Look at it anon. What direction do you think it's trying to protect you from? Look up. What do you think coming from up high do you think it was designed to protect again?
This one had to be bait, right? There's no way anyone hears of the "increased head injuries" fact nowadays without it being a reference to survivorship bias
>picrel
Literally the opposite. At the outset of WWI, a solid steel helmet was standard equipment for exactly zero of the participating armies. It was the huge number of fatal head wounds inflicted by contemporary weapons in trench warfare that spurred the French to issue the M15 Adrian helmet, and for the British to follow suit with the various doughboy/Tommy designs. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodie_helmet >The helmet's "soup bowl" shape was designed to protect the wearer's head and shoulders from shrapnel shell projectiles bursting from above the trenches. The design allowed the use of relatively thick steel that could be formed in a single pressing while maintaining the helmet's thickness.
No, they're just retarded for keeping it during the interwar period, then replacing it with the MkIII/IV/V, then keeping that until the as late as the 80s, and then replacing the MkV with a borderline useless ballistic nylon helmet, and then not replacing it with a kevlar version until 2005.
To add on to this, the HSAT and RAC helmets were at least slightly better and later on an upgraded version of the M76 were available. However, none of these saw full scale adoption as general infantry helmets.
Artillery blows up earth, rocks, dirt and whatnot.
It rains down on soldiers heads. Head injuries.
That's what it is supposed to protect you from. Shit raining down from above, as you hunker down in trenches of WW1.
And yes, it was quite effective against that.
except that it was harder and more expensive to make, used thinner steel and offered less protection against the primary threat
it didn't offer significant neck protection just a bit to the back of the head, any threat coming in low enough to threaten the areas the british brodie helmet didnt cover but the stahlhelm did was also going to hit the torso which neither protected.
but the british helmet offered significantly better protection from threats from above, its steel was thicker and better shaped to deflect, and its wider brim meant the shoulders were also better protected.
the german helmet might be better in a melee, but given the actual combat conditions it was actually worse then the brodie for ww1
Are you the retard who wrote in the high cut low cut helmet thread last week that every shrapnell that doesn't fall straight from above will penetrate every helmet and kill you?
it was based on the earlier kettle helmets, because at the time helmet design was in its infancy and they didnt really have much to go on
the kettle helmet was designed to provide more protection than a plain dome design by adding a brim
which happened to be beneficial against artillery, the brim helps shield the back of your neck and part of your face when you have gone to ground
it can also be fashioned from a single piece of metal, which speeds up production by allowing the steel parts to be punched in a single step
that the kettle shape was eventually surpassed by more ergonomic designs that provide the same protection with a more ergonomic shape doesnt mean the original design was totally useless or stupid, since the people who made better helmets after WW1 has the data from WW1 and a lot of hindsight to work with
Since the Brody was made from Hadfield steel it still had good strenght. It was also not the lightest helmet of WW1 - with the Adrian playing this role.
The design was chosen from medieval iron hats because the bongs needed fast results real bad. Unlike Germans and French they just wore soft hats which offered not the slightest bit of protection.
But the entire discussion is fruitless. The Germans designed the by far best helmet of WW1. Their design was so good that it keeps on influencing designs up to this day while no single modern helmet resembles the Brody or Adrian..
Construction and fire service helmets etc. resemble adrians and even sort of brodys if you consider the wide brim, because they're good at protecting against falling things and keep your ears open. So they're not a retarded design overall, just not best optimised for modern combat protection. I'd argue the stahlhelm itself is also flawed in its closed-ear design which is why modern helmets aren't all just coal-scuttle variants.
>modern combat protection
Since the GWOT era with their low intensity, doorkicker style combat is over and ukraine shows us that arty lobbing is back on the menu the PASGT/Fritz design is "modern combat protection". Much more than high cut or other low protection forms
why do people act as if any of the nations helmets have any difference in protection, they all protect your important brain stuff and an inch of metal bent down doesnt magically make it 'side protection' or neck protection when it covers 10% of it
>Understanding how and why something was used makes you a retard apologist
Moron, they took a proven design and adapted it for easy mass production, it was very effective at what it was designed to do. Why should they make it thicker/heavier/more expensive/less popular than it needed to be?
