WW1 infantry helmets

[PhilB]

The picture below, from www.irishguards.net, has the caption:-

The above picture shows three members of the 2nd. Battalion near Ypres, 1917. The first striking thing about the picture is that all three are wearing body armour. But it is the soldier on the left that is most interesting. He wears a helmet with a chain mail visor. The helmet is turned back to front, as the visor was intended to cover the face as a protection from shrapnel.

I was aware that tank crew had such visors but haven`t seen one on an infantryman`s helmet. Another photo shows a stretcher bearer with chain mail on the rear of his helmet. Was it a standard issue and was the chain mail designed to be worn front or back? Or both? Phil B

[Joe Sweeney]

Phil,

This helmet has been discussed before.

The face piece was meant to protect the eyes. The soldier in the photo is only wearing it as a convenient way of getting the face piece out of the way.

Go to:

Helmet Face Pieces

Joe Sweeney

[PhilB]

Thanks, Joe. I see over 100,000 supplied. Don`t see many around now? I can imagine they`d be really annoying to wear. Phil B

[Simon Jones]

The first striking thing about the picture is that all three are wearing body armour. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope I am not stating the obvious by pointing out that they are posing in captured German body armour.

Regards

Simon

[Andrew Upton]

I hope I am not stating the obvious by pointing out that they are posing in captured German body armour.

Regards

Simon

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not just posing - British sentries in exposed positions during bombardments were not adverse to taking any additional protection they could get, so it also served a practical purpose to them.

I'm suprised you didn't point out the MG08 they're holding as well

[Robert Dunlop]

Or are they Germans posing in captured British helmets??

Robert

[Simon Jones]

I'm suprised you didn't point out the MG08 they're holding as well

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought that really would have been too obvious

Regards

Simon

[Simon Jones]

Or are they Germans posing in captured British helmets??

Robert

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is getting surreal

[bernardmcilwaine]

wasnt the chain mail for tank crews to protect them from splinters flying about in the tank,bernard

[Robert Dunlop]

Bernard, it was - you are right. Tanks were subjected to machine gun fire, with and without armour-piercing bullets. While the latter would easily penetrate the Mk IIs (used to 'support' the Battle of Bullecourt for example), later Mks of tanks were relatively impervious. However, the bullets striking the armour plate would cause hot metal fragments to flake off the inside surface of the armour. These would fly around the interior of the tank, sometimes causing nasty injuries to the face and potentially the eyes. Hence the need for facial protection. Not that the crews liked wearing the chain mail guards!

Robert

[PhilB]

wasnt the chain mail for tank crews to protect them from splinters flying about in the tank,bernard

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But that was a different design to the infantry helmet, though probably using the same chain mail? Phil B

[bernardmcilwaine]

sorry to sound dumb about this,i didnt know that the infantry wore them,but the dumb question is,WHY,what are they protection against,a bullet would go straight through it and a shrapnel ball would drive it into the mans face,bernard

[bkristof]

But that was a different design to the infantry helmet, though probably using the same chain mail? Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i had both in my hands several times; Yes the chain mail is of the same sort.