Metallurgical and ballistic Investigation of german helmets 28/06/1944

[Martin E]

The possiblity did exist that the Germans could have conquered the world, no doubt about that. I am glad they didn't, but the possibility did exist. Not winning the hearts and minds of the eastern people and not attacking Russia at their weakest point is what cost the Germans the war, not their lack of technology. The Germans lost the war by attacking unrelentlessly on the eastern front.The allies landing in Normandie only spead up the process, the war for the Germans was already over at that point. I hardly think one can compare German technology at that point in time with a Sherman tank. I would take the M35 into battle vs. the M1 helmet.

martin

[MauserKar98k]

I would take the M35 into battle vs. the M1 helmet.

So would I. It may sound a little odd, but it is partly because the German lids are much more comfortable to wear and use for long periods of time. It has nothing to do with ballistics, but if I had to wear a helmet until it practically became an extension of my body, it would be a German lid. The German lids have very good ventilation. M1s get hot as hell.

The only thing that I don't like about German lids is that, when worn correctly (the visor even with your eyebrows) there is not much room between the top of your head and the top of the inside of the shell. If you were to get hit square on the top of your head by a rifle butt or something like that, there isn't much to prevent the helmet from coming crashing down right on the crown of your head with the same force as the object hitting it. Ouch.

Since we're talking about ballisics of German helmets, has anyone seen the video clip of a GI firing 2 shots with a Colt M1911 at a dummy wearing a German lid and uniform? It was used in an episode of "Tales of the Gun" on the History Channel. I don't know the range at which the shots were fired, but the helmet withstood both of the .45 ACP rounds without cracking or holeing.

[WalterB]

Facts? Fact #1, the M-1 has a fiber liner and the Stahlhelm does not. Fact #2, the Stahlhelm fits closer to the head than the M-1 does. Fact #3, the M-1 dents without cracking. Fact #4, the Stahlhelm cracks. Fact #5 the Stahlhelm has really poor Quality Control on every aspect of it's production including the heat treatment which is critical to it's ability to stop shrapnel. There are some facts.

Look the Stahlhelm is sexy, no doubt about it, at all. But that is not the point. The point is to keep the wearer alive. That is why Quality Control is critical. The low importance placed on Human life by the TR is very evident here.

Let's see Robert:

As to your facts", lets see your "fact 1"...M-1 has a fiber liner. Yeah and??? I don't believe that the fiber liner offers any significant degree of protection. As I have said, you can shoot a hole through a fiber liner with a pellet gun. I could point out that the metal band that holds a German liner offers more protection than the fiber liner.

Your "fact 2"...M-35 fits closer to the head. Yes, that is as a result of the design and hardness of the steel. The M-35 shell is made of a harder steel than the M-1 shell. The steel of an M-1 helmet shell is softer, thus more suceptible to deforming characteristics when impacted (it is supposed to work this way). As a result, a shell such as the M-1 should, for maximum protection, be kept some distance away from the head (in order to allow room for such deformation). The M-35, on the other hand, has a stronger steel shell which will not lend itself to deformation, but rather, cracking. As a result, it is not necessary for such a shell to be kept some distance away from the head. Think of it as a having two philosophies or altenatives in helmet design : One is designed to deform along the impact, while the other is designed to resist it. Neither one is right or wrong, they just are two techniques.

Your "fact 3 and 4", about the M-35 cracking, sure that is true, but that is the result of the steel having a higher degree of hardness than the M-1 (read the report if you don't believe me).

Let's see what the report says, which was prepared on June 28, 1944 by the Watertown Arsenal Laboratory for the US Army. I cite in relevant part:

1. "[i]t is apparent that the German helmet offers superior protection to the projectiles used [in the ballistic testing] than does the M-1 helmet having approximately a 75 ft./sec. higher limit against caliber .45 ball projectiles, a 230 ft/sec. higher limit against the small fragment projectile, and a 25 ft./sec. higher limit against the large fragment projectile."

2. "Ballistic tests conducted upon German and American helmets with three different projectiles indicate that the German helmest offer from 8% to 25% superior protection. This superiority is traceable to the fact that the German helmets averaged 20% greater thickness in the ballistically tested zones than the M-1 helmet."

