Dean-Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare
Dean-Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare
Dean-Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare
'' "^
VV • • •.
v-;^ 'a»<3^
^^-V.
9^/*^^'* iS^
'*.^-.
V ^'^'^^x.
->
-^
'.;"•
/%
.0^
o*
:- -^^o^
i-^V
..- r '^<^^-^?^\/ "o^*^--/ ^^,'-^\/ '\*-..^-
'.• *.*''^-«:.
''^m: ^^\ '-Wm: J'K. '-^m-' JK. •mm: *«
• » » . ^
•^
•.l:;iL%
• o.
°- /.-i-;^-*-?, /.i^^.*°o /.c:^.\ /.i^
*• ^^
.-. '^^0^ o.
'bV
4 o
0^ .-J.-., %^
'bV"
Ao,
V^-'V
.v-^
•>o^ '>-o^
/
THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART
BY
/
BASHFORD DEAN, Ph.D. ir
NEW HAVEN:
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON HUiVIPHREY MILFORD •
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
MDCCCCXX
Qy/ykAJL 2-
1^
*o'
COPYRIGHT, 1920, BY /
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
^
©CI.A576300
SEP -/-jb^G
British Standard British (Variant)
German Standard
PREFACE
THE present book aims to consider the virtues and failings of hel-
mets and body armor in modern warfare. To this end it brings
together materials collected from all accessible sources; it shows
the kinds of armor which each nation has been using in the Great
War, what practical tests they will resist, of what materials they are made,
and what they have done in saving life and limb. As an introduction to
these headings there has now been added a section which deals with ancient
armor; this enables us to contrast the old with the new and to indicate, in
clearer perspective, what degree of success the latest armor may achieve in
(3) That body armor, in spite of the protection which it affords, finds
little favor with the soldier. For numerous reasons, he would rather take
(4) That effort should be made, none the less, to demonstrate more
clearly the protective value of body armor, to improve its material and
design, and to reduce to a minimum the discomfort which will always be
experienced by its wearer, — in a word, to meet the objections to the use
of armor which have been brought up on the sides both of theory and of
practice.
In preparing the following pages I have sought and secured aid from
many sources. I am most indebted to the Department of War ot the
of all
r
;
Henry S. Pritchett and Mr. Charles W. Gould, I owe my thanks for their
interest in the present work. Among my associates in the Museum to whom
I am indebted I should name Mr. Alexander McMillan Welch
especially
and Miss V. Isabel Miller and those who labored early and late in the
Armor Workshop, Messrs. Tachaux, Bartel, Tinsley and Merkert.
In fact, it should be recorded that when the matter of helmets was
IN MODERN WARFARE 9
;^
taken up by the United States shortly after the war began and when col-
lections of ancient armor became of especial value to the Government's
experts, who were seeking to examine distinctive models, the Metropolitan
Museum placed at the disposal of the War Department not only its col-
lection of armor (which, thanks to the Riggs Benefaction, has become one
of the most important extant), but also its staff of armor specialists and
its armor repair shopto aid in developing and making whatever models
were needed. Thus it came about that within the museum numerous types
of helmets and body armor were prepared which, copied in proof metal,
were later sent to the front. Hence the present volume bears, in a degree,
upon the Museum's activities.
That such a work, moreover, can appear today as a publication of a
museum of art is an evidence of the wide-reaching field of activity covered
by a modern institution. For, at an earlier time, a museum would have
considered armor only as objects of artistic value. Nevertheless, in any
phase of the study of armor it becomes often difficult to distinguish between
the aesthetic and the practical.* In olden times there is no question that the
beauty of his armor helped the soldier to bear the burden. And in modern
warfare it is more than probable that no armor would have been accepted
widely had it not possessed certain aesthetic elements. The helmet, for
example, worn by the French in the present war would never have gained
its extraordinary success had it not been attractive in its lines, designed, —
by the way, by no less a personage than Edouard Detaille, whose pictures
of beaux soldats have for generations been familiar to all. Nor would the
* Classification of the two principal lines in which armor may be studied ob-
jectively.
Utility
Ballistic \ alue
Metal
Construction
Weight
Comfort in wearing
Security in support.
Beauty
Form
Surfaces, with shades and shadows
Colors, — given by heat, "pickling" processes, paints or varnishes, overlays of
various metals
Ornament
Etched, engraved, embossed, applied, punched, nielloed, damascened.
lo HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
extremely simple British helmet have been accepted generally and promptly
had it not an especial set and swing of its own.
BASHFORD DEAN.
Metropolitan Museum of Art,
July 20, 1919.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction: Including an Outline of the Earlier Use of Armor 25
L The Early Use of Armor in the Present War 64
11. Armor
(a)
Velocity ........
as a Protection against Missiles of Low and Middle
III.
.....
(b) Frequency in the Location of Wounds and Its Bearing
upon the Anxior Problem
Foreign Types of Modern Helmets and Body Armor. Their
70
Index .........
at the Present Time? Summary and Conclusions 313
319
1
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Frontispiece A dozen types of modern helmets
1
2
of a thousand years ......
European armor and its development during a period
5
Museum, Paris
Armor of Pedro
.......
de Guise (f 1583). Weight 94 pounds. Artillery
6
......
inforcing plate for corselet. Specimen in Metropoli-
tan Museum of Art
Three-quarters suit of armor of "proof," showing
33
7
mark ........
Rear view of same armor ; backplate showing testing
9
The various
mental sequence ......
kinds of helmets
15
men in Tower of London
Body armor used in American
.....
Sapper's helmet, middle of nineteenth century. Speci-
specimen preserved in
Richmond, Va. ....... Museum Military Institute,
57
16
17
war of 1870 .......
French breast defense (jazeran) used during the
........
.
23
Standard helmet shown in profile (in dotted lines)
over French dragoon's helmet
Lining of standard French helmet
....
... 75
76
24
.....
Standard French helmet, Adrian model, 1916, show-
ing steps in manufacture
yy
25
on crown ........
French helmet, experimental, with concentric flutings
83
26
.....
British standard helmet, experimental model, having
bosses stamped on crown 84
27
28
made model (A)......
Revised model of French helmet, experimental hand-
made model B ( . . . . . . 86
29 Revised model of French helmet, experimental hand-
made model (C) . . . . . .
87
30 Revised model of French helmet, experimental hand-
made model (D) . . . . . .
87
31 Siege helmet, French, 1916-1917 . . . . 88
32 Experimental design for sentinel's heavy helmet.
Model by MM. Dunand 88
33 French experimental visor, Polack model . . 88
34
35
Early Polack model ......
French standard helmet with experimental visor.
36
be attached
French hehnet
by
.......
elastic band to
40
position, when not in use .....
of standard French helmet. Shown also in rotated
43
Polack visor arranged with new experimental model
French helmet 1917-1918)
(
48
is similar
Dunand
.......
seum of Art), showing visor to which Dunand design
61
Standard French helmet to which
model of folding visor ..... is
66
67
French, Adrian model, 1916-1917
Leg defenses, French, 1916-1917 ....
British necklet lined with silk and covered in khaki.
. . . 107
109
72
result of test
British "Dayfield
......
"Wilkinson Safety Service Jacket." Detail indicates
76
....
British "Featherweight" shield.
appears as a detached piece
A shoulder defense
77
78
British "Best"
.....
body
front and backplate
British
shield, showing
79
80
81
construction ......
British Portobank body shield. 80B gives detail o
.....
"Star" body shield
82 British standard model body armor, 1917-1918. The
.......
detached piece represents the metal foundation of the
breastplate
83
84
85
.....
British breastplate, standard model, 1918
.....
"Corelli" body shield
"Roneo-Miris" body shield
86
....
British standard helmet showing indentation caused
by glancing machine gun bullet
87
strap and lining......
British helmet viewed from below, showing chin-
88
89
1915-1916 .......
Early experimental model of face defense. British,
91
92 .....
Frontal plate detached
Lining of German helmet
. . . . .
93
94
helmet ........
Buckle and chin-strap metal
IN iMODERN WARFARE 17
FIGURE PAGE
98
99
German heavy
from within .......
breastplate, viewed from without and
106
rifle shield. Ansaldo model
. . . .
12
Italian
1916-1917 ......
body armor "Gorgeno-Collaye" model
13
H
15
Italian shoulder defense ....
Italian trench shield used as body armor
10
heavy silk matting
:
.....
core of ballistic steel the covering and lining are of
134
manufactured
States)
German
........
in England, France and the United
140
English model, 1917 ......
Mobile shield, or one-man tank. Used in wire cutting.
142
mental model .......
Mobile shield for nine riflemen. American experi-
147-148
Helmet
ready to be put together .....
shell, metal rim, chin-strap loops and rivets
H9
plate is rejected
Diagram showing the
......
plate is given a punch-mark if the metal cracks, the
;
152
iC Cartridges
American helmets
and
......
bullets
The
British-
helmets
202
153
phia
British-American
........
shown in right of picture. Ford Mfg. Co., Philadel-
157
......
ranged on racks about to be passed into the heated
drying chamber
British-American helmet. Assembling. Helmet shells
206
161
ment ........
Cases of British-American helmets ready for ship-
iy2
or tabs ........
Carrier of helmet model No. 8, showing lining pads
17^
Experimental model No. 9, 1918
American experimental helmet model No. 10
....
American sentinel's or machine gunner's helmet.
. .
223
225
176 Experimental helmet model for American tank opera-
tor, shown with and without detachable padded-silk
curtain and visor, guarding against lead splash . 226
177 Thin steel scales arranged as substitute for the silk
curtain of tank operator's experimental helmet . 227
178 American helmet. Aviator's model, No. 14, 1918 . 229
179 American helmet. Aviator's model, No. 14A, 1918 . 230
180 American helmet. Aviator's model. No. 15, 1918 . 231
181 Liberty Bell helmet. Fall, 1918. Shown over profile
182
fin dotted line)
model No. 4
Splinter goggles
......
of American experimental helmet
.
232
235
183
184
design, 1918 .......
Splinter goggles, American. Reproduction of French
187
Eye-shield.
American helmet ......
Wilmer model, adaptable
show-
latter figure
British-
236
188B
bullet at .....
Result of test on foregoing face-guard, with pistol
850 foot seconds
Inner view of face-guard . . . . .
237
238
189 Defense for neck and shoulders. Experimental, 1918 239
189A
.......
Inner view of same defense showing cushion of
sponge rubber 240
190
191
850 foot seconds
Shoulder defense,
......
Similar necklet, showing result of pistol bullet at
192
1918
Brewster body armor, 1917-1918 .... 241
243
IN MODERN WARFARE 21
FIGURE PAGE
193
armor ........
American experimental model of sentinel's heavy
245
194
sponge rubber.......
American sentinel's armor showing cushions of
246
iQj"
196
heavy helmet, 1917-1918 .....
American sentinel's armor shown with sentinel's
198
......
plate. A heavy cushion of sponge rubber lines the
uppermost plate
Light body armor. Laminated backplate of experi-
250
201
ions of sponge rubber .....
Inner view of light body armor, 1918, showing cush-
202
......
which is reinforced by plates of steel. American
model. Fall, 1918
Drawing provided by British Trench Warfare Divi-
254
207
penetrating
Body
.......
test scales became detached, no bullet succeeded in
211
model, 1917
Arm
.......
—
Complete leg defenses American experimental
223-224
terial, sixteenth century .....
Detail of armor ("buttonhole" jacks) of
228
land, Ohio .
.....
. . . . .291
293
229
230-232
ballistic alloy .......
Similar defense arranged with reinforcing plate of
234
bullet
A
........
ball bearings. The line A B represents the course of
236
model, 1915-1916
Soldiers, one with
......
Shield formed of bent-over metallic plates. Joubert
gear 309
237"239 Anatomical diagrams furnished by Trench Warfare
Section, London (Captain Rose) these indicate
;
even in the heat of Palestine. Indirectly we know that had it not been use-
ful it would not have appeared in numbers in every European field of
battle from early times until the epoch of Napoleon. Moreover, we dis-
cover thatit was used not by adults merely, but by young as well, for many
suits ofarmor are preserved which were made for children.* So important,
indeed, was armor in the history of from 1400 to 1700 that by its means
we could still give a convincing summary of the cultural and artistic
changes which took place in European civilization if all other sources of
human knowledge were wiped away.f
The reason for the present lack of information as to the practical nature
of armor is not far to seek. Little was written systematically upon this
theme in olden times, and later, when armor disappeared from general use,
little was remembered about it. That it would again appear as part of the
* See also Ch. ffoulkes, "The Armorer and Methuen, London, 1912.
his Craft."
tion, gilding, silvering, tinning, damascene, niello, even jewel-setting: its ornamental
designs explain to us stages in the development of religious and civil customs, includ-
ing pageants and sports, —
not forgetting falconry. It furnished also an important
medium for the art of painting
its enriched variants copy for us types of secular ap-
:
parel of each period by means of etching it pictures the stuff of which the costumes
;
were made it also offered an excellent medium for ornament, with lettering and bor-
;
ders. In its mounting it summarizes the textile art of various periods here ap- :
pear tissues from the commonest to the most costly, including galloon and fringes, and
with these are adequate materials for the study of the art of the leather worker. The
size of armor gives us, finally, convincing data as to the state of physical development
among the men of many nations.
:
IN MODERN WARFARE 27
of armor reappear in warfare when high explosives were used"? Hence the
held of the practical nature of helmets and body armor was abandoned to
an occasional antiquarian. Nevertheless, as in so many other phases of the
Great War, armor did reappear in use, and thereupon there arose at once
an interest, and a very practical one, in the discarded work of the armorer.
Questions were speedily raised by the general staff of every warring country
as to what helmets and body armor could do in protecting the soldier, what
were their best forms and how they could be most speedily prepared"? It
may be safely said that there was not an important collection of ancient
armor in Europe which was not visited by commissions, collectively or
individually, in an effort to learn from the experience of the past.
est minds had studied it from this standpoint from the earliest times.
Let us now attempt to answer several questions
(A) What kinds of annor were early used?
(B) Was armor actually an important means of saving life and limb"?
(C) How was it made *?
COMPLETE ARMOR
XVI CENIUKY
MAXIMILIAN
1440
GOTHIC
orately developed in the epoch of Columbus,when the knight and his horse,
Fig. 2,became almost invulnerable. By Puritan times armor had become
reduced to little more than corselet and headpiece. Leathern armor then
IN MODERN WARFARE 29
reappeared in use and the soldier's leathern coat and heavy leg-gear were
practically of the same defensive value as in the earliest time.
(B) Was armor actually an important means of saving life and limh?
Assuredly yes. Upon this point the evidence is definite. No well-made
armor could have failed to preserve its wearer not merely from a very large
!
shaft, weighing about two pounds, was over five feet long, to enable it to
be swung with great effect. Can we picture, too, the thrusts which the armor
of such a duellist resisted when a similar arm was used reinforced with a
heavy blade or spike"? Chain mail, which one rolls in his hand today, won-
dering how so "flimsy" a material could have been a protection, was also of
the greatest value. Against sword, dagger, arrow, bolt and light lance it was
unquestionably proof. Indeed, no better testimony is needed as to its merits
than the fact that for at least two thousand years it was worn constantly
and in large numbers, in spite of the fact that its average price of purchase
appears to have been greater than that of any other type of armor. f A
single instance may here be cited as evidence of the virtue of chain mail.
At Tiberias (1187) when the crusaders were hemmed in by the Saracens,
after two days of hard fighting, when most of the foot soldiers were killed
or wounded, when hardly a horse in the army could carry its rider, the
mail-clad knights are known to have suffered no serious casualties.! Yet
Fig. 3. Costume worn under mail Fig. 3A. Chain mail of the
shirt and cap fourteenth century
ding to take up the shock of the blow. Ancient "documents" show what
manner of quilted costume was worn under the mail, and in Fig. 3 one of
these has been copied. When over this the shirt of mail is fitted (Fig. 3A),
the wearer can withstand heavy blows with surprisingly little discomfort.
That is to say, the mail with its padded costume becomes an elastic, springy
had been seriously hurt; their mail shirts had protected them so well from the arrow
shower that few were badly wounded and hardly any slain. . .
."
32 HELMETS AND BODY ARIVIOR
complex or shield which deadens a blow with unexpected ease. Experi-
ments made by the writer in this direction converted him to the faith that
mail as a type of armor is by no means to be despised.
IN MODERN WARFARE 33
ball at short range; he sustained no injury, his breastplate showing only the
splash of molten lead; on another occasion, as he entered a breached wall,
he was struck at a range so close that he was knocked down, the ball denting
his armor; again, at the siege of Rochelle ( 1 573) he was thrice struck on the
arms, and he himself relates how he came off "cheaply."* We also read
* Brantome, "Courronels frangois," Liv. II. Ch. I. Edit. Elzv., V'ol. A^II, p. 44.
In footnote p. 53, as quoted by Buttin, "voila comme j'en eschappy a bon marche."
34 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
in Brantome that in 1 563, at the siege of Orleans, Dandelot was saved from
a musket ball by the round shield which he carried; here the impact was so
severe that he, too, was knocked down.
If we examine these old records we are surprised to find how often
armor saved its wearer. His corselet, for example, saved Francis I "several
times" at Pavia. At the siege of Rochelle mentioned above we learn
that a certain Captain St. Martin remained uninjured after having been
struck by musket balls no less than thirty times So, too, the great Conde,
!
armed probably after the style ot Fig. 5 or 6, was saved many times by his
armor; we have a contemporary note (1652) that at Port St. Antoine his
cuirass was "full of dents." And so it goes. There is no question, therefore,
that armor was useful even at a time when gunpowder was in general use.
Moreover, the bullet of that period was usually of large caliber; its crush-
ing effect must have been great, and its shock formidable.
The fact is clear that had cases not been numerous in which the soldier
was saved by his armor, the armor would not have been worn. Nor was the
burden too great, considered from every viewpoint, if by means of his
armor a particular person could be preserved. For those were days of indi-
vidualism. And the personality, courage and resourcefulness of a leader
would often spell the difference between the victory and the defeat of a
nation. Had Marlborough been shot, whom his soldiers followed blindly,
what might have been the outcome of the battles of Malplaquet, Ramillies,
or Blenheim? Or was it not of the greatest importance to the French nation
that Joan of Arc should be protected by armor of best possible proof"? We
know indeed that she was several times saved by her armor. Fancy, too,
how the history of the world might have changed had the Black Prince been
killed in battle; or Cromwell, or William of Orange, or Francis I or
Charles V. Yet we know that all of them exposed themselves with reckless
determination, and that all of them were armored by masters. One has only
to visit the royal annory in Madrid today to know what such a man as
Charles V thought of the practical value of armor. He was literally a spe-
cialist in its study and he provided himself with armor for every even-
tuality and of every weight. He graded his armor as an optician classifies
his lenses in one instance he had at least eight reinforcing pieces for a single
;
helmet. And for tilting he did not hesitate to wear armor which would stand
a supreme shock. He was a man of modest stature and proportions, yet
his tilting armor in one instance weighed no less than a hundred and twenty-
five pounds and his helmet alone over forty pounds I
IN MODERN WARFARE 35
(C) Hozu was early armor made?
The by early European armorers came from special
best material used
where the iron occurred in natural association, probably with
localities,
#(R
Fig. 6 Fig.6A
Fig. 6. Armor of "proof." Weight 84 pounds. About 1620. Breast-and backplates show mark
of testing bullets. Riggs Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art
hardness was that it contained the rare element molybdenum, doubtless as an impurity,
in a certain proportion. This led the discoverer to determine the local source of Ma-
!
staple article of commerce during the Middle Ages it was sold in bars or
;
in plates; the latter had been hammered out, sometimes by hand, but
usually by a trip-hammer operated by water power. (See Agricola,
Georgius, De re metallica, Basel, 1546.) In making armor the armorer
worked his metal sometimes hot, sometimes cold, depending upon the kind
and quality of work which had to be performed. The details in making
armor need here be noted only in so far as they furnish materials for com-
parison or contrast with the modern methods. Thus we comment upon the
extremely laborious methods of the ancient craftsman; we know that he
had no stamping presses, and we have only to follow the steps in fashioning
such a piece of armor as a helmet after the original method to understand
why armor making was a difficult and costly task. It had, we will find, a
technique of its own; and its kinds of anvils, stakes, hammers, and special
apparatus may even today be counted by scores. Unfortunately we cannot
illustrate helmet making from early documents; none the less we can here
follow it, and I believe very accurately, for we are so fortunate as to have
the various steps or stages in such a piece of work demonstrated by
the armorer, D. Tachaux, of the staff of the Metropolitan Museum of Art,*
who in turn had them from the Dresden armorer, Klein ( 1825-1882), who
himself was trained in the armory of the Dukes of Saxony where the art
of armor making had been handed down from the earliest centuries. These
stages can now be pictured by means of numerous photographs (Fig. 7) In .
these one may trace the beginning of a helmet in the cutting out of a plate
of metal whose diameter is about 20 inches. The plate is now heated from
time to time and by countless blows of special hammers, the metal is spread
centripetallyand in such a way that the metal plate takes a saucer-shaped
form (2) it next becomes conical (4) it then develops the beginnings of
; ;
a median ridge or crest (5) its sides are produced (6) and thereafter the
; ;
stages follow one another in orderly sequence. Much of the later work is
done on the unheated metal, which, however, is softened (annealed) from
time to time. To understand how laborious are the steps in the making of
a helmet, one has only to be told that the stages between ( 1
) and (21 ) as
shown in our figure cost several months' assiduous work. It will be seen that
samune's alloy iron thereupon he purchased this iron in large lots, much to the sur-
:
Japanese who later, when they analyzed captured German cannon, decided
prise of the
where a part at least of the molybdenum ore was obtained
* See Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1912, \\\, 231.
38 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
by this mode of production the artist controls his metal with extraordinary
precision. He may
push it into regions where it will be later required, e.g.^
the median crest or the forehead where the helmet is apt to encounter a
heavy blow. In all cases he must keep in mind not the next phase of his
work merely but the later stages. Thus the armorer could not have devel-
oped the crest in the present helmet had he begun to produce it in stage ( lo)
instead of stage (4) and should the crest have been taller still (in ancient
;
armor it is sometimes six inches high, embossed with such skill that it is
heaviest at its top) he would probably have begun to form it at stage (2).
Even then he could not have developed it successfully had he not under-
stood the special technique of spreading his metal "elastically," —by using
special hammers (which are believed not to cut the grain of the metal) and
highly polished stakes and anvils on which the "fibers" of the metal are
said to spread apart, "slipping over one another and not becoming entangled
or broken." Be this as it may, in the hands of the ancient armorer refrac-
tory metal was controlled with incredible skill; and a master like Philip
de Negroli could work his steel into ornamental designs. Fig. 7A, in a
way unexcelled even by an artist in so soft a material as gold. Moreover,
the armorer,it is well worth noting, rarely forgot, even in his most ornate
work, that the metal should be so embossed that the uplifted points or
ridges should include not the thinnest metal but the thickest.
With this type of armor making we shall later contrast the modern
method of manufacture, where by means of a single press thousands of
helmets are stamped out daily —
a greater number, perhaps, than the ancient
armorer could have hammered out in a lifetime. But by the new method one
is sadly limited as to the shape and depth of the object to be produced, and
the system is also faulty, since the armor it presses is apt to be thinnest and
weakest in the very region where the greatest strength is needed.
( D How was arm or tested ?
)
It is not hard to conclude that the armorer, during all periods, took
practical means of showing to the purchaser of his armor that it was of
good quality, or "proof." And the early records when carefully examined*
bring out numerous details indicating in what way and under what condi-
tions the testing or proving of armor took place. That it was often done
on standard lines there can be no doubt. And it was occasionally carried out
under particularly severe conditions. In this connection let us review a
number of tests.
* Cf. Ch. Buttin, op. cit.
