Helmets

jtg452 wrote:My point is why tie up production and R&D on replacing something that you already have that works? What is on hand may not be the best solution but it works good enough to push replacement down the priority list.

The ICA and ICN Marine corps in current deployment are a bit larger than the old armies and marine establishments of Charis, Chisholm, Emerald, Tarot, and (certainly!) Zebediah, so there are a few more heads to wrap up in metal. Siddarmark lost a whole lot of its army and militia heads to rebellion, mutiny, and combat losses, and with the heads went the helmets, and has been raising lots of new regiments afterward. Some of those heads may get helmets out of existing stores, but others will need new ones.

I doubt they'd be doing much in the way of new R&D on helmets, if they aren't going to improve much on traditional ones and have no powerfully changed requirements that way, even if resources have changed a good bit. But there's going to be new production for new helmets for all the heads without an old one to get inside, and if they can tweak the designs a bit for new resources and needs, that's not much to ask.

JeffEngel wrote:

jtg452 wrote:My point is why tie up production and R&D on replacing something that you already have that works? What is on hand may not be the best solution but it works good enough to push replacement down the priority list.

The ICA and ICN Marine corps in current deployment are a bit larger than the old armies and marine establishments of Charis, Chisholm, Emerald, Tarot, and (certainly!) Zebediah, so there are a few more heads to wrap up in metal. Siddarmark lost a whole lot of its army and militia heads to rebellion, mutiny, and combat losses, and with the heads went the helmets, and has been raising lots of new regiments afterward. Some of those heads may get helmets out of existing stores, but others will need new ones.

I doubt they'd be doing much in the way of new R&D on helmets, if they aren't going to improve much on traditional ones and have no powerfully changed requirements that way, even if resources have changed a good bit. But there's going to be new production for new helmets for all the heads without an old one to get inside, and if they can tweak the designs a bit for new resources and needs, that's not much to ask.

For starters, look at the helmet pic in the OP. That mohawk thing is probably going to be the first thing to go (what's it for anyway?). When mass producing tens of thousands of helmets, that's going to be a huge materials savings right there.

The brim might go as well, although that's less certain since wide brims tend to be good weather protection (rain, sun, etc).

Those sideburn things may or may not be retained depending on whoever decides on whether what limited protection they provide is worth the material cost. They're basically covering the upper parts of the chin strap anyway.

Oh, and what's left gets made out of steel instead of iron of course.

evilauthor wrote:

JeffEngel wrote: But there's going to be new production for new helmets for all the heads without an old one to get inside, and if they can tweak the designs a bit for new resources and needs, that's not much to ask.

For starters, look at the helmet pic in the OP. That mohawk thing is probably going to be the first thing to go (what's it for anyway?). When mass producing tens of thousands of helmets, that's going to be a huge materials savings right there.

According to Wikipedia, the crest was for strengthening the helmet. I imagine it's skippable on quality steel helmets.

The brim might go as well, although that's less certain since wide brims tend to be good weather protection (rain, sun, etc).

Those sideburn things may or may not be retained depending on whoever decides on whether what limited protection they provide is worth the material cost. They're basically covering the upper parts of the chin strap anyway.

Traditionally, the brim and armoring for the straps would have turned edged weapons or plunging arrows away from the neck and/or shoulders. They'd have the same effect on shrapnel and similar jagged flying harm. And, for that matter, having the chin strap protected so the helmet stays on isn't bad, costs permitting.

For weather coverage, a wider brim could be supplied by an inner hat doubling as a lining, but leaving that to a poncho or greatcoat would do too.

Oh, and what's left gets made out of steel instead of iron of course.

Yup yup - steel's not in supply that short, and on top of your head is an awesome place to save weight.

JeffEngel wrote:

evilauthor wrote:For starters, look at the helmet pic in the OP. That mohawk thing is probably going to be the first thing to go (what's it for anyway?). When mass producing tens of thousands of helmets, that's going to be a huge materials savings right there.

According to Wikipedia, the crest was for strengthening the helmet. I imagine it's skippable on quality steel helmets.

I'd think again about that. Look at the Adrian helmet from WW1.


The crest on top was designed to deflect falling shrapnel from directly impacting on the flattest part of the helmet: the top. So while yes, that 3 or 4 inch tall decorative crest from the Pre-Jihad era can be done away with, it could serve as a useful precursor for a defector crest on helmets like the Adrian.

