Ballistic Helmets and Aspects of Their Design

Abstract

The head represents approximately 9% of the body area exposed in combat yet receives approximately 20% of all "hits." The desirability of protecting this vital structure would appear self-evident. Helmet design is a complex issue. Factors that designers of United States Army helmets thoughtfully consider include weight, ballistic qualities of the construction material, balance, helmet-to-person interface (comfort), maintenance of vision and hearing, equipment and weapon compatibility, ease of modification, available materials and manufacturing techniques, durability, ease of decontamination, disposability, and cost. The envisioned future role of the infantryman will make the interplay among these factors even more daunting.

Preliminary investigation of the impact resistance properties of a PASGT-type ballistic helmet

“…The M-1917 helmet, which was used by the US Army in 1917, provided adequate protection against shell fragments. However, this helmet was found to be unbalanced and uncomfortable [2].…”

“…A typical military helmet that was used in World War I could stop an approximately 15-g bullet traveling at a speed of 122 = 137 m/s [2]. The M-1917 helmet, which was used by the US Army in 1917, provided adequate protection against shell fragments.…”

“…Protection mechanisms and wearing comfort of ballistic helmets have been improvised to cope with modern war tactics. A number of studies related to new concepts and designs of anti-ballistic helmet materials have also been conducted [2][3][4][5][6]. The prospective materials identified thus far are high performance polymers, laminated composites and nanoparticle filled composites.…”

“…(a) The protected areas, and (b) the retention-suspension system of a PASGT Helmet[2]. (a) External side view, (b) suspension system side view, and (c) suspension system bottom view of an Advanced Combat Helmet[9].…”

Materials and design issues for military helmets

“…However, these helmets, whilst offering protection against low-velocity projectiles, are not designed to resist high-energy projectiles from rifl es (Cooper and Gotts, 2005). According to Carey et al (2000), the head area encounters up to 25% of all reported 'projectile hits' (causing wounds to the head area), despite the neck and head section only comprising approximately 12% of the body area. This is due to the fact that personnel must continually study their surroundings, thus leaving the head and neck area widely exposed during combat operations.…”