IN MODERN WARFARE 39
The earliest one accurately recorded* occurred during the siege of
Rhodes (308-304 B. C.) when Demetrius Polyorcetes, according to Plu-
tarch (Demetrius, Section 21), received from Cyprus two heavy iron corse-
lets (probably breastplate only), each weighing the equivalent of thirty-
eight pounds Troy. Zwilos, the armorer who made them, thereupon caused
them to be tested in order to show that they were of great strength and
, . «aig*<8g**^'>si..s»s^
*
Crude tests of armor by sword, spear or arrow are doubtless as old as history
itself.Here should be mentioned David's testing the armor which Saul offered him
(about B. C. 1015). I Samuel, xvii, 38, 39. "And Saul armed David with his armor
and he put a helmet of brass upon his head: also he armed him [by providing him]
with a coat of mail. 39. And David girded [drew] his sword upon his armor and he
assayed to go [to let go or strike at it] for he had not proved it. And David said unto
;
Saul, I cannot go with these, for I have not proved them [shown that they were not
proof]. And David put them off him [put them away from him]."
It seems quite obvious that the usual translation of these verses gives no sense
unless the bracketed words are suggested. The picture then becomes complete. The
prompt test by the keen-witted youth warranted his rejection of the armor: add to this
his shrewd decision to try light tactics in fighting, for he had probably heard (I
Samuel, xvii, 5) that his adversary was woefully overweighted in his armor, "which
weighed five thousand shekels of brass," or roundly 183 pounds (allowing for the
heavy shekel 258 grains).
40 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
hardness; to this end the)^ were shot at by a catapult at a range of twenty
paces. The iron resisted the shock and the head of the catapult bolt merely
nicked the surface "as though with a stylos." Thus was made under
the test
war conditions and it is noteworthy that the armor was not placed on racks
or models but on living men. "One of the corselets was worn by Demetrius
himself, the other by Alkinos of Epeiros."
It would be interesting to know just what this test represented in terms
of modern ballistics. That it was severe goes without saying, especially
since the bolt of a catapult, which represented the siege artillery of that
day, had a weight which would have been hard to stop (perhaps as much
as ten ounces, i.e., double the weight of a heavy war-bolt of a windlass
crossbow). In modern terms it is even fair to assume that had the breast-
plates in question been of low carbon steel, and they probably were, they
would have stopped a machine gun bullet at about three hundred yards
(cf. page 144).* It is surprising, therefore, that the earliest instance of a
military proof of body armor recorded, —
occurring some twenty-three hun-
dred years ago, — should have given essentially modern results, but, natu-
rally, at the cost of greater weight.
Detailed records of proving European armor do not next occur until
the fourteenth century. But from this it does not follow that during the
intervening time there were made no prove the armor and to
efforts to
standardize the tests. We
incline rather to the belief that each purchaser of
armor had a clear idea of the degree of resistance his shirt of mail and his
iron headpiece should offer, and that even in his tests he did not fail to
make use of crossbow, lance and sword. Unfortunately we do not know
from actual experiment, ancient or modern, what a good shirt of mail
(weighing, say twenty pounds) will resist, when each link is riveted and
hardened, but it was evidently of greater strength than modern shirts of
mail unriveted, which, of about equal weight, are claimed by their makers to
resist service-revolver ammunition at less than fifty yards. (See page 62.)
In general we know that early armor of this type was often tried out by the
chopping cut {estrafnacon) of a sword, and that a similar test was used
throughout Europe down to the seventeenth century. {Fide Gaya, 1623.)
The thrust of a heavy poignard was also a severe test. In this connection
I recall in Paris many years ago discussing the proof of fifteenth-century
* A
well-made modern breastplate of alloy steel weighing twenty pounds will stop
a machine gun bullet at 200 to 300 yards. In the conclusion noted above we assume
that carbon steel offers about half the resistance of alloy steel. See, however, p. 81.
IN MODERN WARFARE 41
"it would surprise you to know how flinty hard its surface is." He told
me he had taken from a vitrine a headpiece hall-marked by the great
MJanese maker, Antonio di Missaglia, and placed it on a block. He had
then struck it with all his strength with a heavy-bladed dagger; the head-
piece hardly showed where the point had struck. This incident I mention
since it is the only one in which I have known an early helmet to be given
a practical test. Perhaps it is not to be wondered at, for museums and col-
lectors can hardly be expected to permit some ot their most valuable speci-
mens to be used in ballistic or similar tests I
For the rest it becomes clear that testing by firearms was an important
*Crossbows were not discarded in the French army until 1 ^66, when, indeed,
many soldiers still preferred them to muskets and in England the use of the musket
;
the musket. "Of course my hne armor failed," complained the armorer
Colombo of Brescia (1574), "when my patron used an inch charge of
powder!" And we can understand how the earlier armor, elegant in its
lines, with its delicately adjusted curves, grooves and angles, designed
especially to deflect the crossbow bolt, should in time give place to armor,
solid and compact, rounded in contour. But even then the proof demanded
by the wearer of the armor mounted always higher ("high-proof," "caliber
proof," "musket proof") so the armorer was obliged constantly to resort
to new devices. He knew little of the metallurgy of steel (see page 271),
so he did not experiment with ballistic alloys ; he did, however, like Vulcano
of Brescia, strengthen the "fiber" of his heavy plates by the laborious
process of hammering them out cold and by using various processes of tem-
pering them; but in general he had either to make his armor of fewer and
heavier pieces, or to use the earlier designed reinforcing plates by means
of which a patron who had complete armor could strengthen his breast-
plate or headpiece and at the same time reduce the total weight of his
equipment by discarding other pieces, according to his actual need. The
result, however, tended ever in the same direction, the armor became far
too heavy; and its wearer began to complain that he had become little more
than a "living anvil,"* for he was so burdened with his harness that his
value in active combat became small. Thus, even if dismounted, he could
hardly get back into his saddle. t (ffoulkes, "The Armorer and his Cratt,"
page 117.) In the end, throughout the seventeenth century, the best the
Homeric fashion, none the less true that they had often the opportunity
it is
of recognizing one another and at close range during the fortunes of battle.
Many suits of armor of the latest period (say from 1560 to 1750) bear
dents of bullets;* certain of these are scars of warfare, but they are usually
testing marks. Cf. Figs. 4-6. They were made prior to the finishing of
the armor, for they are still apt to be below a russeted, blued or gilded
surface, or even to form centers for etched or engraved ornaments. One,
two or three of these marks may appear on the breastplate (sometimes at
points concealed by large shoulder guards, as in the armor shown in Fig. 6),
one on the backplate, one on each hip defense, one on each shoulder. The
proof balls may have been shot in the presence of the person who had
ordered the armor, at the time the plates were fitted to him but before they
were filed and finished. In such a case the bullet was of lead weighing about
one ounce, and the charge of black powder was sufficient to cover the bullet
when held in the palm of the hand. (Cf. 1667 "Memorial of the Verney
Family," IV, page 30, and the Gaya Reprint, by ffoulkes, Clarendon Press,
1911, page 30). There appears no record as to the distance at which the
shot was fired nor the firearm employed, nor yet the mode of wadding,
although these are factors which influenced the test vastly. The ancient
armorer, we fear, like makers of certain types of modern armor, was apt
to gloss over details. Thus, he did not care to have the test made with
cartridges specially prepared at the house of his client. "In general," wrote
Pistofilo, "Heaven protect me from the musket which has been specially
loaded at home!", and other writers comment upon the superior force of
the first shot from a gun, a condition which, in days of poorly made powder,
one may well understand, for a gun barrel would speedily have become
clogged
'toto^
with carbon.
* As 1734 the bullet test was still in use for proving both back and front
late as
plates, as shown in the inventory of the Armory of the Chateau de la Rocca: breast-
plates bear the marks shown in testing bullets, in the second half of the eighteenth
century, as in the armor museum in Turin, of Charles Emmanuel III (d. 1773) and
Victor Amadeus I\' (d. 1796).
IN MODERN WARFARE 45
In all tests a serious effort appears to have been made by early experi-
menters to find the best results which could be had in proportioning the
weights of powder and ball. And they seem to have decided, as Cellini
narrates in his autobiography, that the best penetration could be had when
the powder weighed not more than one fifth of the bullet, a proportion,
by the way, which has been confirmed repeatedly in later days even for —
the last rifle of the French Government using black powder. Indeed, it
may truly be said that the early authorities were dealing with problems of
explosives in a very modern way. Experiments were in full swing with
noiseless powder, and Cellini, for example, tells ("Vita" Lib, I, Cap. VII)
how by its means he was able in his hunting to keep from frightening away
the most wary birds. Also shapes of bullets were being considered with
up-to-date precision and there are records of models, including conical
ones, which should have given excellent results. These followed the use of
long projectiles shaped like crossbow bolts. Then, too, metals other than
lead were employed experimentally. Iron, tin and copper were used, the
last especially having a certain vogue (Admiral Coligny, by the way, was
shot with copper bullets on the eve of his death). Clearly, too, the experts
had ever before them the need of inventing armor-piercing bullets, and
they came very close to solving their problem when they used steel bullets
dipped in lead. But then, as in so many other instances, instead of following
an excellent scent, they veered off in unscientific directions, as when they
attempted to associate special metals with special grades of victims: thus,
"only a bullet of gold could be used to cause the death of an emperor."
And gun wads should contain cabalistic formulae.'''
(E) Hozv heavy, irksome and even dangerous was armor to -wear?
weights of various kinds of body armor and helmets. Chain armor was
almost as light again as plate armor.f Suits of plate, it will be set„n, did not
increase notably in weight during the century from 1450 to 1550; but
during the century following they became heavier by perhaps 20 per cent.
Tilting armor naturally attained extraordinary weight, since its wearer
needed extreme protection and for only a short period, —thus a harness of
* The last superstition, with certain variants, was not extinct in 1901 while in:
the Philippine Islands the writer examined a collection of similar charms taken from
insurrectos.
"j"
This difference in weight is, however, deceptive ; for with chain mail a much
heavier supporting costume was worn.
46 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
a hundred and twenty-five pounds might be tolerated it it were to be taken
off again within half an hour. Helmets, of which the various kinds are
pictured in Fig. 8, may be divided conveniently into four groups, light,
medium, heavy and very heavy. Light headpieces average three pounds in
weight and include early bassinets, certain burganets, morions and cabas-
sets, iron hats and hat-linings. Medium helmets weighing about six pounds
thirty-five, pounds can be worn for a stretch of three hours, and by a novice,
without e:^traordinary fatigue or subsequent lameness.
It was only from the latter part of the sixteenth century, when armor
weighed over sixty pounds that we find the old-time soldier grumbling
about his equipment, Pikemen would have none of it, "many throw it
away," complained Saulx-Tavannes and Pistifilo. Horsemen would put it
shoulder he vaulted with feet together right over his head," etc. Ibid., p, 74.
IRON HAT-LINING
/^"^ PJKEMANS
^ '
M--* -
POT
VISOR
OCULARIUM
4r=J H E A U M 2.
fBEVORI
CHTN GUARD
(WENTONNIERE) CONICAL OR NORMAN CASOUE
had on a part of his armor all the time." Still the fashion was spreading
that the armor was to be carried as part of the equipment of the camp,
rather than of the individual. Thus Saulx-Tavannes pleads that "captains
and soldiers in close touch with the enemy should accustom themselves to
carry their armor without confiding it to their servants in order to avoid the
confusion which appears when there is need to look up their luggage."
But the fact of the matter was that so far as long marching service in
war was concerned armor had become a physiological failure. Not merely
was the wearer rendered inactive when wearing it, but in time he became
actually crippled or "broken" by its use. A droll writer, whose stories were
read everywhere, commented audibly upon the shortcomings of men who
had worn armor. Brantome declared that he himself had known them to
be spent at thirty years. Montaigne says that "today (1587) the officer
is so heavily armed that by the time he becomes thirty-five his shoulders
TABLE I
Parade armor in each class would have weighed less by perhaps 50 per cent. Lettersf
refer to various collections.
P. (Maximilian) 181
Fig. 9. Costume worn under armor. Fig. 9A. Fluted armor of 1510.
About 1510 Weight 56 pounds
Complete suit
XV century— Gothic . . N. Y. 49 ; P. 53 ; ^^ 85
Maximilian . . . . E. 71, 71, 56, 49, 56, 41, 52 ; N. Y. 48
Complete suit for foot com-
bat T. 94, 81
so HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
Middle XVI century E. 48, 59, 59 T. 67, 66 ;
Helmets
Bassinet (early) T. 2.5
Bassinet (dog faced) N. Y. 6.5, 7, 11; T. ^.s
Heaume English, various, 13, 17, 18, 18, 22, 25;
M. 42 N. Y. 19, 13, 17 T. 13, 10
; ;
Chapel-de-fer N. Y. 10, 3, 4; T. 3, 6
Salade N. Y. 6.5, 9.5, 7 ; T. 8, 3, 4, 3.5, 4.5, 5, 4.5
Barbute N. Y. 6, 6.5, 6; T. 4, 5, 6.5, 4, 6
Armet-a-rondelle N. Y. 6.5, 6, 6
Armet Maximilian N. Y.6, 4.5,6 ;T. 7.5,8
Armet late . T. 8, 9, 9, 7, 6, 8, 8, 5, 8, 5, 6, 6, 8, 9.5, 7, 7
Armet parade T. 4
Burganet N. Y. 9, 3.5, 4, 5, 9, 10, 1 1 T. 8, 12 ;
(F) IJliat hi sinnmary ivas the use of armor in later t'nnes^ hut prior to the
Great War^
In the preceding paragraphs we have seen that from the late sixteenth
century the soldier complained bitterly of the weight of his armor: it
crippled him, it prevented him from taking an active part in battle, and
he threw it aside if he could. In spite of all this he admitted that armor was
an extraordinary means ot protection. It was for this reason that it did
not disappear at the first flash of a gun, as is popularly believed, but re-
mained in use for centuries while powder was being developed, and when
itwas in general use in warfare. In fact at the time of the highest develop-
ment of armor at the end of the fifteenth century hand-guns had already
)
IN MODERN WARFARE 51
been in use tor a century; and there is no doubt that armor was used most
frequently from the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the seventeenth
centuries when guns and pistols were in common use. At that time, indeed,
powder had been notably improved in quality and already many "modern"
TABLE II
TABLE SHOWING THE USE OF VARIOUS TYPES OF FIREARMS IN
EARLY TIMES. (GUNPOWDER AS A CHEMICAL INVENTION
APPEARED IN EUROPE EARLIER THAN THE
TENTH CENTURY)
Cannon
Many-barreled
Revolving
Breech-loading
Guns
Breech-loader
Rifle*
Matchlock
Wheel-lock
Snaphaunce
Flintlockf
Detonator
Percussion
Pistols
Chambered
Revolver
devices had been invented. (See Table II.) Hence we have reason to believe
that the general disuse of armor was not due entirely to the failure of armor,
in spite of its weight, to resist firearms, but to other causes as well. Here
should be mentioned especially those changes in military tactics which were
taking place at a time when armor was declining. Thus during the Thirty
* Survives in Orient.
•j"
Survives in isolated localities, e.g.. Central Africa.
52 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
Years' War
(which ended in 1648) the Swedes, especially, built up a mili-
tary system wherein it became necessary for manoeuvring armies to cover
pictured thus armed, wearing even hip defenses. Fig. 10. Kosciuszko, also,
wore armor and probably brought it to this country; and we have reason
to believe that Rochambeau wore his siege armor at Yorktown (1781),
for he is described by Joel Barlow as in "gleaming steel arrayed." And
Paul Jones, while not in half-armor, wore a corselet under his coat during
the fight with the Serapis, according to his fellow-Scotsman, Hyslop. (See
Bull. Met. Mus. Art, 1912, Vol. VII, pages 26-28.) Possibly, the latest
armor worn as a more or less complete suit appears in Reynolds' portrait
of the Marquis of Townshend, and dates late in the eighteenth century; but
we are not sure of the date of this harness, for it may have been merely
a form of ceremonial costume which the painter adapted, or it may have
been of considerably earlier date, e.g., worn at Fontenoy, Dettingen or
Culloden. During this late period part of the armor it appears was designed
to resist bullets of fairly high velocity, shot often from rifled barrels and by
good black powder. The bullets, however, had not a great range, rarely
as much as seven hundred yards, and with great individual variation;
* Les Reveries, Edit. 1756, p. 58. Among wearers of armor during a late period we
may mention Luxembourg, Eugene, Louis XV (1750), George I (17 18), George II
(1758), Paoli (1780), Granby (1769). . . .
IN MODERN WARFARE 53
but they were usually of large caliber and proportionally more destructive
than those in present use. Thus bullets of the Revolutionary musket
under certain modern conditions: hence it follows that if armor were re-
at once but gradually. Thus after the year 1620, leg armor rarely appeared
and defenses of the hips and thighs are uncommon from about 1670. De-
fenses for the arms were abandoned piece by piece somewhat later, although
complete arms continued to be used for about a century in ceremonial
armor, i.e.^ as worn by highest officers. For a long time the neckplate or
gorget was retained as part of the regular equipment and it even became
IN MODERN WARFARE 55
exaggerated in size; but it became so small that its function as a
finally
defense had practically disappeared. As shown in portraits of Colonial and
Revolutionary times, it was little more than an ornament which was at-
56 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
A heavy corselet (forty-one pounds), probably of the time of Napoleon,
was recently tested by Captain Roy S. Tinney (National Service Magazine,
January, 1918, pages 395-403) and gave good results; it resisted in turn
Craig ammunition 30, 40 to 20 with muzzle velocity 1,970 foot seconds;
at 100 yards —
1,553 foot-pound blow; a Winchester 30, 30, 170, of 1,522
foot pounds; a Sharp's rifle of 45.90, 300, at 100 yards (muzzle velocity
2,644 foot seconds) and finally the 303 Savage firing a 195-grain bullet
;
Fig. 13. Sapper's leathern helmet, Fig. 14. Sapper's helmet, middle of
1750-1800 nineteenth century
pears a heavy helmet of this type drawn from a specimen in the Tower of
London; its weight is over nineteen pounds and
dates from about 1848,
it
judging at least from Raffet's picture of the siege of Rome in this year,
when sappers are shown wearing helmets of this type. Perhaps, too, we
should here mention the numerous types of metal "helmets" which have
appeared as headgear for infantry and cavalry during the late eighteenth
and throughout the nineteenth century which were of little value save
ornamental, e.g., the eagle headpiece of the fugitive German emperor.
:
* Since this was written Miss Helen Gibbs, curator of the Museum of the Virginia
Military Institute, has very kindly forwarded to the writer a hip-guard belonging to
this body shield. A test shows that it will resist a 45 Colt-revolver bullet of 200 grains
at about 700 foot seconds velocity. A second test was made with standard ammunition
(800 foot seconds), 230-grain jacketed bullet from the 45 automatic: one shot failed
to penetrate at ten feet, two penetrated but without splintering the metal. The body
shield was, accordingly, a surprisingly good one for its period — before the develop-
ment of higher ballistic alloys. Again, thanks to General Nathaniel Wales of Jamaica
Plain, Mass., I have just received very interesting data regarding this "steel vest"
of 1862. He states that "it was worn more often than we had any idea of, but many
officers felt they should not be protected better than their men, consequently those
who wore the armor did not advertise it." . .Thus "two of as brave officers as I
.
ever knew wore it, my colonel . and my major who was killed, a bullet grazing
. .
the bottom edge of the vest and passing through his body." He states also that his life
IN MODERN WARFARE 59
the thickness of its metal, assuming that it is a "mild" steel, that it would
have stopped a 230-grain pistol ball traveling at the rate of 500 foot
seconds.
During the Franco-Prussian War several types of armor were used to
a limited degree. The heavy corselet appeared, also the horseman's helmet.
^,,.-M>,
out of old plowshares, beaten into plates one quarter of an inch thick. It was
back to where General Ferrero was lying behind a ledge. As I passed him he said,
'Where are you going, adjutant?' I replied, 'I am hit, sir.' 'Where?' I pointed to the
hole in my coat and he said, 'You had better go to the rear.' I sat down remarking,
'I'll see how badly I am hurt.' It was not until I grasped the cartridge-box belt to un-
clasp it that I realized I was wearing the steel vest. The convex side of the dent had
cut through vest, shirt and undershirt making a small cut in the flesh. It was consider-
ably swollen and for ten days or a fortnight I was unable to draw a long breath." The
drawing of the armor which accompanies the notes of General Wales shows that his
escape was the luckier since the bullet struck the breastplate very close to the point
where four plates came together, a region of structural weakness in armor of this
type, for the free corners of the plates are held together only by rivets.
IN MODERN WARFARE 61
up" but not penetrated. Its wearer was captured after a several months'
chase and then only after he had been shot in the legs. To give one an idea
^^^^^/^>^^^'^'^.'^;,^,;^
.d\>'-"y^'i4'^^^;C'i^
/,:-0M/^^^ v/ ';;
'""""^^.^mi^vlii
Fig. 17. Rifle-proof armor of Australian
bandit, 1894
of the efficacy of this armor against Martini rifles at close range, we insert
the following quotations from the official account of this case written by
one of the attacking party.
"I have no hesitation in stating," writes Superintendent Hare, "that
had the man been without armor when we first attacked and could . . .
62 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
have taken proper aim, not one of us would have escaped being shot. He
was obliged to hold the rifle at arm's length to get anything of a sight."
"His armor included a great headpiece which was like an iron pot which
rested on the wearer's shoulders and completely protected the throat. The
outlaw as he advanced toward the policemen had taken the precaution to
conceal his armor under a long gray overcoat." "The first policeman closed
in upon him and a strange hght began. The soft Martini-Henry bullets
dinted his armor but did not penetrate and he coolly returned the fire."
man.
From the time of Kelly's practical "experiments" up to 1914 the matter
of body armor had not been held altogether in abeyance. And he who fol-
lows the literature of the subject will be surprised to find how many types
of "bullet-proof" devices have been invented. A breastplate known by the
name of its promoter, Rowe, apparently patented, was experimented with
extensively prior to the year 1901. It gave results so promising that it at-
tracted the personal interest and support of the German emperor. Another
body defense known as the corselet Loris was also "tried out" about this
time; its inventor demonstrated its effectiveness, if I am correctly informed,
in various theatres in France. So, too, a bullet-proof waistcoat (see page
290) was designed by Casimir Zeglin and worn about 1897 in spectacular
tests in a New York theatre. And in London similar demonstrations, more
or less serious, were made by inventors, whose results, by the way. Sir Hiram
Maxim accurately followed up, he himself suggesting a certain type of
high alloy plates (containing tungsten) for their armor.
Even chain mail was developed by these experimenters. Thus in the
military retrospective exhibition of 1889 in Paris types of mail were shown
which were "proof" to dagger thrust and to the lead ball (.433 inch) of a
service revolver. The former mail was made up in alternate rows of links
solid and open (/.6\, formed so that the tips of the wire merely butted
together), made of tempered spring-steel; the better quality of mail had its
links fused or riveted.
IN MODERN WARFARE 63
About the year 1900, dozen or more types of armor were being
in fact, a
exploited. A well-known establishment at St. Etienne was then advertising
a light breastplate proof to service revolver. A cuirass made by Alphonse
Payot of La Rochelle, Savoie, was in the market, and one devised by
Ernest Benedetti was tried out in Rome (1901) before a military commis-
sion and was given a favorable report. And at that time military writers
were impressed with the necessity of reconsidering the armor problem. "If
out of a thousand soldiers not one can reach even an improvised trench
when it is defended by machine guns we must arrive at the adoption of
some kind of a portable defense," writes Captain Danritt {"'La Guerre de
Demain^' page 600). Ch. Buttin notes at that time (1901, ''Les Armures a
Vepreuve^' Annecy, pages 99-100) that the "question of proof, far from
being a dead issue, is the order of the day," and that "nothing is more sure
than that science has never said its last word. And perhaps there will be
found, —even if it has not already been found, — a process of making again
in a scientific way that which the earlier armorers were unable to produce
in their day, in spite of the superiority of their —
workmanship, a corselet,
!"
light and truly proof, this time to the test of an armor piercing bullet
I
service and thousands of soldiers today bear witness to the practical value
IN MODERN WARFARE 65
of the casque which was provided for them, notably through the efforts of
General Adrian.
