In the weeks following Iran's Jan. 8 ballistic missile attack on the Ain al-Assad air base in Iraq, 110 American service members deployed there were diagnosed with what has been the signature, albeit invisible, wound of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: traumatic brain injury caused by concussive blasts from exploding weapons.

Even if all of those service members were wearing combat helmets, they and more than 400,000 other U.S. troops diagnosed with TBI over the past two decades lacked equipment that was specifically designed to protect their brains from the blast of shock waves.

That's because ever since the first modern combat helmet came out in 1915, these so-called "brain buckets" have been designed to protect heads not from invisible shock waves, but from shrapnel, bullets and other blunt physical objects.

In fact, a recent study done by a team of Duke University researchers finds that the 105-year-old "Adrian" helmet used by the French army in World War I can provide better blast protection than the Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH) widely used by the U.S. military.

"That was very surprising, actually," says Joost Op 't Eynde, the Belgian bioengineering doctoral candidate at Duke who led the research project comparing three WWI-vintage helmets with the ACH model. "It was only after the tests that we saw that the modern helmet was not better. And then we saw that, in certain scenarios, the French Adrian helmet had performed better."

It was only when those helmets were exposed to overhead blast waves that the 1915-era Adrian helmet outperformed the others. The Duke researchers point to the raised metal crest running from the front to the back of the Adrian helmet — a design feature also found on helmets used in those times by French firefighters — as a likely explanation for its superior protection from overhead blasts.

"The geometry of the helmet can make a big difference," says Op 't Eynde. "I'm not sure a crest or something like it would work with a modern design, but just being aware of how the geometry might affect the way that the head and the brain might experience a shock wave is definitely something that I think should be kept in mind in helmet design."

But a 2014 review conducted by a committee created by the National Academies' National Research Council notes that while the Kevlar-based ACH helmet is a significant evolution from its WWI predecessors, the principal approach to helmet design remains protection from striking objects.

"The protection of the warfighter afforded by helmets from threats ranging from bullets, shrapnel, blasts, vehicle collisions and parachute landings has improved with improved helmet design and materials," the report's authors write. "However, the level of protection from nonfatal brain tissue injuries, which may have health consequences beyond the acute phase, is not known."

An Army officer with the Program Executive Office Soldier branch that manages protective gear says a research gap explains why there has not been more progress in designing a blast wave-resistant combat helmet.

"How much of a blast wave is too much? It's not well-defined," says Lt. Col. Ginger Whitehead, the product manager for soldier protective equipment. "It goes back to the medical community not establishing a correlation of injury to the blast wave."

Others, though, insist that a lack of a complete understanding of how blast waves affect the brain should not be an obstacle to coming up with helmets that do a better job of shielding soldiers' brains.

"It's not that you need to know exactly what the medical condition is that results from a blast wave of a certain amount of force," says University of Rochester physicist Eric Blackman, who co-authored a 2007 study examining the need for better TBI protection in combat helmets. "You really need to protect the force from getting in the brain in the first place, and you can do that without knowing exactly what the medical symptoms are."

Retired Gen. Peter Chiarelli has devoted much of his time since leaving active duty in 2012 as Vice Chief of Staff of the Army to advocating a better understanding of war-related TBI.

"We've spent billions of dollars — I did, as vice chief of staff — researching traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress, and we really haven't gotten much return on that investment," says Chiarelli. "And I would argue it's not necessarily the money that makes the most impact — it's groups of researchers that are willing to work together, share data, learn from each other, and when they go down that path that doesn't work, they tell each other rather than try to hide that from each other."

The University of Rochester's Blackman is convinced a combat helmet that more fully protects against TBI is both necessary and possible.

"There needs to be some kind of prioritization with very specific goals," he says. "Bring people together — it will happen if there's a concerted effort toward it. If you think of something like the Manhattan project (that produced the first nuclear weapon during World War II) for this, that's what's lacking."

While 100 percent protection may not be possible against blast waves, Blackman adds, the superior performance of a century-old combat helmet should be a reminder that there is ample room for improvement.

LINK: https://www.npr.org/2020/02/21...against-brain-trauma

A recall similar findings being reported shortly after the ACH was fielded about the PASGT being a better helmet. This was because the older PASGT provided better overall coverage of the head and upper neck due to the larger design and the old leather strap sweat band of the PASGT suspension system allowed the helmet to sit lower or the head to be deeper in the helmet. The ACH was cut smaller and the newer suspension system had the helmet riding higher on the head. The ACH was more comfortable and stable, especially with NVGs mounted, but the protection reduction was instantly obvious. It’s just the trade off game of protection vs mobility and getting troops to keep their PPE on.

What a misleading headline.

There is no such thing as a free lunch in body armor. The bigger and heavier it is, the better it works but the harder it is to wear.

I do not have access to statistics, but am under the impression that Traumatic Brain injuries caused by IEDs have increased during the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. Blast wave injuries often result in damage that is less visible, but serious nonetheless.

Can any practical, wearable for hours at a time helmet protect against blast waves?

