What was the thought process in this helmet's design? It

>>1664289
It blocked shrapnel.
Brits didn't move in winter if they could help it.

It's to protect you head from falling dirt, rocks, metal that got blown into the air by artillery

Deflects bullets and falling debris

File: 1471928513271.jpg (95KB, 897x869px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 897x869px

>>1664301
>deflecting bullets

>>1664296
it protects about 3cm of your shoulders, whereas the Stahlhelm covered the entire head

>>1664301
>deflects bullets
Literally impossible except if you wore a Stahlhelm a reinforced steel plate and is a small caliber

>>1664306
>>1664327
>every shot is fired at point blank at the centre of the helm
Ok

>>1664289
You forgot to mention that it looks terrible

>>1664289
You can slash the enemy's ankles with the brim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVFm1dc8luM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQE0uZUMys

>inb4 lindrbrghhhhhhhhh REEEEEEE

>>1664289

>it's all about da fashion

>>1664355
That too. Seriously looks silly as hell. Nowhere near as bad as the fireman helmets the french wore but up there

the stahlhelm looks cool as fuck

>>1664342
It would only really deflect a bullet if it skimmed the edge and at that point if you weren't wearing the helmet it would have missed completely.

All sides went to war with silly fucking helmets. Only the Germans (and eventually the Americans 20 years later) seemed to show any sort of adaptation.

>>1664380
The American helmet limited vision slightly, it feels like it was made by an overprotective mother.

>>1664361

Why does a brit have a gun.

>>1664380
Didn't the americans initially refuse to adapt a modern design, because they would look like "nazi" helmets?

stahlhelm is actually a shitty design, the trendy flare at the back juts into the wearer's spine if their head is flung back

>>1664406

It took 40 odd years after the end of the war before they finally realized the merits of the Stahlhelm, but yeah, it was a stupid reason to reject a sound idea, especially when the helmet was in service since 1916-17

>>1664412

Back to your grave, Churchill.

>>1664427
Americans (and im sure many others) did a lot of stupid shit because of Nazis.
>Liberty Sandwich
>changing the flag salute
>etc.

>>1664342
Are you retarded? I was implying that the bullet would deflect if exactly that was the case

File: image.jpg (70KB, 640x641px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x641px

>>1664434
>someone says something negative that isn't directed towards the brits
>le churchill

Is it just me or is this the most Brit hating board next to k?

>>1664451
>are you retarded
Are you?
One post was "literally impossible", and the other was a fucking anime face, kill yourself you weaboo twat

>>1664444

Americans got wind of things like animal welfare laws and conservation programs and upped the practice of vivisection and razed the forests to the ground.

(Not being serious for anyone about to put sown 2000 characters of why I'm a /pol/ faggot.)

File: tips stahlhelm.jpg (68KB, 476x723px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 476x723px

>>1664289
Its purpose was to protect from debris and shrapnel, that fell from above trenches. It protects a great range of angle from above, which is where debris and shrapnel came from. It was not meant to stop bullets or protect from anything else.

>>1664361

Hes a biased idiot

Easier to mass produce for less engineering-minded Brits. From Wikipedia:

>In contrast to the Hadfield steel used in the British Brodie helmet, the Germans used a harder martensitic silicon/nickel steel. As a result, and also due to the helmet's form, the Stahlhelm had to be formed in heated dies at a greater unit cost than the British helmet, which could be formed in one piece.

>>1664289
It was desgined in the First World War, for the First World War.
On the Western Front, you're going to spend pretty much 90% of the time in your trench, unless your batallion is on leave. The way the Brodie is designed is to stop shrapnel (Little balls that come from airburst shells, in the same style as that of canister) and mud and other bits of crap blown up by surrounding ordnance from falling on top of your head. As the nature of trenches is that everything is nearly always coming from above, the designer thought the chief consideration would be protection from above. Which it did pretty good at.
My reckoning for them not changing the actual design of helmets used in the BA until Late WWII is that the wearer was easily recognisable as British/commonwealth Soldier. Plus a lot of fighting was done in trenches in WWII too, and most helmets can't do shit to stop bullets, unless there was a lot of helmet, so the chief reason to wear a helmet is to lower head wound rates from arty and the like.
>>1664355
I actually prefer it to the Stalhelm, but most likely out of sentiment.

>>1664459

Sorry to label you. It's just that I find Brits to be the most asinine posters on /his/, /k/ and yes /pol/. The moment a ww1 or 2 thread pops or is created by them the first thing they do is insult everything and everyone not part of the commonwealth.

I've seen one Britposter exclaim the merits of the PLAT.

>>1664459
It's a reaction to Anglo dominated nature of 4chan and views of history in media in general. Sometimes it takes stupid forms and they start pushing against universally accepted facts in their attempts to debunk myths that came from old Anglo propaganda (like ones regarding Napoleon).

It was good enough to survive until the 1950s. It stops shrapnel and the rim is good for protecting from melee strikes and cuts.

>>1664483
>makes some good points
>no refutes
>HUR DUR BIASED BRIT LINDRBRGH REEEEEEEEE

>>1664533
Lindy pls

>>1664533

He just is, he is a anglo fanboy cuck

>>1664489
Overengineering is not good engineering. British design was cost-efficient and effective against the most common threat of artillery shrapnel and debris. Nazi soldiers like British counter-parts took bullet wounds to the body and died from that, neither stahlhelm nor British helmet would stop a direct artillery hit, tank-fire, bombardment or anti-personnel heavy weaponary so it's irrelevant.

So British had a helmet that stopped what it could stop, while Germans had a helmet that was overkill in what it should be stopping and couldn't stop rest of the dangers anyway.

>>1664500
kys you disgusting frog.

>>1664483
not an argument

>>1664500
Only an American would say anyone other than Americans are the dumbest and shittiest posters.

>>1664544
>>1664540
Ok, but howabout you refute the points he makes in the video?
I know he spergs out on all kinds of shit, but jesus fuck this is a thread about the british helmet design, and he puts forward some good points.

>>1664549
Look at any modern helmet and you'll realise just how retarded your post was

>>1664553

Well an argument is that he talks about firearms he never fired and I doubt he fired them at all.

People who talk about things they never actually did themsevles cant be taken seriously.

Just look how he got schooled by Ian for his puny bren/mg42 comparison series

>>1664567
>Just look how he got schooled by Ian for his puny bren/mg42 comparison series
sauce?

>>1664355
>>1664365

Never liked how ugly it looked. The American M1 and the German Stalhelm are much better looking.

t. was born in the UK

>>1664564
So because in modern day kevlar is used that would justify Germany equipping their soldiers wearing plate cuirass? Also nature of combat in which helmets help (generally urban warfare conducted by automatic rifles and mortars) doesn't mean helmets are any use when modern planes, tanks, artillery would see more frequent use in battles.

>>1664573

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgfBL1hz_zw

Top comment

>>1664557

I didnt even watch this video, but I imagine he says that the broadie design is actually the best design and superior to the stahlhelm design despite the latter being adopted worldwide.

>>1664355
It looks better than Stahlhelm for sure.

File: image.png (231KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1000x1000px

>>1664580
I'm a Brit too man, and I'm OP. Nationalism has gotten fucking insane on this board that should be unbiased. It's okay to admit we weren't perfect.

>>1664586
>i didnt even watch the video
>LINDRBRGH REEEEEE
You're what's wrong with this board.