A few words as to the work of General Adrian During colonial service,
:
in which soldiers were in danger less from the enemy than from diseases
due to improper sanitation, this officer was known for his ingenuity in
developing devices which aimed to protect his men. Their well-being be-
came his hobby, and when the present war broke out, with its appalling
casualties. General Adrian sought ways and means in all directions for
reducing his losses.One day he stood before a stretcher and talked with a
—
wounded man "I had luck," said the sufferer, "I happened to have a
metal mess-bowl in my hat and it saved my life." This incident impressed
the General deeply. Here was the question of a device which might prove
of universal value. So with his usual earnestness, he attacked the problem
of a head defense. He promptly had a steel "calotte" made and fitted inside
his cap; then he wore it constantly to find whether it would cause notable
discomfort. Next he had many of them made and used experimentally.
66 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
See Figs. 18, 19. Good reports soon came in from the front. Thereupon, he
developed the regular helmet which was manufactured in great numbers
for the French Army. See Frontispiece. At first this defense was turned out
hastily, stamped from dies which had already served in making the helmets
of firemen.
Investigation showed that the new helmet was of actual value in the
field; hence it became a part of the regular equipment and was used by
every soldier on active duty. Its use naturally added to the burden of each
wearer, causing at first considerable grumbling. During the period of pro-
bation of the helmet, some of the critics pointed out that the number of
casualties with head wounds increased notably, but the advocates of the
helmet, referring to statistics, replied that the vast percentage of those who
were formerly wounded in the head found their way not to hospitals but
to cemeteries I
casque was attractive in its lines and it added martial distinction to its
—
wearer which proved, in the opinion of many officers, a more important
argument for its use than its ballistic value. Then, too, example was con-
tagious and if one division wore it, the next was apt to follow suit. Pres-
IN MODERN WARFARE 67
ently it came about that the hehnet was looked upon generally as indis-
pensable. In 1915 the British Army adopted the type of helmet which it
still wears. About the same time, so far as the writer can learn, the German
helmet made its appearance. In 1916 the Belgians and Italians were wear-
ing helmets and during this year they appeared in numbers on the Slavic
line.
Body armor was used on all frontsfrom 191 onward but its use was
5'
General Adrian
II
and a half, and at the best one case in seven, a bettering of condition which
is certainly appreciable. Add to this the saving of those men and their—
—
number, although unreported, is great whose helmets had resisted mis-
siles which would otherwise have iui^icted serious, if not fatal wounds.*
IN MODERN WARFARE 69
the only practical objections to the introduction of armor for these regions
are weight and the discomfort it causes its wearer objections which,
its —
frankly, are grave, but they become the less serious if it can be shown that
the advantages in wearing armor more than compensate for the disad-
vantages. Thus, important evidence as to the usefulness of armor is to be
sought in the records of casualties,
hospitals are suffering from wounds caused by missiles of low and medium
velocity, it becomes clear that there is already a practical scope for the intro-
duction of armor. The effort has therefore been made to collect data from
various hospital sources, and it is now safe to say that the results of this in-
quiry have been conclusive. The statistics zvhich cover the casualties of the
English through the year igi6 indicate that more than three fourths of the
cases could have been saved if armor had been zvorn.^ French statistics give
similar results, the casualties caused by missiles of middle and low velocity
averaging from 60 to 80 per cent in round numbers. The American statistics,
so far as can be determined, vary from 65 to 80 per cent. In a letter to the
writer, dated February 14, 1918, Major Charles H, Peck, Assistant Di-
rector General Surgeon, A, E, F., states that "wounds caused by missiles
of middle and low velocity constitute about 80 per cent of all," In general,
however, it should be admitted that complete statistics as to the percentage
of the wounds caused by missiles oflow and middle velocity are not always
easy to obtain ;f for the tabulation of wounds is not apt to be made from
* In a report from Colonel Walter D, McCaw, who has reviewed (June 30, 1918)
the latest data at the Service de Sante, the following percentages are given:
Shrapnel or shell fragments . . . 50.66%
Grenades 1.02%
Rifle or machine gun bullets
Bombs from aeroplanes
Mine explosions .
....
.
. ..
.
.
.
34.05%
.10%
'15%
Accidental missiles, undetermined . . 14.00%
Certainly the majority of thesewounds might have been avoided by the use of armor,
f According to the American surgeon, Dr, Walter Martin, whose experience was
wide on the western front (1916-1917), "a large proportion" of wounds examined in
70 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
this point of view, although it is usually possible to determine from the
nature of the lesion whether it was caused by a missile of high velocity.
Summarizing the we will come far within the mark if we state
situation,
that the proportion of wounds due to middle and low velocity projectiles
is not less than 60 per cent. In fact, this is the lowest estimate which we
have been able to gather from medical experts who have sometimes declared
that such a proportion would 95 per cent!
attain the surprising figure of
For, as Colonel Joseph A. Blake, director of one of the largest American
military hospitals, notes in a letter to the writer, dated April 30, 1918,
an accurate list of the "smaller wounds is not forthcoming because a large
number of wounded whose injuries are not infected, are returned at the
front and do not enter, therefore, in the statistics of the hospitals." If we
accept accordingly that a large number of the wounded (estimates varying
from 60 to 95 per cent) could have been saved b}^ the use of armor it follows
that the armor problem is a real and a very important one. One may note,
also, that in cases not infrequent, armor might have saved victims of pro-
jectiles of high velocity. For it is well known that armor, if struck at an
angle, will deflect projectiles of great velocity. In other words, from this
source, too, the percentage of men whom armor would have saved becomes
appreciably greater.
In this connection, we havehand the medical report of a case which
at
shows that a shrapnel helmet, which resists normally a projectile of 230
grains at 600 foot seconds, saved the life of its wearer when hit by a Ger-
—
man machine gun bullet at a range of 100 yards traveling, therefore, at
the rate of not less than 1 ,800 foot seconds.
the European war hospitals was due to missiles of low and middle velocity. Colonel
McCaw states (June 30, 1918) "that in the hospital records, it is not the custom to
note the probable velocity of the missile causing wounds in soldiers. As far as the
writer knows, this is not done in any army."
: :
IN MODERN WARFARE 71
Due to projectiles
Abdominal wounds . 479 cases low velocity . 332
high velocity . 147
Thorax .... 15 lung cases .... low velocity . 13
high velocity . 2
72 extracted
33 bullets
39 shrapnel fragments
This authority notes that blood poisoning comes from low velocity projectiles, espe-
cially shrapnel. Bulletsshowed 4.5 per cent of the fatal cases, shrapnel, on the other
hand, 40 per cent.
:
of such injuries over 50 per cent were caused by small fragments which
could readily have been kept out by means of an eye-shield.*
We refer here especially to the extended studies of the French eye
surgeons, MM. Morax and Moreau,f who show that over 43 per cent of
* Of those recorded in French hospitals about 93 per cent were due to missiles of
low velocity.
f MM. y. Morax et T. Moreau in the Annates d'Oculistique of August, 1916,
show that about 43.4 per cent of eye wounds are caused by very small fragments, 303
out of 698 cases. These experts also indicate that about 50 per cent (170 out of 341)
of the cases of shell wounds are caused by small fragments and that a larger per cent
of wounds are due to grenades and bombs. From the statistics in the hands of these
writers, the following represents, in a general way, the frequency of wounds to the
eye caused in various ways
Shell fragments ... 341
Rifle ormachine gun . . 191
Grenade 82
Fragments of bomb ... 63
Shrapnel ball .... 21
Bayonet 1
These authors declare that 50 per cent of these cases could readily be saved by the
use of visors of various types. This result is corroborated by British specialists, one
of whom. Captain Grove White, states that 50 per cent of eye wounds could be pre-
vented by the use of the chain visor see p. 133) designed by Dr. Cruise. LaPersonne
(
IN MODERN WARFARE 73
eye wounds in about 700 cases were caused by very small fragments and
that 50 per cent of them were caused by small fragments, all of such a
nature that they could readily have been prevented from entering the eye.
On the other hand, the question of armor for the eyes should evidently
be given less attention if it can be shown that the cases of total blindness
are extremely rare; for in this event the loss in efficiency would be costly
if an army would be compelled to wear visors. In point of fact, eye wounds
are proportionally rare, judged from statistics obtainable. The Canadian
records are here extremely accurate and they show us that of 150,520
casualties there were only 20 cases of total blindness. That is to say, a case
of blindness occurs among their casualties only once in seven thousand cases.
In a word, following the statistics in question and taking into account the
total number of troops involved, the chance of any particular soldier be-
coming totally blind is certainly very remote. Thus, in the English Army,
in general, the percentage of cases of blindness is known to be low, and
indeed not more than three thousand cases of blindness were recorded up
to January, 1918, in an army of about three millions. In other words, the
chance of any individual English soldier becoming blind is as one is to one
thousand. And from the data concerning the armies of all nations, so far
as the writer was able to determine, it seems clear that the number of cases
of total blindness is not excessive, in no instance higher apparently than
one in five hundred, or one fifth of one per cent. Hence in the work of war
it would hardly be expedient to give to a thousand men an eye defense which
and Terron note that 80 per cent of the eye lesions studied in French hospitals were
due to missiles of low velocity; they also declare that in general the majority (75
per cent) of all wounds treated in military hospitals are caused by similar missiles.
Ill
(A) FRENCH
(a) THE FRENCH HELMET
1. Its Origin
Fig. 20. Standard French helmet, 1916 Fig. 21. Standard helmet (dotted profile)
compared with French fireman's helmet
(Figs. 20, 21 and 22), for by this procedure a model was at hand whose
merit was fully established and whose speedy production was assured. In
fact, certain of the dies which formed the earlier casques could be used at
once.The thickness of metal recommended for the new helmet was 8 mm.
(.315 inch). Its entire weight should not exceed 800 grams (=2 pounds)
which was but two thirds the weight of the casque of the dragoon.
76 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
2. Description
service. Its light weight (which was reduced to one pound eleven ounces)
enables it to be worn without fatigue, and its artistic merit, to which
Edouard Detaille contributed, touches the pride of the soldier.
In general, it is hat-shaped, composed of a sub-hemispherical dome, a
medium crest, and a down-bent brim which is narrow above the ears. On
its forehead it bears the symbol, e.g., grenade, crossed cannon, etc., of the
army group to which the wearer belongs. The casque is painted either the
military blue of the French soldier or an olive drab. Its surface is not
roughened.
It fits the head of the wearer nearly as comfortably as a "derby" hat
and its size is, to this end, regulated with great precision. The steel shell
is stamped out in three sizes, designated "A," "B" and "C" the first is :
adapted for heads of our hat-size 6J^, the second size corresponds to our
7^, and the third to our 7^. For each of these sizes, linings of four dif-
ferent measures are provided. The lining is separated from the shell of the
helmet by a band of aluminum, which is crimped or corrugated furnishing —
IN MODERN WARFARE 77
a series of channels which run vertically when the helmet is in place, insur-
ing a certain amount of ventilation. The lining consists of a sweat-band
of "Cuban goatskin" from which arise tabs which line the dome of the
helmet and converge to its apex (Fig. 23). Each tab is perforated near its
free extremity by a metal eyelet through which a string passes. By the ad-
justment of this string, the head may be kept from contact with the top of
the helmet. The leather sweat-band of this helmet is kept from the steel
shell by the intervention of a stout band of felt and by the corrugated band
of aluminum mentioned above. A chin-strap, made of sheepskin, five eighths
inch in width, is fastened to the helmet by means of two slender metal
loops, each on its by two small rivets. The latter serve, at the
side attached
same time, to hold together the front and back halves of the brim of the
helmet.
78 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
3. Manufacture
The Frenchhelmet, while apparently simple in structure, requires no
lessthan seventy operations in manufacture. This number, moreover, does
not include stages in the preparation of the metal for manufacture, cutting
out the plates, etc. (Several stages are shown in Fig. 24.)
(a) Dome: The dome of the helmet is stamped out cold in two opera-
tions. "Blanking" (trimming) operations follow, then a hole is pierced
at the apex for ventilation and other holes for attachment of the crest and
the emblem. Last of all, a crimped border is formed around the dome,
within which the brim of the helmet is attached.
(b) Brim: The brim of the helmet is stamped in two pieces, which,
when fastened together, articulate with the dome of the helmet by means
of marginal crimping. This upper or crimped border of the brim comes to
lie in a horizontal plane and from it the brim slopes downward. The brow-
of 70 degrees. The peak at the brow is two inches wide, at the back of the
head one and three fourths inches, at the side five eighths inch. The free
edge of the brim is rolled over in the direction from bottom to top so as to
make a neat finish.
is formed. The emblem (bomb, crossed guns, initials of the republic, etc.)
which represents the branch of the service of the wearer and which has
already been embossed in steel, is now attached to the brow region of the
helmet by means of cramping points.
(d) Ventilation: The French helmet is well ventilated. Air enters the
dome of the helmet from the region of the brow-band through the channels
provided by the encircling strip of crimped aluminum (cf. Fig. 23). The
air then passes out of the dome through a median slot which is half an inch
wide and an inch and three quarters long; thus it enters the hollow median
helmet from under the margins of which it finally escapes; for
crest of the
IN MODERN WARFARE 79
here the crest has been so trimmed that its sides for a distance of about two
inches do not come with the adjacent dome of the hehiiet.
in contact
(e) Lining: The lining described above is fastened to the dome of the
helmet by means of four wide staple-shaped fasteners. The backs of these
staples are soldered to the dome; their points project straight inwards and
perforate both the aluminum ventilating bands and the leather and felt
sweat-band of the lining. They are then cramped together by bending and
hold these elements in place.
(f) Chin-straps: These in the earlier helmets were attached to small
loops which formed part of the back of the staple which fastened the lining
mentioned above. In later models, these loops are fastened by small tabs
of steel to the brim of the helmet by the same rivets which hold together
the front and back halves of the brim. The chin-strap, with its loops, is
considerably lighter than in the helmets of the English, Americans, or
Germans. Its buckle is attached on the right side and is of the sliding type:
it is simple in form, straight and light; it does not appear to give trouble
is as follows:
Early "^" "5"
Composition: . Carbon . .225 -19/^% -1°%
Manganese .
.490 46% .42%
Phosphorus . .025 .025% .03%
Thickness: .
.026" .026"
Treatment: "A" annealed once in course of pressing
"B" not annealed in course of pressing
content is to be .150, the manganese .450. It is noted that the French spe-
cialists lay less stress upon the composition of the metal demanded of con-
5. Ballistic Value
upon the plate (or helmet) which, in this case, is cramped between rings
3^ inches in diameter. The punch is .28 inch in thickness, is round at its
point, and is connected with a dynamometer to register the force of the
blow. By the aid of this device. Dr. Dupuy examined the two types of steel
used in the French helmets (indicated as "A" and "B" on page 80 of the
present section) and found that "A" was perforated at a pressure of 756
pounds while "B" ruptured at 674. In one case, "A," the ball before ruptur-
ing the plate indented it to a distance of .25 inch, while in "B" it caused
an indentation of .20 inch. In similar tests made by Dr. Dupuy on the
English helmet, which was pressed from manganese alloy of 13 per cent
and was .035 inch thick, the metal was ruptured only after a blow equiva-
lent to 1,578 pounds had been given; it then showed an indentation meas-
uring only .28 inch. His results, therefore, indicate that the French helmet
has than one half the ballistic strength of the English helmet, while
less
since in the case noted above the French helmet indented .25 inch while
the English helmet at more than double the shock indented only .28 inch.
6. Criticism
There can be no question, accordingly, that the French helmet does not
take high rank ballistically. It is penetrated at about one half the blow
which the English helmet is able to resist. On the other hand, it weighs
nearly one fourth less and can, therefore, be carried with minor fatigue.
Indeed, it can safely be said that in the matter of bearing a weight upon the
head during protracted periods each extra ounce becomes an important mat-
ter hence in any criticism of the French helmet, one should take into careful
;
82 HELxMETS AND BODY ARMOR
consideration the type of missile whicti the defense is intended to resist;
for it may be quite strong enough for its purpose. The French hehnet is
stated, as the basis of numerous and careful tests, to resist about three
fourths of the shrapnel hits. The by similar tests would
British helmet
probably be effective against nearly all. Hence, it would seem that the
superiority of the British headpiece was demonstrated beyond a doubt and
that the French Government would speedily be led to improve the quality
of its helmet. Not only is the French helmet less effective in its metal but
in its construction as well; indeed, no one can question that it is greatly
weakened by the numerous perforations in its bowl. We refer here espe-
cially to the long slot which pierces the crown of the helmet, which should
have been avoided at almost any cost; also, every effort should have been
made to gain strength in the helmet by fashioning the brim and the crown
out of the same piece of steel, for one can only believe that many lives have
been lost through the weakness of the brow line of the French helmet where
the bowl rand the brim are merely crimped together. In spite of this criti-
cism, however, we note that its especial form of helmet was resolutely
maintained by the French Government through four years of warfare.
Hence, this headpiece must have been a satisfactory and a serviceable one.
Perhaps it was not the very best for its purpose, for the French experts
themselves are not blind to its shortcomings, but some of their most com-
petent chiefs lay stress upon the fact that there is much to be gained in the
management of the soldier's equipment by conserving standard patterns.*
It is by this means that speedy and economical production is maintained.
Also it is fair to say that each helmet has a morale of its own. That of the
French helmet is high: its wearer takes it seriously and it would do him no
good to tell him that his is not the best model for his needs. He becomes
fond of his helmet and his feeling toward it is a distinct asset in the prob-
lem. He is its shape is excellent, he is accustomed to its
convinced that
lighter weight, and he would gladly wear it under conditions in which he
would probably cast aside a heavier and a better helmet. Hence, in the long
run, the protective coefficient of the present casque is probably not far from
that of a newer and improved design. Assuredly, there are many points to be
principle is a deserving one, the writer suggests that the illustration was chosen un-
fortunately, for one recalls the fate of the royal army at the hands of the innovators I
IN MODERN WARFARE 83
considered in this problem of changing a hehnet; so comes about that
it
7. Newer Models
It isbecause of the obvious defects of the present helmet that armor
critics in France have suggested a number of improved models, and some
of these we may now briefly consider.
In point of fact, from the time the French helmet was adopted, modi-
fications in its design were attempted and some of the newer models ap-
peared in experimental lots in the field. In one of the earlier variants
(Fig. 25), the crown of the helmet developed a series of horizontal ridges
about ten in number, which were expected to increase the rigidity and
hence the ballistic value of the helmet. It is even interesting to note that
this device was also developed independently both in England and in the
United States; indeed, it is fair to say that its origin is a very early one,
84 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
for those who know the history of armor will recall at once that cannellated
surfaces in armor were used extensively by armorers in various parts of
Europe during the late fifteenth and the first half of the sixteenth century.
Indeed, they even gave rise to a style of armor known as "Maximilian"
in honor of the Emperor Maximilian of Austria in whose court this armor
was fashionable and by whom it is even supposed to have been invented.
The physical principle which suggested that this fluted or corrugated type
of armor would be especially strong was evidently that ol the arch which
at a definite point was expected to sustain the metal against an impinging
blow. The ridges, it is usually held, should be so close together that the
impinging projectile would straddle, as it were, from one arch to another
and thus meet greater resistance.* In a somewhat similar line a suggestion
* A somewhat similar principle was considered in the "honeycombing" of armor
plate, or partly drilling it weight yet with the possible
in lines, so as to reduce the
effect of retaining the ballistic strength of the plate. Trials in this direction have not
yielded positive results ; it is certain only that the improvement in the strength of the
plate under this condition is not substantial (W. A. Taylor).
IN MODERN WARFARE 85
was made both England and in France that a type of helmet would be
in
especially strong whose crown was covered with small bosses (Fig. 26),
for these projections were supposed to serve the same function in supporting
the shock of the impinging ball as the parallel ridges referred to above.
In all these cases, however, actual testsof ballistic resistance have been
disappointing. They have shown, notably, that the concave areas which
separate the ridges are correspondingly weaker. In the final analysis, one
may state that a surface which is smooth affords approximately as great
protects the temple. In the hrst of these forms, the brim is gradually rolled
or tilted up, beginning from its union with the dome of the helmet;
line of
in the last type, the brim is developed downward at the sides and gives
greater protection to the region of the temple. It is among these forms that
the latest French helmet will possibly be chosen, although it is safe to say
that the French soldier will not give up his attractive Adrian casque for a
simpler and more efficient headpiece without a distinct struggle. Of the
four forms here shown, the first (knowingly or unknowingly) is a copy of a
model known as a chapel.
fifteenth-century headpiece of the
Siege helmet. For and snipers, the French have used experi-
sentinels
mentally a type of headpiece shown in Fig. 31 it was found unsatisfactory
;
in actual service (1916 ?) and discarded; few specimens were made and
the writer has not been able to secure one for examination. It is said to have
weighed twelve pounds.
Fig. 29 Fig. 29A Fig. 29B
Fig. 29. Experimental model (C) of French helmet, hand-made
Fig. 31. Siege helmet, experimental. Fig. 32. Dunand experimental design
French, 1916-1917 for sentinel's heavy helmet
Fig. 33 Fig. 34
Figs. 33 and 34. French standard helmet with visor. Early Polack model
Fig. 35. French experimental Fig. 36. Polack visor. Early form attached
visor. Early Polack model to French helmet
to insure the wearer adequate vision and both experts advised against the
use of a visor having many perforations, Le.^ like a pepperbox top.
Another type of Polack visor, however, dating from late 1916 or 1917,
was based upon the principle of securing vision by means of separate slits
developed in parallel series and strengthened structurally by vertical bands.
An interesting visor shown in Fig. 35, which was arranged to be used with
the standard French helmet and was detachable, shows a transitional type
from a visor of a single slit to one having many. In the first specimen pic-
tured, there are four slots of these the second one is long, transverse, and
;
is strengthened by a ridge made of metal which was bent out when the slot
was formed. From this stage in development, we pass to that of Fig. 36;
Fig. 37. Pelack visor. Early form
Fig. 38A
Fig. 39A
Fig. 39. Polack visor, adapted to brim of standard helmet
IN MODERN WARFARE 91
Fig. 40B
Fig. 40. Polack visor, fitting head below or above brim
of helmet
means of rubber bands, and its slots for vision are still cut in the visor. In
a later stage they appear in a definite cage built up of separate laminae and
held together in a frame which is then inserted in the body of the visor.
The laminae which are situated in front of the eye are set in a horizontal
plane; those situated above the eye slant upward, and those below down-
ward, all slants or planes having been designed to focus in a radial way on
92 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
the pupil of the eye ( Fig. 62 ) By
. this means, the wearer is given a remark-
ably clear range of vision in front, above, and below, for the
at the sides,
laminae are thin and are placed edgewise. Such a visor, it is evident, would
be an exceedingly weak one were the laminae not strengthened by vertical
bars. These are thin and are arranged vertically in such a way as to inter-
fere very little with sight. The whole device is technically and optically
excellent. The earliest type of the Polack visor could be demounted and
carried upside down on the forehead of the helmet (Figs. 38 and 38A).
Another model, when put in place, litted neatly over the front brim of the
helmet (Figs. 39 and 39A). A later variant of this visor, shown in Figs.
40, 40A and 40B, articulated ingeniously with the standard helmet by
means of a peg and sliding groove and could be slid back on the brow region
of the helmet when not in use. Still another variant, developed in 1917, is
shown in Figs. 41, 41 A and 41 B; this takes the form of a mobile visor
which when not in use is carried on the forehead. When dropped in place,
its lower border extends as far as the tip of the nose. A final model, devel-
oped early in 1918, is shown in Figs. 42 and 43. Here the visor is adapted
to a helmet entirely different in shape from the standard helmet. The models
here shown are hand-made, but it is understood that this type of helmet will
Fig. 42 Fig. 42A
i
Fig.4::B Fig. 42C
Fig. 42. Polacli visor with new experimental French helmet (1918). Hand-made
Fig. 43A
Fig. 43. Polack visor with new experimental French helmet (1918). Hand-made
IN MODERN WARFARE 95
be pressed in manganese steel* and that it will probably be chosen to suc-
ceed the Adrian helmet.