Steel helmets unironically became a wide-issue thing after a random grunt's life was saved BY a small tin bowl he hid inside his field cap.
Zoom zooms don't seem to realize that no, helmets were NOT made to be "bullet proof", but to stop frag and debris from cracking your skull.
Modern testing shows that the Adrian had the worst protection (thin steel) while being more complex to manufacture than the Brodie. Worst of both worlds.
>British needed to produce millions of helmets very quickly >Latvian guy comes up with a helmet made of a single piece of pressed steel >they had millions of helmets now >won the war >other countries think it's good enough that they adopt it too, including the USA.
Seems successful to me.
In that they managed to produce millions of helmets quickly and at low cost that offered decent protection from shrapnel and the elements. It was a successful design, otherwise it wouldn't have been so imitated. The technology moved on but at the time it did its job
>industrial warfare >make helmet 4 times more expensive for a small fractional increase in survivability >lose
And they keep doing it. If you're America you can afford all the bells and whistles that you like, but Germany was never in that position.
I don't think German work culture and practices would have permitted anything less. The British frequently have an attitude of 'that's good enough', it wouldn't surprise me if other better deigns than the Brodie were considered but discarded on money/time constraints.
There wasn't a better design than Brodie. It protected the largest portion of the body for troops in trenches and was more durable than it's more expensive German counterpart.
The gauge of steel that would protect you from actual rifle rounds and major ordnance fragments going very fast would make it borderline impossible to wear the helmet. Even the majority of currently issued helmets won't stop these.
They're thick enough to stop *some* shrapnel and most debris launched by explosions, and that's what they were designed to do.
I hate the brodie but not because of its lackluster protection, but because its just kinda ugly. By far the best looking uniform of WW2 was the US Airborne uniform, which is what I will defend, regardless of practicality.
>By far the best looking uniform of WW2 was the US Airborne uniform
They looked like hobos. The frogskin uniforms used on the Pacific front were cool though.
>are the english retarded?
until you want to make a brew in your helmet or use it to collect water and find out you're french or german and your helmet is full of air holes
Reminder that ww1 british soldiers would have seen nothing stupid about it. Miners were wearing similarly shaped hard hats well before the war started. And mining was one of the most common bluecollar jobs back then.
Look at it anon. What direction do you think it's trying to protect you from? Look up. What do you think coming from up high do you think it was designed to protect again?
Think hard anon.
rain? UV rays? I realize that bongs are scared of the latter.
>UV rays? I realize that bongs are scared of the latter.
The US must be as well
gravity? dipshit
Birds
>Look at it anon. What direction do you think it's trying to protect you from? Look up
Shrapnel doesn't come from above in most cases.
If you are in a trench in WW1 it absolutely does
It does if you’re in a trench retard
shrapnel and big rocks and shit hurt
As a matter of fact, these helmets actually led to an increase in head injuries.
Designed for the WW1 trench warfare, where the most likely threat was frag and debris falling on your skull from straight above.
Before this point, there was essentially NO personal ballistic protection being issued whatsover.
Incorrect.
Or, alternatively, the helmets helped turning INSTANT DEATHS into "head injuries".
The fact still is, that even these hard hats greatly reduced injuries and deaths. A good 30%, according the statistics.
No, it turned 'died from shrapnel to the head' into non lethal head wounds.
Yes, because the men were alive to report them, you drooling lunkhead knuckledragger
"As a matter of fact", you are completely wrong, and ignorant of the concept of survivor bias.
This one had to be bait, right? There's no way anyone hears of the "increased head injuries" fact nowadays without it being a reference to survivorship bias
Im sorry anon, youre tongue in cheek post was wasted on these mongrels, I appreciate it
Ban them immediately!