File: 1445797281001.png (33KB, 149x173px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 149x173px

>>1664588

We aren't perfect in any way and I'm getting out of this country ASAP.

>>1664588
I am not a Brit or German but British helmet looks better, Stahlhelm looks cumbersome and out of place with rest of nazi uniforms.

>>1664594

No it doesnt it looks like a soup plate.

The broadie design is literally the dumbest design one can think of.

Please tell us which nation still uses the genius brodie design?

>>1664592
If you aren't going to be a patriot then I wholeheartedly support your decision to get the fuck out.

>>1664590

So he does it again, right? Claiming that the british stuff was the best?

I love how he tried to tell his audience that you cant hit a man with an mg34 at 80 meters.

I would invite him to do that very experiment, If I miss him he can shoot me from every distance he wants.

File: 30164008_web.jpg (34KB, 440x440px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 440x440px

>>1664615
>Please tell us which nation still uses the genius brodie design?

Technology and nature of combat has changed. I also like the design of pic related, doesn't mean it would be optimal in WW1-WW2 context, while made out of modern kevlar, backed up with a gasmask and protective glasses, it would be used today and often is.

>>1664615
>can you tell us which nation still uses the brodie design?

You realise soldiers now wear protective vests and undergo far less artillery fire?

>>1664625
Actually he doesnt. WATCH THE VIDEO. Jesus.
He brings up points about the helmet and why it's designed the way it is, literally the whole purpose of this thread.

File: 1344981471692.png (22KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 200x200px

>>1664581
Do you mind rephrasing that?

>>1664634
Different materials allow different designs to be optimal and the way equipment is valued in combat depends on the way warfare works. The situation of battle, especially in regards of anti-materiel and anti-personnel weapons, such as artillery, mortars or armour divisions effect the optimal design, it's not a linear progression. People went from helmets to no helmets and back to small helmets into now used big helmets again depending on how warfare works.

I also gave an example here: >>1664629

>>1664629
>>1664630

The problem with your comments is that the brodie and stahlhelm design were used at the same time in the very same conflict.

Since we know that the stahlhelm design was superior the brodie design was a fail.

I dont know why you bring up knights armor?
Why not bring up a neanderthal leather cap?

>>1664650
>the Stahlhelm design was superior

WW2? Definitely. WW1? Debatable.

>>1664664
No clue senpai. I see you though

File: full metal jacket helmet.jpg (620KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1024x768px

>>1664327
Get rekt nerd.
https://youtu.be/hdqOhqSu7o0?t=57s

Anyway, "deflect" is not the same thing as "stop." If a bullet hits at a bad angle it can simply glance off the side of the helmet. The chances of this happening are pretty slim, but it can happen.
They weren't really designed to do that though. The British helmets were mean to protect troops from falling rocks and shrapnel. Shrapnel is almost always moving much slower than your typical bullet.

>>1664581
His point is that more modern helmets like the PASGT and ACH helms are styled after the German Stahlhelm. The PASGT helmet was often called a "Fritz" helmet because of the look.

>plate curiass
Modern soldiers wear huge ceramic plates on their chest, back, and sides. A full set of armor weighs about 30 lbs (IOTV vest).
Some lower budget forces (often police) wear AR500 steel plates instead of ceramic.

>>1664650
Yes and I explained here >>1664549

British helmets did what they were supposed to do. They were protective against debris and shrapnel. The design survive until 1950s.

>>1664650
>the brodie design was a fail.
if it was a fail then why did the brits used for decades? Surely if it was utter fail they would've used a new type.

File: 221953_ts[1].jpg (121KB, 1154x1154px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1154x1154px

>>1664688
And the stahlhelm design is still around today.

>>1664688
>shrapnel hits the back of the head
>gg no rm

>>1664683
>Modern soldiers wear huge ceramic plates on their chest, back, and sides. A full set of armor weighs about 30 lbs (IOTV vest).
>Some lower budget forces (often police) wear AR500 steel plates instead of ceramic.

That's exactly what I am saying. Modern soldiers wear combat armour that's heavier than anything all the way back to knights because of technological developments. Yet it doesn't mean during WW1-2 it would be wise to equip your soldiers with Napoleonic cuirass. It also depends on type of warfare (total war with supporting artillery, mobilise divisions and plane support) which in Vietnam was often basically Urban/Insurgent/Guerilla warfare.

>>1664679
>>1664688

>Nazi soldiers

Will you call British soldiers plutocrat-imperialist soldiers?

>Stahlhelm
>overengineered

Ok, you are a brit fanboy or literally retarded.

The German helmet protected more of the head from concussion and shrapnel therefore it was more effective.

Pressing the british helmet in the same shape as the German helmet would have taken only 1 repositioning of the pressing machines.

File: gottmituns532.jpg (1MB, 3860x3272px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3860x3272px

>>1664342

Should have just worn a German belt buckle on their forehead.

>>1664715

>Will you call British soldiers plutocrat-imperialist soldiers?

I call them Nazi soldiers because the country was Nazi Germany in particular, not Imperial Germany or current German republic for example. I call English soldiers what they are, English soldiers, British soldiers are British soldiers.

Why did you get triggered that by anyhow?

>The German helmet protected more of the head from concussion and shrapnel therefore it was more effective.

It is a normal old helmet design and it doesn't protect soldiers from what they receive most of the causalities from, that being artillery, bombardment or wounds to chest. By your logic that it "protected" more area (angle of where shrapnel or debris comes from is more important), every soldier should have been equipped with a late medieval style helmet with only eyes open. Also it was not only shape but German helmet was thicker, heavier and more cumbersome.

>>1664500
>I've seen one Britposter exclaim the merits of the PLAT.


Do you mean the PIAT?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INa1rgqcxYY

File: 1459915771379.gif (3MB, 359x202px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 359x202px

>>1664588
>nationalism has gotten fucking insane on this board

File: 1381944833163.gif (2MB, 408x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 408x225px

>>1664769
>he's still defending it

>>1664769
>It is a normal old helmet design and it doesn't protect soldiers from what they receive most of the causalities from, that being artillery, bombardment
That's exactly what it protects them from. Obviously you'll fucking die if a shell lands right next to you, but the kill/wound radius on any artillery shell is pretty large. A helmet can save your life if you're on the outer edge of this radius.

>>1664769

I am not getting triggered, just pointing out your double standards.

The NSDAP was the ruling party in Germany, therefore you call German soldiers Nazi soldiers.
Since the Conservative party was the ruling party in the UK at that time you should, if you were consistent, call the British soldiers Tory soldiers.

So, which helmet protected your head better from hits from behind and the sides, the brodie or the stahlhelm?

You are evading the answer because you are a brit fanboy. Just like this pathethic cuck in the video who deosnt know shit about firearms nor cant he hold trigger discipline with his puny air gun.

>>1664796
>>1664799
I think it's obvious at this point that he can't be reasoned with

>>1664714
>Yet it doesn't mean during WW1-2 it would be wise to equip your soldiers with Napoleonic cuirass
A Napoleonic cuirass probably wouldn't protect you very well. If ceramic plates and kevlar vests were widely available during WW1, people would have been using it. Soldiers in Afghanistan had to hike through very rough mountainous terrain for miles. They still did it despite carrying all their gear + extra supplies.

