The Lemon Fool

Start of WW1 soldiers were usually issued with cloth caps, standing and fighting in their trenches, records of casualties were kept and it was noticed that many head wounds were recorded. So they were issued with helmets (Tommy hats). But almost immediately the men reported with head wounds went up, even five-fold. Why?

JMN2 wrote:
Start of WW1 soldiers were usually issued with cloth caps, standing and fighting in their trenches, records of casualties were kept and it was noticed that many head wounds were recorded.

So they were issued with helmets (Tommy hats). But almost immediately the men reported with head wounds went up, even five-fold.

Why?

I'll wager that they began banging their heads on things when they bent down to pick their helmets up....

The law of unintended-consequences at it's finest....

Itsallaguess

JMN2 wrote:Start of WW1 soldiers were usually issued with cloth caps, standing and fighting in their trenches, records of casualties were kept and it was noticed that many head wounds were recorded. So they were issued with helmets (Tommy hats). But almost immediately the men reported with head wounds went up, even five-fold. Why?

The number of deaths from head injuries decreased, these would have been recorded as a death not a head injury. Steel helmets made survivable many previously fatal injuries therefore recorded head injuries increased. Possibly some relied on their helmets to protect them and ducked less whilst negotiating the front line.

RC

The number of deaths is irrelevant without further information. If the introduction of helmets coincided with a far greater number of soldiers in the trenches, for example, it could be that the number of head injuries per thousand soldiers was reduced.

Julian F. G. W.

Another possible factor is that the helmets stick out a lot. There is a far greater chance of hitting the edge of one's helmet against something (and possibly suffering an injury as a result) than of hitting one's unprotected head. They also offer a greater target for falling or flying objects: Something which may have missed the head completely may hit the rim of the helmet and cause a head injury.

Julian F. G. W.

ReformedCharacter wrote:
The number of deaths from head injuries decreased, these would have been recorded as a death not a head injury.

Steel helmets made survivable many previously fatal injuries therefore recorded head injuries increased.

I read an article a few years ago that discussed a similar set of circumstances regarding car air-bags.

Vascular surgeons began to see many more patients than in the past with acute leg injuries, where large parts of their lower bodies had been really badly damaged by car body-work impacts, and it was down to the recent widespread implementation in the car industry of driver and passenger air-bag technology.

Where in the past many of these patients would have been transferred straight to the mortuary from the scene of the accident, these multi-position air-bags now gave the car occupants much better upper-body protection, meaning a much higher chance of survival.

However, at the same time that survival was now often accompanied by severe leg injuries that had to be dealt with by health-care systems that didn't previously have such a high number of such cases to deal with in the past.

Interesting stuff, this 'progress' that we make....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

jfgw wrote:Another possible factor is that the helmets stick out a lot. There is a far greater chance of hitting the edge of one's helmet against something (and possibly suffering an injury as a result) than of hitting one's unprotected head. They also offer a greater target for falling or flying objects: Something which may have missed the head completely may hit the rim of the helmet and cause a head injury.

How far out did those helmets stick?

This has been suggested as a possible reason why cycle helmets are associated with increased risk of death or serious injury. Along with the torsional force that could turn a glancing blow into a spinal cord injury or at worst a broken neck. But those problems don't affect the much rounder helmets worn by motorcyclists.

My best guess has already been posted. But one more thought: were these helmets big heavy cumbersome things that would substantially impair the wearer's awareness of his surroundings, his reaction times in an emergency, and his ability to take rapid evasive action? Not to mention overheating the brain.

WW1 helmet AKA Brodie helmet, battle bowler, panic hat, or any helmet in general was mostly against shells falling short and causing shrapnel, stones, etc, raining down, but might be useful against a glancing bullet hit. A direct hit, not so much. Apparently, making a steel helmet guard against direct bullet hit would make the helmet so heavy if one was to nod off one would break one's ruddy neck.

I can remember reading about a similar (but not directly comparable) situation where the US air force analysed the bullet holes in planes returning from combat in WW2, with a view to increasing the armour in the vulnerable areas. The clever blokes in the Statistical research group realised that the armour should go where the bullet holes weren't, as the planes hit in these areas were not making it back...

RC is correct, it's to do with statistics. Before helmets, men would get killed from the falling debris and shrapnel and would be listed as dead, After, they would be injured and listed as head wounded, hence the increase in head wounds recorded.