>hesrightyouknow-morganfreeman.png
>picrel
Literally the opposite. At the outset of WWI, a solid steel helmet was standard equipment for exactly zero of the participating armies. It was the huge number of fatal head wounds inflicted by contemporary weapons in trench warfare that spurred the French to issue the M15 Adrian helmet, and for the British to follow suit with the various doughboy/Tommy designs.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodie_helmet
>The helmet's "soup bowl" shape was designed to protect the wearer's head and shoulders from shrapnel shell projectiles bursting from above the trenches. The design allowed the use of relatively thick steel that could be formed in a single pressing while maintaining the helmet's thickness.
No, they're just retarded for keeping it during the interwar period, then replacing it with the MkIII/IV/V, then keeping that until the as late as the 80s, and then replacing the MkV with a borderline useless ballistic nylon helmet, and then not replacing it with a kevlar version until 2005.
To add on to this, the HSAT and RAC helmets were at least slightly better and later on an upgraded version of the M76 were available. However, none of these saw full scale adoption as general infantry helmets.
Yes, actually
It was made for grunts in the trenches to help against artillery shrapnel.
Jolly good boy, if we start giving effective helmets to the chaps, it will ruin their character! -Some British officer probably.
Artillery blows up earth, rocks, dirt and whatnot.
It rains down on soldiers heads. Head injuries.
That's what it is supposed to protect you from. Shit raining down from above, as you hunker down in trenches of WW1.
And yes, it was quite effective against that.
I do this the German design is much better as it protected you're neck ears with restriction of the field of view.
except that it was harder and more expensive to make, used thinner steel and offered less protection against the primary threat
it didn't offer significant neck protection just a bit to the back of the head, any threat coming in low enough to threaten the areas the british brodie helmet didnt cover but the stahlhelm did was also going to hit the torso which neither protected.
but the british helmet offered significantly better protection from threats from above, its steel was thicker and better shaped to deflect, and its wider brim meant the shoulders were also better protected.
the german helmet might be better in a melee, but given the actual combat conditions it was actually worse then the brodie for ww1
Which studies supported that?
Are you the retard who wrote in the high cut low cut helmet thread last week that every shrapnell that doesn't fall straight from above will penetrate every helmet and kill you?
it was based on the earlier kettle helmets, because at the time helmet design was in its infancy and they didnt really have much to go on
the kettle helmet was designed to provide more protection than a plain dome design by adding a brim
which happened to be beneficial against artillery, the brim helps shield the back of your neck and part of your face when you have gone to ground
it can also be fashioned from a single piece of metal, which speeds up production by allowing the steel parts to be punched in a single step
that the kettle shape was eventually surpassed by more ergonomic designs that provide the same protection with a more ergonomic shape doesnt mean the original design was totally useless or stupid, since the people who made better helmets after WW1 has the data from WW1 and a lot of hindsight to work with
It was also based on mining hard hats because the British had a lot of mines.
Since the Brody was made from Hadfield steel it still had good strenght. It was also not the lightest helmet of WW1 - with the Adrian playing this role.
The design was chosen from medieval iron hats because the bongs needed fast results real bad. Unlike Germans and French they just wore soft hats which offered not the slightest bit of protection.
But the entire discussion is fruitless. The Germans designed the by far best helmet of WW1. Their design was so good that it keeps on influencing designs up to this day while no single modern helmet resembles the Brody or Adrian..
Construction and fire service helmets etc. resemble adrians and even sort of brodys if you consider the wide brim, because they're good at protecting against falling things and keep your ears open. So they're not a retarded design overall, just not best optimised for modern combat protection. I'd argue the stahlhelm itself is also flawed in its closed-ear design which is why modern helmets aren't all just coal-scuttle variants.