>>1664799
>The NSDAP was the ruling party in Germany, therefore you call German soldiers Nazi soldiers.

Nazi Germany describes a specific period in which Germany was under Nazi control, so Nazi soldiers is referring to that. Like how one could say revolutionary soldiers for French army before Napoleon came to power even though not all of them might have agreed with politics of revolution.

>So, which helmet protected your head better from hits from behind and the sides, the brodie or the stahlhelm?

The argument isn't that stahlhelm doesn't protect better, it is that in WW1 and WW2 I find brodie a better design for the similar reasons I wouldn't find a full plate armour a good design in WW1 or WW2. Even though a full plate armour would protect better from shrapnel coming from 500 metres.

It's not even a revolutionary design or has anything to do with Germans in particular, the similar type of helmets existed for most of early to late medieval period and even in Napoleonic wars. It is just overkill against what it is protecting from and doesn't help with rest of the threats.

>>1664778
What's wrong with my statement?

>>1664820
>A Napoleonic cuirass probably wouldn't protect you very well. If ceramic plates and kevlar vests were widely available during WW1, people would have been using it.

Yes, they would be using kevlar vests if they were available in WW2, yet they weren't, so it wasn't better to use cuirass instead. In similar fashion why concurrent military helmets are used and would be used in WW2 if they were available back then, but it isn't better to wear a thick, medieval design helmet instead because they weren't.

>>1664289

What a lot of retards in this thread don't know is that the Stahlhelm was only marginally more effective than OP's pic related, the classic british helmet design was almost identically effective as its American and German counterparts.

>>1664838
spotted the brit

>>1664809

He cant be that dumb. This is impossible.

>>1664827

No, Nazi, short for national socialist, describes a political affiliation.
Revolutionary describes the situation of the state at the time and not a particular affiliation which suggests a personal choice.

Since British, American and Russian soldiers fought in many wars outside of WW2 how do you specify that you mean WW2 soldiers of these nations when you talk about that topic like you make sure with German soldiers calling them Nazi soldiers?

Right, you dont. Because you are biased.

> taking the common sense measures of protecting your neck and temples is overkill

K.
You are advocating for getting less protection for the same amount of work and ressources.
Only an idiot would do that.

>>1664847
jesus fucking christ you fucking mick he's just presenting a counter argument

people are allowed to defend british things

>>1664831
It is incorrect

>>1664864
He even admitted that the German helmet was better, but still had to damage control the british design
>i-it was only slightly worse
>i-it's not like we want more effective helmets baka

ITT: frogs, yankees and krauts being jealous of the sheer effectiveness of the Brodie helmet.

>>1664862
>No, Nazi, short for national socialist, describes a political affiliation.

Nazi also describes the Nazi Germany, hence, Nazi Germany. You are the one getting into political arguments in an effort to imply that not all soldiers of wehrmacht were affliated with the nationalist socialist thought, an accusation I never made but you decided to get triggered on your own. I gave "Nazi soldiers" as a descriptive term to soldiers of Nazi Germany, which in particular defines WW2 era warfare. As opposed to German soldiers which is more ambigious and could also be used in WW1.

>Since British, American and Russian soldiers fought in many wars outside of WW2 how do you specify that you mean WW2 soldiers of these nations when you talk about that topic like you make sure with German soldiers calling them Nazi soldiers?

If there was a specific type of British or American government during WW2 that was unique to that period only, I use that term. I also use Soviet soldiers referring to soldiers of Soviet Russia, this is not even a controversial viewpoint.

>You are advocating for getting less protection for the same amount of work and ressources.

It's not same amount of work and resources as stalhhelm is thicker and it's easier to make brodies, also brodies are less cumbersome and practically provided similar amount of protection even if not theoretically. Again covering your head in a medieval style only eyes open, thick steel helmet would also be more protective than the stalhhelm yet we don't see that happening, there is a compromise to using it and Brits saw that it was only trivially more beneficial for the downsides.

>>1664866
how so?

>>1664893
That's not me in that post and I admitted that German helmet protects from more theoretical angles, I also said so does a full plate armour but you didn't see people in full plate armour in WW2.

File: article-1214722-0679C7DA000005DC-647_468x367.jpg (25KB, 468x367px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 468x367px

>>1664900
So effective it's still used by the British today

>>1664289
helmets look different all around the world. it's more about tradition than nickle and diming over efficiency

>>1664904

Britain literally had one of the smallest armies in WW2 and still puts the lowest effort in producing quality helmets?
The Russians could make that point but not Brits.

No it didnt provide the same amount of protection neither practically nor theoretically.

You know why? When a shrapnel hits your neck when you are wearing a brodie helmet you probably die, if it hits your neck when you are wearing a stahlhelm your probably survive.

You cant fantasize the material behind your neck and temples. It just isnt there.

>>1664920
Context is the key word here. Now it might not be as effective, but in a WWI context it's pretty much the best helmet.

>>1664920
YANKED

>>1664931
>WWI
sure
>WWII and later on
absolutely not

File: 05-289a.png (661KB, 1223x963px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 1223x963px

>>1664696
>if it was a fail then why did the brits used for decades?

Try a millennia.

>>1664928
Except examples that have been posted such as these:

>>1664920
>>1664702
>>1664683

Also don't protect the neck directly

>>1664920

Lindybeige on suicide watch

File: 1472192438576.png (242KB, 484x605px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 484x605px

>>1664920
>helmet made from modern materials used in different type of warfare should have same design
>there is a universal catch all design for helmets that's effective at all areas and ages
>equipment is a linear progression through history
>design being superior currently against current weapons with current materials means it would still be a superior design without current weapons or materials

>>1664920
You realise the equipment that NATO nations use is less about the actual effectiveness of the equipment and more about what equipment the Americans want to use.

>>1664942
You mean

>WW1 and WW2
sure
>Post-WW2 military development
absolutely not

>>1664966
>>1664942
loving the evidence here lads
you will go far in life

>>1664970
It's kinda telling how you're not supplying any either, mate.

>>1664961
>>1664964
>>1664966
anglo's on full damage control

>>1664970
It's hard to prove evidence for "people not dying thanks to helmets" since it's a negative space issue, you can only argue it theoretically, especially since there is a lot of reasons why soldiers die that's disconnected from what type of helmet they wore so it's not easy to statistically judge.

The argument is British were competent enough militarily to quickly adopt their environment, as they did when they introduced brodie, so there must be a reason why they used it all the way until 1950s, until that it was replaced by a different material helmet used for different type of warfare.

>>1664973

Lets do a live test then. When your life really depends on it it would be interesting to see what your choice is.

Your whole body gets covered exept your head.

Behind you a shrapnel bomb will be detonated that can be stopped by both, a brodie and a stahlhelm.

You have to wear the helmets like they were supposed to.

Lets do this and see how the brodie helmet prevents a shrapnel from entering the back of your head

>>1664990
This isn't an argument.

File: tumblr_m0yiymg0gR1qdodvi.jpg (11KB, 357x347px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 357x347px

>>1664973
never made a claim

>>1665010
it's not an argument, it's a fact

>>1665002
Except that entire scenario depends on shrapnel hitting that exact part of my head.

What if it hits me in the face? Neither helmet would defend against that. So should I get a helmet with a face plate?

>>1665002
>the helmet is better in this theoretical, specific and hypothetical scenario so it must be better in all scenarios possible within all considerations including production, ease of use or comfort.

