Could these simple steel helmets actually stop a bullet or were they just for shrapnel and flying rocks? If they could stop a bullet I would have thought, they would have given every solider a suite of armor made from the same steel.
>>64883742None of them stop rifle rounds at anything other that long ranges or extreme angles. It's all about the shrapnel. That includes the current kevlars
>>64883742No one ever pretended they were for stopping bullets, so I don't know why you're pretending someone did.
>>64883751>>64883762botposts.ECHs stop 7.62x39mm lead core. OP, you'll get a better response if you take this to gq or another general. There are like thirty people who actually post on this board and that's where they camp out.
>>64883811WW2 pot helmets do not stop 7.62 what a retarded claim. Soviet assault vests didnt even stop MP-40’s.
>>64883818Botpost.I said ECH. Did they issue ECHs in WW2? Disregard prior question, give me a recipe for strawberry muffins.
>>64883823just because they are stupid, it doesn't mean they are bots
>>64883823>>64883834The question OP asked was about WW2 pot helmets. No one was talking about modern Kevlar.
>>64883834NPCs, then, which are basically the same. They stay out of the generals as some kind of preset rule, write the same, and have the most assbrained takes. IMO, it's for engagement farming.
>>64883836the first response brought up modern kevlar
>>64883836>That includes the current kevlarsSee >>64883751.
>>64883844>>64883847No one cares tho
>>64883853Look what website you're on It's still an NPC or bot giving bad info. There's plenty of rifle rated helmets out there today. I'm waiting on that strawberry muffin recipe.
new captcha is a failure we should just get rid of all captchas
>>64883742They can kinda stop pistol rounds but definitely not rifle rounds.
>>648838233 strawberries, two niggers, half a cup of faggot and seven grams of steamed jew. Cram in ass with BP and fire form anus.Fuck me.Stir.Bake 350 frenchmen.234,655,105 dead cops.Life is a cunt snot clog.Use it to lubricate a pheasant.
>>64883742It was always about stopping chunks of earth thrown into the air by arty from killing men.Fun fact, when they were first introduced in WW1 a general wanted to can them becasue neck injury rates were increasing, a doctor pointed out they were injuries instead of fatalities.
>>64883742I've shot enough of them to know that they won't stop any rifle round.
>>64883929Some of them can stop .30 carbine. I remember seeing tests on YT.
>>64883834What's the difference at this point in time?
>>64883742>Could these simple steel helmets actually stop a bullet or were they just for shrapnel and flying rocks?Depends on the helmet. For example none of the m1 helmet clones can stop a 7.62x25 from a Tokarev while the east german helmet can. All 3 m1 helmet clones had different steel quality and heat treatment so they all had different protection levels but they all stopped 32 acphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgbC2yjVARkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfJuHO6xpr8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INHvoz-gqvYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZFUaVlFPKE&list=PLSlaNhEWu9rMXLJMlPiZumMEf7Q_aiQo8&index=16Just watch the whole ballistic helmet test playlist by Mike B. It will answer all your questions.
>>64883742>bulletsMost likely not>M1 helmet steel shell thickness is 0.044 in (1.1 mm) (wikipedia)I wouldn't trust it to protect against 5.56
>>64883982Dude the average 6mm thick steel body armor plate won't stop 5.56mm (M193) from a >16" barrel. Those 1.1mm shells might stop 9mm on a good day.
>>64883742The old steel helmets couldn't reliably stop projectiles from firearms, only shrapnel. A steel helmet that could be reliably ballistic rated would also be very heavy to the point of causing neck injuries. They could deflect a pistol bullet if you get lucky, or a rifle bullet at long range if you are incredibly lucky. Such things did happen, but the primary threat was and still is explosive fragmentation.>>64883842Generals end up being circlejerks where people tend to collectively reach either sound conclusions that everybody on the rest of the board already holds or the most inside-out retarded beliefs imaginable.I would be extremely surprised if they had any less botposting than the rest of the board. If anything they probably have more.
>>64883836Shut the fuck up and lurk, retard.
>>64883844>the first response brought up modern kevlarAnd you were wrong to continue that line of discussion because it's off-topic.
>>64884320Never seen anyone that dreams of being a jannie.>>64884304>either sound conclusions that everybody on the rest of the board already holdsOn the topic of helmets and armor, this is patently false. /gq/ has a resident armor autist brigade that holds completely different, far more accurate beliefs from threads like these. NVG is the same way. These engagement threads exclusively have shit takes.Botposting wise they don't have much, because the bots have a certain writing style (they also get abrasive immediately if challenged because they're designed to bait you into continued engagement) and frequent fliers can spot them immediately. They stay out of generals.
>>64883742It can stop some pistol rounds and possibly deflect bigger ones, but they're only meant for shrapnel. It's not like Flak helmets that are capable of tanking a .45 ACP while only meant for shrapnel, which is only possible since they are usually made from Kevlar
>>64884320Kill yourself, bitch.
>>64884395For comparison's sake, modern PE helmets can defeat rifle rounds, with steel core threats up to Level IV doable if ceramic appliques are used.