>modern combat protection
Since the GWOT era with their low intensity, doorkicker style combat is over and ukraine shows us that arty lobbing is back on the menu the PASGT/Fritz design is "modern combat protection". Much more than high cut or other low protection forms
why do people act as if any of the nations helmets have any difference in protection, they all protect your important brain stuff and an inch of metal bent down doesnt magically make it 'side protection' or neck protection when it covers 10% of it
I don't think all the retard apologists itt realise how thing the steel was, and how hated these things were. Slightly thicker than a spam tin
>Understanding how and why something was used makes you a retard apologist
Moron, they took a proven design and adapted it for easy mass production, it was very effective at what it was designed to do. Why should they make it thicker/heavier/more expensive/less popular than it needed to be?
Steel helmets unironically became a wide-issue thing after a random grunt's life was saved BY a small tin bowl he hid inside his field cap.
Zoom zooms don't seem to realize that no, helmets were NOT made to be "bullet proof", but to stop frag and debris from cracking your skull.
>Zoom zooms don't seem to realize
You could have just stopped there - the rest is tautology
>die to shrapnel in your carotid because the government that you are protecting with your life saved 0.001 bongdollars worth of forging per helmet
Please show pictures of helmet that protects the carotid
Trenches
Falling steel rain problem, not from the sides.
can be pressed in a single stage, very efficient
this thing is fascinating, it's a shame the visor was lost
Stahlhelm is objectively the best but Adrian is most kino. British is probably cheap or something.
Modern testing shows that the Adrian had the worst protection (thin steel) while being more complex to manufacture than the Brodie. Worst of both worlds.
Yeah but it had the best airburst protection.
Modern vatnik adrian trench kino when?
haha yeah only the 'english' did that haha
>British needed to produce millions of helmets very quickly
>Latvian guy comes up with a helmet made of a single piece of pressed steel
>they had millions of helmets now
>won the war
>other countries think it's good enough that they adopt it too, including the USA.
Seems successful to me.
>Seems successful to me.
by what metric? germany had this
In that they managed to produce millions of helmets quickly and at low cost that offered decent protection from shrapnel and the elements. It was a successful design, otherwise it wouldn't have been so imitated. The technology moved on but at the time it did its job
>industrial warfare
>make helmet 4 times more expensive for a small fractional increase in survivability
>lose
And they keep doing it. If you're America you can afford all the bells and whistles that you like, but Germany was never in that position.
I don't think German work culture and practices would have permitted anything less. The British frequently have an attitude of 'that's good enough', it wouldn't surprise me if other better deigns than the Brodie were considered but discarded on money/time constraints.
Can an entire country be diagnosed with autism?
I'm 90% sure that 'autism' is just having German ancestry.
>t. barely functional autist
There wasn't a better design than Brodie. It protected the largest portion of the body for troops in trenches and was more durable than it's more expensive German counterpart.
Still better then the RATNIK helmet.
>paper thin steel
The gauge of steel that would protect you from actual rifle rounds and major ordnance fragments going very fast would make it borderline impossible to wear the helmet. Even the majority of currently issued helmets won't stop these.
They're thick enough to stop *some* shrapnel and most debris launched by explosions, and that's what they were designed to do.
>are the english retarded?
no, but you are for sure
I hate the brodie but not because of its lackluster protection, but because its just kinda ugly. By far the best looking uniform of WW2 was the US Airborne uniform, which is what I will defend, regardless of practicality.
>tall boots vs regular infantry shoes
Kek, Airborne really is the most feminine branch of the U.S. military.
>By far the best looking uniform of WW2 was the US Airborne uniform
They looked like hobos. The frogskin uniforms used on the Pacific front were cool though.
>are the english retarded?
until you want to make a brew in your helmet or use it to collect water and find out you're french or german and your helmet is full of air holes
Pros : Very cheap and easy to mass produce, it just verks. Cons : it's the stupidest looking helmet.
Reminder that ww1 british soldiers would have seen nothing stupid about it. Miners were wearing similarly shaped hard hats well before the war started. And mining was one of the most common bluecollar jobs back then.