3. "The average M1 helmet suffers a 25-30% reduction in gage in the crown during the cold forming operation, whereas the four German helmets which were sectioned and measured showed a reduction of gage in the crown varying between 15 and 25%."

4. "Although the German helmet shells weigh on the average but one ounce more than the M1 helmet shells, they have, nevertheless, a wall thickness approximately 20% greater."

Based on the facts contained on the report, I don't think that the claim that wearer's of M-1 shells were less suceptible to injury than wearer's of M-35 shells is either accurate or convincing.

[Jean-Loup]

Well said Walter.
Robert, your statements are directly contradicting a period report of people who analysed both types of helmets with a critical eye...

One last thing, german helmets can also bend without cracking to a certain extent, and I have a helmet in my collection with a very large dent on the front that apparently saved its owner from being wounded. I have also seen german helmets shot with small caliber bullets that had huge deformations in them without having cracked...

JL

[Robert Donnell]

Ah yes compairing apples to apples.

Walter you bring up two relevant facts the first is your #1 resistance to .45 ACP 75 feet per second better. The typical factory load for the .45 ACP uses a 230 grain, FMJ bullet at muzzle velocity (in a 5" barrel) of 850 fps with 370 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy. So 75 out of 850 gives the 8% better figure. Which is about the same as an M-1. How realistic is that threat on a WWII battlefield? Fairly real.

The second is the 230 FPS better resistance to "small fragments" probably the 25% figure quoted. How real is that threat on a WWII battlefield? Actually smaller than you imagine as when stationary one would dig in and get some overhead protection thus you only risked artillery when in the open and on the move. Then the enemy has to have eyes on you to direct the fire to your location. So the chance of artillery, fair, times the chance of actually hitting you befor you can take cover low, thus the actual threat from artillery in WWII is very low.

So what is left? Rifle round to the head? Neither helmet is going to help.

How about protecting your head from hard blows? What is the likely hood? Well in combat very likely. Which helmet of the two has better suspention? The M-1.

So disreguard the stuff that does not happen then take out the places where neither helm will help and what you have left is the important areas. The biggest threat to a Soldier on a WWII battlefield is busting your head while scrambling for cover. Which is better?

The fact that the Stahlhelm 35 is marginally better in not too common situations misses the point.

[WalterB]

Walter you bring up two relevant facts the first is your #1 resistance to .45 ACP 75 feet per second better. The typical factory load for the .45 ACP uses a 230 grain, FMJ bullet at muzzle velocity (in a 5" barrel) of 850 fps with 370 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy. So 75 out of 850 gives the 8% better figure. Which is about the same as an M-1. How realistic is that threat on a WWII battlefield? Fairly real.

The second is the 230 FPS better resistance to "small fragments" probably the 25% figure quoted. How real is that threat on a WWII battlefield? Actually smaller than you imagine as when stationary one would dig in and get some overhead protection thus you only risked artillery when in the open and on the move. Then the enemy has to have eyes on you to direct the fire to your location. So the chance of artillery, fair, times the chance of actually hitting you befor you can take cover low, thus the actual threat from artillery in WWII is very low.

So what is left? Rifle round to the head? Neither helmet is going to help.

How about protecting your head from hard blows? What is the likely hood? Well in combat very likely. Which helmet of the two has better suspention? The M-1.

So disreguard the stuff that does not happen then take out the places where neither helm will help and what you have left is the important areas. The biggest threat to a Soldier on a WWII battlefield is busting your head while scrambling for cover. Which is better?

The fact that the Stahlhelm 35 is marginally better in not too common situations misses the point.

From 8% better to up to 25% better than the M-1. That doesn't sound to me to be marginally better. Even during those times when it is only 8% better, it certainly disproves your argument that somehow the wearer of an M-1 helmet will be less likely to sustain an injury than one wearing an M-35.