In the matter of the ballistic qualities of the Polack visor, tests made
in France, England and the United States have not given altogether satis-
factory results. It will certainly protect the eye region from metal splinters
and shrapnel at low velocity. On the other hand, its great range of vision
is its element of weakness, for, as was early pointed out, it is open widely
to small splinters and gives them ready access to the eye. In fact, the adjust-
ment of the thin radiating slats or lamellae which compose this visor is
what deeper, however (by three quarters of an inch), in the region of the
ear and of the back of the head. The dome of the helmet is dilated in the
brow region and is covered with a globose visor whose slots are pierced
mechanically in transverse lines. The visor rotates on key-shaped pegs and
retains its position when raised by means of a small peglike protuberance
on the brow of the helmet which clings to the bent-in upper border of the
visor, a "safety" device well known in automobile fittings. The early model
of the Dunand helmet shown in this figure was exhibited at American
headquarters and American authorities ordered that a number of these
Fig. 44 Fig. 44A
Fig. 44B
is shown in the Frontispiece and in Figs. 45 and 45A, which was ultimately
in front. The attachment of the visor was now ingeniously effected by means
IN MODERN WARFARE 99
of pegs riveted strongly to the brim of the helmet in such a way that the
tips of the pegs project at the side. The pegs, then, are no longer capable
of turning and the visor removable only when raised to a particular
is
height. Specimens of this helmet were forwarded to the United States for
the examination of the Ordnance Department and a statement was made
by the committee on helmets in France to the eifect that this type of helmet
might be accepted as the standard helmet for the American forces in case
a Polack visor could be used with it instead of the present one.
American soldier. Nor could the sharp crest of this helmet be reproduced
in manganese steel without weakening the crown. Furthermore, the type
of visor here used was criticized as producing a sensation of giddiness in
the wearer; for the wearer when looking through the narrow slots which
perforate his visor and through which he obtains an extended and fairly
clear vision, soon becomes aware that the light areas in his range of view
move up and down unpleasantly when the helmet wabbles and wabble —
it will when the wearer moves about (cf. Major Polack's diagrams. Figs.
61 and 62). In a word, this type of visor is apt to produce more or less
dizziness and cannot, therefore, be physiologically correct. In point of fact,
the same type of visor was tried out at earlier times, notably in the first half
of the sixteenth century (see Fig. 47) and was never widely accepted.
In fact, it was used only when the helmet rested on or was attached to the
shoulders of the armored soldier. Another and serious criticism of this type
of visor is that it is relatively weak ballistically. It would unquestionably
Fig. 47. Helm of 1514, whose visor suggests
Dunand design
Visors and Eye Wounds: (See also pages 72 and 133.) French armor
experts early considered the need of protecting the eyes, and upon this theme
the Bulletin de la Societe d'Ophtalmologie and the Annales d'OcuUstique
have published a number of important papers. We note especially a memoir
of MM. Morax and Moreau in the latter publication, August, 1918, pages
321-332, which considers this subject in detail. These authors gathered their
data in the hospital of Laboisiere, tabulating about seven hundred eye
wounds, and have shown that of this number nearly half the cases were
caused by splinters or small missiles of low velocity. Hence, it is clear that
the use of a visor of almost any type would be an important means of pro-
tection. The authors also show very interestingly that the proportion of
injuries to the eyes due to missiles of low velocity is approximately constant
at various seasons and in various localities. Unhappily, however, they do
Fig. 50
Fig. 56
Fig. 51
Fig. 52 Fig. 57
Fig. 53 Fig. 58
Fig. 54
Fig. 59
Fig. 5S
Fig. 60A
Fig. 60. Standard French helmet with early model
of folding visor
clear that the use of a visorwould be a decided handicap both in his actual
fighting and in his morale —
in the latter case leading him to think more
of the danger to his eyes than of his immediate duty of destroying his
enemy. Hence, viewed as a practical proposition, France might have been
the greater loser if her soldiers had worn visors than if they had fought
with their faces naked to the enemy. There is no question in the minds of
all experts whom the present writer has consulted that under certain condi-
A
e (E^iy- c
Fig. 61
* Its weight was five pounds ; test shows that it does not withstand a 230-grain
automatic revolver at 600 foot seconds ; its resistance will be scarcely more than half
this figure.
Fig. 64- Abdominal defense. French, Adrian model, 1916
r? V
gave the wearer no discomfort, yet served to ward off such missiles as a
standard hehnet would resist. They covered, moreover, a part of the body
which was apt to be struck when shrapnel burst overhead. As a detail in
the economy of manufacture, it was found that material for the epaulets
could be obtained from the trimmings of steel cast aside during the manu-
facture of helmets.
as part of the general equipment and no further effort seems to have been
made to protect the soldiers' legs.
no HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
(B) ENGLISH
fa) Types of British body armor
(b) Helmets
(c) Face defenses
Of all the nations in the present war, the English have been the most
persistent in their effort to solve the problem of light armor. Upward of
eighteen designs of body shields have been produced commercially; and the
Government has spent large sums in purchasing armor of various types and
in itself producing revised models. There has, moreover, been no little
expenditure in this direction on the part of British soldiers themselves.
In shops in England, armor could be bought everywhere. Even the poorer
types of it seem occasionally to have had good results, for all manufacturers
received unsolicited letters from the front which tell of saving life and
limb. It appears that defenses of the various models to be noted were worn
only on special service and that he who wished the protection of armor
must have been willing to carry it about with him, at the cost of no little
discomfort, as part of his regular equipment. In view of this, several
manufacturing companies endeavored to provide a body armor which would
be light in weight and folded readily, so as to be carried in the soldier's
pack. In the matter of general results, however, it should be stated that the
British Government did not recommend body armor as a part of each sol-
dier's equipment; it provided it only in sufficient quantity for arming about
two men in each hundred. It was then kept at such points that it could
conveniently be placed at the service of scouting parties, sentinels and
bombers. Hence it was apt to be seen along the front as part of the regular
materiel.
of plate.
''Yielding''' Armor: The general subject of armor made of silk and other
fibers, woven or padded, will be referred to in a later section of this report
(page 282). A defense of this kind aims to prevent injury to the wearer by
—
deadening the blow that is, by yielding to the impinging missile yet at
1
IN MODERN WARFARE 1 1
the same time clinging to it, so that in the end it brings it to a state of rest.
In the present section, we body armor
will reter only to the kinds of "soft"
which the British have actually used.
The first of these is a silken neck defense or necklet, prepared in London
under the auspices of the Munitions Inventions Board. Its form, as shown in
Fig. 67, suggests the high collar of an ulster, generous in its lines, thick
(nearly two inches), and heavy (3^ pounds). It is padded with about
twenty-four layers of Japanese silk ot six momme (1.1 ounces) and wadded
with an additional amount of waste and floss silk. Its covering is canvas
and khaki-colored muslin or drill, and its contour is stiffened with j4, irich
iron wire. This defense is of about the same ballistic value as the English
shrapnel helmet. Tests made by the Ordnance Department showed that it
would stop a 230-grain pistol ball traveling at the rate of 600 foot seconds.
The British authorities regarded the present necklet as a valuable defense
and they issued it at the rate of 400 to a division. They later found it of
less merit than had been supposed ; it deteriorated rapidly as trench mate-
riel, it was costly ($25), and the silk for its manufacture was difficult to
procure.
A second type of soft body armor which has been used (but to a very
limited degree) in the British Army is the Chemico Body Shield (Figs. 68
112 HELiMETS AND BODY ARMOR
and 68A), manufactured by the County Chemical Company of Birming-
ham. This is a heavily padded waistcoat, weighing about six pounds, and,
judging from a test made under the writer's direction in Washington,
capable of stopping an automatic pistol ball, jacketed in alloy, at a velocity
of about 300 foot seconds. The padding on this defense is about an inch
thick and composed of many layers of tissue, scraps of linen, cotton and
is
muslin. It is not expensive ($15) and can be worn without serious dis-
comfort. In one of its models the "Chemico" is provided with apron-shaped
pieces which can be buttoned to the breast defense.
Plate Armor: Between the "soft" defenses noted above and the rigid
armor of plate, there were early devised a number of intermediate types.
IN MODERN WARFARE 113
One of these was the scaled waistcoat, or jazeran, known as the Flexible
Armor Guard of John Berkeley (Newcastle). This consists of a breast and
back (see Figs. 69 and 69A) formed of square plates of metal riveted from
the center of each piece to a canvas support. It is easy to wear but its bal-
listic value is metal plates (in the specimen seen by the writer)
slight; its
are not of high alloy; and as they do not overlap, they give little protec-
tion save to projectiles of very low velocity. Struck by a bullet, one of the
small squares, instead of indenting, is apt to be pushed into the wearer's
body. Experiments made by the writer on a three-pound breast defense of
thismodel show that it has but about one quarter of the protective value
of such a body shield as the "B. E. F." hereafter described. The Berkeley
body shield is said, however, to be furnished in thicker types of metal,
extending its range in weight to four pounds.
One of the earliest types of body shields appearing in the British market
was also a flexible one; this was known as the Franco-British, since it was
114 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
first manufactured in France and sold to British soldiers (Fig. 70). It was
I i
^J\"
'^ 5
m
A
Sheet of WlLKINSON'S
"Special Bullet- Proof Steel-
from which Plates are made.
Fig. 71 Fig. 71
IN MODERN WARFARE 1
The Dayfield Body Shield should next be mentioned. This was one of
the earliestand most widely known of British body defenses. It is shown
in Figs. 72-75 both in front and rear views. It consists of a plastron formed
of a number of separate plates, a pair of tassets which hang from the waist-
Fig. 75
Fig. 75.
Y
Manganese-alloy basis of Dayfield body
^'^- '^''^
shield, 1917
belt. It is covered with brown canvas, the separate plates slightly over-
lapping one another and having their borders covered with separate bands
of stuff. The heaviest type of the Dayfield Body Shield weighs from four-
teen to eighteen pounds (Fig. 72). At one time it was found useful for
scouting or wire-cutting parties, bombers, sentinels, and advanced guards
ii8 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
or garrisons of crater holes, but its clumsiness and weight caused it in the
end to be discarded. We
note that in October, 1917, about 20,000 sets of
armor of this type, including a shield of lighter weight, were in use in
France (Fig. 73). The lighter form of this shield was also tried out but
found unsatisfactory. In the latter model the plates meet one another end
to end instead of overlapping.
A Still simpler form of the Dayheld shield appears in Fig. 74; its metal
plates are pictured in Fig. 75. The plastron bears testing marks; its weight
is about four pounds.
In general, it is evident that English inventors made strenuous efforts
to solve thearmor problem by devising a defense which should be light in
weight and easy to wear. Their best experts declared that no armor could
be used successfully which was heavier than six pounds. Unfortunately,
IN MODERN WARFARE 119
however, no body shield of this weight, even made of the best ballistic
metal, could do more than protect its wearer from shrapnel at low velocity,
an occasional hand grenade, or a spent ball. So, clearly, the lightest type of
bod}^ shield could not find general favor. Thus the Canadians, who had
abandoned their armor of the heavy type (sixteen pounds) in favor of a
light Dayfield model which weighed but five and a half pounds, soon de-
Fig. 77. "Best" body shield, showing front, lining of front and backplate
cided that the newer model was equally unsatisfactory. It was too light to
be of service; needed to be strengthened by a few more pounds of metal.
it
The light type of shieldwhich aimed to fill the need is illustrated in the
New Featherweight Shield (Fig. 76). This is made up of a similar number
of plates and covered with khaki drill it may have with it a "sporran
;
plate" to protect the groin, making the entire weight about seven pounds.
If one considers that such a defense as the "Featherweight" can be per-
forated in nearly every case by an automatic pistol bullet at eighty feet,
one concludes that it would hardly prove of the greatest service.
120 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
The type of defense represented by the Dayfield and Featherweight
shields seems, nevertheless, to havebecome generally standardized for the
use of the BritishArmy. A variant of it is "the Best Body Shield" (Figs.
77, 77A and 77B), in which the plates are arranged in a vertical row; five
Fig. 78
behind and four in front. This model is a dangerously narrow one, for it
protects only the middle line of the body; it has the advantage, on the other
hand, of folding up in a fairly small package for convenience in transport.
It is well made, its plates are of 12 per cent manganese steel, and it resists
the tests prescribed for the British helmet. Its weight is six pounds. A similar
but better shield is the B. E. F. (British Expeditionary Forces), which is
IN MODERN WARFARE 121
^SBjjj
plate. Its backplate is similar to the one in the Best shield but is somewhat
smaller. This defense not expensive ($20), and like the former one can
is
be folded up for easy carrying. In a general way, it is one of the most effi-
cientbody defenses which has been devised up to the present time; it is
made of 13 per cent manganese steel, covers a considerable part of the body,
and prevents penetration of a pistol bullet at about 700 foot seconds. Its
weight is seven and one half pounds.
Fig. 80A
Fig. 80
SURGICAL WADDING
Fig. 80B
80B gives detail of construction
Fig.! British Ponobank body shield.
A
Fig. 81 Fig. 81
is for the breast onlyand weighs 2^4 pounds; with a backplate it weighs
4^ pounds; in its khaki-covered form it weighs three pounds, with
breastplate only, and hve pounds with breast and back; its cost is from
four to seven dollars. The "Army and Navy" body shield affords greater
protection in its attachable skirt. Also to be mentioned among simpler
models is the Star body defense (Figs. 81 and 81A) this is made of ;
the corselet ("E. O. B.") shown in Figs. 82, 83. Its weight is 9^
sporran piece. These are covered with khaki drill and are somewhat padded.
The figure pictures the breastplate removed from its cover and shows the
marks of the tests which have been made upon it. It will resist the ball of
the automatic pistol, also shrapnel and grenade. It is not penetrated by a
126 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
rifle ball traveling at the rate of 1,000 foot seconds. Its plates are made
of 12 per cent Hadfield's manganese steel of 18 gauge. The 1917 model
was issued in "pretty large quantities."
Smaller body shields of greater weight have been employed but not in
great number. The Corelli British bullet-proof body shield, shown in Fig.
tion at ten )^ards and is guaranteed to stand six shots spread within a six-
inch circle. Its material is "special alloy steel manufactured by the Siemens-
Munitions Board in March, 1916, shoulder plates were added and were so
bent as to support the weight of the shield and at the same time protect
more effectively the wearer's shoulders also an air cushion was provided in
;
its lining to resist concussion. This shield weighed twenty-two pounds its
;
resistance was great but it was heavy considering the area it protected;
hence, the report upon it was not favorable. Also the heavy body shield is
to be referred towhich was designed by Colonel C. F. Close. This is of the
same type of steel as the "Ronco" and is of similar weight (eighteen
pounds), but its steel is enclosed with a layer of woodite one eighth inch
thick which is stated to reduce the danger to the wearer from lead splash.
The shield was tested by the British Munitions Inventions Board and was
found to be proof to British service bullets at a fifty-yard range. The report
of the Armor Committee, which then dealt with this matter, considered.
;
duced, for its simple shape enabled it to be pressed in metal of high bal-
listic His representations to the Government in the matter were
quality.
accepted and the British Army was soon provided in great numbers with
its "tin hat." In point of fact, the British helmet was an eminently success-
ful device. We query whether its designer was at first aware that he had
selected a model which had already been tried out by infantrymen in earlier
times, but such was certainly the case; its form was that of a simple
"chapel," well known in the wars of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
For ease of manufacture it left little to be desired its shallow dome could
;
of the sap or communication trench desired. For this purpose, hand-pikes or crowbars
are used and as the workers "prise" the roller along, their heads with the upward lift
of the crowbar rise above the surface, hence the necessity for protection. (Cf. note by
General Desmond O'Callaghan, London Times, 1916, July 22.)
IN MODERN WARFARE 129
and shoulders from and shrapnel; and its shell was far more re-
splinters
French helmet. In the matter of its steel the recom-
sistant than that of the
mendation of Sir Robert Hadfield was followed, who pointed out the
many virtues of a high percentage (roundly 12 per cent) manganese steel.
This alloy, rolled in sheets of twenty gauge or .036 inch, would resist
with remarkable uniformity pistol bullets of 230 grains jacketed with
cupro-nickel, traveling at the rate ot 600 foot seconds. Such a bullet, it is
true, produced a deep indentation in the metal, but it did not break through
(Fig. 86). Moreover, if at higher velocity the projectile passed through
the plate, no shattering or splintering occurred to aggravate a wound. The
demerit of this metal was its liability to indent deeply, for this would be
apt to cause fatal injury to the wearer. On the other hand, the value
of manganese steel in producing helmets in large numbers and quickly was
of counterbalancing importance; the metal was found to be pressed readily
without splitting or fracturing; it required no annealing at the time of the
pressing operation —
and no heat treatment afterward features of great
practicalmoment. They insured the production of helmets at a rate far
more (possibly twice as) rapid than if subsequent heat treatment were
given. They meant, also, that cheapness in production was assured as well
as the uniformity of the product — for in heat treating a helmet alloy if
pyrometers are not operating accurately, or if the work of the attendants
is at fault, helmets are apt to be produced which from their brittleness are
unduly dangerous to the wearer. In the matter of price it was found that a
130 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
British helmet could be turned out with lining complete (Fig. 87) at the
rate of less than $2 apiece.
We may note, however, that the specifications for the manufacture of
the British helmet in 1917 do not stipulate that manganese steel shall alone
be used. They prescribe merely that the steel shall not be thicker than
twenty gauge (.036 inch) nor shall it be heavier in the stamped-out shell
than one pound eleven ounces. In point of fact, a ballistic test was made
the criterion of the quality of the steel, rather than a physical or chemical
analysis (contrast the specifications for the French helmet, page 80). The
manufacturer was required to demonstrate that his product was proof to
shrapnel ball, forty-one to a pound with a striking velocity of 700 foot
seconds. This test was given to ten helmets in the first thousand, three
helmets in the second and third thousand, and two helmets in each suc-
ceeding thousand. No requirement was given as to the depth of indentation
or the deformation allowed, the decision in this regard having apparently
IN MODERN WARFARE 131
.^'^^''
Fig. 89. British helmet provided with chain mail visor, 1917
eye defense produced in steel in 1916, which had a considerable sale among
English soldiers (see page 233). This, as shown in Fig. 182, is in the form
of metal goggles, weighing five and one half ounces, which could be tied
to the head by tapes. It was slotted for vision and, although the slits were
IN MODERN WARFARE 133
narrow, they were situated close enough to the pupil of the eye to give a
remarkably clear and wide vision. No regular issue of these goggles to
soldiers in the heldwas made. The only eye defense which the British pro-
duced in large number was the chain-mail veil, as shown in Figs. 89 and
89A to C, which was devised by Captain Cruise, R. A. M. C, oculist to
the King. This visor was made of closely woven links and was attached to
a metal rod which passed immediately under the brim of the helmet. In
Fig. 89A, the visor is shown hanging in front of the soldier's face. One
notes a hook at the point "A" on the helmet strap, also a hanging chain at
"B" and a hook on the brim of the helmet at "C." In Fig. 89B, the visor is
shown it is drawn taut, touching the nose and cheek
in correct position;
region, and is fastened firmly in position by looping the chain "B" on the
hook "A." When not in use, the visor may be detached from the point "A,"
then turned up over the brim of the helmet and fastened again by the side
chains to the hook "C," as shown in Fig. 89C. In 1916-1917, this type of
visor found favor with English authorities and was manufactured in large
numbers. Some of the lots found their way to the front but we do not know
to what degree they were actually worn. Certain it is that they were not
given a kindly reception by the soldiers, who are said to have found them
annoying and soon cast them off. A report states that in actual use they pro-
duce dizziness, for the links of the visor change position in front of the
wearer's eyes, following every movement of the helmet. In designing this
visor, it should be explained, the British authorities took into careful
account the statistics as to the nature of the eye wounds, and it was demon-
strated that about 50 per cent of the eye cases were of such a character that
they might have been prevented by the use of the chain On the other
veil.
hand, should have been pointed out that as there were only from two to
it
three thousand cases of blindness reported in the entire British Army, which
included about three million soldiers, the use of such a visor would prob-
ably be inexpedient —on the ground that it might hamper the efficiency
of the men. (Cf. pages 72-73.)
(C) GERMAN
No information, unfortunately, is at hand dealing with the experi-
mental results of the Germans in this field. There is no doubt, however, that
they have considered this subject in an extended way, for a careful study
of their present helmet and body armor shows clearly that they have con-
sulted not only able metallurgists but technical experts in the field of armor.
134 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
They have probably secured the best results for the protection of the soldier
during the present war.
(C) German
(a) The German helmet
1. Description
2. Lining
3. Chin-band
4. Thickness
5. Weight
6. Composition
7. Manufacture
8. Ballistic tests
(b) Siege helmets
(c) Breastplate and tassets
1.
IN MODERN WARFARE 135
it will be seen, differs from the British one in which helmets of different
sizes do not occur, the fitting being regulated by the size of the helmet
lining.
2. Lining
The helmet lining (Fig. 92) borne on a sweat-band of cowhide,
is
which is fastened to the helmet at three points. To this band are attached
Fig. 90. German helmet with frontal plate Fig. 91. Frontal plate detached
for sniper
three pads which fold upward within the dome of the helmet and are
backed {i.e., next to the helmet shell) each by a cushion. The pads are then
so arranged that one comes to lie against the forehead and one against each
side of the head. In the specimens examined, the pad has been formed of
calfskin so cut that the end which is attached to the sweat-band is the wider
part; the opposite end divides into two lobes, each of which is pierced and
threaded by a string which is so arranged that it draws together the free
ends of all the tabs and forms an elastic carrier for the weight of the helmet.
It should be noted that each tab bears an inner pocket which contains
a small mattress filled with curled hair. This mattress is kept in position
in the pocket by means of tapes which can be tied. The entire lining weighs
4^ ounces. It is so designed that it fits the head easily and allows tree
136 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
spaces (one on either side of the forehead and one at the back of the head)
through which ventilation is secured and by means of which the weight of
the helmetupon the head is carried on the three cushions above described.
LEATHER, BAMD
LEATHEI^ TAB
Fig. 92. Lining of German helmet
The scalp or the top of the head may thus still receive its supply of blood
freely; for the vessels(and for that matter the nerves) which transmit the
blood along the sides of the head upward or downward are not compressed
by the constricting rim of the usual "hat-lining" of a helmet but have open
IN MODERN WARFARE 137
are too hard or too thick, he quite at liberty to remove some of their
is
stuffing to the desired degree on the other hand, he finds that the helmet
; if,
sits upon his head too loosely, he has merely to open the drawing strings
of the enclosed pads and thrust behind each mattress the needed amount
of stufi^ing, in the shape of a bit of burlap, a folded strip of a handkerchief,
a layer of cotton wool, etc.
3. Chin-band
The chin-band of the German helmet is adjusted by means of a simple
buckle; it is attached on either side to brass loops which can at need be
removed from the helmet shell. They have merely to be separated from
their turning peg (Fig. 93).
4. Thickness
5. Weight
The shell of the German helmet weighs two pounds six ounces.
:
7. Mani/fdcture
No definite information could be obtained in this matter. The helmet
is said to be pressed hot, probably on electrically heated dies. In confirma-
tion of this statement, it is known that the Budd Manufacturing Company
(Philadelphia) tried in vain to press steel of this formula cold; they failed
to give it even the simpler shape of the British helmet. The surface finish
of the helmet, according to studies made for us by the Schenectady Labora-
tory of the General Electric Company, is a coating of japan in which the
helmet was dipped. It was air dried without artificial heat.
