WW2 Nazi helmet VS Bundeswehr current helmets
LIBERATOR
the old helmets?
I think the WW2 helmets are far more expressive and artistic, with no
functional loss compared to the new ones.
eyeball
Your new helmet
http://www.tfhp.org/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg
Rob Arndt
> On Sep 20, 6:53�pm, LIBERATOR <nogeek...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> > Is there any functional improvement in the new helmets, compared to
> > the old helmets?
>
> > I think the WW2 helmets are far more expressive and artistic, with no
> > functional loss compared to the new ones.
Of course, they are not steel pots anymore but composite types. I know
you want the more traditional look, but the Heer and KSK look fine as
they are. Germans tried out experimental composite helmet covers with
hinged "dog ears" but they added too much weight and complexity.
Future helmets are being designed to incorporate light systems,
designators, sensors, and optics... but again, that adds weight and
complexity and reduces hearing significantly. Ground HOD (Head-On
Display) tied to a mini computer and/or combat rifle fiber optic line
are part of most US and West European Future Soldier concepts. IDZ
tested such a system from 2003-2007 with no apparent success- too
complicated. US has had even worse luck and has never fielded a FS
system at all despite a quarter century of development!
Anyway, here is KSK with their helmets:
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/8042/svbw190qfgv0.jpg
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/5853/kskqh6.jpg
I think they look fine as they are. WW2 last German helmet was M44
which is what the E German forces based their helmet on...
Rob
Eunometic
The current US and German Bundeswehr composite Helmet is nicknamed the
"Fritz" because it resembles the German
WW1 and WW2 helmet. The German WW1 Helmet was based on careful
statistical analysis of where
fragments were injuring and killing soldiers rather than just theories
and guesses and it was therefor the most successful Helmet of either
WW1 or WW2. The 'science' of what fragments kill and injures
soldiers hasn't changed much nor has the need to provide
cutouts for hearing and vision so the current US "Fritz" resembles the
German WW1 & WW2 design. The Bundeswehr
had their own composite Aramid Helmet: the M826 which seems to have
been replaced by the US design. Both look
similar. Modern composite helmets provide not only shrapnel
protection but a certain degree of bullet protection as well.
In addition they are probably lighter.
Rob Arndt
have been the standard for the 1946 German soldier instead became the
GDR M56 helmet which caused the often controversial term "Communazi"
for the GDR forces wearing it!
Famous photo of E German soldier defecting- notice helmet and uniform:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~hatch/images/europe/berlin.guard
The Russians were very strange in that unlike the Western Allies they
immediately formed a German paramilitary KVP police unit armed with
STG-44 rifles and wearing Nazi-type uniforms complete with M35 cap to
maintain order in the Soviet Zone and allowed women to join as well...
Most GDR uniforms looked like Nazi uniforms until the late 1980s and
just before the GDR collapsed, the E Germans were developing new
firearms and pushing for more modern uniforms and a similar PASGT/MICH
helmet of their own. W Germany inherited all of that and liquidated
it, including all of the STG-940 series firearms:
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1800/1851.htm
Rob
Dan
Amazing resemblance to the U.S. PASGT helmet.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan
I have never compared the actual weights, but I have held a PSGT and
U.S. steel pot in each hand and the feel about the same and both feel a
little lighter than the WW1 German "coal scuttle helmet."
Dan
One of the many nice things about East Germany collapse was the
sudden drop price in their militaria. I remember seeing prices for their
ugly helmets drop to below $20 from a high of $200. One drawback is they
tended to be ink stamped "Made in Germany" in English.
Eunometic
Some at least must be lighter. Australian troops never seem to have
been seen much in helmets until recent deployments to Timor,
Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/military_photos_2004621.aspx
Australia, after studying four different helmet designs, accepted one
from an Israeli firm and is introducing it as the Enhanced Combat
Helmet (ECH). Some ten ounces lighter than the current helmet, the ECH
also offers better protection and is much more comfortable. The
Israeli proposal is a modified (to meet Australian specifications)
version of the RBH 303 helmet (itself a modification of the RBH 103
helmet currently used by the Israeli armed forces.) The main
modifications were improved ballistics protection, changes to the
padding system, the elimination of the front brim and a reduction in
ear coverage to enable troops to use “Active Noise Reduction”
equipment. The ECH comes in four sizes (small, medium, large and extra
large), with the heaviest one weighing 2.6 pounds. The RBH 303 only
had three sizes, but it was found that many Australian troops, well,
had big heads.
Dean A. Markley
I'd be curious how it was determined that the German WW1 helmet was the
"most successful" helmet of either war?
Dean
LIBERATOR
What are you talking about?
I've been wearing tin-foil hats whilst at teh computer for a long long
time.
My new hat... sheesh.. shows you're not uptodate on me...
So are you a Wisconsinite Stephanie person or Virginia Moron Newbon?
LIBERATOR
> On Sep 20, 8:10 pm, eyeball <eyeball2002...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 6:53 pm, LIBERATOR <nogeek...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> > > Is there any functional improvement in the new helmets, compared to
> > > the old helmets?
>
> > > I think the WW2 helmets are far more expressive and artistic, with no
> > > functional loss compared to the new ones.