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
Can any practical, wearable for hours at a time helmet protect against blast waves?

I would say no. And I would ask how much of your head and neck would really have to be covered to get there? Does shock flowing from your torso travel to your brain? We are 70% water.

Seems like the questions could be endless.

A somewhat more complete article, including this statement:

“But all helmets provided a five-to-tenfold reduction in risk for moderate brain bleeding ….”

https://www.armytimes.com/news...ily%20News%20Roundup

I have noticed a very odd (to me, anyway) reaction to any discussion of protective measures or equipment for some people to focus on any failure of it to be absolutely effective. The most vivid example that I remember from years ago was the debate over efforts to develop defenses against ICBMs. When it was admitted that out of five or six such missiles perhaps one would get through, the opponents to any defense spending jumped on that as proof that the project was a waste of money. Hmm …; let’s see now: “Would it be better for one city to be destroyed or for five or six to be destroyed? What a conundrum; how could anyone answer such a difficult question?”

As the article points out, protection against blast waves is just now being considered. Now that it is, hopefully future helmet designs will take that into account.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

Sure, the Frenchy helmet may provide better blast attenuation, but, it can't stop fragmentation missiles like the modern stuff.

Makes one wonder what the next phase of development would look like. That is, if they were more interested in protecting brains of troops than holding test trials on new rifles every year for decades....

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
Can any practical, wearable for hours at a time helmet protect against blast waves?

No. Even a complete bomb suit doesn’t provide complete protection. And the problem with wearability is a real concern. There’s a reason why putting on a bomb suit helmet is known as entering the cone of stupidity, or as one of my HDS instructors said, “You might think you’re a bomb suit ballerina, but you actually move around like a drunken astronaut.” Like everything in life, protective equipment is about trade offs. An older design helmet might protect better from blast over pressure but would protect poorly from frag, which causes more injuries. Also if the helmet is so uncomfortable as to be unwearable or make a troop combat ineffective then it doesn’t matter how well it protects because it won’t be used or won’t be used as designed.

What's more survivable, a TBI or a hole in the head? What has more serious quality of life ramifications for the survivor, a TBI or a hole in the head?

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:
*Stormtrooper helmet*

Again, it's all about tradeoffs... The Stormtrooper helmet provides excellent protection against frag and TBI, but once donned, your ability to shoot accurately goes completely to shit.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
once donned, your ability to shoot accurately goes completely to shit.

Probably because you can’t see anything while wearing it.

The book Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare published in 1920 that was about World War I efforts discusses several attempts to provide eye protection with either small slits or holes in facial plates or small chain panels over the face. (That was long before the availability of plastics offering ballistic protection.) They were never successful due to their hindrance on vision.

Probably because you can’t see anything while wearing it.

.[/QUOTE]

Don't put it on backwards anymore !!

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The book Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare published in 1920 that was about World War I efforts discusses several attempts to provide eye protection with either small slits or holes in facial plates or small chain panels over the face. (That was long before the availability of plastics offering ballistic protection.) They were never successful due to their hindrance on vision.

They weren't common for infantry use, but they did see somewhat widespread use amongst tank crews.

The armor plating on early tanks was thick enough to stop incoming small arms rounds, but the impact of the rounds on the armor would cause the rear of the steel to "spall", sending splinters of steel frag flying around the interior of the tanks.

To protect themselves from this spalling issue, early tank crews began wearing thick leather uniforms, gloves, helmets, and chainmail face protectors. Because they weren't having to walk/run around on foot like the infantry, the extra weight/heat/bulk wasn't as much of an issue.

quote:

In the weeks following Iran's Jan. 8 ballistic missile attack on the Ain al-Assad air base in Iraq, 110 American service members deployed there were diagnosed with what has been the signature, albeit invisible, wound of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: traumatic brain injury caused by concussive blasts from exploding weapons.

Had the blast shelters been normally situated: underground/below ground level, the shock wave effects would've been mitigated quite a bit since impact explosions go up and out. As such, the shelters were simply above ground, reinforced structures, good at handling fragmentation but, not the concussive effects of a blast.

A PASGT saved my life two times. The ACH is much more comfy and convenient but gives up a little in what it can take. I don’t think the ACH would have been as effective in the situations I was in as the PASGT but that’s my opinion not backed up with evidence. I think you would get the same TBI from over pressure no matter the helmet you wear and protection from actual impacts with projectiles or objects should not be sacrificed for the overpressure situations.

How about one like this?

It was only when those helmets were exposed to overhead blast waves that the 1915-era Adrian helmet outperformed the others. The Duke researchers point to the raised metal crest running from the front to the back of the Adrian helmet — a design feature also found on helmets used in those times by French firefighters — as a likely explanation for its superior protection from overhead blasts.

"The geometry of the helmet can make a big difference," says Op 't Eynde. "I'm not sure a crest or something like it would work with a modern design, but just being aware of how the geometry might affect the way that the head and the brain might experience a shock wave is definitely something that I think should be kept in mind in helmet design."



If the crest actually works to redirect the pressure waves, it shouldn't add that much weight to the current design.