I think I’ve got the bike helmet thing sussed:
mountain biking – wear one
road biking – wear one if you like, but there are pros & cons

As for soldiers, I always thought that in war zones helmets were widely thought to be “A GOOD THING” ever since the tin helmets of WWI, but most of the local troops in Iraq & Syria don’t seem to bother with them. Why not?

Is it anything to do with religion, is it God’s will whether they live or die and so wearing a helmet doesn’t matter? Is there some other reason? Is there a regional helmet shortage?? What does STW think?

Because helmets are heavy, hot and sweaty and don’t deflect anything more than a glancing blow from bullet or debris?

Because Iraqis fighting ISIS don’t want to look like American soldiers and prefer the heroic amateur image?

Probably also a bit of religious fatalism, muslim or christian.

Religion and helmets?

Because helmets are heavy, hot and sweaty and don’t deflect anything more than a glancing blow from bullet or debris?

But the British & Americans always wore them in Iraq….

The US supplies a lot of their kit (Iraqis at least), but few helmets for some reason.

They just hate wearing the stuff too, even if they wear body armour chances are it won’t have plates in.

I have heard various arguments about religious fatalism, same as for firing without looking down the sights. I suspect it’s a mixture of factors, including simply not knowing better.

Modern helmets & body armour is bloody good, but is hot & heavy. I imagine the Iraqi Army might not be as disciplined or fit as professional western military. I know what I’d do.

Tj will be along shortly to suggest……

Helmets took off in WW1 due to shrapnel, maybe it’s not such an issue for them.

Religion and helmets?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

Definitely a religious issue for some!

Why are they riding their bikes in war zones?

For the UK at least, working in hostile environments means wearing the correct PPE. In a war zone and on the ground, this means a helmet, eye protection, ballistic shorts and body armour with the right plates in. You may also get to wear more armour depending on your role

Our chain of command look at the threat level and mandate what needs to be worn. The directive filters down and people wear it. If you don’t you get shouted at, charged, etc. No excuses.

I suspect a lot of the forces in Mosul/Iraq/Middle East don’t have the same level of kit, the same level of authority, procedures, or desire to wear all the things we do. It may well be that it is the will of God if they get hit.

It’s a desert state, getting sand under your helmet impairs performance.

ballistic shorts

*snigger*

They are worried that if they wear helmets, then they will look a bit like plonkers & IS fighters won’t afford them the same courtesy & care they give to other people.
Dr Ian Walker did a study which proves this

I think the whole “Gods Will” thing gets overplayed in the West. As is sometimes the case I think a lot of it stemmed from something Jeremy Clarkson said once.

People in the Middle East aren’t as risk adverse as us in the West, but few places, if any are as risk adverse as us. You will find people in the ME who will wear seat belts and take all manner of other precautions without worrying their God will strike them down for messing with his plans.

As for why they don’t wear Helmets, a little of the above I guess.

Another factor is cost, AK style rifles knocked out in China or AR style rifles donated from the US are very cheap and they cover the most basic requirements for them to be able to kill people at a distance. If you’re working to a limited budget it’s guns first, protection second.

Also, they’re not really designed to be bullet proof, even the very fancy ones Western Armies use are useless against a direct hit from an assault rifle – they’re more for protection from falling debris and solders banging their heads climbing around cover etc. You might recall if you’ve seen Black Hawk Down, some of the Solders wore Ice Hockey Helmets as they did 90% of what the Kevlar helmets did, whilst not being so hot or balky.

Is it because they cover their nadgers with their erm helmet because they are more likely to get hit by an IED than shot ?

Another factor is cost

that’s what I thought at first, but the Americans are throwing loads of money at them (armoured humvees etc) so I’m sure they’d stump up for a few helmets.

I guess it’s a combination of factors, but it does make them look more like an undisciplined rabble in western eyes…………….

They probably just know that all helmets turn what otherwise would have just been a bit of a scratch from a bullet into a broken neck.

(That and a combination of the risk culture being far different combined with cost – which I suspect is still a factor even for those with some American equipment)

that’s what I thought at first, but the Americans are throwing loads of money at them (armoured humvees etc) so I’m sure they’d stump up for a few helmets.

But what’s the point in spending money on helmets that those receiving the aid just won’t use? May as well spend the money on more rifles, humvees etc.

philjunior

They probably just know that all helmets turn what otherwise would have just been a bit of a scratch from a bullet into a broken neck.

Say what?

Why are they riding their bikes in war zones?

Makes the trails come alive.

JimJam, I cant figure that out either.

If you have to explain the joke…..

…you haven’t been TJ’d

Also, they’re not really designed to be bullet proof, even the very fancy ones Western Armies use are useless against a direct hit from an assault rifle – they’re more for protection from falling debris

I have a passing interest in protective head gear including bicycle helmets….any kind of helmet interests me hahah – due to my Medical Sciences background. 😳

The latest American models starting to be rolled out can stop certain rifle rounds at the expense of a massive TBI to the wearer. Older helmets can stop pistol rounds and shrapnel eg from airbursting munitions.