8. BaUistic Tests
plate (Figs. 90, 91) as a reinforcing piece, e.g., for snipers. This plate is
.23 to .25 inch thick and fits closely to the forehead as far down at least
as the level of the frontal peak of the helmet. It weighs from five to seven
pounds and naturally overbalances the headpiece considerably. From in-
formation collected in the field, this heavy brow-plate is not often used;
Its weight evidently makes it an unsatisfactory defense.
A siege or sniper's helmet (Figs. 94, 94A) said to have been taken from
the Germans at Verdun in 1917, was seen by the writer at an exhibition
of war objects sent by the British Military Mission to New York; it re-
sembles very closely and is probably copied from a Saxon siege helmet of
peak, and a short straight neck defense which together at the sides merge
into broad ear lappets which extend down from the dome of the helmet to
below the level of the ear. This headpiece weighs fourteen pounds. It is
It will resist service ammunition at 200 yards when a normal hit is scored;
Fig.95B
Fig. 95. German sniper's head shield, 1916-1917. Fig. 95B. Variant'?
above (C.33, Si. .37, Mn. .49, S. .04, Ph. .060, N. 3.65, Chr. .24, Va. .20,
IN MODERN WARFARE 141
is 6% inches, its total length 12, its width 9%. It is therefore heavier by five ounces
than the earlier model, deeper by nearly half an inch, and somewhat shorter. Its lining
shows several changes a steel sweat-band replaces the leathern one the chin-band is
: ;
of a woolen woven braid, and the cushions are made more tightly and cheaply they ;
lack the drawing strings and are held in place by a wide braid sewed in place. The
142 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
model : it has a sloping brim and a neck-shield which merges gradually into
the cranial dome A German
helmet camouflaged in green, buff
(Fig. 96).
and white, may here also be figured (Fig. 97 j it was taken from the head :
lower dangle freely, and the largest or uppermost is attached to the wearer's
shoulders. The uppermost plate follows broadly the shape of the chest;
its front is 185^ inches high and its upper border is rolled outward so as
chin-strap is of a heavy braid made of coarse cloth folded and sewed ; its mountings are
of leather and its eyelets of iron ; a common tongue-roller buckle finishes this trapping.
Colonel Hans Zinsser, also recently returned from the front, has kindly furnished
the writer with additional notes concerning the latest issues of German helmets. The
lining-pads of the standard model now contain "first aid" dressings when these are
:
used, the helmet becomes too large for the soldier, who then, however, has probably
little need for wearing it. The Colonel also reports the use of an extremely heavy type
of helmet for machine gunners, which is said to be proof to American service ammu-
nition at very close range. It follows closely the lines of the standard German helmet.
Possibly this is the model shown in Fig. 95.
IN MODERN WARFARE 143
to protect the region of the throat. Riveted to each upper corner of this
front plate is a shoulder plate, 9 inches long and 4^ inches wide, which
bends backward and serves as a hook to support the armor on the shoulder.
The abdominal plates, which together form an apron, are three in number;
the uppermost measures ijyi inches long and 6 inches wide; the second is
of the same height but is less than 14 inches in length; the lowest ("sporran
Fig. 98. German heavy breastplate Fig. 98A. German heavy breastplate.
Inner view
plate," as the Scots would call it) is 10 inches long and 7^2
almost flat,
inches high. These three plates are hung on each side to a band of webbing
which is made fast above to a loop riveted to the breastplate. To keep the
abdominal plates from jangling, pads of felt (cow's hair) are inserted
between them and sewed to the webbing supports. There are two sizes of
this armor used. The first weighs from 19 to 22 pounds, the second is larger
(31^ inches high) and weighs about 24 pounds. The plates in the smaller
size are somewhat the thicker, averaging .140 inch as against .131 inch.
144 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
1. Chemical Composition
This body armor is made of a silicon-nickel steel, of which the formula
is as follows
I*
: :
With regard to this report, an endeavor will be made to carry out the pro-
posed improvements but in order not to delay the issue, this can only be
done in the case of later deliveries.
"The armour is not generally intended for operations, but it will prove
valuable for sentries, listening posts, garrisons of shell holes, gun teams of
machine guns scattered over the ground, etc., especially as a protection for
the back.
"I request that the armour be issued to units destined for threatened
sectors of the line, so that they can become familiar with its use before they
go into line.
"(signed) Ludendorff.
"Sixth Army H. O.
11 BNr. 19718"
"6. In front of the armour two hooks should be provided at (f) from
which bags tor tools or for carrying bombs, etc., can be slung.
"7. It worn any length of time, the weight of the armour becomes
for
very oppressive. As a remedy for this, it is recommended that the shoulders
should be padded, which would relieve the pressure considerably. An issue
of this armour, even in small quantities, is requested.
"Note: The scale of issue to the 2nd Battn. g^th Inf. Regt. on the igth
June 1917, was 2 per company, including the machine gun company."
IN MODERN WARFARE 147
From the foregoing evidence, it is clear that this type of armor was
found serviceable for sentinels in position warfare; and from the testimony
of officers returning from the front, the writer learned during the summer
of 1918 that this defense was appearing in greater proportional numbers
among the Germans. In Fig. 100, an entire machine gun unit, its officers
excepted, is shown wearing this armor. In a general way, it offered protec-
Fig. 100. German machine gun squad armed with new model helmet and heavy body armor, 1918
tion against bombs exploding within a few yards; it did not interfere
seriously with the wearer's movements, nor was it excessively heavy.
on this Italian work proved difficult to obtain; the present resume must
therefore be regarded as provisional.
From the beginning of the war, the Italian General Staff is stated to
have taken great interest in the development of armor for assault. In 1915,
IN MODERN WARFARE 149
before any special defenses could be provided, the Italian infantry under
certain conditions carried with them or rolled in front of them bags of sand
to serve as shields, or "sap-rollers" (see page 128) —a primitive defense
which is said to have saved numerous casualties.
(D) Italian
(a) The Italian helmet
Service helmet, helmet for shock troops
(b) Body defenses
Body shields, Ansaldo, Fariselli, Frati, Gorgeno-CoUaye
(c) Armor defenses for other parts of the body
helmet has come into the writer's hands which would enable him to com-
pare definitely its weight, manufacture, lining, etc. He examined, however,
a heavier type of Italian helmet, shown in Fig. 102, while visiting the
Munitions Inventions Board in London. This helmet, it was stated, was
used for shock troops and was issued "in fairly large number." It weighs
four pounds and is made of chrome-nickel steel. Its heavy vertical rim is
made up of three separate strips of alloy held together by riveting; to this
ffvo Kji. 8930
of "legs" which, where the breastplate is used as a rifle shield, may be ro-
tated downward and become the support by which the defense may be held
upright on the ground in front of the soldier (Fig. 105). When not in use,
these "legs" are merely rotated forward and are held in place under the
soldier's cartridge belt (Fig. loi). It is not known in what number the
present shield has been issued.
A second type of body defense is the armored waistcoat of Fariselli,
the property of the Astori Company in Milan. A specimen of this, examined
by the writer in the Munitions Inventions Board in London, appeared
simple in principle but quite effective (Fig. no). It takes the form of a
waistcoat of heavy stuff, provided with three pockets, two covering the
breast and one the abdomen. Each pocket contains a plat^ of chrome-nickel
IN MODERN WARFARE 153
steel ; here unattached and for this reason the defense
it lies is said to be
easier to wear. Certainly such a device, one notes at once, lends itself readily
writer weighed altogether 17 pounds; its plates were .30 inch thick and
their weights were as follows: abdominal about pounds, right and left
7^
breastplates about 5 and 4 pounds respectively. The ballistic test of this
I
IN MODERN WARFARE 155
^._^ \.J
Still another Italian body defense is the cuirass of the Frati Company
of Milan. The plates of this defense are .20 to .22 inch in thickness. We
have seen no specimen of this defense or photograph of it. We assume from
a French report that its plates are worn very much as in the Fariselli breast-
plates. Its material, however, is of greater resistance, for when tested at
distances from 20 to 200 yards, its plates withstood successfully Italian,
German and Austrian service ammunition without showing even a pro-
156 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
nounced indentation on its under surface. The test was a good one even
when shots were concentrated on a surface one inch square. This type of
breastplate weighs 15^ pounds.
A an Italian model, which the writer examined
light breastplate of
while in London, is shown in Fig. 1 1 1 and is known as the Gorgeno-Collaye
model. It is said to date from 1916. This defense is known technically to
armor experts as a jazeran but differs from this defense in having its plates
covered separately in cloth; the plates themselves, it will be seen, overlap
one another freely, as in ancient jazerans, on the outer side of the defense.
No data is at hand regarding the inventor of this defense or its place of
manufacture. We know, however, that this defense appears both in France
and England. The "Military" waistcoat shown in Fig. 112 is merely a
variant of this plastron. The last-named defense weighs eight pounds and
it iseasy to wear; it resists the automatic 45, 230-grain bullet at a foot-
second velocity of over 800. We
should here mention that the Italians
appear to have used trench shields (see page 180) as a type of heavy body
defense (Fig. 113), judging from photographs taken in the Italian war
area.Such shields are proof to machine guns but they are obviously difficult
to carry —
even for a short distance. They overbalance the soldier on ac-
count of their great weight, averaging from thirty to sixty pounds.
(E) BELGIAN
After their country was invaded, the Belgians became dependent upon
the British and French for equipment of all kinds. In 1916 they were re-
ceiving through the French Quartermaster Corps a large number of trench
helmets of the Adrian model. These appear to have been made by the firm
of Aug. du Puyron, one of the best of the French manufacturers, in whose
establishment as many
12,000 helmets were turned out per day. It was,
as
nevertheless, the constant wish of the Belgian Staff to provide their soldiers
with a helmet which should be distinctly different from either the French
or the British. They desired especially a model which should protect not
IN MODERN WARFARE 157
merely the cranium but the face of the wearer. This need for the national
army, it appeared, soon attracted the attention of the Queen of the Bel-
gians, who spoke with enthusiasm ot her wish "to provide her soldiers with
a helmet which should protect their faces and especially their eyes," and
in behalf of her project, she offered all necessary financial aid.
Experiments
producing a visored helmet were accordingly undertaken
in the direction of
by both French and English inventors. It is understood, for example, that
(E) Belgian
(a) The Belgian helmet
1. Description
2. Manufacture
Ballistic results, weight, thickness, critical notes
(b) Belgian body armor
helmet more closely and was considerably stronger than the French in-
ventor's although similar in principle; it was, however, provided with
small elliptical perforations for vision instead of long slit-like ones. Then,
too, the perforations in the Belgian model were brought together into a
rectangular area in front of each eye, leaving a strip of metal nearly two
IN MODERN WARFARE 159
inches wide between the two visual areas. In the Dunand helmet, it may
be recalled, the visor extended its perforations over its entire surface, even
at its sides, where perforations could not actually be needed and where
in fact theywould materially reduce the strength of the defense.
The bowl of this Belgian helmet is somewhat narrow and high, broadly
rounded above, without crest or ornament. The neck region flares somewhat
further outward than in the Dunand model.
2. Manufacture
It was evidently found diflficult to reproduce so deep a model in the
manganese alloy which had been used for the regular British helmet, still
the present model is probably pressed in this steel. It could not, however,
have been made of it, if we accept the report from Major Dunning that
this helmet has been "retempered," for this would imply that it had been
given a heat treatment during its manufacture, a process which would have
injured a helmet it made of manganese alloy.
Ballistic Results: Actual tests of the helmet have )delded good results,
according to Mr. Macintosh's data. In a report from the Woolwich Arsenal,
it was shown to be proof at 730 foot seconds (bullet weighing 230 grains,
automatic revolver) and sometimes to resist at 820 foot seconds. The visible
result of a test of this helmet in Washington appears in Fig. 116; an impact
i6o HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
of 602 foot second automatic revolver bullet failed to penetrate but pro-
duced an area of indentation which indicates strongly that the helmet is
made of manganese steel. A shot in the forehead was resisted but showed
again a very great indentation. The visor perforated readily at 602 foot
seconds and the perforated visual areas were found to have relatively little
resistance, probably not as high as 200 foot seconds.
Weight: The weight of this helmet is twenty-eight ounces without
lining, thirty-six with lining, and forty-four with visor complete.
Thickness: The helmet is well pressed although thinned out consider-
ably at the crown. Near the rim of the helmet, its metal measured .044
inch in thickness and at the top .035 inch. The minimum indentation noted
in the above ballistic test is one half inch measured from a line connecting
the sides of the crater. The thickness of the visor is .026 inch.
faulty, for it is highly arched at the back where the head almost touches
the helmet shell. No statistics are at hand to show in what number this
helmet was introduced in the Belgian Army. (Later specimens examined
are provided with lining after the English model.)
(F) PORTUGUESE
A
helmet designed for the Portuguese General Staff was submitted in
1917 to the British Director of Munitions Supply, Mr. John Macintosh,
who caused it to be supplied in some number to the Portuguese troops. It
IN MODERN WARFARE 161
about two pounds (Fig. 117). It is corrugated on its sides and its general
appearance suggests somewhat the Portuguese headpieces of the late six-
teenth and early seventeenth centuries. It is made of a mild steel and has
about the ballistic resistance of the French headpiece, or 300 to 400 foot
seconds for shrapnel ball, forty-one to the pound. Its appearance is dis-
tinctive, rather good-looking, its fluted surface offering a range of shad-
—
ows but not materially strengthening the casque. The fluting may even
have rendered the helmet more apt to be injured, for its ridges tend to hold
the fragments of shell, etc. (of low velocity), which might have otherwise
glanced aside. The measurements of this helmet are as follows: height,
5^/2 inches; length, 11%; width, 9% ; width of brim, 1 ^.
Body armor does not appear to have been provided for Portuguese
troops; in case of need they had at hand the light breastplates furnished
to the British forces.
(G) SLAVIC
Details concerning helmets and body armor in Slavic countries are not
accessible. We know,
however, that the Russian and Polish regiments were
provided with helmets somewhat after the French model, as shown in
Fig. 118. The visor, however, appears to have been less produced above
the eyes and the bowl of the helmet is apparently wider.No data are at
hand concerning its ballistic resistance, lining, attachment to the head, or
manufacture.
l62 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
From photographs of Russian troops at the front, there appears no evi-
dence that body defenses of any kind were employed. A trench shield was
used to a certain degree (see page 185) and one form of shield was devel-
oped in the United States at the instance of the Russian Commission which
visited the United States in 19] 6. The firm of W. H. Mullins and Company
of Salem, Ohio, prepared this, which, however, was not carried to produc-
tion on account of the collapse of the Russian front. The shield in question,
when made of alloy, proof to machine gun at fifty yards, would have
weighed about thirty pounds. It could be carried on the soldier's breast or
back or could be stood in front of him when he assumed a prone position.
An early effort of the Russians should be recorded in the matter of
armor. During the Russo-Japanese War,waistcoats were
bullet-proof
issued in considerable number These were manufactured
to Russian officers.
by Captain Aveniro Czemcrzin in Petrograd. This defense covered only
the front of the body and weighed about nine pounds (Figs. 119, 119A,
119B); it was made up of a chrome-nickel plate, one eighth inch thick,
which was covered and lined with a silken fabric, or mat, measuring re-
IN MODERN WARFARE 163
spectively one eighth and one half inch in thickness. This was of Zeglin
fabric (see page 290). The corselet, we understand, gave fairly good re-
sults; it resisted the Russian service
ball of about 2,300 foot seconds at
rifle
(H) SWISS
The Swiss Government has as yet considered the use of armor only in
an experimental way. In the matter of body armor, it has done little, so
far as can be learned.
In an effort to produce a distinctive helmet for the Swiss Army, the
work of several inventors should, however, be mentioned, though as yet
(spring, 1918) no model has been officially chosen, according to Colonel
Fig. 120 Fig. 120A
Sprecher of the Swiss General Staff. The hehnet shown in Figs. 120, 120A-
C, 121, 122 and 123 has been referred to in various publications as the
national helmet. But apparently it has never been produced in ballistic
in place against the sides and back of the helmet, and when not in use it
can be rotated backward to a position of rest over the top of the helmet.
The lateral flanges then, at least in one model, project upward and form
ornamental processes suggesting the wings of the hat of Hermes Two I
the point which pivots the visor, the second is a Swiss cross embossed on
the forehead. The lining is detachable by means of a clasp; it is held on
a carrier made of rattan which has a circular brow-band and above it two
intersecting arches ; at their point of intersection a small cushion is placed
which supports the main weight of the helmet. The brow-band of this
carrier is provided with pads or cushions which alternate with spaces in
order to insure comfort in wearing. The cushions are arranged in separate
pockets and can be stuffed to fit the size of the individual head a type of —
: — ;
1912. We should mention, however, the steel helmet which was introduced
into the army in 1918. To your questions I answer as follows:
"(1) Aside from the steel helmet, no form of armor has been used in
the Swiss Army.
i
i^lg. 124A
Fig. 124
Fig. 125. Swiss helmet, compared with American helmet model No. 5— the latter represented
dotted lines
Fig. 126. Swiss standard helmet in process of manufacture
IN MODERN WARFARE 171
(I) SPANISH
As yet Spain has not selected a ballistic helmet tor her army. The matter
of its choice, however, was taken up by a military commission in 1916,
which, after examining types of headpieces in the Royal Armory of Ma-
drid, came to the conclusion that the "chapelle" worn by the Spanish Army
in the hfteenth century could be so modified as to produce an effective
model for present use. Alas, however, they did not know how difficult such
a form would be to press in ballistic metal The Director of the Royal
!
Armory, it may be mentioned, Don Jose Florit, had earlier taken up the
problem of the modern helmet and had produced in non-ballistic metal
the burganet shown in outline in Fig. 128. This reproduces essentially the
;
however, provided with a detachable visor which, after the fashion of the
seventeenth-century headpieces, was held in place by a channel-groove and
thumbscrew. Senor Florit, it will be seen, fluted the surface of the dome
of the helmet, aiming thereby to increase its ballistic strength. (Cf. page
84.) It will be noted that in the Spanish expert's design the chin-strap was
arranged with a double attachment on either side. This would certainly
prevent the casque from rotating uncomfortably on the head. On the other
hand, it would be apt to hold the helmet so hrmly that it would endanger
itswearer in case the headpiece received a severe jolt, for thus the jolt
would be communicated directly to the bones of the neck.
(J) JAPANESE
Bullet-proof armor in old Japan
Chain mail as a defense against musket ball
Trench shields for the Russo-Japanese and for the present war
(a period of over two centuries) the empire was not at war; yet, paradoxical
as it may appear, military affairs continued to flourish and many experi-
ments were made as to the value of various defenses. The ruling caste wore
armor on ceremonial occasions and the testing of armor was a part of the
regular training of the soldier. The practical exclusion of Europeans, how-
ever, kept from Japan noteworthy improvements in matters of armor and
firearms. A number of western helmets and suits of complete armor, never-
theless, found their way to Tokyo and they there enjoyed high reputation.
A number of helmets for daimyos were adaptations of European headpieces
(cabassets), and a particular form of bullet-proof breastplate (hatomu-
nedo) had unquestionably its origin in Europe. But the Japanese appear not
to have taken kindly to improvements in firearms. So far as we know, they
introduced no wheel-locks, snaphaunces or flintlocks. Their matchlock,
however, which came to them through the Portuguese in the late sixteenth
century, underwent a series of improvements which resulted in guns and
pistols of diversified designs, sizes, calibers and ranges in shooting. Un-
IN MODERN WARFARE 173
in the median line, and modeled somewhat to the body; it v^-'ighs 5J/^
pounds. It bears the marks of seven testing bullets, and while we have no
analysis of its metal, it will probably resist our standard automatic ball
traveling at the rate of 900 foot seconds. This conclusion assumes that the
metal in question is a good low carbon steel, having a thickness of .093 inch.
In certain regards, the design of the present shield is noteworthy; thus its
edges are carefully upturned so as to deflect splinters or lead splash, also
the perforations of the plates occur very close to the borders with the holes
so small that they do not weaken the plates notably, yet numerous enough
to insure that the plates be firmly riveted together. In a word, the present
breastplate was made by a well-trained armorer.
* Both this and the plastron below are in the Metropolitan Museum.
174 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
second type of Japanese body defense which may now be mentioned
A
(Fig. 130), is a plastron of chain mail closely woven of triple links and so
heavy that it was evidently designed to resist the impact of a musket ball.
This breastplate is sixteen inches high and weighs 5^ pounds. It shows no
evidence of having been tested. We doubt, however, in spite of its costly
manufacture whether it possessed more than one half the strength of such
a defense as the British B. E. F. body shield, which is about one half its
weight.
In their war with Russia, the Japanese developed trench shields and
used them in considerable numbers. Indeed, in their attacks upon the de-
fenses of Port Arthur, they appear to have been greatly aided by these
devices. We mention here the work of Mr. Chiba Chosaki, president of the
Nihon Budo Kai (Japanese Samurai Society), who played a prominent
part in developing the Japanese shield (bodan-jun). This is a small
IN MODERN WARFARE 175
when a number of shots (seven to ten) were concentrated upon it, this in
spite of the fact that it weighed 30 per cent more than the corresponding
To explain this, it is not unreasonable to assume for
shields of the English.
one thing that the Japanese had not the same skill in heat-treating their
:
is the information lately received that a large number of these shields (one
patented June 17, 1905, the second his portable shield, the third his "defense cart,"
patented October 26, 1915, defenses all of which are said to have passed successful
tests.
The first of Mr. Chiba's defenses was given a practical trial by the Japanese
Government during the Russo-Japanese War, when three hundred specimens were
placed in actual use. In 1908 four hundred were purchased by the Government of
Formosa. This armor weighed thirteen pounds, and was formed of ^
inch (chrome-
nickel) steel. They cost 25 yen ($12.50) each. It is this armor in which Mr. Chiba is
pictured in Fig. 130A.
The second defense illustrates the type of shield which has been referred to in this
report on p. 179. (See also Fig. 130C.)
The armored cart appears to have been purely experimental. No details are at
hand concerning its usefulness (Fig. 130D).
In addition to the defenses described above, Mr. Chiba has designed a pistol-
proof jacket, which can be worn under the ordinary Japanese costume, and it is now
being developed by the inventor. It weighs seven pounds, and is ^/'g inch thick.
It may be mentioned that Mr. Chiba's interest in bullet-proof defenses arose from
his study of old Japanese armor. His bullet-proof cart is said to be a device developed
from an early Chinese model, fide Dr. Naohide Yatsu, of the Imperial University of
Tokyo, who was so kind as to visit Mr. Chiba in Tokyo, at the instance of the present
writer, and to send him a report on the work of the Japanese inventor.
Fig. 130A Fig. 130B
Fig. 130C. Portable shield. Chiba model, i( Fig. 130D. Mantlet mounted on wheels.