As to the small fragments that you cite, those were done in the experiment/field tests on purpose to simulate "flak and high explosive shell fragments". See page 1 of the report. Then you again write with complete lack of foundation or reason:

"How real is that threat [of the small fragmets] on a WWII battlefield? Actually smaller than you imagine as when stationary one would dig in and get some overhead protection thus you only risked artillery when in the open and on the move."

The threat of those "small fragments" is actually much more real than you could imagine. The majority of battle damaged helmets that I have seen (or seen pictures of), are damaged by shrapnel, not bullets. Why do you think the Watertown Arsenal Laboratory would conduct such tests?? You don't believe me? Just ask the historians who have done digs in the Ardennes. Most of the battle damaged helmets that are dug up are damaged by such fragments. Statements like the one above appear to be your modus operandi. You should really read the report.

Your above-referenced quote is so naive and unfounded, I am through arguing in this thread. I have given you facts and figures based on an unbiased report. Jean-Loup and I have given you personal experiences dealing with battle damaged helmets. You come back with unfounded statements. When asked to support your positions, you come up with zilch. No offense, but how old are you? You sound like you are at that teen-age stage where one takes ridiculous positions just to spite people. No rationale or reasoning behind the arguments. I am done here buh-bye

[Jean-Loup]

"How real is that threat on a WWII battlefield? Actually smaller than you imagine as when stationary one would dig in and get some overhead protection thus you only risked artillery when in the open and on the move. Then the enemy has to have eyes on you to direct the fire to your location. So the chance of artillery, fair, times the chance of actually hitting you befor you can take cover low, thus the actual threat from artillery in WWII is very low."



That's it, I am out of this conversation as you obviously have not the faintest clue of what you are talking about. It previously seemed that you actualy knew about the topic well, but that was only a illusion.

The majority of battle damaged helmets that you can find, I would say 80% are found with schrapnel damage; not small arms damage. The majority of soldiers killed on the battlefield were killed by schrapnel, not by small arms; this is a well known fact. Your claims are completely unfounded, and discredit you completely. Please refer to table 112 here for an example of a source prooving that deaths by small arms fire were a minority of cases: http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksd...s/chapter6.htm
This table indicates most men (about 80%) were killed by schrapnel on European battlefields, contrarly to your unfounded claim.
( In the Pacific theater, there was less artillery, and more small arms wounds; but there weren't many germans in the pacific, so that is kind of off topic....)
So the threat of small schrapnel is extremely real, contrarly to what you say. On the other hand, the chances of getting hit by a 45 cal bullet on the battlefield are rather low, contrarly to what you seem to fantasise about. Have you been playing "Medal of Honnor" too much, where there is no artillery?

"How about protecting your head from hard blows? What is the likely hood? Well in combat very likely. Which helmet of the two has better suspention? The M-1."

Not as likely as getting hit by artillery, first of all. And secondly,what, pray tell, is the secret source that you have that proves that the M1 has a better suspension? Yes, it may have been of more modern design, but I am sure the German helmet was also very effective in protecting your head from a brick falling off the top of a building, for example.

"The fact that the Stahlhelm 35 is marginally better in not too common situations misses the point."

The most common situation is artillery fragments, point final. Your scenarios of getting hit on the head or shot with a 45 caliber bullet, ar the exeptions on the battlefield, and artillery is the rule.
And the german helmet being marginaly better in ALL situations, makes the US helmet WORSE.

JL

[Suber]

I would also add that while this data offers a very controlled assessment of helmet protection statistics, the big variable that cannot be replicated is the various Battles that these helmets were used in. By this I am talking about specific battles such as during the Bulge, where if my numbers are roughly right, 80% of American casualties were a direct result of Artillery. You could repeat this over and over with very specific battlefields in question.

[Suber]

The thing that grabbed me about the article was that the preparer stated that 51 helmets were obtained but the Arsenal Command ordered that 2 be returned to the Office. I can only imagine what those two helmets might have been. Perhaps SS? In any event it sounds like the Arsenal Commander wanted a couple for his souvenir stash!

[Robert Donnell]

Percentages

So according to the table 112 on the AMMED History about 7% of deaths in Italy were from shrapnel to the head while presumably wearing an M-1 helmet. A notable improvement over the almost 50% of deaths from head wounds in the WNA.

