Talk:M1 helmet

Bails vs. bales

For some reason, the collecting fraternity has taken to naming the wire chinstrap loops on the M1 helmet as "bales." That mistaken notion should be corrected here, since there is ample dictionary evidence to prove that the correct spelling is "bails." The online Merriam-Webster offers this definition of "bails":

   1 a : a supporting half hoop b : a hinged bar for holding paper against the platen of a typewriter
   2 : a usually arched handle (as of a kettle or pail)

I have corrected the spelling in the text, but cannot alter the photo-image of the M1 liner and its misspelled labeling of this part. If the originator of the illustration would be so kind to do so, please add the correct spelling of "bails" to the image's terminology. Jack Bethune 10:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

== Fair enough. I copied to term "bale" from existing M1 collector websites and such. They never seem to be refered to as bails. I'll edit the image when I get a chance Chris Wood 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for following up on this correction to terminology. Your imaging expertise and editing efforts will be beneficial to all Wikipedia readers who have an interest in M1 helmets and who might be misled by other websites. With appreciation, Jack Bethune 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

"During World War II, and later, soldiers wore the webbing chinstraps, preferring to loop them around the back of the helmet and clip them together. This was because many men believed the incorrect notion that a nearby exploding bomb or artillery shell could cause the chinstrap to snap their neck when the helmet was caught in its concussive force. The nape strap inside of the liner is intended to keep the helmet from falling off a man's head."

That line seems a bit odd. It first makes it seem like the soldiers wore the chinstaprs, then says many did not, and instead looped them around the back of the helmet. Anyone who knows the truth want to rephrase that?

Degree of Protection

Considering that this article is about armour, I think it would be prudent to add this information, adding sources as relevant. Veritas Panther 14:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I looked it up only to find out how it stacked against modern helmets in degree of protection. There's no information whatsoever on how much protection it provides, but there are three paragraphs devoted to the details of the helmet liner? 68.230.161.164 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment

Thank you for an interesting and educational article on a subject which, I think, many people might consider far too ordinary and basic to bother with. I especially like the labeled picture of the inside. Complex stuff, specially engineered and developed over a half-century of experience... LordAmeth 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"pressed NON-MAGNETIC steel"

Um, why is that capitalized? I was thinking of switching it to lowercase, but if there's a valid reason, I'll keep it.

July 2007 Discussion regarding improvements to the article

After reviewing the article, I would like to begin a discussion to cleanup the article by rewriting, shuffling, and deleting several portions of the current text. Starting from the top, I would suggest the following points how I would like to see the article improved.

• A complete rewrite of the introductory paragraphs to bring it inline the standards set by Wikipedia, specifically limiting the content the paragraph as a paraphrasing of the article content.

• The sections “shell” and “liner” should be renamed and become subsections under a “Design” section. I would also like to propose a section for alternative use but am still unsure if major editors can create a worthwhile paragraph justifying its own section.

• Subsections “cover” and “net” should become sections under a new section “Accessories”.

• The section “Clone helmets” should be renamed “Use and International Adaptation”. As well as describing how several nations copied the M1 Helmet and its comtinued use in some militaries (I could have sworn to have seen soldiers of the current Iraqi army and some African nation armies and guerilla groups use similar helmets).

Depending on the amount and quality of the editors that participate in rewriting the article, I am considering the addition of a section called “History” to explain the introduction, revisions, and obsolescence. However, since some of that information is already apart of “Shell” and “liner”, it could be left as is. Mind you, all of this is just a discussion to change the article and would encourage suggestions and comments to be left on this talkpage.--Kevin586 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A veteran told me

About 20 years ago, a World War II veteran told me that this helmet was very good, in combat.Agre22 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)agre22

Material used in this helmet was hadfield steel

The material used in this helmet was Hadfield steel, a steel with very hight maganese content.The article [[1]] has many informations about this kind of steel.Agre22 (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

The german word Stahlhelm

There is no irony in the fact that the M1 helmet was called Stahlhelm in Austria or in Germany. Stahlhelm simply is the generic german word for a combat helmet. Or in other words all combat helmets are called Stahlhelm in german not only combat helmets following the design used by the german forces in the first and second world war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.19.137 (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Consider a Rewrite of the Article

Seems quite a bit of info here without original sources, and too much reliance on secondary commercial sources. Suggest someone review Chapter 11, "WOUND BALLISTICS", by the Medical Department, US Army, dtd 1962 for better info. http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter11.htm

Some points to look at:

Protection: "The ballistics properties of the outer shell had been improved [over those of the M1917 helmet] so that it would resist penetration by a 230-grain caliber .45 bullet with a velocity of 800 f.p.s."

Composition (as noted elsewhere on the talk page but not in the main article): "It was of two-piece design with an outer Hadfield steel shell and a separate inner liner containing the suspension system."

Regarding the comment: 'many men incorrectly believed that a nearby exploding bomb or artillery shell could cause the chinstrap to snap their neck when the helmet was caught in its concussive force'. The concussive force issue was a valid concern, however, why this should be mentioned in the body of the text as applying 'during WWII and after' is a mystery, since the solution - the ball and clevis device - was fielded in 1944: "During the course of the North African campaigns in 1943, the rigid hook fastener of the chinstrap was found to be a source of potential danger by remaining intact under the impact of a blast wave resulting from a nearby detonation and thereby jerking the head sharply and violently with the production of fractures or dislocations of the cervical vertebras. Therefore, it was necessary to redesign the helmet strap with a ball-and-clevis release so that it would remain closed during normal combat activities but would allow for. a quick voluntary release or automatic release at pressures considerably below the accepted level of danger. Following extensive tests by ordnance engineers, a new release device was developed which would release at a pull of 15 pounds or more. This device (fig. 308) was standardized in 1944."

No mention is made of the 1" standoff distance between liner and head, nor the reason for it, despite the fact that this is the main reason for the helmet's lack of stability on the head.

No mention is made of the helmet's proven effectiveness, the degree of that effectiveness, nor the projectiles it proved effective in defeating.

Much more in that link for improving this Wiki entry article. 160.149.1.36 (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Victory Day Parade, Dhaka, Bangladesh 2011.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Turkish airman: the right helmet?

At the end of the "Accessories" section there's a photo of a member of the Turkish air force wearing a blue helmet. Is his helmet really an M1? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

SS Jacob Luckenbach

The article currently states:

A consignment of 100,000 olive drab covers was dispatched to the [Korean] theater, but the ship carrying them, SS Jacob Luckenbach, sank in a collision en route and they were all lost.

If the reader follows the link to the article on the ship, the reader will see that the Jacob Luckenbach was renamed the Tung Ping in 1947 and scrapped in Tokyo in 1959. So, the ship that sank in a collision was a different ship, possibly with the same name but possibly not. I will remove the link and install a citation required template. Thanks. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I did find a citation! It was a different ship with the same name! Citation is now added. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)