What was the thought process in this helmet's design?
It leaves the side of the head totally exposed and make crawling and going through squeezed areas much harder, and wouldve been incredibly useless in the winter.
Why didn't the brits create a variant of the Stahlhelm?
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
>deflecting bullets
it protects about 3cm of your shoulders, whereas the Stahlhelm covered the entire head
>deflects bullets
Literally impossible except if you wore a Stahlhelm a reinforced steel plate and is a small caliber
>every shot is fired at point blank at the centre of the helm
Ok
You forgot to mention that it looks terrible
You can slash the enemy's ankles with the brim.
youtube.com
youtube.com
>inb4 lindrbrghhhhhhhhh REEEEEEE
>it's all about da fashion
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
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.
The American helmet limited vision slightly, it feels like it was made by an overprotective mother.
Why does a brit have a gun.
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
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
Back to your grave, Churchill.
Americans (and im sure many others) did a lot of stupid shit because of Nazis.
>Liberty Sandwich
>changing the flag salute
>etc.
Are you retarded? I was implying that the bullet would deflect if exactly that was the case
>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?
>are you retarded
Are you?
One post was "literally impossible", and the other was a fucking anime face, kill yourself you weaboo twat
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.)
they also referred to Hamburgers as "Liberty Sandwiches'" during WW1 and WW2.
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.
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.
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.
I actually prefer it to the Stalhelm, but most likely out of sentiment.
Sorry to label you. It's just that I find Brits to be the most asinine posters on Veeky Forums, /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.
It's a reaction to Anglo dominated nature of Veeky Forums 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.
>makes some good points
>no refutes
>HUR DUR BIASED BRIT LINDRBRGH REEEEEEEEE
Lindy pls
He just is, he is a anglo fanboy cuck
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.
kys you disgusting frog.
not an argument
Only an American would say anyone other than Americans are the dumbest and shittiest posters.
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.
Look at any modern helmet and you'll realise just how retarded your post was
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
>Just look how he got schooled by Ian for his puny bren/mg42 comparison series
sauce?
Never liked how ugly it looked. The American M1 and the German Stalhelm are much better looking.
t. was born in the UK
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.
youtube.com
Top comment
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.
It looks better than Stahlhelm for sure.
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.
>i didnt even watch the video
>LINDRBRGH REEEEEE
You're what's wrong with this board.
We aren't perfect in any way and I'm getting out of this country ASAP.
I am not a Brit or German but British helmet looks better, Stahlhelm looks cumbersome and out of place with rest of nazi uniforms.
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?
If you aren't going to be a patriot then I wholeheartedly support your decision to get the fuck out.
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.
>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.
>can you tell us which nation still uses the brodie design?
You realise soldiers now wear protective vests and undergo far less artillery fire?
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.
Do you mind rephrasing that?
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:
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?
>the Stahlhelm design was superior
WW2? Definitely. WW1? Debatable.
No clue senpai. I see you though
Get rekt nerd.
youtu.be
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.
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.
Yes and I explained here British helmets did what they were supposed to do. They were protective against debris and shrapnel. The design survive until 1950s.
>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.
And the stahlhelm design is still around today.
>shrapnel hits the back of the head
>gg no rm
>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.
>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.
Should have just worn a German belt buckle on their forehead.
>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.
>I've seen one Britposter exclaim the merits of the PLAT.
Do you mean the PIAT?
>nationalism has gotten fucking insane on this board
>he's still defending it
>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.
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.
I think it's obvious at this point that he can't be reasoned with
>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.
>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.
What's wrong with my statement?
>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.
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.
spotted the brit
He cant be that dumb. This is impossible.
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.
jesus fucking christ you fucking mick he's just presenting a counter argument
people are allowed to defend british things
It is incorrect
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.
>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.
how so?
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.
So effective it's still used by the British today
helmets look different all around the world. it's more about tradition than nickle and diming over efficiency
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.
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.
YANKED
>WWI
sure
>WWII and later on
absolutely not
>if it was a fail then why did the brits used for decades?
Try a millennia.
Except examples that have been posted such as these:
Also don't protect the neck directly