Darman wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:According to Wikipedia, the crest was for strengthening the helmet. I imagine it's skippable on quality steel helmets.

I'd think again about that. Look at the Adrian helmet from WW1.


The crest on top was designed to deflect falling shrapnel from directly impacting on the flattest part of the helmet: the top. So while yes, that 3 or 4 inch tall decorative crest from the Pre-Jihad era can be done away with, it could serve as a useful precursor for a defector crest on helmets like the Adrian.

Interesting, and thanks. Checking up on it (yes, through Wikipedia), I note that contemporary and somewhat later designs went with a rounded top. Pound for pound, that may make for less deflection of shrapnel falling from directly above, but if a heavier helmet manages to be sufficient protection from bullets (the Adrian wasn't considered that), it may manage to be sufficient protection from falling shrapnel too without a deflector crest.

If a branch of the military is likely to be suffering threats from falling shrapnel and the like far more than anything else threatening the head, and a lightweight helmet is particularly appealing for them, the Adrian would be a fine model. Certainly if you expected to spend a war standing up in a trench under frequent light artillery fire, it's the thing. Charis at least is pursuing mobile operations by preference, and while the lower weight of an Adrian helmet may be nice for troops on the move, they're going to want to feel protected from bullets.

Why you couldn't make a tougher, heavier helmet complete with a deflector crest - or why you wouldn't choose to - I do not know. My guess would be that the strip could provide useful shrapnel deflection for trivial weight, but the history of helmets in the 20th century suggests the guess is wrong somehow.

Wy not the british model?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... helmet.jpg

Why not do a helmet that looks like a geodesic dome? By breaking the surface into a series of angled planes you might even make it more effective against bullets. It would look pretty bizarre but would still perform all the functions soldiers expect of their helmets.
I'm assuming such a shape could be stamped out of a single sheet of metal.

That shape would actually make it much _less_ effective.

Incoming projectiles penetrate best when they're moving perpendicular to the surface. With a curved surface, the incoming will almost never be perpendicular, while with facets the odds go way up because you have all that surface facing the same way. On top of that, if it's stamped, the bends are high-stress points that weaken the structure. How much that would matter, I'm not really sure, but it would make at least some difference to the strength of the helmet.

EdThomas wrote:Why not do a helmet that looks like a geodesic dome? By breaking the surface into a series of angled planes you might even make it more effective against bullets. It would look pretty bizarre but would still perform all the functions soldiers expect of their helmets.
I'm assuming such a shape could be stamped out of a single sheet of metal.

Louis R wrote:That shape would actually make it much _less_ effective.

Incoming projectiles penetrate best when they're moving perpendicular to the surface. With a curved surface, the incoming will almost never be perpendicular, while with facets the odds go way up because you have all that surface facing the same way. On top of that, if it's stamped, the bends are high-stress points that weaken the structure. How much that would matter, I'm not really sure, but it would make at least some difference to the strength of the helmet.
SNIP

Good points. If the surfaces were dimpled, sort of inverse golf balls, you would have no flat surfaces or bends. I'm imagining this as one piece of metal with the final shape being pressed "stamped?" in. The steel pot I remember had no seams so I always figured it had been stamped or pressed. IIRC the edge was folded over as a strengthening and safety measure.

Also, I'm not an engineer but a "dimpled" surface would seem to make the helmet more resistant to penetration because the radius of the dimple curves would be shorter than the radius on the conventional steel pot.

EdThomas wrote:Good points. If the surfaces were dimpled, sort of inverse golf balls, you would have no flat surfaces or bends. I'm imagining this as one piece of metal with the final shape being pressed "stamped?" in. The steel pot I remember had no seams so I always figured it had been stamped or pressed. IIRC the edge was folded over as a strengthening and safety measure.

Also, I'm not an engineer but a "dimpled" surface would seem to make the helmet more resistant to penetration because the radius of the dimple curves would be shorter than the radius on the conventional steel pot.

Wouldn't the valleys where the dimples met tend to act as a shot trap? They'd tend to be weaker than the 'dimple' because it's a sharper bend, and the adjoining dimple(s) would tend to prevent the bullet or shrapnel from continuing to ricochet off...

Probably better off with a clean curved design without dimples or facets.