Chiba model, 1915
IV
SHIELDS AND THEIR USE DURING
THE PRESENT WAR
(a) Portable shields
(b) Set-shields
(c) Push-shields
(d) Shields propelled by horse power or by mechanical devices
(gasoline-driven tractors or tanks)
to interfere with his balance in actual fighting, and (3) it defended him
from an enemy attacking in only one direction. Now it is clear that these
disadvantages in the use of shields are intensified under conditions of
modern warfare; for any defense which can resist a ball even of medium
velocity must in the nature of things be so heavy* that it can be carried
* Regarding the weight of steel for "trench shields," it is found that any good
by the soldier only with great difficulty; it would overbalance him seriously,
and it would afford him little protection against an enemy who shot from
any direction save from directly in front. In spite of these disadvantages,
which are obvious, it appeared that shields of various types might still be
useful under certain circumstances, e.g.^ during quick approaches or in
passing points of danger or in giving protection for a brief time, in order
that a soldier might dig himself in.
upper corner where the border is squarely indented to torm a rest tor the
i8o HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
rifle. Its height is 23 inches, its width 14 inches, and it furnishes a pro-
tected area of about 190 square inches. It weighs about 2] pounds and
encloses a nineteen-pound plate of chrome steel ; this is .275 inch thick and
is covered on either side with a thick layer (half an inch) of gelatinous
(b) SET-SHIELDS
Set-shields, or mantlets^ were used in great numbers in earlier times,
especially during the fifteenth century. In later wars (nineteenth century),
they appear occasionally as shelters for sappers, as in Fig. 132, a model
(V. 76) now in the Tower of London. Such a mantlet was made of a dozen
or more hides riveted and framed together and provided with sling and
struts. In the present war small shields which could be set in place were
emplo57ed so soon as the type of warfare became stabilized. In approaching
the enemy's trenches, in wire-cutting service, etc., it was necessary to pro-
tect attacking soldiers from rifle fire until a new trench could be established
or other protection given. In some cases, therefore, shields were intended
to be used for short intervals only. Apparently they were provided by the
nineteenth century
Fig. 132. Sapper's mantlet,
i82 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
Allies in great numbers; a note given the writer by Captain Simonds stated
that in 1917, 200,000 were in use on the western front. The British, it
appears, were among the foremost to develop shields of this type. As early
as 1915, they provided for their infantry shields which weighed about
twenty pounds and were provided with loophole and shutter. They were
proof to German service ammunition at fifty yards. There was no question,
therefore, that they offered considerable protection, but they were found so
difficult to handle and transport that the soldiers generally would have
none of them.
the former shield in covering a wider space and in being provided with
hinged cheek-plates which keep it upright and help to stop lead splash and
the ricochet of bullets. It was nearly double the thickness of the preceding
5 MM.
^THICK.
THICK
32. CM.
"5^-M. —-
Fig. 134
5 K-M.
THICK
11 MM
THICK
Fig. 134
The trench shield shown in Fig. 136 was manufactured for the Belgians
by or through the lirm of Rosenwasser Brothers of Brooklyn. This is of
the same width but higher (24 x 31 inches) than the German shields men-
tioned. It is proof to service ammunition at six yards and to a reversed
bullet at 50 yards. It is made of a chrome-nickel plate .29 inch in thickness,
and is enclosed in a canvas jacket. It weighs about 60 pounds; it can be
.40 shield penetrated up to and including 150 yards of British and German armor-
piercing bullets.
.25 occasionally safe at 100 yards.
.28 penetrated at 100 yards by German A. P. bullet.
.20 shield safe at 100 yards from British service ammunition. Penetrated at 100
yards by German service ammunition. Safe at 100 yards against Lewis
machine gun with British armor-piercing bullet.
Tests made by the English Munitions Inventions Board.
i86 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
Army from an American manufacturer, Mr. W. H. MuUins of Salem,
Ohio. This is a small shield (16^ x 15 inches) with a thickness of .232
inch. It was provided with a firing slot similar to the one shown in the
German shield. It was to have been formed of chrome-nickel steel but it
failed to reach the stage of production, since the Russian Government fell
out of the war about the time the contract for this shield was being issued.
The present figure shows that the upper part of the shield was slightly
concave, i.e., bent forward, so as to deflect the splash of bullets. It was
provided with a shoulder- or neck-strap which enabled it to be carried
conveniently, or even be worn as a breastplate. In a similar way trench
shields appear to have been employed by the Italians.
In general, it is admitted that shields of this type were troublesome to
carry and use. They were heavy, weighing from eighteen to seventy-five
pounds, and overbalanced the wearer. Their type, however, recurred as a
shield for the artillerymen and we find them appearing in many forms at-
tached to cannon. For this use they have been found very effective. For
trench work, and for mobile warfare, on the other hand, the set-shield has
been successful only in a modest degree.
(c) PUSH-SHIELDS
These are shields provided with rollers or wheels, pushed into position,
and used for one or more soldiers.
Shields which were too large and heavy to be carried could, neverthe-
less, be moved into the required position by mechanical means. Such shields
in fact had been carefully considered rather than used in recent wars; thus,
during the Spanish-American War, as the writer has learned from Colonel
Fiebeger of West Point, shields* mounted on wheels were used experi-
mentally under the direction of General Nelson Miles. During the second
year of the present war, however, determined efforts were made to develop
heavy shields of mobile types and in this field the French appear to have
;
been foremost. Various types were designed, made in proof alloy and used
experimentally,* notably in training camps, but none were found effective
on account of their great weight; for it was learned that these shields could
not be pushed forward rapidly unless the terrain was exceptionally favor-
able. In nine cases out of ten, roughness of ground caused these shields
soon to be brought to a standstill, for their weight was great and their
wheels would be driven into the sod or gravel. Moreover, in the case of
heavy mobile shields, where progress was apt to be slow, danger was ever
present from accurate artillery fire. Among the devices which aimed to
overcome the difficulty of moving such a defense quickly over rough
ground was a small mobile shield mounted on wide wheels (Fig. 138). This
was a model used in considerable numbers by wire cutters during the year
1917-1918; it was merely a gun shield of St. Chaumont alloy, mounted
sharpshooters, and it is believed that, with this apparatus, a small detachment of men
can take a rifle pit filled with soldiers. When up against the breastworks, the ladder
is swings down in a horizontal position between the wheels, while
let go, the shield
the ladder brought to a perpendicular position. One of the machines has been put
is
together, and stands in front of Belt and Dyer's shop on Thirteenth Street. This one
machine will be shipped as it is so as to show the army how to put the rest together.
All the woodwork
for the protector was made by this firm of woodworkers, and
the steel plates by a New Jersey foundry. The whole affair is constructed in a strong
but rather rough manner, so that the plan can be followed and new protectors built
by soldiers in the field. The wooden wheels, made of seven layers of plank, are four
feet six inches in diameter, the rims being six inches wide and eight inches deep. Four
boards at right angles take the place of spokes. The wheels are made wide and light,
in order that they may be easily pushed through the soft earth and sand. The axle is
about six inches in diameter and is turned of hard wood.
The shield is constructed of two plates of Harveyized steel, one eighth of an inch
thick, bolted on either side of hardwood seven eighths of an inch in thickness. This
shield has been tested and found to be absolutely bullet-proof, although a small
machine gun would doubtless play havoc with it. The ladder levers are well-made
affairs of oiled wood, with round rungs. Pushing from between these rungs the soldiers
will be safely protected from any infantry fire from the front, the shield at the other
end of the ladder being 5x6 feet in size.
(Mem. furnished by Nathaniel Hazen, Chief Clerk of Office, Chief of Ordnance,
April 8, 1919.)
* The Japanese inventor, Mr. Chiba, holds a patent (1915') for a wheeled shield
shown in Fig. 130D.
i88 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
between two wooden wheels made like boxes and filled with sand to give
them weight. A similar but more elaborate device was a "man-power tank"
used by the French and British in 1918. This was made entirely of metal,
even to its wheels, its armor consisting of chrome-nickel steel, and its front
region so modeled as to present angles well arranged for deflecting bullets
(Fig. 139). Aided by this device, the operator, who was protected as far
IN MODERN WARFARE 189
back as his thighs, could creep about quite actively and do serviceable
work destroying wire entanglements. No notes are at hand as to the number
in which these "tanks" were employed.
A somewhat similar device but intended for the use of a party of rifle-
Fig. 140. Mobile shield for five riflemen. British model, 1917
desirable one, but it could not, alas, be consummated until a better mechani-
cal means was devised for pushing the shield more rapidly, even over the
roughest ground.
Fig. 142. Mobile shield or "pedrail" for machine gunner and riflemen.
British model, 1917
I
V
AMERICAN HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
(a) Introduction
(b) Description
(c) Material
(d) Manufacture
(e) Assembling
(f) Experimental types of helmets
(g) Face defenses
(
h) Shoulder defenses
(i) Body armor, heavy and light
(J) Leg armor
(k) Arm defenses
(1) Aviator's armored chair
(a) INTRODUCTION
June, 1917, the American General Staff considered the selection
France, the first lots in July, the last in November, 1917. This arrangement,
it will be seen, gave the Ordnance Department in Washington the neces-
sary time to develop the manufacture of these helmets in the United States.
Accordingly, from the fall of 1917 it became possible to ship abroad
American-made helmets. Of these, the first hundred thousand were for-
warded packed in special cases; the rest, from the early summer of 1918,
were carried on the heads of the soldiers.
When the first examples of the British trench helmet were received in
ance approximately the same, although tests indicate that the American
is
are stronger by about 10 per cent than the British helmets which were
received in Washington.
(c) MATERIAL
With the exception of a single lot, all American helmets were made of
Sir Robert Hadfield's manganese steel, as noted on page 277. In the excep-
tion noted, 200,000 helmets were produced by the Columbian Enameling
Company of Terre Haute, Indiana, in an alloy whose formula was recom-
mended by Mr. W. H. Baker, the metallurgical expert and head of the
Universal Rolling Mills Co. (Analyzed in table opposite page 274.) This
lot of helmets, it may be remarked, passed an extremely good ballistic test,
the indentation in the majority of cases showing scarcely one half the depth
recorded in manganese helmets. In some cases the indentation was scarcely
noticeable. In a test of several hundred specimens made in the writer's
presence, scores of helmetswere so little injured by this test that they were
authorized to be placed among the perfect helmets for finishing and ship-
ment. The slight mark in these cases was regarded not as injuring the helmet
but as adding to its value —
just as were the testing marks on well-made
armor of the seventeenth century.
(d) MANUFACTURE
The American helmet shell (Figs. 143 and 143A) may be pressed in
either one or two operations. If pressed in a single operation, the shell is
apt to be thinned unduly at the crown. In a majority of cases, this thinning
leaves the helmet shell about .030 inch in thickness at some points of the
crown. In certain instances helmets as thin as .027 inch have been noted
I
A
which, nevertheless, passed the required test. On the other hand, the Colum-
bian Enameling and Stamping Company of Terre Haute, Indiana, pro-
duced a helmet which retained the maximum thickness of metal in the
Fig. 143
Fig. 143
crown, a technical feat which deserves honorable mention. The reader may
here be instructively referred to two photographs of the interior of a large
pressing shop, in the present case that of the Budd Manufacturing Company
of Philadelphia. One here sees, in Fig. 144, behind the operators a huge
198 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
press of the "double-action" type where two plungers pass down from the
position indicated close to the head of the man standing at the right in the
picture. The of these plungers holds the plate securely against the brim
first
of the heavy die, the second thereupon passes down through the first
Fig. 144. British-American helmet in process of manufacture. The double-action press, shown in
background at the right, stamps out the helmet in a single "draw."
Budd Manufacturing Co., Philadelphia
plunger and stamps the helmet into its form in a single operation. In this
figure, one sees a great pile of helmet shells ready to be transferred to a
press where a blanking or trimming operation takes place. Such a press is
seen in Fig. 145, and a pile of the trimmed helmets appears near the center
of the picture. Near by a helmet rim is being put on and spot-welded to
the helmet shell. Such a rim appears beside the helmet shell shown in Fig.
I
IN MODERN WARFARE 199
146, and beside it are tlie loops and rivets which are attached one to each
side of the hehnet in the region of the sweat-band.
It will be noted that the metal plate in which the form of a helmet has
just been stamped (Fig. 145) shows at the corners curious little knobs.
These had earlier been given in order to test the quality of the individual
Fig. 145. Manufacture of British-American helmet. The plate is being "blanked out" so as to
form the helmet rim in another part of the picture the thin
;
steel may be drawn into a helmet with an excellent result assured. In Figs.
143 and 143 A appears a helmet shell as it passes from the hands of the
A
Figs. 147 and 148. Test of a plate.of helmet steel. The corner of the
plate is given a punch-mark if the metal cracks,
;
From the first 50 helmets a single shell is taken for this purpose; from
helmets 51 to 250, two shells are tested; from this number up to 500, three
shells; from this in turn to 2,000, four shells; from this to 3,000, six shells;
and from 3,000 onward, one shell for each 500. A shell so selected is placed
in a testing machine, which consists merely of an iron pipe ten feet long,
BUCKLE STRA
having at one end a firmly supported automatic pistol and at the other end
a box to contain the helmet. By this apparatus the testing bullet can be
made to strike each helmet at a definite point. It may be mentioned that
this test is carried on without risk to the operator; for each bullet, when
deflected, is stopped by the lid of the box in which the helmet is placed.
After the test shot is fired, the helmet is inspected and if it has resisted
penetration, the degree of indentation is measured. This is usually less than
one inch, when measured from the original contour of the helmet by means
of a standard gauge which the Government furnished to inspectors. The
A ;
Figs. 150 —
and ij'iA. Special cartridge for testing helmets 600 foot seconds.
In B. Test cartridge in which the alloy-jacketed bullet has been
flattened against the helmet, then replaced (to be photo-
graphed) in the empty shell. In C. End view of
testing bullet after it has been flattened
against a helmet shell
in the shell after having been blunted upon impact with the helmet. Some-
times, as in Fig. 151C, a bullet will be quite flattened upon such contact.
In the latest model of the American helmet, certain details in manu-
facture are modified. Especially noteworthy is a change which has been
made in the chin-strap. This is no longer of cowhide; but is replaced by a
carefully woven braid or webbing, olive-drab,='' provided with a special
buckle which enables the wearer to tighten the helmet cord readily (Fig,
149). This device also permits him quickly to detach and to readjust it
in use, and cheaper (only one third the price of the leather).
^
Fig. .5..
British-American
n.etal racks, front
^^k
.
a^^d^^^^^^^^^^
Min. The helmets
:raTy to beH-sed
are shown arranged in
n. the paint
troughshown
rows on
mets being
Freshly painted hel
Imet. Assembling.
BrUish-Amencn '^'<--
Fi,. ,53. ---',;,-,;„ds
204 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
(e) ASSEMBLING HELMETS OF BRmSH TYPE
Abundant production was the keynote of the instructions given to the
Ordnance Department for ]:)roviding an American hehnet. Hence every
effort was made to link up the work of the manufacturers of helmet shells
with that of the makers of linings and then to see that the assembling
processes were promptly organized and that the helmets were efficiently
—
packed for transit not a small undertaking when we consider the large
supply of helmets which were to be furnished in a brief time. We should
here record the excellent results which were secured by the officers of the
Ford Manufacturing Company, which offered to the United States Govern-
ment the facilities of their Philadelphia plant and organized on large lines
the painting, assembling and boxing of helmets for shipment. This firm,
it may be mentioned, was soon able to pass through its factory 10,000
helmets a day.
The helmet shells were received on the top floor of the Ford plant
practically in bulk; thence as they were assembled they passed, literally
gravitated, downstairs till they found their way out of the building. When
they came in they had their metal rims already in place and the loops to
which the chin-strap was to be attached. Such "shells" as these may be seen
under the table in Fig. 152. The hrst operation in assembling consisted of
placing the shells on rectangular iron frames or carriers, each of which held
ten helmets, that is, five in a row affixed to each side. In the picture noted,
a number of empty racks stand near the window and one of them lies on
the table with live helmets attached to it; on the right side of the table
the second row of helmets has been put in position, the first five helmets,
now turned upside down, lying against the top of the table. The next
process, illustrated in Fig. 153, is painting; a paint tank is shown in which
each group of helmets is immersed and a draining board which lies just
beyond it. An ingenious arrangement overhead enables the helmets after
they are dipped to travel along continuously. In the following process the
top of each helmet shell is given a thin layer of sawdust while the paint is
still wet. Thus an entire rack of newly painted helmets, as shown in Fig.
Fig. 155. British-American helmet. Assembling. Freshly painted helmets being given a coating
of sawdust. (Front, right)
Fig. 156. British-American helmet. Assembling. Shells arranged on racks about to be passed into
the heated drying chamber
Fig. 157. British-American helmet. Assembling. Helmet shells being passed down an inclined
plane to tables where linings and chin-straps are put in place
I
IN MODERN WARFARE 20'
having thus been dusted, the entire rack is turned over and the second tier of
helmets is given its coating of sawdust. In the next stage of assembling,
the paint is dried by heat. For this purpose a large cage
employed (Fig. is
156) which is capable of containing about 600 helmets on their racks; and
this cage, when hlled with freshly painted helmets, is pushed bodily into a
FELT
OILCLOTH
t LEATHER LOOP
/ /CONTAINING SECTION
W Of RUBBER TUBING
matically lifted and receives them. The case is then passed along on a track
(Fig. 160) and finally comes to rest on the ground floor of the building
(Fig. 160A) in storage piles, awaiting shipment oversea.
blind as the result of wounds has been especially large and anything which
will aid in reducing these unfortunate cases has a special importance."
It adds,moreover, that "experiments with the visor have been made in both
the English and French Army but so far nothing which proved satisfactory
has been found." This board considered the merits of the Dunand visor
and found it more advantageous than the style of visor submitted by Dr.
Polack of the French Mission d'Essais. On the basis of this report an order
was sent (August, 1917) to the Ordnance Department in Washington to
produce 10,000 Dunand helmets in the United States, and another was
sent to England, asking that a number of Dunand helmets be there manu-
factured in manganese steel and tested. Results subsequently showed that
the Dunand helmet as at first designed was not suited to pressing on ac-
count of its peculiar shape in the brow region, for here the metal invariably
cracked in the operation of forming. Hence this order was ultimately
canceled (see page 98). Moreover, it was subsequently found that the
Dunand visor (page 100) did not yield satisfactory tests. It was too fragile.
Hence the Helmet Board in France recommended (August, 1917) that
a combination arrangement should be made so that the Dunand helmet
should be provided with a Polack visor (cf. Fig. 41), and in this direction
various experiments were carried out. Meanwhile M. Dunand caused speci-
mens of his helmet to be manufactured in Paris in ballistic metal and in
;
Fig. 161. Helmet model No. 2, "deep salade." This protects the head more com-
pletely than any other modern helmet
produce. For its deep dome, which at the beginning was hardly to be drawn
in mild steel, could be formed in hard alloys only after much experimental
work by the die makers. Thus, in the summer of 1917, this helmet, after
having been shown to the experts of several manufacturing concerns, who
feared that it could not be made, was turned over to the Worcester Pressed
Steel Company with directions to produce it in an experimental lot in 12
per cent manganese Dies accordingly were prepared and every effort
steel.
was made to deliver the helmets needed. Unfortunately, however, the dies
which this firm employed were inadequately designed and in the end the
only helmets produced were defective, having their sides wrinkled and their
tops thinned out. Later, however, this helmet was shown to Messrs. Ford
and Company of Detroit who declared that it could be pressed and pressed
well without an important breakage of metal. Accordingly, this firm, re-
ceiving an order from the Ordnance Department, produced a set of experi-
mental dies. On these, during the fall of 1918, a couple of thousand helmets
were turned out. It may be mentioned that the principle upon which Messrs.
Ford and Company proceeded was quite similar to that which an armorer
would have used in olden times, for the top of the helmet was pressed not
as a final but as an earlier operation. The brim and brow of the helmet
were thereafter formed by the Detroit experts by the aid of "stoving" dies.
The material used was the standard manganese steel .038 inch to .040 inch
in thickness, which becomes thinned out in the crown to about .030 inch,
the average thickness at this point of the British helmet. The helmets finally
produced were found to stand a satisfactory ballistic test; they were, more-
over, as had been expected, excellent in their deflecting angles. They were
hard to hit "straight on" but in the testing machine, when struck normally.
;
HELMETS OF VARIOUS MODHi
BY ALEXANDER McMILLAN WELCH, Ai
PARISON OF MEASUREMENTS
', ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, U. S. A.
Space
at
Front
A
they resisted the impact of the regulation automatic bullet with standard
—
ammunition that is, of 800 foot seconds. It may be mentioned that a
model of this helmet was shown to the Commander-in-Chief of the Ameri-
can Forces, who commented upon it favorably.
which later (see page 232) found favor with the American Committee at
H. A. E. F.
now provided was again a variant of the German model but with a choice
of two types of sweat-band: one of these was a wide band oi leather to
which the supporting pads were riveted (Fig. 163); the other, a thin
circlet of steel which was riveted close within the shell of the
helmet
Fig. 164. Improved lining of experimental helmet model No. 5. A sweat-band of light
steel replaces one of cowhide
(Fig. 164). The proved the better and altogether this style
latter type
of lining was found quite satisfactory. A woven chin-strap was used having
the type of buckle shown in Fig. 149,^' by which the strap could be quickly
"broken" so that it could be passed under the tube of the gas mask and
readily rehooked in position. This style of chin-strap found general favor.
Dies for this helmet were prepared by the firm of Hale and Kilburn Com-
* Developed by Captain H. D. Mainzinger of the Ordnance, Engineering, in
Fig. 165. Helmet No. 5. Stages in manufacture by Messrs. Hale and Kilburn, Philadelphia
the British helmet, although the experts of Messrs. Ford and Company
declared that if this type of helmet were wanted in large number they
would willingly guarantee its production. They were sure that a breakage
hardly greater than 5 per cent would ultimately be had as against the
breakage of about 3 per cent in the British helmet. The various stages in
the making of this helmet are shown in Figs. 165 A to C. The first operation
in pressing was a simple one: it was the second which gave the greatest
A
made greater), which cast a shadow and served as a recognition mark even
at a considerable distance.
(The figure of this helmet shown in the Frontispiece as model No. 5
is slightly narrower in the brim.)
points but only in the immediate line of the ocular slit. Thanks to the accu-
to the needed thickness and held in position by tapes. They were so ar-
ranged that they could be mounted in either of two ways outside the —
metal carrier or inside (cf. the sections of these tabs in Figs. 172 and 172A).
In the former case, the helmet was adapted for heads of size No. 7^ or
larger, and in the latter for the size of No. 7 or smaller. So it will be seen
that by increasing or decreasing the number of folds of the piece of felt,
the size of the helmet could readily be altered to fit its wearer. The helmet
of this model was made of manganese steel of .038 inch. Its ballistic value
A
TAPE
5TEEL BAND
Fig. 171. Carrier of helmet model No. 8, showing lining pads or tabs
TAPE
SKll 5TLtL
BAND
FELT
LEATHER LEATHER
TAB
TABN^,
L LATHER LEATHER
TAB TAB
Fig. 172. Section of lining carrier showing arrangement of tabs for head sizes
7 and under, for 7'^ and over
\
Fig. 173 Fig. 173A
Fig. 173. American sentinel's or maciiine gunner's helmet. Experimental model No. 7, igii
Fig. 174. American sentinel's or machine gunner's helmet. Experimental model No. 9, 191J
224 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
was as high as that of the British helmet, and it had the added merit of
covering considerably more of the head. On the other hand, it was a heavier
helmet, weighing 51^ ounces as against 35' ounces. Its visor alone, how-
ever, accounts for 10 ounces of this difference. We note that great pains
were taken to perfect the balance of this helmet; in spite of its relatively
heavy visor, it keeps its position with very little difficulty, even during the
active movements of the wearer, a result which is in part attributable to
the careful adjustment of the chin-strap with reference to the center of
gravity of the helmet. The same type of chin-strap is used as in helmets
No. 2 and No. 5. This helmet model does not appear to have been ade-
quately tested at American Headquarters in France.
(Fig. 174)
The present model copies in essential lines a siege helmet of the seven-
teenth century j)reserved in the Riggs Collection in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. The bowl of this helmet is formed in two pieces riveted
together strongly in the median line. Its face-guard, which can be raised,
lowered, or removed b)^ means of a thumbscrew, is a shovel-shaped affair
protecting adequately the region of the face and neck. No specimens of
this model were made in ballistic metal, since there seemed little hope that
a second model of so heavy a defense would be considered, even if it were
shown to be proof to rifle or machine gun fire at close range, e.g.., if pressed
in one of the newer alloys developed under the auspices of the Ordnance
—
Department in point of fact, it is estimated that such a headpiece could
be made proof to machine gun fire, even when armor-piercing bullets were
used, at a total weight no greater than twenty pounds.
cut and trimmed around the brim and provided with a crown-like ring of
sponge rubber, which was found to furnish an admirable buffer in case
the wearer of this helmet was struck on his head during the excessive
jolting of his car. In this helmet, again, a lining of the three-pad system
was emplo)'ed, and a woven chin-strap with detachable clasp (Fig. 149) to
enable the helmet to be promptly fastened, or detached and reattached
under the tube of the gas mask. This type of helmet, it was suggested,
could be used by tank operators while behind the lines and during the
period when the tanks were being brought together a few miles from the
Fig. 176 Fig. 176A
Fig. 176. Experimental helmet model No. 13 for American tank operator, shown with and
without detachable padded-silk curtain and visor, guarding against lead splash
IN MODERN WARFARE 111
front. When the tanks came to closer quarters, the operator could buckle in
place a special face- and neck-guard which is shown in Figs. 176A-176C.