The problem is we have no Idea how many were saved by those M-1s.

From the chart it looks like about a three way split between "Small Arms," "Shrapnel," and "High Explosives." More than I expected but still less than you guys expected. The problem is that the data covers only combat deaths and not injuries, so it does us little good.

I am beginning to think that you guys have your own opinion and nothing I say will ever change that. I beleive just because a Stahlhelm looks sharp does it have any protective properties not installed at the factory.

[Jean-Loup]

Quote Robert Donnell: "Then the enemy has to have eyes on you to direct the fire to your location. So the chance of artillery, fair, times the chance of actually hitting you befor you can take cover low, thus the actual threat from artillery in WWII is very low."

Here I am waking up an old thread.
Enaugh playing around with words concerning how many people were wounded by what type of weapon, killed by what, would they have been wounded if they didnt have the helmet, etc.
Here is a very clear period document (list of all the WIA of an infantry unit in one month), showing that Roberts statement was completely and grotesquely inaccurate, as 99% of the people on this forum already know.
In this case, less then 4% of wounds were caused by bullets; and over 80% were caused by artillery schrapnel: very low threat from artillery indeed

[Jean-Loup]

Quote Robert Donnell: "Fact #3, the M-1 dents without cracking. Fact #4, the Stahlhelm cracks. "

Yet an other "fact" prooven wrong: this helmet stopped a bullet, and has a huge dent on the front, with no crack visible...

[Jean-Loup]

Below: an other severely dented, but not cracked german helmet.

[gew98]

The only thing I can add to this is at least two veterans told me - one was the wearer , of bullet impacts to the M1 helmet where the bullet entered the shell but did not penetrate the liner and spun around between the two.One bullet dropped out into the soldeirs shirt - the other stayed lodged between liner and steel pot.
Could'nt have happened with any other helmet ?.

[Milton]

This has been a very interesting thread, to say the least. Without delving too far into the statistical realm, I personally feel that both parties arguments have merit, but from my perspective, ballistically speaking, the angular design of the German style helmets, coupled with thicker steel (heat treatment disparities notwithstanding) would have offered more protection than the thinner steel utilized on the M1, however, from a point of various forms of impact, it might stand to reason that the M1 would've offered more protection due to the hammock design of the liner components, coupled with the inherently stronger material being used to form the suspension. The weakest point of the M31 liner, when speaking in terms of downward impact from airborne debris, rifle butts (etc), is where the drawstring passes through the leather ears. I do believe that the woven HBT material, numerous "A" washer securing points, and heavier, cord-type drawstring, all secured via the high-pressure M1 liner shell, would've offered more "blunt force" protection to the wearer than the inverwoven, thin drawstring through leather / pigskin combination of the German M31 liner system, which, let's face it, would pull through much easier causing the top of the wearers head to come into contact w/ the crown of the steel helmet. I can honestly say I've had MANY German helmets w/ pulled through liner "ears" but have never come across a US M1 helmet w/ this sort of damage. Granted, post-war deterioration factors into this also in the decades since WWII, but from a simple design concept, it would make sense that the M1 High Pressure liner system offered a better form of suspension in my humble opinion. The very design of the M1 helmet itself lent itself to many more utilitarian uses than the German models (ask any vet whoever cooked, shaved, boiled, bailed water, etc) in his helmet), but I digress... Like most folks here, I'm a HUGE fan of the German helmet shell design (apparently the Us Army is now too, considering the profile of the new Kevlar helmets), but when I look at it objectively, I can see both sides of the issue. I do also believe that the Germans designers were also somewhat handicapped in their ability to make significant changes or improvements to the Stahlhelm due to resistance from the top, as Hitler himself recognized the pyschological value and instant recognizability of the Stahlhelm design, and the traditional attitudes of the old Prussian military establishment were no doubt not easy to sway. All things considered, both designs had considerable merits. For those fortunate enough not to have had to depend on one to save their lives in combat (or for that matter, those who did), they're unsurpassed as important historical relics, and perhaps the one piece of gear that soldiers held in the highest personal regard, next to their weapons. Cheers!