>
> Of course, they are not steel pots anymore but composite types. I know
> you want the more traditional look, but the Heer and KSK look fine as
> they are. Germans tried out experimental composite helmet covers with
> hinged "dog ears" but they added too much weight and complexity.
> Future helmets are being designed to incorporate light systems,
> designators, sensors, and optics... but again, that adds weight and
> complexity and reduces hearing significantly. Ground HOD (Head-On
> Display) tied to a mini computer and/or combat rifle fiber optic line
> are part of most US and West European Future Soldier concepts. IDZ
> tested such a system from 2003-2007 with no apparent success- too
> complicated. US has had even worse luck and has never fielded a FS
> system at all despite a quarter century of development!
>
>
> I think they look fine as they are. WW2 last German helmet was M44
> which is what the E German forces based their helmet on...
>
> Rob
All you say Robbie I totally understand. But what was the motive for
dumping the original steel designs? They looked better, from
everything you wrote above it seems they were more protective, why
change?
LIBERATOR
>
> > On Sep 20, 6:53 pm, LIBERATOR <nogeek...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> > > Is there any functional improvement in the new helmets, compared to
> > > the old helmets?
>
> > > I think the WW2 helmets are far more expressive and artistic, with no
> > > functional loss compared to the new ones.
>
> Of course, they are not steel pots anymore but composite types. I know
> you want the more traditional look, but the Heer and KSK look fine as
> they are. Germans tried out experimental composite helmet covers with
> hinged "dog ears" but they added too much weight and complexity.
> Future helmets are being designed to incorporate light systems,
> designators, sensors, and optics... but again, that adds weight and
> complexity and reduces hearing significantly. Ground HOD (Head-On
> Display) tied to a mini computer and/or combat rifle fiber optic line
> are part of most US and West European Future Soldier concepts. IDZ
> tested such a system from 2003-2007 with no apparent success- too
> complicated. US has had even worse luck and has never fielded a FS
> system at all despite a quarter century of development!
>
>
> I think they look fine as they are. WW2 last German helmet was M44
> which is what the E German forces based their helmet on...
>
> Rob
Whoa, those last two URLs the guys look scary. But the goggles, I
would think wearing goggles is not a good idea except for in the
desert. Periphereal vision is eliminated by the goggles, isn't it?
LIBERATOR
Wow! Your performance of providing knowledge is why I idolize you.
ROBBIE IS MY IDOL!! hehehe... don't spam this Robbie...
LIBERATOR
Some chick in a surplus store told me anything from Nazi Germany now
is a collectors item, pertaining to helmets and uniforms.
Eunometic
It seems that the Germans were the first to begin research into
Helmets and the last to introduce one in WW1.
The French were the first, their 'Adrian' was modeled on the French
fireman's helmet. The British "Brodie"
were inspired by the French one but mad it much easier to produce.
It was designed to stop splinters from above.
So it seems they put the biggest R&D effort into it.
The Germans never stopped researching and refining the design,
uniquely they used high grade steels, maximized
coverage (I believe the front of the head was the most vulnerable
part) and worried about vision.
The fact that most current western Helmets looks similar indicates not
copying but indicates that the same
conclusions were reached by western desginers as by Professor Schwerd,
the designer and researcher of the orginal
M1916 and then again the M1935.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stahlhelm
http://www.worldwar1.com/sfgstal.htm
http://www.german-helmets.com/FOREIGN%20USE%20Main.htm
http://www.german-helmets.com/HELMET%20HISTORY%20Main.htm
Spain, Nationalist China, Several Sth American countries and Ireland
used it.
Yeff
> Is there any functional improvement in the new helmets, compared to
> the old helmets?
The "new" helmets are part of a "ballistic protection" system. The
k-pots, along with the collar of the kevlar vests, gives more protection
to the neck than the old system.
I also think, and this is just from personal experience, that the
current system doesn't cause the collar of the vest to push the helmet
down towards the eyes while laying prone as much as the steel pot/flak
jacket combination of the old system.
--
-Jeff B.
zoo...@fastmail.fm
"Excuse me.
I don't mean to impose,
but I am the Ocean."
~ The Salton Sea
CJ Adams
>
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:53:51 -0700 (PDT), LIBERATOR wrote:
>
>> Is there any functional improvement in the new helmets, compared to
>> the old helmets?
>
> The "new" helmets are part of a "ballistic protection" system. The
> k-pots, along with the collar of the kevlar vests, gives more protection
> to the neck than the old system.
>
> I also think, and this is just from personal experience, that the
> current system doesn't cause the collar of the vest to push the helmet
> down towards the eyes while laying prone as much as the steel pot/flak
> jacket combination of the old system.
>
Odd as it may seem, helmets are intended to work along with
other euipment. The old M1 helmet was designed in the late
1930's to take into account both the distance from its front
edge to the M1 Rifle's rear sight and interference with the
issued pack when firing from the prone position. Of course
the weapons changed, the equipment changed and the M1 helmet
soldiered on, no longer quite as good a fit.
Be happy that you're in one of those short periods when
things fit together, more or less. It can't last!
Cheers
CJ Adams