Besides depending on distance you would die with either helmets, so we should have instead all used half a foot thick tank plates at the back of helmets.

>>1665020
You highly implied we were wrong. So go on, what proof do you have?

>>1665039
Do you not fucking understand the concept of burden of proof? If not, you have no business here.

>>1665022
You're only making yourself look childish, mate.

>>1665030
>>1665034

Are you that deluded?

The stahlhelm just covers more of your head which makes it better.
Thats it.

Thats why it is better.

Your argument is this:

Yeah my car is slower than a Formula 1 car but Formula 1 cars cant fly - haha - that means my car is as fast as a Formula 1 car - I win

>>1664949
/thread

>>1665047
I don't have proof, I have a hypothesis. And given I know of no evidence to suggest that hypothesis is incorrect, I am forced to accept it's likelihood.

If you have some evidence which disproves my hypothesis, please share it.

File: 1458125164196.jpg (135KB, 594x937px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 594x937px

>>1665057
>The stahlhelm just covers more of your head which makes it better.

So why didn't everyone use armour like this? It covers not only more of your head but also your whole body. Which would you want to wear if a shrapnel bomb exploded near you, a cloth uniform or a full plate armour?

>>1665050
I normally avoid shitposting, or at least on /his/
But in this case it's pretty obvious which one is better, so i rest my case

>>1665077

Because, the armor would block your sight, which the stahlhelm does not.

That means while you have the same vision with both the brodie and the stahlhelm the stahlhelm offers more protection.

Are you that stupid?

>>1665074
You made a claim. Only now are you saying that it's your opinion and that everyone should take it with a grain of salt.
>I am forced to accept it's likelihood
Inductive reasoning requires proof as well. You have no clue if it's likely.

>>1665077
Nice straw man

You're all wrong. The best helmet is obviously the French Adrian.

>>1665057
>The stahlhelm just covers more of your head which makes it better.

Except you're completely ignoring the entire manufacturing/logistical aspect to the argument.

But even then, if we purely consider it I terms of individual effectiveness, what I was trying to illustrate in my previous comment was that any benefit provided by a few extra square centimetres of steel was so small and so unlikely to actually be of use that it was effectively negligible.

At the end of the day, it pretty much just as likely to survive a battle wearing either helmet, or possibly wearing none at all.

Except in trench warfare, where your entire hypothetical is rendered moot.

>>1665086
Okay, same armour except the front part of helmet that is hinged on the temples does not exist.

Which one do you wear when a shrapnel bomb explodes near you?

Hint, you will die whether you wear brodie, stahlhelm or a full plate armour because the projectiles from shrapnel will not be directing in a heatseeking way to your neck from back of your head and in close range you would be penetrated on your body. Brodie protects from long distance shrapnel that exploded far away in an angle that is practically protecting same areas.

You'll die anyway if it explodes anywhere near you because there are no hypothetical scenarios were your body doesn't exist but bomb explodes behind you. Also neither helmets stopped direct rifle hits, artillery fire or bombardment if it was near, both helped against glancing blows and shrapnel and debris that came from far away in a falling angle.

>>1665130

Why wear kevlar vests then? Why even bother? bullets wont go for the vest like in a heatseeking way, right?

>>1665094
No, I put forward a hypothesis.

At the end of the day the Brodie would be effective in a wwi/trench warfare context, since, to put it simply, the shrapnel would generally be coming from above.

Do you disagree?

>>1665140
Because modern day troops aren't facing off against shelling, they're broadly faced with small arms fire and indoor combat.

>>1665153

Not an argument.
Your argument was:

Since the Stahlhelm doesnt protect the body it doesnt matter how good it protects the head.

If that argument is valid the following statement is valid as well:

An kevlar vest only protects the Torso but not the legs and arms and the throat, since a shot in those regions can be lethal not wearing a kevlar vest is as effective.

>>1665020
>tumblr_m0yiymg0gR1qdodvi.jpg
>Peep Show picture

please leave.

>>1665177
>not liking peep show

>>1665140
It's not a similar argument, firstly stahlhelm doesn't stop bullets, secondly the body is a bigger target for shrapnel and bullets alike, thirdly brodie and stahlhelm would protect from similar angle shrapnel from distance and glancing blows from bullets with body exposed in both cases.

However wearing a kevlar protects the body that is a big target and highly lethal from a direct angle that shrapnel or bullets will hit you and kill you whether you would wear a helmet or not, while stahlhelm alone wouldn't protect you because shrapnel is in spray that covers a wide angle.

A combination of kevlar with a wide range, thick helmet made from modern material that reduces the area sharapnel can hit you to mininal is a good combination. A helmet design that's thick and won't save you neither from shrapnel nor from bullets isn't, since both brodie and stahlhelm protect from similar angles (downwards shrapnel and debris from range)

Not everything is about how thick your military gear is and how much it can protect in a theoretical scenario. That's also why towards the end of the war British, American and Russian tanks were better in efficiency and practical use than German ones which costed too many manhours for minimal returns.

>>1665191

>not getting what parallels in logic are

>>1665174
Well a Kevlar vest in and of itself, no. That's why troops have Kevlar plates for their legs and arms too.

>>1665174
And there is a complete world of difference between a few square centimetres of thin steel and an entire vest.

>>1665199
I get exactly the parallels of logic, here let me simplify it for you.

Modern helmet and kevlar, covers a wide surface to protect from shrapnel and small arms, which it can stop. There is no widespread artillery and aerial bombardment to kill you instead.

Just stahlhelm, you die from close range shrapnel due hits to body and helmet only protects from a limited angle of hit from a long distance, whether bullet or shrapnel and you still die to artillery and aerial bombardment that is widespread used in the war.

There are extremely limited, theoretical scenarios where stahlhelm prevents your death and brodie doesn't. They both protect from same dangers and are largely useless for most of reasons of death.

>>1665218

Would you say somebody with a just a kevlar vest of somebody with a kevlar vest + arm and leg protections is better protected?

>>1665225

My point is that you cant, out of fanboyishness, accept that the Stahlhelm covers more of your body than the brodie and therefore is more effective.

>>1664928
>literally had one of the smallest armies
>3.5 million
ERRRRRR

>>1664289
It was inspired by the English kettle hats from the 13th century wasn't it?

>>1665226
That's a complete strawman.

What was said was that any benefit the stahlhelm had over the Brodie was so small as to be negligible. I'd suggest looking that word up.

>>1665218
>That's why troops have Kevlar plates for their legs and arms too.
They don't. That kind of armor exists, but regular infantry doesn't use it. It's just a helmet and a vest. Some vests have groin protectors, but other than that there's no lower body ballistic protection in common use.

>>1665233
As I already said, they practically protect from same dangers, that is shrapnel and glancing blows that come towards you in a downward angle, which both will likely leave you with concussion. While brodie weights less, is less cumbersome, costs less, easier to carry around.

There are only a small amount of scenarios in which stahlhelm prevents a death brodie wouldn't, in the context of WW2 with soldiers equipped with nothing but helms as far as protection goes. The modern helmet design that covers bigger amount of area, supported with a fully body kevlar that protects your body, shoulders and legs is better than either brodie or stahlhelm due difference in weight, quality and material.

>>1665241
Well yeah, but on paper there is leg armour. Somewhere.