At this time, the visor would be raised and locked in position by means of
a turning clamp. Where considerable risk was incurred from the penetra-
tion of lead splash in the turret, the operator would drop the mask and
fasten it in place either within the neck-guard or outside of it; in the latter
event it could be tied securely in place. The bowl
of the present helmet was
formed in manganeseand furnished for the region covered the same
steel
protection as the service helmet. The neck-guard was shown by tests to
keep out a considerable amount of lead splash it is formed of about twenty
;
layers of Japanese silk* and is covered with a closely woven American silk
* Efforts were made to produce a neck screen which would be a safer defense
against lead splash than the silk curtain described above. In Fig. 177, a device is
228 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
prepared especially for this purpose by Mr. Paul Gerli, a New York
inventor. The visor in use is formed of layers of raw silk precisely as the
neck-guard; its eye region is protected with triplex glass held in a narrow
metal frame, and the latter is at the top ingeniously arranged so that the
glass can be conveniently replaced. The entire helmet, as above described,
weighs two pounds fourteen ounces; without its splash guard, it weighs less
than two pounds. No official reports have as yet been received as to the
practical value of this model; the writer learns, however, that it was used
in the tanks during the last push and that it was well spoken of.
Ajnericati Helmet Models No. 14, No. i^A and No. i^ —Aviator s Helmets
(Figs. 178, 178A, 179, 179A and 179B)
Up to the present time the head defense of the aviator has been a leath-
ern casque. He has hitherto been unwilling to accept a helmet of steel. In
view of the fact, however, that a suitable steel headpiece would weigh but
about one half pound heavier than the actual leathern model and would
have many times its strength, it was suggested that his type of headgear
might be revised. For one thing, actual tests showed that a helmet shell of
.036 inch in thickness of manganese steel would resist as much as twenty-
one layers of chrome-tanned leather %2 inch in thickness. It also
became clear from the use of the standard helmet that many balls even
of high velocity would be deflected by a relatively light helmet of alloy
steel. The Engineering Section of the Ordnance Department was, accord-
ingly, led to prepare several models of aviator's helmets and submit them
to the Aircraft Defense. The models were provided with linings of different
types; some were cushioned on the three-pad system (Fig. 178A) and some
with a soft lining as in the leathern casque (Fig. 179A). All proved com-
fortable and well balanced. The total weight of these helmets made of steel
.036 inch in thickness, was from one pound ten ounces to two pounds. In
each case the ear region of the helmet was so hinged that it could be
equipped with the telephone receiver. The chin-strap was then attached to
the lower edge of each ear-plate and the hinge of the latter was fastened
above by a single rivet. By this means, the inclination of each ear-piece
device furnishes an excellent screen against lead splash, its weight would be an insuper-
able objection to its successful use; for, made even of thin metal scales, it would
weigh nearly as much as the helmet itself.
Fig. 178
Fig. 178A
Fig. 179B
of helmet No. 5. It allows a space lor indentation of about one inch around
the cranium. It is possibly too large to be worn with maximum comfort,
even when provided with the thick fleecy lining of the usual aviator's,
helmet (Fig. 179B).
Still another aviator's headpiece is shown in Fig. 180, and it has prob-
ably the best lines of all the helmets designed in the armor workshop. It is
more closely modeled to the head, having intervening space of only from
one half to three quarters ot an inch. Such a helmet, if made of Baker's
nickel-manganese steel, insures great rigidity and minimum indentation and
should furnish a light and serviceable defense. This model is well balanced
and is provided with the new-type tissue chin-strap. Its lining is of the
232 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
continuously cushioned type to prevent troublesome ingress of air. If, how-
ever, a lining based on the three-pad system were recommended, the pads
could readily be mounted on a thin circlet of and be riveted to the
steel
bowl of the helmet at three points; but, in this event, an additional outer
rim of leather or fur should be provided which would serve to keep out a
current of air. These aviator's helmets were prepared at too late a date to
insure their being used at the front. Official tests, however, were given them
at Boiling Field in Washington and the first model (14A) received an
especially favorable report.
helmets shown in Fig. 181), which was prepared under the direction of the
Washington Armor Unit in June and exhibited at H. A. E. F. in December,
1917. The present helmet 's soon to be given an extensive test in connection
IN MODERN WARFARE 233
pupil of the eye; and to insure still better vision, one or more oblique slots
were added. Such slots, although extremely narrow, .02 to .06 inch, gave
a surprisingly extended and clear vision. The first example of this armored
goggle (Fig. 182) is English (see page 132). It is made of ballistic steel
and weighs about 5^ ounces. It can be adapted to foreheads of various
shapes by means of a median hinge. Such a device would obviously be a
useful defense against splinters —
under certain conditions it would even
deflect a bullet; and there is no doubt that its general use would have
prevented casualties. Its use, however, as in the case of most armor defenses,
was never general it appeared as a privately manufactured article and is
;
known to have had a certain sale among the soldiers of the Allies.
234 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
The second type of armored goggles, shown in Figs. 183 and 184,
was manufactured by several inventors and had a limited sale. This device
gave an extended range of vision; it was easily folded and carried; but
ballistically it was weak. It could be of service only as a defense against
splinters.
The third type of eye-shield is designed by one of the officials, Mr.
Thomas C. Harris, in the Engineering Division in Washington. It is similar
to the foregoing but simpler (Fig. 185); it is merely a spectacle-shaped
plate of metal, embossed over each eye and there provided with a horizontal
slot. Through this single aperture a very fair degree of vision can be ob-
Of course, the wearer of the single-slitted visor has not the height of vision
which a "pepperbox" visor would yield, but he has vision enough for prac-
tical purposes, and, from what has been learned at the front, it is quite
safe to conclude that the American soldier would never consent to "go over
Fig. i82. Splinter goggles and face defense. British, 1917
Fig. 185. Splinter goggles having single visual slit. Model by Thomas C. Harris,
Washington, D. C.
w^
-.»«f"'WS^HBSi35SBw»._
Fig. 187. Wilmer model eye defense. The last figure showing a marginal
supporting cushion of sponge rubber
region of the helmet. The defense, by the way, is a light one (seven ounces)
yet will safeguard the wearer against the type of missiles to which a French
helmet is proof. The present visor has the additional merit of furnishing
its wearer a wide range of vision, for its ocular slit is close to the pupil of
Fig. 188. Face defense or baviere. Fig. 188A. Result of test on foregoing face-
American experimental guard, with pistol bullet at
model, 1918 850 f s.
.
the eye; it has also a small aperture on either side and below, through which
the wearer may see the ground immediately in front of him and he sees —
itthrough apparently a single hole, since the opening under each eye is
placed at the correct distance from its fellow to insure stereoscopic vision.
The present visor was manufactured in an experimental number of thirty
thousand by the order of H. A. E. F. when the lot was made, however, it
;
between the cheek-bone and the angle of the jaw. Such a face-guard made
of helmet steel (12 per cent manganese, .038 inch thick) was found in
actual tests to give good results; it stopped the automatic revolver bullet
at ten feet (Fig. 188A) yielding a degree of indentation which would not
have resulted in a dangerous wound to the wearer, for the rubber cushion
kept the metal guard about one inch away from the face. No experiments
were made with this face-guard in the field. A number were sent to training
camps where the soldiers, declaring that they were stuffy, did not take
kindly to them. None the less, there can be no question that in active service,
where gas was not experienced, such a defense would prove of value; for
as a type of face-guard, there can be little doubt that the present model is
IN MODERN WARFARE 239
the easiest to wear and the strongest which has been devised up to the
present time. Thatit is practical, indeed, seems clear, since the same form
was in general use in Europe tor about a century (roundly 1450-1 950).
fort; in fact, was the common type in use during the seventeenth century.
it
The present model differs, however, from the old defense in having no
backplate to accompany it; its back consisting merely of two flanges which
arise from the front of the plate and are bent down to such a degree as to
hold it comfortably against the body. Pressed in manganese steel .038 inch
to .040 inch in thickness, it resists an impact of an automatic bullet of 230
grains traveling at the rate of over 900 foot seconds. Its weight is but 1^
pounds. In order to guard the wearer against the shock of a missile it bears
near its lower border a cushion of sponge rubber about three quarters of
an inch thick. This is vulcanized to a thin plate of steel which in turn is
240 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
spot-welded to the necklet. It is due to the shape and position of this plate
of sponge rubber that an impact will be distributed over the lower chest of
the wearer. It will be seen that the shoulder region of this defense is pro-
vided with eyelets through which a thong may be passed which attaches
the necklet to the wearer's shoulder strap — to prevent from "riding,"
it
though this may in great part be guarded against by bending the shoulder
plates so that they will fit the wearer snugly. Another point to be noted is
Fig. 189A. Inner view of same defense Fig. 190. Similar necklet, showing result
showing cushion of sponge rubber of pistol bullet at 850 f s.
.
that the necklet is given a narrower border on its right side in order to
allow the soldier free shoulder space for the use of his rifle. A lot of these
necklets were prepared in ballistic steel by the New England Enameling
Company and sent to Francean excellent report ot them was given b}^ the
;
far more important than at first apparent. A small lot of ballistic specimens
of this defense was manufactured and tried out in an infantry training
school in France. The report upon it declared that the region which it pro-
tected was not sufficiently large to warrant its use. Since it is known, how-
ever, that a large number (said to be 10 per cent) of fatal and dangerous
242 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
injuries are suffered in the region protected by this defense, one regrets that
more extended tests ot this defense were not made.
States was the Brewster Body Shield, shown in Fig. 192; this consists of
a shield-shaped plate of chrome-nickel steel (Bethlehem Steel Company)
supported by a complex frame or cradle of wire which in the shoulder
region develops bands which pass one over each shoulder and spring in
position close to a shoulder blade. By means of these shoulder clasps the
heavy shield is borne with a minimal degree of discomfort, for the weight
is thereby widely distributed —
in fact, most of it is borne apparently on
the wearer's back. The inventor of this armor. Dr. Guy Otis Brewster of
Dover, New Jersey, lays great stress upon the spring frame which supports
the breastplate. This he devised to distribute the shock of the impinging
IN MODERN WARFARE 243
bullet and in point of fact the wearer of such a defense can support readily
the shock of a heavy blow, e.ij.^ given by a sledge-hammer. Experiments
were made with this body defense at Picatinny Arsenal in April, 1917,
when Dr. Brewster stood in tront ot a Lewis machine gun and received
an impact of a number of bullets at full-service velocity (about 2,700 foot
seconds). His armor weighed about forty pounds. It is interesting to record
that the wearer gave no sign of the great impact to which he was subjected.
He declared that it was "only about one tenth the shock which he expe-
rienced when struck by a sledge-hammer." An interesting feature of this
test was that the breastplate which resisted the impact became hot through
the conversion of the energ}^ of the impinging bullets. It must be admitted,
however, that in this test the breastplate was not struck normally but at an
angle of 35 to 45 degrees. To this body armor, Dr. Brewster had affixed a
heavy helmet which also was cushioned {ejj.^ to the forehead of the wearer).
This was provided with adjustable eye-shields.
In demonstrations given by Dr. Brewster, this armor was shown to be
capable of being worn under varying conditions. The wearer could advance
244 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
rapidly, change position, and use a rifle, although evidently his aiming
would not have been of the best. The thickness of his armor, .2 1 inch, made
it a fairly safe defense from rifle fire, and the spring frame which formed
the lining was held to reduce notably the shock of the impinging bullet.
The Brewster armor could have been improved in the following details it :
might have been worn more comfortably if it had been modeled to the body
of the wearer; its headpiece should have been designed after a better model;
as it stood it was clumsy and needlessly large. The main objection to the
armor was that it was too heavy to be profitably used. The American sol-
dier, critics maintained, could not be induced to carry its Nor in
weight.
wearing it would he be adequately protected, for even if he were immune
from a bullet from in front, he could still readily be shot from the side and
back; then, too, at close range, his unarmored legs would make him an easy
mark for a machine gunner. To arm a soldier so that he would be proof to
machine gun at thirty yards, his breastplate alone would weigh forty
pounds and his complete suit of armor would represent a total burden of
at least no pounds. Dr. Brewster, it should be mentioned, is an armorer
expert of wide experience; he has devoted himself for over a decade to the
development of bod)^ defenses and, so far as the writer is aware, he is the
only inventor who, firm in his faith, has stood in his own armor in front of
service ammunition fired from a machine gun.
opposite page 274), that of Mr. Baker giving slightly better ballistic
results. These breastplates were held in position by means of plates or
bands which rounded backward over the shoulders of the wearer and ter-
minated over the middle of his shoulder blades, giving a firm support and
distributing the weight over a considerable region. To the end that the
breastplate should seem as light as possible, a padding was vulcanized
246 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
within the region of the upper chest, shoulders and hips (Fig. 194). This
was of sponge rubber manufactured by the Miller Rubber Company of
Akron, Ohio, whose aid and interest contributed notably to the prompt
completion of this experimental lot.
Tests upon this type of breastplate were made at the armor school at
Langres and an unfavorable report upon it was given. The various soldiers
who wore it stated that the weight of the armor caused considerable fatigue
in shoulders and back, that was not noiseless, and that it bothered them
it
would resist a machine gun bullet, German, at about 300 yards and Ameri-
can service ammunition at about 200 yards. The critics admitted that it
might prove of value to machine gunners if a backplate was added and
the thigh pieces omitted. While their official report was adverse, they
nevertheless recommended that tests should be made on the battle-field and
that armor of this type should be issued to machine gun troops of a selected
IN MODERN WARFARE 247
division, apparently to the brigade battalions and to the machine gun com-
panies of the regiments, but in any event a backplate should be provided.
In addition to the foregoing types of heavy body armor, the Committee
of the General Staff of H. A. E. F. considered a model which had been
prepared for their committee in France. Of this no specimen or photographs
have come to the United States. It is built up of five separate plates, one
covering the chest, two the shoulders, and two the waist region. The
shoulder plates are riveted firmly to the breastplate; the waist-plates are
attached very much, it appears, as in the body armor of the Germans. It is
not known of what ballistic alloy the samples were made which were tested
in France, nor is the weight of the armor given. The test showed, however,
that the breastplate was proof to .30 service ammunition, including the
German, at a range of over 100 meters, but that it could not be relied upon
to be a complete defense at a distance less than 200 meters, a result which
248 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
apparently does not differ widely from that given by the heavy breastplate
described above.
In a general way, there appears to have been no insistent call for a
heavy armor of this type.
^ 1
1
^y^
Fig. 196 Fig. 196A
Figs. 196 and 196A. American light body armor,' 1917-1918. Experimental model. Also arm
defenses and British-American helmet
I
IN MODERN WARFARE 249
minimum discomfort. Trials had earlier been made with several types of
British body had proved unsatisfactory. For the new
shields but they
defense a maximum weight of seven or eight pounds was recommended.
A body armor which was aimed to meet this requirement was produced by
^ \
Figs. 196B, 196C, 196D. American experimental light armor, with arm defenses and helmet
model No. ?
holes which htted to pegs on the breastplate. The breastplate was formed
of three plates held together by leather strips, to the lowest of which was
laced a "sporran plate" protecting the groin. Between each pair of plates
250 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
a small piece of leatherwas inserted attached by the same rivets which held
the plates together on the back of the breastplates. These aimed to prevent
rattling when the breastplate was worn. The present defense covered the
front of the body of the wearer quite completely and its size was so ar-
ranged that it could be worn by men of various heights and weights. In
plate. In modeling the uppermost element of this breastplate care was taken
to allow considerable latitude for the movements of the shoulders and
arms of the wearer: thus, space was given, especially on the right side, to
enable the infantryman to use his rifle. A cushioning was arranged within
this breastplate in the fomn of a sponge-rubber pad nearly one inch in
IN MODERN WARFARE 251
thickness (Fig. 197). This kept the uppermost part of the defense at a
sufficient distancefrom the body of the wearer to render him safe from
an injury which might be caused by the indentation of the plate. This
cushion was vulcanized to the metal by means of a new process, the so-
called "acid cure," wherein it is not necessary to heat the metal and run
Fig. 198. Light body armor Fig. 198A. Laminated backplate of experimental
model, 1918
the risk of drawing its temper. The metal used was manga-
for this defense
showed that
nese steel .036 inch to .040 inch in thickness. Its ballistic test
it would unifomaly resist penetration of revolver ammunition at 850 foot
backplate like the breastplate is designed to suit wearers of many sizes and
to be worn with a considerable degree of comfort. It is cushioned with
sponge rubber (Figs. 197, 200), which protects the wearer against injuries
caused by the indentation of the metal. The backplate is provided with
belt straps which pass between the breastplate and the main leather straps,
holding together the wide plates of this defense. A second type of back-
IN MODERN WARFARE 253
plate is shown in Figs. 199 and 200. This is modeled and
in a single piece
We note that with the experimental lot here described some of the
breastplates were furnished with shoulder plates similar to those seen in
Figs. 189 or 192 but of greater length. These could be so molded by the
wearer that they would lie close to his shoulder blade and help to keep
the defense in position without further attachment. There can be no ques-
tion, however, that the corselets provided with the type of shoulder plates
shown in Fig. 196 are the better from the armorer's point of view, since
the other type of attachment did not prevent the breastplate from "hiking
up" or from becoming detached in case the wearer threw himself on the
ground or even when he made certain movements in bending. The present
defense weighed, front and back together, eight and one half pounds.
A- A
ent purpose instead of one insured a degree of flexibility to the back of the
haversack, which was found to be of practical importance. Haversacks of
this type were produced in number just before the close of the war. The
writer subsequently learned that the British experts had considered a similar
device, but had provided it with a single plate of metal instead of a pair
of plates (cf. Figs. 202, 203).
Jazerans
A small experimental lot of scaled waistcoats or jazerans was also
produced by the Engineering Division of the Ordnance, designated as
Jazerans A and B. The former (Figs. 204, 205, 205A, 205B) was formed
256 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
of overlapping scales riveted to a leather lining. The latter was made of
a combination of plates and scales (Figs. 206, 206A and 206B). In the
breast region these plates were so articulated that the wearer was given
considerable freedom of movement in the shoulder and upper arm. This
particular form was designed by the armorer Daniel Tachaux, under the
supervision of the Ordnance Department.
The jazerans illustrated herewith furnished a remarkably comfortable
body defense; they were worn hours at a time and under difficult conditions
by various experimenters. The reports declare that they did not cause
great discomfort, even though their weight was considerable (eleven
pounds). The scales or plates of which they are made up were pressed in
manganese steel of helmet thickness and were then riveted to a leather
lining; they withstood the test of service ammunition with revolver. These
defenses of both types were sent abroad and tested at American Head-
quarters. The report upon them stated that they have "excellent qualities"
and were "recommended as a body armor, thoroughly practicable, no incon-
venience to wearer, comfortable, silent." They were later criticized, how-
ever, as being ineffective against a bayonet thrust when the point entered
Fig. 206 Fig. 206A Fig. 206B
Fig. 206C
Fig. 207. Body defense of small plates and links. Model of Columbia Steel Tank Co.,
Kansas City
formed together a long apron extending from the neck to the groin. The
Horwitz "bullet-proof shield" was made of a series of spring plates in-
geniously hinged together. And the Senyard body defense was a laminated
jazeran made up of three sets of horizontal splints encased in fabric. Then
there was the Worisbeverfeld defense, which employed elastic strips of
alloy steel elaborately meshed together so as to distribute the force of the
26o HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
blow. We should mention here, also, the Carlson jazeran made of rectan-
gular bits of steel and finally the Eraser Collapsible Breast Shield, shown
;
upon would have shown that the more rapid the course of a
springs, tests
bullet the less would be apt to be stopped by a yielding spring. For,
it
clearly, while the spring would deaden the force of a blow given, for
example, by hand thrust, it would not have time to act if the velocity of
the impinging object were as great as 1,000 foot seconds; in other words,
the degree of yielding of the spring would be so slight in this small space
of time thatit could have no practical effect in spending the blow. Thus,
making that the entire weight of the defense would hardly be less than if
a single plate o f good b allistic steel were employed in the beginning.
So far as armor is concerned which depends for its strength on pneu-
matic or vacual spaces, so far at least as we have been able to determine,
its ballistic value is very slight, certainly not enough to make it of prac-
tical importance; also, to construct armor of glass seems at first sight the
height of absurdity. None the less, a germ of value may be hidden in such
a suggestion. Thus, it is possible that steel coated with highly resistant
enamels, which of course are vitreous, might prove valuable. A statement
was made by the physicist. Major Nevil Monroe Hopkins, who
to this effect
concludes from his experiments that "the thickness of Vin of an inch of
hard enamel or even less adds to the bullet-glancing action."
1917 that infantrymen when going over the top were subjected to heavy
casualties from wounds in the leg region, especially among those soldiers
in the first line which attacked.
Shin-guard
little —about twelve ounces each. Shipment of these was made abroad, but
the authorities in France subsequently decided that the degree of protection
which these defenses afforded was not sufficient to warrant an extra weight
being added to the soldier's equipment. No practical trial was given them.
lower extremities. Tests made with the present ballistic models showed
that they would resist a revolver bullet at ten feet. The weight of the pair
of defenses for the entire leg was seven and one half pounds. They were
manufactured by the Messrs. W. H. MuUins Company of Salem, Ohio.
\r
supported by the soldier's shoulder strap, which, for the rest, would have
to be somewhat strengthened if such a defense were generally used. The
present arm-guard, we may mention, could be worn by men of different
length of arm; for it may be lengthened or shortened by means of a pair
of thongs which could be tied through different holes in the pieces of leather
which attach the upper arm-guard to the shoulder. Tests of these arm de-
fenses, which were made of helmet steel, showed them proof to service
ammunition of the automatic revolver at ten feet. A small number (200
pairs) of these arm-shields were sent abroad for actual trial. They were not
found satisfactory.
(1) AVIATOR'S ARMORED CHAIR
The problem of armoring aeroplanes touches only indirectly the theme
of the present report; it belongs rather to the general subject of armor
plate, e.g., for shields for machine guns, cannon or ships. Nevertheless, a
266 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
brief reference to the protection of aircraft may be made, since the Armor
Unit of the Equipment Section was directed to prepare ballistic models of
an armored chair for the aviator.
Reports from the Aircraft Service of Great Britain note that attempts
have been made to armor the seats of aeroplanes; their results, however, are
not known to us in detail. A statement, dated April 8, 1918, from the
Armament Section of the American Expeditionary Forces (Air Service)
merely states that "in the new English chasse planes the pilot seat is of
steel and was shaped to protect the pilot as much as possible; also that a
blue print of one type of seat is on file (in the Paris office)." And from the
same source we learn that "the English Air Service is building at the present
time (April, 1918), some air 'tanks.' These planes will have the motor
radiator, gasoline tanks, pilotand gunner protected with 13 mm. nickel-
chrome steel and 1 1 mm. nickel-chrome steel on the sides and on the top.
Preliminary experiments have shown that such armor is a suitable protec-
tion against rifle and machine gun fire at a distance of 40 meters provided
the inclination of the bullet is greater than 15 degrees to a line perpen-
dicular to the armored plate."
The French, it further appears, were experimenting extensively with
armor in aeroplanes during the early months of 1918. We learn from H. A.
