California State Assembly produced a report that was derived from pro-helmet law organizations. In that report they reported that the number of accidents declined when the helmet law was introduced. They also reported that the number of cerebral spine injuries remained the same. When you put these numbers together, you see that the cerebral spine injury per accident rate increased when the helmet law was introduced. This is related to a non-breakaway chinstrap that DOT requires on these types of helmets. You can get this information at at: http://www.sen.ca.gov. Refer to the analysis for bill AB1412.

What does this have to do with the development of the T-1 chin strap? Not much, but it adds much more creedence the the fact that a chinstrap that does NOT break away HAS the potential to cause a neck and spine injury. Quite honestly, if I can walk away from it without spending the rest of my life drooling and crapping in a bag, I could care less about the where and why.

Does the Army develop dumb products? Of course! Ask any one of my Soldiers about the heavy-ass M998 doors that you couldn't open and brought vehicle temps through the roof. Does the Army waste money through research as asserted? Not if the end result is a better product that saves (or takes bad guy) lives.

Best,

pete

[NTZ]

I just read this post and could not even believe there was any debate here. Did soldiers wear their helmets without the chinstrap fastened in battle? Yes!!!!!!!! All you have to do is look at period photos or film footage. It was obviously a common occurrence. It seems more common than wearing them, at least from period pictures. Was it because of possible injury from a concussion? Well they invented the T-1 didn’t they? If there were no concern the T-1 would have never even been thought of.

Someone better tell these guys battling it out in the Normandy hedgerows to buckle up!

[Jean-Loup]

"So there's the challenge.... put up or shut-up."

101vet, your behaviour in this thread has been so childish, that I dont even know why I am answering. Well, now that you have regained control of yourself and apologised, maybe I shouldnt say anything... But you are the one who hasnt brought any info to this thread exept and vague and unfounded statement; so since you arent "puting up", maybe you should be the one shuting up. Some people are never wrong .

JL

[Jim McCauley]

I just read this post and could not even believe there was any debate here. Did soldiers wear their helmets without the chinstrap fastened in battle? Yes!!!!!!!!

Not to throw fuel on the fire but....who in this thread said that soldiers always had chinstraps fastened in battle? Or, always unfastened in battle?

I didn't read that.

Best regards.

Jim

[pfrost]

Interesting thread.

I know in football, most of the spine and neck injuries are "compression" type, where the head is forced sharply down. That is why many football players wear a thick padded collar around their neck.

Concussion injuries to the head are also common in sports (and bike riding, for example), but are due to the force of the blow being transmitted to the brain, which then gets squished around the skull and damaged. In case of a concussion injury, having a well fitted and secure helmet helps absorb the force of the blow.

If we apply physics to the question of the M1, first you would have to ask how force is transmitted to the helmet to cause a neck injury. For a shock wave from an explosion to lift up the helmet, the force would have to "catch" up under the helmet. Think of a parachut, the upwards force is due to the movement of air into the bell of the chute. The wider the opening, the more force is transmitted up. Now, imagine a head in the M1 helmet. The only way that a concussion shock wave to enter the bell of the MI would be through the small space between the head and the helmet rim (about 1/2 an inch perhaps?). You can imagine how much energy would have to be transmitted into this small space in order to rip the helmet up and away (and assuming the strap didn't break, injuring the neck). BUT, the force from an explosion would not be focused ONLY at that small space. In fact, the material between the helmet and the head (ie the soldiers skull!) would also be exposed to the huge shock wave force. So, it seems reasonable to assume that any force generated to rip off a helmet and cause neck damage will ALSO cause a signicant concussion force directly to the head. It also seems reasonable to me to think that if the force on the MI was enough to break your neck, the same force applied all over your face, would be enough to cause equal amout of damage by squishing your brain. And THAT damage would not be affected by whether your MI straps went ahead a popped off or not.

Of course, this is simply a "mind" experiment. I have no idea if any of this is valid or not, never having had my head hit with an explosion more forceful than a 250 lb pulling tackle running into me when I played varsity football in high school. I know it FELT like my head was comming off, but thankfully, it is still there, about 3 feet from my bum.

Someone should get an MI, a pumpkin, a scarecrow and some explosives and see what happens!

Patrick

[101combatvet]

"In order to estimate the number of casualties from any given explosion, it is necessary to make assumptions about the proportion of people who will be killed or injured at any given overpressure. The assumptions used in this chapter are shown in figure 1. They are relatively conservative. For example, weapons tests suggest that a typical residence will be collapsed by an overpressure of about 5-psi. People standing in such a residence have a 50-percent chance of being killed by an over-pressure of 3.5 psi, but people who are lying down at the moment the blast wave hits have a 50-percent chance of surviving a 7-psi over-pressure. The calculations used here assume a mean lethal overpressure of 5 to 6 psi for people in residences, meaning that more than half of those whose houses are blown down on top of them will nevertheless survive. Some studies use a simpler technique: they assume that the number of people who survive in areas receiving more than 5 psi equal the number of people killed in areas receiving less than 5 psi, and hence that fatalities are equal to the number of people inside a 5-psi ring."

Now the T-1 ball chinstrap was tested to release at 15 psi.... still believe in fairy tales?

[NTZ]

Not to throw fuel on the fire but....who in this thread said that soldiers always had chinstraps fastened in battle? Or, always unfastened in battle?