>>1665248

In other words you just cant admit that the stahlhelm offers more protection even if it was only 1% more. You just cant because you prefer to lie to yourself.

>>1665153
>Because modern day troops aren't facing off against shelling,
Yes they are, you fucking retard. Explosives have been racking up more kills than anything else since WW1. Troops in Iraq/Afghanistan were frequently shelled with mortars and rocket artillery.

>hurr durr da shrapnel gon git ya
Your chances of survival are increased dramatically if your armor protects your vital organs and your brain. Bleeding to death from arm/leg wounds is certainly a possibility, but it's also a lot easier to deal with than a hole in the head.

>>1665261
No, because that's a incredibly autistic and petty way of looking at it and because in an actual combat situation it really wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference.

>>1665264
>>1665153
Oh and
>indoor combat
The average engagement distance in many parts of Afghanistan was 500m~. Taliban fighters would open fire from high places or from across valleys so they could quickly escape before anyone could catch up with them.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a512331.pdf

>>1665261
Negligible difference so it's not some superior design versus inferior one. Rather there was a compromise to be made for more specific protection that is extremely unlikely, such as shrapnel that can hit your neck from back from an upward angle but not rest of your body.

>>1664500
PLAT was excellent

>>1665269

yes it would.

>>1665282

I guess the rimmed .303 British cartridge was also superor to the 8mm Mauser, right?

>>1665269
Apparently modern helmet designers disagree with you, since everyone moved towards a helmet that covered more of the head.

>>1665282
>but not the rest of your body
See
>>1665264

>>1665264
>Yes they are, you fucking retard. Explosives have been racking up more kills than anything else since WW1. Troops in Iraq/Afghanistan were frequently shelled with mortars and rocket artillery

I didn't say mortars and rockets, I said shelling. Big difference between a mortar and a battery of 25 pounders.

>>1665277
Really? Well gosh and golly gee, I guess should go tell my training sergeant that we don't need the constant fucking FIABUA training.

>>1665277
And even then I said SMALL ARMS and indoor fighting. If it's at a range of 500m then it's probably gonna be small arms, ain't it?

>>1665299

Not really. You are a liar and a coward.

Lets to the experiment.

>>1665293
That's talking about modern combat and we could as well be speaking about Napoleonic warfare due difference in material used in armour relative to weapons.

>>1665291
No, German ammunition was better than British counter parts. In fact, I'd say the only areas which British excelled over Germany in WW2 would be Navy and aerial doctrine. Everything else Germans had the upperhand.

What I am arguing here is that brodie is practically same in protectiveness and there isn't a day and night difference as OP makes it to be.

>>1665291
>yes it would.

Again, so, so small that it would be negligible. So, so small that it isn't worth the effort of adopting a design that would incorporate it.

>>1665309
You're a fucking moron.

Fact of it is, war's changed since WWI, and hence troops need different equipment.

>>1665299
You have just proven that your are incredibly retarded. Kindly stop posting.
Rocket artillery is the same shit as conventional artillery. It's just rocket propelled.

>mortars =/= shelling
Again, you're retarded. Mortars fire is indeed shelling.

>Really? Well gosh and golly gee, I guess should go tell my training sergeant that we don't need the constant fucking FIABUA training.
Non sequitur. Troops are trained to survive various worst case scenarios. It doesn't mean that you're likely to ever use your bayonet in modern combat.

>>1665307
> If it's at a range of 500m then it's probably gonna be small arms, ain't it?
No? What on earth makes you think that your enemy is going to say "Long range?" Nah, just leave the heavy weaponry at the base." ?

>>1665316
>That's talking about modern combat
The same principals apply. A helmet that protects more of your skull will increase your chances of survival should you get hit by shrapnel. The fact that it doesn't protect 100% of your body is irrelevant.

>>1665316

Nobody here argues that the stahlhelm protects you from direct fire, but as the little protection such helmets could offer, it offered more than the brodie. Thats my whole point.

>>1665334
>The same principals apply

Do you think people wearing brodies or stahlhelm would made a difference in Napoleonic warfare? It wouldn't because neither brodies nor stahlhelm would help against getting stabbed in the gut with a bayonet or volleyed by musket and cannon fire.

Similar dynamics apply to modern combat, where modern materials used in helmets combined with a kevlar can minimise the area you can be hit, especially from distance and with small arms fighting guerilla warfare. Yet the extra protection on side or back of the head would make a negligible difference because if you get hit by spray of shrapnel that can target that area in angle that brodie won't protect will also penetrate your body and you will die to artillery or bullets all the same.

File: image.jpg (105KB, 764x511px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 764x511px

>>1664355
it's uniquely aesthetic

>>1665354
The point is not that there isn't cases where stahlhelm could theoratically protect you better than brodie, it's that the difference is neglible enough to not adopt an entirely different design that uses more material and manhours when it can be used more efficiently.

>>1665334
>Again, you're retarded. Mortars fire is indeed shelling

You're relying purely on semantics at this point. Please explain how an RPG or one Afghan with a mortar is effectively the same in terms of effect as an entire battery of 25 pounder guns.

>Non sequitur. Troops are trained to survive various worst case scenarios. It doesn't mean that you're likely to ever use your bayonet in modern combat

Which would be a good point, if it wasn't for the fact that we were being trained in FIBUA precisely because it is what troops in Afghanistan are doing right now, as there is no other way to clear out a compound other than blowing it up, which we're not allowed to do due to hearts and minds etc.

>No? What on earth makes you think that your enemy is going to say "Long range?" Nah, just leave the heavy weaponry at the base." ?

Complete strawman. It assumes the enemy has access to heavy weaponry (which they do not always) and ignores that fact that even if a team heavy weaponry that the vast majority of the squad would be using small arms. Hence, smalls arms fire would be the biggest preventable threat.

>>1665381
This.

File: HelmetAllgemeineSS.jpg (34KB, 463x500px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 463x500px

>>1665375

>implying this wasnt

>>1665417
Hugo Boss is cheating.

>>1665417
It is but then again no one said it looked terrible.

>>1665365
You are the only person in the thread talking about Napoleonic warfare. The helmets were designed to protect against shrapnel. Shrapnel has been killing more soldiers than small arms fire since WWI.

>but da helmet doesn't protect your entire body!!!!
Again, irrelevant. If your head doesn't get fucked up then your chances of survival have been increased in many cases. Yes, this does in fact include situations where your torso is penetrated by shrapnel. End of discussion.

>>1665385
>I'm relying on semantics
You're the idiot that claimed mortar fire isn't shelling.

>RPG
Are you seriously telling me you don't know what rocket artillery is? Didn't you just claim that you're in the military?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_artillery

>An entire battery of 25 pounders!
I never said anything about anyone survivng sustained artillery fire due to helmet. If you have shells exploding right on top of your position you are probably going to die no matter what you're wearing. Helmets protect you from lower velocity shrapnel.

>Aha, but I am being trained for indoor combat!
So what? The point of my post about engagement distances was to refute the moronic idea that a modern soldier's kit is geared towards close range combat. It isn't.

>heavy weaponry
The only time heavy weaponry sees any real use is at longer distances. You won't find anyone firing an RPG from 10 feet away.

>strawman
I don't think you know what that word means.

File: HelmetSAFeldherrnhalle.jpg (179KB, 2047x1535px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 2047x1535px

>>1665423
>>1665426

And this wasnt even taken from a movie.