TBI? Does this mean traumatic Brain Injury? if so it hardly sounds like an idea pay off

I was under the impression that helmets were purely for the purpose of carrying fag packets? Maybe none of these guys smoke?

You’re about 40/50 years too late for that! It was all the rage in Viet Nam.

Ballistic shorts (tier 1) are awesome. Long, lycra like shorts with kevlar and silk to stop frag. They work. Seriously.

I’m guessing its very similar to wearing of hard hats on construction sites. Professional sites in the UK everyone wears helmets and hi viz the whole time. If you don’t you get chucked off site.

Look at a building site outside Europe and I bet they don’t. Few of us would wear a hard hat when doing DIY at home. When building my own house we never wore them. Uncomfortable, knock on things, restrict your vision.

Willard, sounds like you are an army man and know what you’re talking about.

You therefore have no place on a thread such as this…

😉

Tier ones plus the combat diaper = keep your knackers. Hell to wear for more than half an hours moving around.

Its not really an HSE thing Simmons – I think that claim is a bit Daily Maily.

Helmets have a long history in the military – in fact they have thousands of years of history and armour has in the past proven decisive in war – for example the Brodie helmet was developed because…

At the outbreak of World War I, none of the combatants provided steel helmets to their troops. Soldiers of most nations went into battle wearing cloth, felt, or leather headgear that offered no protection from modern weapons.

The huge number of lethal head wounds that modern artillery weapons inflicted upon the French Army led them to introduce the first modern steel helmets in the summer of 1915.[3][4] The first French helmets were bowl-shaped steel “skullcaps” worn under the cloth caps. These rudimentary helmets were soon replaced by the Model 1915 Adrian helmet, designed by August-Louis Adrian.[5] The idea was later adopted by most

It seems that history provides a good reason for their introduction. I don’t think people were too bothered about HSE at work in 1914.

I’ll take a wild guess and say the brass take the view that any armour that might swing the statistics of attrition in their favour gets issued despite the screaming and howling of the men.

Serious question on helmets: Having bashed my head numerous times while doing DIY in the attic or under the house I wonder why nobody has invented a close-fitting, non-sweaty head protector that isn’t designed for falling bricks but will give protection to the scalp from nails, low beams and house stuff and protect Mrs Gti’s ears from my curses. It would need to be affordable, light, attractive not naff and possibly foldable to go in a pocket.

It would need to be affordable, light, attractive not naff and possibly foldable to go in a pocket.

One of those rugby head guards?

One of those beanies designed for epileptics?

MoreCashThanDash – Member
If you have to explain the joke…..

POSTED 2 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
cranberry – Member
…you haven’t been TJ’d

Phew I was wondering if I’d been a bit too subtle.

I did see a telly program about these things, they are getting better at stopping things.

globalti – Member
Serious question on helmets: Having bashed my head numerous times while doing DIY in the attic or under the house I wonder why nobody has invented a close-fitting, non-sweaty head protector that isn’t designed for falling bricks but will give protection to the scalp from nails, low beams and house stuff and protect Mrs Gti’s ears from my curses. It would need to be affordable, light, attractive not naff and possibly foldable to go in a pocket.

POSTED 41 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

They have, Google first base bump hats, I wear one everyday at work

Google bump hat

That’s what I ended up wearing whenever I was on our scaffold. A hardhat was just too bulky but i kept catching my head on bolts.

Its not really an HSE thing Simmons – I think that claim is a bit Daily Maily.

Helmets have a long history in the military – in fact they have thousands of years of history and armour has in the past proven decisive in war

It is a bit ‘daily mail-y’ but blanket HSE policies can sometimes look ridiculous or are counter productive. The local council seems to have a blanket ‘hi viz’ policy for all it’s housing maintenance. You really don’t need a hi viz vest to fit a kitchen in a terraced house.

parkesie – Member
Tier ones plus the combat diaper = keep your knackers. Hell to wear for more than half an hours moving around.

Yeah, you need that ‘wicking’ factor from the shorts just to keep yourself from sweating your knackers off.

tpbiker – Member

TBI? Does this mean traumatic Brain Injury? if so it hardly sounds like an idea pay off

As an alternative to having a rifle bullet pass through your head it probably has a lot going for it.

As someone said above, oldschool steel hats were mostly designed for people in a trench with bursting shells above you- you’re not needing to stop bullets travelling at 1500mph, you’re needing to stop shrapnel or splinters at about 1/4 the speed and generally lighter, or random slower but maybe heavier debris, and do a bit with blastwaves and that.

That’s still something that happens of course but it’s less important in a “loads of guys shooting at each other with rifles” sort of scenario. Meanwhile maybe not being so obviously a combatant is valubale.

But I hear from next year, Steve Parr’s making helmet wearing mandatory. This’ll cause combatant numbers to drop sharply.

British soldiers did spend some time early days in Afghanistan in berets didn’t they? The idea being to appear less threatening, seem less like an occupying army in a war zone, that sort of thing? Then it all got a bit more war-y and the helmets went back on.