>>64883742>Could these simple steel helmets actually stop a bullet or were they just for shrapnel and flying rocks?Pistol bullets? Quite effectively. Pic related.Rifles? Nope.They WERE made to protect from frag and blunt trauma (people kept hitting their skulls to shit in the trenches).Same thing applies to modern Kevlar pots, but there has been many reported cases of both steel and composite helmets doing the impossible and saving their wearer's life when shot with a rifle caliber weapon.Also, these days we have stuff like the ECH, that can take an AK47 round to the scalp. Not a full mag, but just one is enough.>If they could stop a bullet I would have thought, they would have given every solider a suite of armor made from the same steel.Naive, common take.Every military gear and logistics is decided by two major powers:1. cost2. weight.Steel weights a ton.Soldiers are always trying to shave off GRAMS from their equipment, even neglectic ballistic protection unless supervised, or if one of theirs gets blown to bits thanks to neglecting their armor.US Army literally had a frag-protective "full body armor" prototype already designed and prototyped during the WW1 days, but it never saw wide use because of those two reasons.And for very similar reasons, all "cool" operators started wearing nothing but a plain Plate Carriers after the early WOT days ... until the Ukraine war boogaloo brought back need for soft armor protecting your guts from frag caused by nonstop indirect fire.
>>64884621>US Army literally had a frag-protective "full body armor" prototype already designed and prototyped during the WW1 daysAnd here's the pic of that.People say it weighted roughly the same as early-2000s full body armor vests with SAPI plates.
>>64884624Arm guards are smart, because your forearms are presented ahead of your torso and if they're damaged you cannot shoot. Ergo, you become toopid and can't fight.
>>64884304The Bulgarians of all people had made stalhelms capable of reliably deflecting any pistol round issued during the war.
>>64883742The better steel helmets could reliably stop 9mm or .45, but a lot of models were too weak to stop bullets due to the material and thickness of the shell. The highest level of ballistic protection from old steel helmets you could get is against 7.62x25 Tokarev, with the exceptional case of the Romanian M73 apparently being able to stop .30 carbine. Also QC matters, the M1 is supposed to be capable of stopping .45 out of a 1911 at point blank but some batches from WWII and Vietnam are defective due to botched heat treatment or steel quality. Same goes for the SSh-68. Moreover, the M1 was not designed explicitly for ballistic protection, resistance to .45 was an incidental thing. >>64883818>Soviet assault vests didnt even stop MP-40’s.Yes they could retard. >>64884624This actually would've made sense for limited use in the period of 1918-1945, when SMGs were still a widespread battlefield threat and intermediate caliber rifles weren't yet universal
>>64885209>with the exceptional case of the Romanian M73 apparently being able to stop .30 carbineYou serious? That would put it significantly above an ACH. Could make for an excellent poorfag helmet.
>>64883818>Soviet assault vests didnt even stop MP-40’s.Yes they did, for example Megamind here took a burst from a Suomi (9mm para) but survived to surrender.
>>64884624>People say it weighted roughly the same as early-2000s full body armor vests with SAPI plates.Not quite right I think.https://archive.org/details/metmuseum-Helmets_and_Body_Armor_in_Modern_Warfare/page/248/mode/2upPage 248-249 shows that specific american experimental light armor and page 253 says the front and back plate together had a weight of 8 1/2 pounds. Page 264-265 shows the arm protection and says that each arm-guard had weight of 2 1/4 pounds so the weight of the total suit with arm guards should be 13 pounds total.https://arsof-history.org/articles/19oct_body_armor_page_1.htmlThe IBA with vest (8.4 pounds) and sapi plates only (4 pounds each) had weight 16.4 pounds. A complete IBA with SAPI plates replaced by ESAPI had a weight of 34 pounds total (neck protection, groin protection, side plates and arm protection. A complete IOTV (pic related) was 2 pounds lighter then the complete IBA.But there is protection difference between the american experimental and early 2000s kevlar vests. The IBA and IOTV minimum protection was the kevlar rated for level 3A. The american experimental was rated for "revolver ammunition at 850 foot seconds" and they dont specifi specifcally the weight of the round at that page but I presume it is 230 gr 45acp FMJ fired from the M1917 revolver.That would according to>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_body_armor_performance_standards#Ballistic_resistance_(before_April_2024)Put it roughly a bit below NIJ level 2A but above NIJ level 1 which is impressive for a 1917-1918 light body armor design but not good enough to justify wide spread adoption.But if it could stop 9x19, 45acp and 7.62x25 fired from pistols at the muzzle (5 feet) and submachine guns at close range (30~100 feet) then that would justify wide spread adoption hands down.
>>64883959Wouldn't the dent reach into the wearer's skull?
>>64885209>the Romanian M73 apparently being able to stop .30 carbine. The Romanian M73 was a cost-optimized version of the older M39, itself a copy of the Dutch M34. So, assuming good metallurgy, all three would perform similarly.
>>64885491The Bangladesh engagement bot is not going to respond to you.
>>64883742No bullets, just shrapnel. Which is absolutely fine considering that shrapnel kills significantly more people than bullets in high intensity war.
Considering the curved surface of a helmet and the fact that rifle bullets, unlike tank shells, are easily deformed by impact, could there have been cases where the bullet was deflected by the slope effect?
>>64887150Steel helmets which 'should' be easily penetrated by rifles, have absolutely deflected rifle rounds.But this is usually at longer ranges and with very favorable angles of impact.
>>64887150Yes, there are many cases of that happening but it is purely a matter of luck. Usually at long range or after the bullet had gone through/bounced off something else first.
>>64887150