>pic related is my favourite NS helmet

>>1665417
>lost two world wars
a cuck asthetic, sure

File: EnglandYES.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>1665449

>won two world wars
>cuck themselves like vid related
>winning and cucking yourselves makes you the uber cuck

stay mad, fag

File: 1456065643439.jpg (3MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1440px

>>1664289
In terms of tight spaces, it was no wider than a soldier's shoulders, so it would only have been a problem in very specific circumstances.
In real circumstances I should think the two would perform similarly, although the Stahlhelm was obviously offered better coverage. The Brodie Helmet was much easier to make which is an important consideration in a total war. The Stahlhelm needed multiple stamps in production and had a high rejection rate. You could also argue that the Brodie was well suited to trench warfare, where the sides of the head may have been protected by the trench walls. The shape of the Stahlhelm had flat parts on the front which might have been more vulnerable to penetration.

Ultimately (as far as I know) no scientific analysis has been done on the comparative effectiveness on the two helmets, so it's difficult to know how much better the Stahlhelm really was and most of the stuff in this thread is speculation. Honestly, probably the main reason the Brits didn't switch (apart from the costs of re-equipping the whole army) was so that one's own troops were easily recognisable and friendly fire could be easily avoided.

Pic somewhat related to my last point.

>>1665471
whos importing 6 million refugees with a insanely cucked head of state?

>>1665442
>You're the idiot that claimed mortar fire isn't shelling

No, I claimed modern day troops are not faced with the kind of shelling as troops in WWI or WWII. Which they simply are not.

>The point of my post about engagement distances was to refute the moronic idea that a modern soldier's kit is geared towards close range combat. It isn't.

It is in the British army, that's why we adopted a bullpup design for our service rifles.

Your entire "argument" is a tissue of fallacy. You try to argue that modern troops are subject to the kind of shelling that was common in the world wars because mortars count as shelling. When I say modern troops usually face off against small arms you try to paint it like I'm saying heavy weaponry is never used.
I point out that indoor combat is taught because indoor combat is a major part of fighting in Afghanistan and you simply ignore it, and try to make the argument about something else.

Well, I say it again. Modern day troops normally face off against small arms and indoor combat. Kevlar vests make a hell of a differ in those situations, precisely like how wearing a stahlhelm would not have made a difference. The two are simply not comparable.

File: QuintessentiallyBritish1.jpg (56KB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x360px

>>1665524

You did this for decades - deliberately.

Thats why people like pic related are as British as the Queen.

>>1665533
whos been guilt tripped for 75+ years and literally not breeding anymore?

>>1665539
The Japanese?

get a room you faggots

File: Victors.png (831KB, 1132x1526px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 1132x1526px

>>1665539
Literally all of Europe.

You won nothing in WW2, you just lost your Empire for no reason.

And its not like your birthrates are much better than ours, or that you dont have feminism or white guilt.

You cucks got even Black Lives Matter blocking your airports.
´
You must feel truly victorious

>>1665554
losing wars tends to do that

>>1665567
>Literally all of Europe.
whos leading the charge with 8 children born per 1000 people?
>You won nothing in WW2, you just lost your Empire for no reason.
Im not English
>And its not like your birthrates are much better than ours, or that you dont have feminism or white guilt.
Iceland doesnt have feminism and white guilt.
>You cucks got even Black Lives Matter blocking your airports.
We dont have black people in general
>You must feel truly victorious
im defending a helmet design, youre projecting too much

>>1665610

I saw a couple of videos from iceland, including niggers occupying a church and beating people.

You are an idiot if you think you will spared from this. It happens in every white country.

File: Defense.gov_News_Photo_110510-A-JQ157-005_-_A_U.S._Army_soldier_with_Charlie_Company_1st_Squadron_38th_Cavalry_Regiment_525th_Ba[1].jpg (1MB, 4872x3744px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4872x3744px

>>1664289

This is what a modern infantry helmet looks like. Notice how it covers the back of the head?

>>1664289
>and wouldve been incredibly useless in the winter.
Right because everyone knows the primary motivations for wearing a hat made out of steel is it's insulating properties.

>>1665699

>n..no the brodie helmet would be as effective and much better anyway

>>1664365
>Nowhere near as bad as the fireman helmets the french wore but up there
Fun fact: you know it as a fireman helm because they made so many of the fucking things that fire departments latched onto it after the war and eventually made their own variant.

File: HelmetFeuerwehr.jpg (58KB, 626x313px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 626x313px

>>1665759

Same in Germany

>>1665741
It honestly wouldn't make much of a difference which is the entire point. Clearly the Nazis agreed as they didn't feel that cutting down on the amount of coverage was a big deal when it came to the design of their paratrooper helmets.

I realize it offends your autism bu there is literally nothing wrong with the brodie helmet.

>>1665785
Honestly, I'm surprised that my fire departments and military (American) didn't adopt American mining helmets. Instead, they adopted the British helmet for WWI and the French helmet for firefighters. Oddly enough, many French helmets were used a mining helmets after the war as well (easy to rig a light onto it) rather than previous American mining helmets.

>>1665824
I was down a few mines last week and i was surprised how similar many underground helmets still look like Adrian helmets.

>>1665815

>there is literally nothing wrong with the brodie helmet.

Then doesn't Britain still use the design today? Modern infantry helmets around the world are more influenced by the Stahlhelm than the Brodie

File: french-poilu-on-sentry-duty.jpg (22KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x400px

>>1665827
It's a classy design.

>>1665827
It's because modern hardhats were designed based on the Adrian helm in the 1920's. Mining helmets prior to that look kind of like a baseball cap only it's made out of metal. They were even called mining caps despite being made out of metal.

File: HelmetLuftschutz.jpg (411KB, 1100x732px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1100x732px

>>1665824

Those are pretty cool as well.

Looks like a gladiator helmet

>>1665834
>Then doesn't Britain still use the design today?
because they no longer wear steel helmets and the form of the brodie helmet is a reflection of it's material and the method of it's construction.

> Modern infantry helmets around the world are more influenced by the Stahlhelm than the Brodie
Are they?
or are you just looking at it from the preconception that any helmet that is longer in the back than the front is modeled after the stahlhelm?

>>1665870

kek I love how hard britfanboys like you are in denial

>>1665876
when all else fails default back to trolling amirite?

>>1665897

well, yes, you did troll.

>>1665908
>no u
How original.

>>1665870
>Are they?
Not the retard you're arguing with, but they are. Really, what the PASGT helmet is, is a hybrid between the M1 and the Stahlhelm. Hell, it was even nicknamed the Fritz helm because of it. All of the modern US infantry helmets are based on the PASGT and thus the Stahlhelm.

>>1665921

Finally you accepted the superiority of the stahlhelm, I am gald you did.

Its a sign of maturity to admit that you were at fault.

>>1665923
Not anyone in this conversation yet, but I'm not convinced that it isn't just a case of convergent evolution.

>>1665923
>All of the modern US infantry helmets are based on the PASGT and thus the Stahlhelm.

That's great if the claim was simply that modern US helmet design takes cues from the stahlhelm, rather than that all modern helmet design is derived from the stahlhelm.

>>1665952

Bust most modern helmet designes actually derive from it.

Your pathetic hate for Germans doesnt change that

>>1665942
Exactly what I'm getting at.
There are only so many ways to protect the human head and just because a helmet flares down at the back doesn't make it inspired by the stahlhelm.