I didn't read that.

Best regards.

Jim

Well technically no one did but there were comments to the effect that you could not run or move quickly in battle without loosing the lid unless they were fastened. The insinuation was it was not practical. Period photos show un-strapped helmets in the heat of battle so the opposite is true. This brings everyone back to the initial argument. Why they did wear them un-strapped? Why would one keep his strap undone it battle since strapping the helmet would be the obvious choice if you wanted to make sure it stayed on? The reasons have already been sited and the result was the T-1.

[Jim McCauley]

Well technically no one did but there were comments to the effect that you could not run or move quickly in battle without loosing the lid unless they were fastened. The insinuation was it was not practical. Period photos show un-strapped helmets in the heat of battle so the opposite is true. This brings everyone back to the initial argument. Why they did wear them un-strapped? Why would one keep his strap undone it battle since strapping the helmet would be the obvious choice if you wanted to make sure it stayed on? The reasons have already been sited and the result was the T-1.

Scouts out!

[Harvey A]

These statistics refer to casulaties resulting from building collapse due to overpressure, they are typically cited when discussing the effects of static atmospheric overpressure generated by the detonation of a thermo-nuclear weapon. It's not the 3.5 PSI to 7 PSI overpressure that kills but the collapse of the building; the effects of which vary with the degree of overpressure and the posture of the occupants.

That the human body can survive 15 lbs of overpressure is easily seen in diving. Fresh water weighs 0.433 pounds per column foot. Therefore a diver need only descend to a depth of 34.64 feet to achive 15 psi overpressure. Some people dive deeper than that without any gear.

When I was in the 101st we wore the regular chinstraps fastened over the back of the steel pot, but we had an extra chinstrap, similar to those used on an M1-C para helmet that we wore fastened over our chin whenever we were maneuvering. The regular chinstrap, when fastened under your jaw, was very uncomfortable and looked really dorky. Interestingly, my first helmet, issued in the early 70s, was a fixed bale M1.

[MAS36]

When I was in the 101st we wore the regular chinstraps fastened over the back of the steel pot, but we had an extra chinstrap, similar to those used on an M1-C para helmet that we wore fastened over our chin whenever we were maneuvering. The regular chinstrap, when fastened under your jaw, was very uncomfortable and looked really dorky. Interestingly, my first helmet, issued in the early 70s, was a fixed bale M1.

did your helmet have the VN era clip on style chin strap or the original WWII era sewn on straps?

[Gary Jucha]

Point

Hello Jim,
.. What you have said is exactly the point of my original question.
.. Was it a "Hollywood" fashion to show the chinstraps over the peak of the helmet, ... or infact was this a recognised field practise.

.. Well, so far there has been a teriffic response, including personal experiences, photo's, .. and some heavyweight technical data !
ALL GOOD STUFF !!!!

Cheers to ALL ..

Gary J.

Not to throw fuel on the fire but....who in this thread said that soldiers always had chinstraps fastened in battle? Or, always unfastened in battle?

I didn't read that.

Best regards.

Jim

[Harvey A]

MAS36,

Believe it or not it was the sewn type on my first helmet. Subsequent helmets issued as part of my TA-50s were swivel bales with clip-on straps. We were also issued C-Rations with WWII dates on some of the cans. These rations included neat little 5-Packs of cigarettes, but I'm sure they were fresher than WWII (at least I hope they were).

Harvey

[Jim McCauley]

[Gary Jucha]

Vets !

A question for the Vets ….
Viewing the actual liner of the inner helmet, it has always seemed to me that the strapping which circles the crown of the head was too high to grip the head properly.
Also, the actual amount of adjustment associated with this strapping was very limited.

In your personal experience,
1) Did the helmet prove to be reasonably comfortable as helmets go ?
2) Did wearing the helmet prove awkward and cumbersome ?
3) Did you in anyway adapt , modify, or attempt to improve the stability of the helmet by other means ? .. ….. Ie. wearing a cap comforter or something similar to pad out the liner ?

Regards

Gary J.

[Jim McCauley]

A question for the Vets ….
Viewing the actual liner of the inner helmet, it has always seemed to me that the strapping which circles the crown of the head was too high to grip the head properly.
Also, the actual amount of adjustment associated with this strapping was very limited.

In your personal experience,
1) Did the helmet prove to be reasonably comfortable as helmets go ?
2) Did wearing the helmet prove awkward and cumbersome ?
3) Did you in anyway adapt , modify, or attempt to improve the stability of the helmet by other means ? .. ….. Ie. wearing a cap comforter or something similar to pad out the liner ?

Regards

Gary J.

Hello Gary,

I only wore the steel pot for three years before I went to a unit with the kevlar. I got to keep my steel pot.

In my opinion the steel pot is much more comfortable and has a lot more uses than the kevlar. (Seat, water basin and a cooking pot if you were so inclined.)

The kevlar is more awkward. I have trouble hearing clearly when wearing it.

Some people put a pad in the kevlar for comfort. I guess people did it in the steel pot also but I know I didn't.

I haven't had a chance to wear the new helmet yet. My unit is supposed to get them soon. Maybe it's better.

Mind you, I'm an Army Aviator. I try to avoid wearing the combat helmet as much as possible!

Best regards.

Jim