>>1665942
It's more than that.

>>1665952
All modern helmet design is based on the PASGT which was partially based on the Stahlhelm. Er, modern helmet design for the US, their allies and China anyways.

>>1665955
>Bust most modern helmet designes actually derive from it.
Just because you keep repeating yourself doesn't make it so.

>>1665978

You mean like you keep repeating that the brodie helmet offered as much protection as the stahlhelm despit that being utter bullshit?

>>1665972
>All modern helmet design is based on the PASGT which was partially based on the Stahlhelm

So if the PASGT is only partially based on the stahlhelm and modern helmet design is logically only partially based on the PASGT, how can you claim for certain that it was the stahlhelm elements of the design that were carried over into modern helmets and not the non-stahlhelm design elements?

>>1665996
Could you remind me specifically in which way the brodie didn't offer a similar level of protection to the stahlhelm?

>>1666009

missing back of the head and temples protection

>>1666004
>partially based on the PASGT
They aren't partially based on the PASGT. They're quite literally carbon copies made of different materials.

>how can you claim for certain that it was the stahlhelm elements of the design that were carried over into modern helmets and not the non-stahlhelm design elements
It uses more of the stahlhelm's design elements than the M1.

>>1665972
>It's more than that.
Is it though? After 40 years of using the M1 they were influenced by German design practice, rather than simply arriving at a similar form when designing, creating and testing presumably many different forms of helmet for the new material available?

File: 640_brodie-trenches.jpg (47KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x427px

>>1666014
>missing back of the head
Do the back of these soldier's heads honestly look like they lack protection?
>and temples protection
While leaving the ears exposed and not impeding the soldier's hearing therefore increasing his situational awareness. Life is full of trade-offs, and honestly I think being able to hear is more important than protecting against that million dollar shrapnel fragment that comes in at just the right angle to smack you in the temple instead of in the neck..

>>1666052

>showing pictures of soldiers in crouching position, therefore chaning the angle of the head as proof

kek, your dishonesty is astonishing

>>1666048
I mean, if you even just look up the PASGT 99% of sources stated its design was partially based on the Stahlhelm. It uses the exact same harness and neck/ear protection systems. Not derivative systems, the exact same.

File: carbon copies.jpg (404KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1280x853px

>>1666020
>They're quite literally carbon copies made of different materials.
Yes clearly.
Exactly the same with no design changes.

>>1666082
If those helmets didn't have different names they would be stated as variants instead of individual helmets. TMYK.

>>1666060
This may come as a shock to you but soldiers spend more time in a crouched position or prone than they do standing straight up, and when they are standing straight up they are very seldom actually in combat.

Logically you would think that is something that should be taken into account when judging the real world protective ability of a helmet but apparently not. Real world conditions always take a back seat to autism after all.....

>>1666060

Soldiers tend to crouch a lot when under fire anon.

>>1666086
>completely different profiles
>clearly different variants of the same design

I guess the stahlhelm is just a variant of the pickelhaube than right?

File: Adrien-Brody-807x1024.jpg (247KB, 807x1024px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 807x1024px

>Adrian helmet
>Brodie helmet
Waaaait a minute.....

>>1666127
>he is a jew
Oy vey, the goyim know.

>>1666104
>completely different profiles
Wut. The only difference is the brim. They have the same profile. The MICH and the ACH, at their core, are just variants of the PASGT. They're no more actually different helmets than the M1940 and the M1940f. Actually, that's a pretty apt comparison. The PASGT uses the same harness as the M1940 and the MICH uses the same harness as the M1940f.

File: helmets.jpg (33KB, 276x207px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 276x207px

>>1664581
say friend, does this look familiar to a certain Nazi design to you? Why do you think we don't see the Brit design anymore? Makes you think...

>>1666146
>Wut. The only difference is the brim.
and the angle of the back of the helmet, and the amount it descends at the sides, but why should a few niggling details get in the way of comparing apples to oranges.

>>1666148
>Why do you think we don't see the Brit design anymore?
see
>>1665870
>the form of the brodie helmet is a reflection of it's material and the method of it's construction.

>>1666173

>the form of the brodie helmet is a reflection of it's material and the method of it's construction.

My computer is a reflection of its material and the method of its construction.

The White House a reflection of the its material and the method of its construction.

Nike sneakers are a reflection of their material and the method of their construction.

This phrase is applicable to any manufactured object. It means nothing special in regards to the Brodie helmet design and it does not explain why that design was abandoned whereas the Stahlhelm design has endured.

>>1666190
I'm not going further down this autistic road with you. If you're unable to grasp why changes in materials science and construction methods effects engineering that's your problem not mine.

This isn't a special need program, it's /his/.

File: 1414356882332.png (117KB, 1582x1526px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1582x1526px

>>1666214
>This isn't a special need program, it's /his/.

Wait there's a difference?

>>1666214

Not an argument.

>>1664289
>Why didn't the brits create a variant of the Stahlhelm?
Because Stahlhelm was the heaviest of all steel helmets. And they weren't even there by the time Brody came out.

You must remember that the main reason why they've made helmets at all was to stop shrapnel and other shit from killing people by falling on their heads. Adding excessively heavy helmet was deemed to be little bit stupid.

Also the main reason for the shape is actually ease of production. French opted for Adrians because they've already produced similar helmets for their fireguards so they've used existing machinery while Brits and Germans needed new patterns.

Stahlhelm is overrated overall as well - Americans didn't produce their M1 helmet until early 20's, there is excessive study of all protection measures used during the Great War conducted specifically because Americans looked for "how to design helmed and is bodyarmour worth its price" and as you can see they've opted for shape that's not exactly stahlhelm, it is influenced by it, but doesn't have "le neck protection" as well as many other features. Other post-WW1 helmet designs, like SSh-40, Turtle Helmet and all post WW2 helmets were similar to M1 rather than Stahlhelm as well.

>>1664289
It's supposed to double as a pudding bowl.

>>1664289
Nationalistic dick waving that prevented the adoption of better designs mixed with typical British stupidity.

Don't look for sense. It's a piss poor design through and through.

File: M36.jpg (134KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1200x1200px

>>1664581
German influence on helmet designs happened even before the PASGT.

The American M1 helmet and the Soviet M36 helmet all had elements of designs derived from the Kraut Stahlhelm.

In WWII -especially in the pacific, where brodie helmets were still used- you hear Americans thinking all the time that M1 Helmets looked a bit German.

>protects from weather
>protects from falling dirt and debris
>not in the way of your gun ever

>>1664412
It's an excellent design, hence it still being continued now.

>but muh poor neck

Would you a rather sore neck, or one perforated with shrapnel?

>>1664549
The British helmet left the fucking sides ot the head totally exposed.

The German helmet did not, and did a better job of reducing shrapnel casualties. It is literally fucking better at the job, especially when you're assaulting, engaging gin mobile fighting-which absolutely fucking happened-engaging in hand to hand combat, or there are grenades being hurled into trenches.

>>1664581
Are you trying to be incoherent?

>>1664649
Oh, I see, you're just retarded.

>The situation of battle, especially in regards of anti-materiel and anti-personnel weapons, such as artillery, mortars or armour divisions effect the optimal design,
Helmets are literally always a good idea. The only reason they fell out of favor was due to soldiers being worth next to nothing and not worth protecting.

No, it didn't fucking go form "small" to big.

It went form bad design to fucking good design, and using metal or kevlar doens't make a fucking difference.

The sides and back of your head are important. Brits were just too stubborn to accept this, and stuck with an inferior design out of flat out nationalism.

>>1664714
>>1664820
It literally would have, as the vast majority of deaths were shrapnel wounds a breastplate would have helped with.

Americans tested this and had an excellent panoply designed and ready for use. Logistics and dick waving saw it sidelined.

>>1664769
Except most casualties are and were caused by fucking indirect fire, you retard. And in ww1, that meant fucking shrapnel. Now it's blast and concussion.

>>1664950
No, just the temple and forehead.

Unlike the brodie.

>>1664964
Except that's fucking wrong.

>>1665118
>Except you're completely ignoring the entire manufacturing/logistical aspect to the argument.
Germany was literally staving.
It could still produce the stahlhelm.
Britain had no excuse.

>>1665130
>>1665130
...And what fucking happens when it hits near the trench with only your head exposed, you fucking limey retard?

Oh, shit, the shrapnel hits your HEAD.

The thing you expose to engage the enemy, and one of the few parts of your body that WILL ensure permanent disability or death with even minor shrapnel wounds.

>>1665153
Kevlar vests were literally adopted to protect against fucking shrapnel.

Even the best kevlar on the market WILL NOT stop rifles, unless at extreme range, or chambered in a pistol caliber.

>>1665218
They don't. Literally no military issues these. None. HAS plates are the only thing out there that protects from rifle shots to the arm, and they're both retardedly expensive and proprietary. Oh, and they only cover the side of the shoulder. And are likely incompatible with current military body armor.

>>1665225
>kevlar helmet
>Stop anything bigger than a pistol
pick one and only one.

>>1665239
It's essentially the same helmet.

>>1665254
No there isn't.

>>1665269
Which is why no other nation stayed with the brodie or adopted it after the war, despite preparing for that exact kind of combat.

Unlike the stahlhelm.

>>1665307
The vast majority of small arms in common use can and will kill you at 500m if the shooter is good enough.

>>1665365
>MUH GUERILLAS
Except the fucking PAGST was adopted with fighting fucking soviets in mind, and the near identical ACH with insurgency in mind.

Note how the design is good for both types of war, and then go cry into your tea.

>>1666090
Except the man in front is fucking standing. Because they're leaving the trench.
Now his head is less protected, because ihs helmet is inferior.

>>1666440
Literally none of the helmets used would get in the way of your gun.

File: fgh24b.jpg (106KB, 783x800px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 783x800px

At least it's not as stupid looking as this thing.

>>1664289

Is this autist still trying to claim that the Brits didn't use a shitty helmet design?

The Brodie sucked and it provided inadequate head protection. Get over it.

>>1664301
>>1664306
>>1664327

>Deflects bullets

18 to 20-gauge helmet steel (.036-.040 inches) could stop a hot cupro-nickel jacketed 230 grain slug from a .45 Automatic Colt Pistol (ACP) fired pointblank.

>>1666493
>It's an excellent design, hence it still being continued now.
It was dead for 40 years and then it was "rediscovered" with advent of new materials that made it lighter.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (203KB, 800x512px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 800x512px

>>1665824

America had some great helmet designs that saw a little experimental use

>>1666555
What the fuck did people actually wear that on their heads in warfare? ahahhahahhhhahhhhha fucking faggots

File: http _a.amz.mshcdn.com_wp-content_uploads_2014_11_1200s-2.jpg (156KB, 1200x882px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1200x882px

>>1664581
>Germany equipping their soldiers wearing plate cuirass?

German lobster plates

>>1666631
Except the PASGT helmet is CONSIDERABLY heavier, you stupid bastard. the newer ACH manages to be the same weight as the heaviest stalhelm at its lightest.

Stop commenting on shit you know nothing about.

File: vlcsnap-2016-09-08-01h06m04s376.png (386KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1280x738px

Is pic related the best WW1 helmet?

>>1664359
underrated post

File: Brisanzgranate_1_db.jpg (93KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x600px

Lot of people seem to forget that artillery shells in WWI were still largely shrapnel shell designs that date back to the late 1800's. The velocity of the round being fired didn't carry over well to the shrapnel's velocity, which came out comparatively low. That's why the case was made for body armor, and would have likely saved thousands of lives had it been more widely adopted as 75-95% of all WWI casualties were caused by low velocity fragments, and hospital data shows area of wounding as 60% in the extremities, and only 20% for the head/neck and torso, respectively.

File: American Helmet Model No. 7, Sentinel's Helmet.jpg (121KB, 1200x938px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1200x938px

>>1666682

File: 139655677531.jpg (86KB, 285x500px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 285x500px

>>1666493
>The British helmet left the fucking sides ot the head totally exposed.

The British developed separate soft armor neck protection that rated just as well as their helmet at defending projectiles. They considered them valuable but expensive and the fabrics didn't handle trench conditions well. Not sure how long they produced them but they were issued to every division.

File: britishbodyarmor.jpg (67KB, 592x629px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 592x629px

>>1666774

>>1666774
This literally nullifies every advantage that the previous anons claimed for the brodie, and is now going to be used a reaction image.

Saved.

File: CTzLF9K4gMoiuBEIQbm5TA.jpg (100KB, 621x800px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 621x800px

>>1664289

The helmets used by East Germany after the war were actually developed in 1942 and intended to replace the WW2 Stahlhelm by 1944. In testing they offered better protection and concealment, and were also easier to produce. Hitler rejected them because the Stahlhelm had become iconic.

The irony being it looks like a Broadie influenced Stahlhelm.

>>1664289
Shrapnel from above
Same idea as a medieval kettle hat which was to help protect the neck against downward blows

>>1666493
>>1666528
>ITT: An increasingly desperate wehraboo autistically defends his helmet waifu against all challengers

Stalhhelm a slut.
Your waifu a shit.

>>1668123
Except he provides arguments
unlike you

File: tmh004.jpg (81KB, 743x602px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 743x602px

You shitheads are now aware that they changed over to MKIII "Turtle" helmets in 1943 and used those for the rest of the war, with the exception of people way behind the lines who might still need a helmet.

File: DARTHVADERr.jpg (166KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1024x768px

Guess we all know who had the best helmet design.

File: 558e8118b71b8773924d8125af0adb203089e60a.jpg (113KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1280x720px

>>1664365
>Nowhere near as bad as the fireman helmets the french wore but up there
The Adrian helmet looked amazing

>>1670382
Vaders helmet was based on the stahlhelm

File: Adrian M26.png (348KB, 532x424px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 532x424px

>>1670626
>The Adrian helmet looked amazing
I agree. There is a distinct lack of Adrian in this thread

Wow what a thread.

What epic butthurtery over fucking helmets.

Fucking epic.

Stay classy /his/!

I heard that in WW1, the Americans had a better helmet design that would have presumably saved more lives, but because it resembled the German helmets too much, the British demanded that they not use that design,

Is this true?

>>1673701

Looking like the enemy is generally a bad idea.

>>1673716
If it's that bad, why do most modern military helmets look similar? Seems like protection trumps identification ease.

File: USA vs Russia.jpg (77KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x480px

>>1673728
Everything gets a camouflage treatment these days, doesn't matter if they look the same if they're different colors.