E. F. that "the Salmson Army Corps two seater of type LL is provided
with 5 mm. chrome-steel plate beneath and is furnished with 4 mm. plates
of chrome steel on the sides and on top. In this experimental plane the
motor, tanks, radiator and pilot are completely protected. The pilot has
but a limited vision and must peer through the slits in the armored plate.
The gunner is partially protected; on the sides he is completely enclosed
and below his chair he has an armored plate which may be slid aside so
as to provide him with an opening through which he could shoot below him.
An additional plate separates the gunner and the pilot protecting the latter
when the floor plate beneath the gunner is open. This plane tested on the
practice field was found safe and machine gun fire at distances
from rifle
greater than 400 meters." It is also to be recorded that the Italian Govern-
ment has up to the present time done no more than experiment with arming
the sides of an experimental plane with 7 mm. nickel-chrome steel and the
top with 6 mm. As yet no tests of this machine have been made.
Accordingly, by the month of September, 1918, the Germans had been
the only ones to place heavily armored aeroplanes in actual combat.
IN MODERN WARFARE 267
although but few of these machines appear to have been used. In certain
instances they gave excellent service. In August, 1918, one of them en-
countered an American flying unit, destroyed several of its machines, and
was responsible for the death of the American "ace," Major Lufbery.
An important report dealing with the latest model German armored plane
is published in the "Supplement of Aeroplane," September 11, 1918, under
the heading of "Aeronautical Engineering" (Vol. 15, No. 11, pages 919-
924). From this report, it is clear that the amount of armoring introduced
but its armor weighed no less than 880 pounds The armored plates were
I
5.1 mm. in thickness and they covered a total area of 106 square feet. The
present drawing (Fig. 212) indicates the position of the armor on each
side of the plane, where it is made up of three plates. Three additional
plates form the bottom of the fuselage; there is also an armored bulkhead
at the back of the gunner's cockpit. Tests were made to determine the bal-
listic value of this armor, as shown in the following table:
268 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
Ammunition
IN MODERN WARFARE 269
In preparing the present chair, the effort was made to furnish the pilot
of the plane the greatest degree of protection at the cost of the least weight
of metal. To this end the chair back and shoulders of the pilot
fitted the
very much as would a steel backplate. The
sides of the chair were raised
so as to protect the thighs and the small ol his back so far as this could be
done without interfering with the free movements of his arms in operating
the plane. In view of the fact that by tar the greater number of casualties
is due to gunfire from below and from the back of the aviator, it is be-
lieved that such a defense would have had considerable value. Tests with
this chair were expected to show it would resist the German A. P. bullet
at fifty yards. The work of manufacture was completed just as the war
ended.
VI
STEEL USED FOR ARMOR CAN OTHER
METAL THAN STEEL BE USED
FOR THIS PURPOSE?
to be used the manufacture of armor should be ex-
STEEL in
tremely hard, yet must not shatter when struck by a projectile.
extraordinarily hard, and many alloys can be given this physical character,
it is usually found to break to pieces when strained beyond its limit of
resistance.
It is well known that some if not much of the armor of antiquity was
made of good metal and highly resistant; indeed, the armorers' "com-
panies" laid the greatest stress, naturally, upon the ballistic value of their
armor. Guilds in many cases required the armorer to "hall-mark" his work
after it had been subjected to tests at or under the direction of the guild-
hall. In some cases tests of graded severity were prescribed for armor of
"single," "double," or "triple" proof (cf. page 41). Up to the present time,
however, no studies have been undertaken to show what had been accom-
Hence at the in-
plished in the metallurgy of armor in earlier centuries.
stance of the writer. Professor William Campbell of Columbia University
examined (giving his time unstintingly in behalf of our work) some two
score fragments of ancient armor with a view of obtaining hints which
might be used in studies showed that there existed a great
modern work. His
range in the metallurgical results of the early workers, a conclusion which
was not unexpected in view of the fact that the bits of armor submitted to
him were made during various periods (roundly, from 1390 to 1600) and
at various places, by armorers of different degrees of skill. Dr. Campbell
IN MODERN WARFARE 271
determined, in a number of cases, that the ancient armor was made in the
fashion of the best Damascus blades; the plate was forged out of a bloom,
folded in two, reheated to welding point, and hammered out again. By this
procedure came about that the plate of armor was built up of thin layers
it
removed. He knew, for example, that the higher the temperature he used
in his technical processes, the less brittle his material was apt to become;
he burned out his excess carbon. He understood practically the point in
i.e.^
his work was then more difficult and his steel became stronger but not
harder. When he hammered out his metal cold, and much of the earlier
work appears to have been done in this way, he noted that the grains in the
steel were drawn out and elongated in the direction ol the working, creating
a harder material, stronger, but proportionally less ductile. He observed,
also, that the higher the temperature to which he brought his metal the
coarserbecame its grain. He did not know the properties of the large
polygonal grains of iron called in our modern jargon, ferrite. Nor did he
know the properties of the mechanical mixture of iron and iron carbide,
FegC, which shows under a lens a pearly granulation {peaiiite). So far as
carbon was concerned he knew this only in a practical way, for he found
that the iron acquired certain virtues in armor making when it had been
produced b}^ the aid of a blast from charcoal hre. He "cemented" or "case
hardened" his plates by packing them in a fireproof box filled with waste
scraps of leather (cyaniding) and subjected them apparently for a long
time to heat of a relatively low temperature.
In a word, the maker in olden times produced in his best workshops an
armor plate which, while decidedly inferior to the latest alloys, was never-
theless surprisingly good. In terms of the modern (standard English)
helmet-metal, we believe that it was about 70 per cent as resistant.
The development of alloy plate has until recently been undertaken only
for ship's armor, rifle and similar heavy defenses. When, accord-
shields
ingly, at the beginning of the war, a demand suddenly arose for light armor
plate, the manufacturer of steel was at a loss to know precisely what type
of steel should be recommended. In fact, as noted on page 80, the Adrian
helmet was made of nothing more efficient than a low carbon steel. This
had at least the merit of being fairly resistant; and it did not shatter when
struck by a bullet. Metallurgists, however, soon realized that alloys could
be obtained in thin sheets which offered far greater resistance than low
carbon steel. Among them two main types were speedily developed. The
first was the manganese steel adopted by the English, the Americans, and
in the latest days the French. This alloy had been developed for other uses
as early as 1900 by a well-known manufacturer in Sheffield, Sir Robert
Hadfield. It had also been produced in the United States with certain
variants by the Manganese Steel Shoe and Rail Company, under patents
of Messrs. Kellogg and Aigeltinger. The second alloy is known as German
silicon steel, which shortly appeared in German helmets and body armor.
The characteristics of these steels may be reviewed briefly.
Manganese steel (cf. I in the tabular analysis opposite page 274) is an
open hearth basic alloy;* it is extremely tough in fiber, is not shattered
when struck by a bullet but clings to it, suffering indentation. Thus a helmet
.036 inch in thickness will readily resist a revolver bullet, jacketed, weigh-
ing 230 grains when traveling at the rate of 650 foot seconds; in many cases
forated the ball slips through the steel and is apt to leave behind only an
irregular tear. In such cases, however, the deforming of the helmet would
prokibly produce a fatal wound. The extraordinary feature of the present
manganese alloy is that, while extremely resistant, it may be pressed into
such a form as the British helmet without serious breakage sometimes —
less than 2 per cent of the plates rupturing in the operation and all this —
without the need of annealing or without heat treatment and "drawing"
after having been pressed into a helmet. In this regard it differs from all
other alloys used in modern armor. Moreover, while other alloys heated and
quenched in cold water become brittle, manganese steel then acquires a
condition best suited for stamping into shapes; that is, in an hydraulic
press —not hammered into shape, for then it soon regains its brittleness,
cracking and breaking. In fact, it is known that "the colder the water in
which the manganese steel is quenched, the more perfectly it becomes an-
nealed for the armorer's work" (Sir Robert Hadfield). It is the toughness
of the manganese alloy which originally caused it to be developed in the
steel industry, where it was used, for example, in the shoes of brakes where
resistance to friction of prime importance. It should be noted that this
is
extraordinary alloy occurs in (at least) two types, one having a low degree
of manganese, centering about 1 per cent,' the other having a high degree,
centering about 13 per cent. In the former type of manganese alloy the
carbon content is about .40, and in the latter type this rises to about 1.3.
Ballistically speaking, no manganese alloy is seriously to be considered in
the intervening range. Elaborate experiments carried on under the auspices
of the Munitions Inventions Board of London have demonstrated that
while the higher manganese resists projectiles admirably in thin plates of
metal, does not give as satisfactory results in heavier plates, say from .060
it
inch, as some of the alloys later to be noted. While not an ideal material
for use in light armor on account of its liability to deep indentation, its
virtues of easy pressing and of requiring no time-consuming and delicate
2 c
Manganese-Chromium (Howe) .
71
64 •15 •03 .1 1.04 •73
Mr. Aigeltinger maintains that the elastic limit is not proportional to the ballistic strength. This is apt to be greater Mr. WilliaiJtlii
1 ultimate strength and elastic limit are widely different. Respecting this note, Dr. George W. Sargent queries whether Captain John Tilt
Aigeltinger had not in mind results from tests with "pistol ball, which has a very decidedly different action upon the observations obtatiird
ct than either the soft rifle projectile or the armor-piercing ball." possessing the higfitl
rs
Elongation
IN MODERN WARFARE 275
processes in heat treatment have caused it to be used extensively. It is
Silicon-Nickel Steel
The second type of alloy used largely for helmets and body armor (cf.
table 3, opposite page 274) appears under two formulae: in the first of
these (A) the carbon content is about one third higher and the manganese
and silicon about one third lower. In the lirst formula the amount of nickel
is about 50 per cent lower. The ballistic results given by these alloys are not
widely different, though the second alloy (B), which has the higher nickel
and silicon content, is somewhat the better. It is believed that the Germans
developed formula A, in which the carbon content is higher, on account of
the difficulty they experienced in getting nickel in sufficient quantity. The
present armor alloy appears to be a combination of the regular silicon alloy
which is well known in the manufacture of automobile springs, ring gears,
etc., and a nickel steel which has been also largely developed in the auto-
mobile industry. In this combination an effort has been made to produce a
sound steel of a high elastic limit and of great tensile strength, character-
istics present in the silicon steel proper, to which are added certain advan-
tages known in a nickel alloy. Nickel, it appears, has the effect of making
the heat-treating processes less delicate to apply, for in a physical way, this
element apparently dissolves in iron in various degrees, instead of merely
mixing with it in a granular way. Then, too, it does not tend to segregate
and produce inequalities; it has even the effect of hindering the segregation
of other elements and thus keeps them from producing alloys which would
be irregular in quality. The present alloy, while harder than carbon steel,
has the further advantage that it can be machined anci worked hot by forg-
ing; moreover, it does not require the closest attention during the processes
of heat treatment so long as its nickel content does not exceed
4 per cent.
It can be pressed (hot) and the Germans, judging from their product, were
able to get excellent results even in a drawing operation which was a con-
siderably deeper one than the English helmet demanded. They have, more-
over, been able to get the weight of the metal well into the crown of the
helmet, the thinning out in this region being rarely greater than .005 inch.
Details in the annealing and heat treatment of this steel as practised by the
* In this connection, one may refer to the dies developed by the experts of the
Columbian Enameling Company. As shown in Figs. 214 and 214A, the first die
formed the alloy plate into the shape of a comparatively shallow saucer, its border
being quite flat (Fig. 214 at I). The next die extended the crown of the helmet to its
needed depth (Section II) and caused the brim of the helmet to be more inclined,
producing the effect of what the manufacturer calls "a stoving die." By this means
IN MODERN WARFARE 277
a stoving die or drop hammer to eliminate the wrinkles from the wall of the
helmet. The pressing was done in from two to three operations. Actual tests
made upon these helmets did not give the best results. They failed to keep
out a standard bullet at 950 foot seconds nor did they yield as good results
at 850 to 900 foot seconds as the manganese helmets. These results, it must
be admitted, were obtained upon a number of helmets too small to constitute
a final test. Hence, 500 additional helmet shells are being pressed in this
alloy at the direction of Dr. Howe, who will supervise the necessary tests
upon them.
Fig. 214. Sections of dies for pressing British-.\merican iielmet model. (Faulty model
shown in 214A)
wrinkling was avoided and at the same time the metal was enabled to flow inward so
—
that the crown of the helmet was not thinned out- in fact, the Columbian Company
was the only pressing concern which was able to keep the original thickness of the
metal plate at the crown of the helmet. Die makers of other firms were inclined to
secure the desired depth of the helmet practically by a single draw, as indicated in
Fig. 214A at I. Their subsequent operation then merely gave the final contour to the
helmet by rounding it out, as shown in Section II. It was in this stage of pressing that
the wrinkles appeared at the points III. In this connection, it was found that the
behavior of an alloy like the present one, chrome-nickel, is quite unlike the manganese.
The former tends to spring away from the punch in the pressing operation, the latter
clings to it.
f
* At 1,000 foot seconds 80 per cent failed; at 950, 50 per cent; 900, 25 per cent;
thickness. Mr. Wrighton's results, which emphasize again the value of Baker's
nickel-
manganese steel for helmet work, are summarized as follows
28o HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
Department it seems doubtful if helmets can be produced commercially
from these alloys; from nickel-molybdenum this may be accomplished but
probably not from chrome-molybdenum.
Another alloy to be recorded is the zirconium steel developed by Mr.
William Smith of the Ford Motor Company of Detroit. This alloy (speci-
men lo in the table) has also not reached the stage of production but it has
given very promising tests. Such a steel, it is claimed, will stop an armor-
piercing rifle bullet at 2,750 foot seconds in a plate .375 inch in thickness
at a distance of hfty yards. As yet little is known as to the degree to which
this alloy may
be pressed into the shape of a helmet the only experiments ;
in this direction made by the Ordnance Department were failures. All sheets
cracked, according to the testimony of Lieutenant Kienbusch of the Armor
Unit of the Ordnance.
Summarizing the situation of our work upon ballistic alloys, it is hardly
too much to say that, had the war been continued another six months, our
armor plate* would have improved to an appreciable degree. When the
war began, the field was almost a new one in so far as armor in thin plates
was concerned. To stop an armor-piercing bullet then required a thickness
of an inch and a quarter of steel or about three quarters of an inch of chrome-
nickel steel in the last months of the war the same result could be had by
;
under some conditions are extremely hard. Thus an alloy known as naval-
then was used experimentally in armor work, according to information
received from an armor specialist in England, M. Felix Joubert. It was
finally decided, however, that this material weight tor weight did not give
as promising results as steel. The Germans, also, attempted to develop an
aluminum alloy, and they used this in ballistic plates which were backed
with steel. This armor was given tests which it appeared to pass brilliantly.
Hence efforts were made by the British Government to determine its nature
and to learn the details of its manufacture. Specimens were accordingly
procured, but the tests of these plates in England proved disappointing. In
one case a German shield made of the new combination was found to owe
its main value to the metal to which the aluminum alloy was attached.
This turned out to be an extremely good tungsten steel which alone would
have given an excellent test as armor plate.
The two-layered condition above noted in the German plate is but a
reappearance of the ancient principle (cf. page 271) that the best armor
should have an outer "skin" of extreme hardness, which prevents the en-
trance of a missile, while the inner substance of the plate should be tena-
cious and prevent the armor from shattering. This principle should again
be referred to, since suggestions are constantly made by students of armor
that enamels of various types might profitably be used for coating armor
plates.
VII
SOFT ARMOR: ITS BEGINNING, DEVELOP-
MENT, AND POSSIBLE VALUE
materials made up in various ways for personal defense
SOFT were unquestionably used at earlier periods than mail or plate
armor, and they followed more numerous lines of development;
for the principle is a primitive one which attempts to stop or
deaden the effect of a blow by presenting a yielding surface. A cushion
which dissipated the force of a blow was probably known even to Stone
Age man, who may well have had an armor built up of numerous layers
of furry hides. The underlying principle in such a type of defense was not
that any of its component elements would be proof to the point of an arrow
or spear, but that it would be at least sufficiently resistant to diffuse the
impact over a large surface and thus by producing a constantly increasing
strain upon the impinging weapon to bring it finally to a standstill.* To
make meaning clearer, let us assume that the resistance of a piece of
this
soft armor is represented by some number, say lOO, at the point A upon
which a projectile impinges by the time the projectile has produced a strain
;
of, say, 75, the material at this point becomes pushed in and the strain upon
it is relieved; the strain thereupon is carried along the soft material cen-
trifugally to a circle of neighboring points (B-B-B-) which in turn, of
course, combine to resist the impinging object. Each of these points in turn
has a resistance equal, say, to the original number 100. Hence it is clear that
by the time the points B
respond to the need of point A, the entire resist-
ance of the soft armor to the original impact has become much greater than
the original resistance of the armor at the point A. Continuing our illustra-
tion : the strain of a projectile upon the soft material proceeds centrifugally,
Le., at all points, from one circle of elements to the next, each of which in
* We here assume that the projectile is not traveling so rapidly that it perforates
the soft armor before it has time to operate in the manner we have described.
IN MODERN WARFARE 283
turn expands the degree ot resistance. So it comes about in the end that the
resistance of the sum of the various points becomes greater than the force
exerted upon them by the missile, which thereupon comes to a stop. Accord-
Fig. 215. Armor of cocoa fiber. Gilbert Islands, early nineteenth century.
Specimens in American Museum of Natural History
ingly, it is not the tenacity of one element, in such a piece of soft armor,
which causes this defense to be strong, but rather the way in which the
region which is in danger of penetration is able to draw to itself the help of
another part or zone of the protecting surface. We do not mean of course
284 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
to imply that in this particular principle we are dealing with physical factors
which are other than those encountered in armor plate. It is merely that in
the case of soft armor the processes are magnified to such a degree that we
can interpret them simply. The behavior of manganese steel in which an
impinging bullet produces a deep indentation forms in a way a connecting
link between an armor having a rigid surface and one in which the surface
is soft.
As to the actual use of soft armor: Armor of leather in the state of
"raw" hide or in especially treated and hardened condition (^.^., from
boiling) is known from classical antiquity. It became highly developed
during the Middle Ages, and in the fourteenth century, it appears to have
constituted a large percentage of the armor in use.
An armored costume made up of stuff of various kinds was known at
least thirty-five hundred years ago, and it is still used by savages. The Gil-
bert Islanders within the past hundred years wore quite an elaborate de-
fense (Fig. 215) woven and knotted together in strands of cocoanut fiber.
Even in Europe armor made of rope occurred until at a comparatively late
time, often as a protective lining for metal armor. We show herewith (Fig.
216) a helmet lining made of a coil of rope which was used in Switzerland
as late as the fifteenth century. In the Far East, silk was discovered to be
extremely useful in a defensive costume, certainly at the beginning of the
Christian era.As early as the year 600, the Chinese developed armor of
IN MODERN WARFARE 285
padded silkand a similar type of military costume shortly appeared at
other points in the Orient. Thus in Japan it is known from the seventh
century. Here it was further modified; it became reinforced with steel
splints, scales, or small laminae, and, in this condition, it was employed,
to a certain degree at least, as late as 1870. Such armor, formed as a complex
of silken braid and steel laminae, resisted admirably sword, spear, or war-
arrow.
Figs. 217 to 219. Arm defenses, woven and tufted, sixteenth century, German
Fig. 217. From altar painting in Stuttgart by Elinger
Fig. 218. From painting in Munich by Anton von Worms
Fig. 219. From sculpture by Veit Stoss, 1500, Nuremberg
Fig. 220. Armor of woven material, stuffed and quilted. Russian, about 1560
armor, it may
be remarked, was covered with an olive-drab stuff very simi-
lar to our modern khaki drill. In Connecticut we have records that our sol-
diers wore jackets and breeches stuffed with wool as a defense against
Indian arrows. All these armor, however, the wearer found
t}^pes of soft
hot and uncomfortable. were made to secure for them better
Hence efforts
means of ventilation eyelet doublets came into use of which the structure
;
is shown in Figs. 221 and 222. Here the tissue of the armor was perforated
at many points, and elaborate and strongly wrapped eyelets were worked
into them.
With these earlier defenses in mind, the British Bureau of Munitions
caused numerous experiments to be made to determine the ballistic value
of soft materials in terms of modern projectiles. This investigation seemed
the more desirable since "soft" armor, if it were equally resistant, would,
:
cause the bullet to become deformed or mushroomed and would thus save —
the wearer from more dangerous injury. During these experiments, tests
were made of fibers of varied types, including balata, kopak, flax, hair,
cotton, sisel, hemps and silk; and the materials were studied either as raw
material for padding or in the form of woven stuffs or ropes. Sometimes,
also, the material was held together between layers of canvas by quilting
or piping. (Figs. 223 and 224). These experimental tests demonstrated,
as might have been expected, that the most resistant fiber was silk.* Hence
it was that the silken necklets were devised which were described on page
11 1. In their manufacture the material was used both in a woven and in the
Figs. 223 and 224. Fibrous materials of various types arranged between
bands of tissue for testing purposes
was found easier to procure and considerably less expensive. Hence an effort
was made to employ it as a means of body defense by British experts;
among them the governmental armor specialist, William A. Taylor,f
* The writer finds from a note furnished him by Captain Ley of the Munitions
Board in London that certain of the earlier tests on the ballistic virtues of silk were
quite remarkable bombs were exploded in the "fragmentation hut" at Wembley
:
(1915 sample pads of silks were used for comparison with plates of helmet steel
*?) ;
(Firth) of twice their weight; the silk pads were the better; they kept out 74 degrees
of "medium shrapnel bullets at 600 foot seconds."
f Mr. Taylor summarizes his results as follows
"The only material that gives materially better results than manganese steel is
pure woven silk which, against shrapnel bullets up to a velocity of 900-1,000 foot
seconds, has a distinct advantage, weight for weight, over steel. For example, silk
•
body defense.
Fig. 225. Silk-lined
Taylor model, 1916-1917
weighing 10.8 oz. per sq. ft. is proof against shrapnel at 800 foot seconds, whereas
steel to give the same resistance would weigh about 20 oz. The relative advantages
and disadvantages of silk as compared with steel for body armor may be summarized
as follows : —
"Silk does not give nearly the same resistance as steel against high velocity or
pointed projectiles (e.g. rifle bullets or bayonet thrusts) but on the other hand it does
290 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
tion of producing a textile armor. In 1897 a Russian inventor, Casimir
Zeglin, working in New York
and Chicago, produced a closely woven silk
cloth about one quarter inch thick (Figs. 226 and 227), and of this he
prepared a waistcoat which was proof at 80 paces to a 40 caliber revolver,
whose bullet was of lead and traveled at the rate of 400 foot seconds. In
a plastron of this woven silk, the inventor faced a firing test successfully
and since that time he has made numerous experiments in the direction of
improving his bullet-proof costume. (Tests of them were made, e.g.^ at
Springfield Arsenal, 1899 and 1904.) In 1914, he directed to it the atten-
tion of our Ordnance Department but without tangible results. He also
^^m.
took steps to combine his heavily woven silk fabric with a thin layer ( 6 W
inch) of chrome-nickel steel (Figs. 228 and 229). It was a similar type of
defense, as noted on page 162, which the Russians employed during the
Russo-Japanese War ( 1905). The Zeglin costume made of heavy silk cloth
or matting one quarter inch thick covered with khaki drill, containing about
not deform a bullet when perforated. A bullet after passing through steel is deformed
and would cause a very serious wound.
"Against low velocity blunt projectiles (e.g. shrapnel shell splinters, bomb frag-
ments) up weight for weight.
to a certain velocity silk is superior to steel,
"Silk sits better on the wearer than steel on account of its flexibility.
"For infantry, silk would probably be uncomfortably warm in summer and would
require to be made water and vermin proof.
"Silk is more costly and difficulties of supply would be greater than with steel."
IN MODERN WARFARE 291
six square feet of silk, is naturally a costly defense (about $80). It weighs
about six pounds and is said to be proof to shrapnel, splinters, bayonet
and revolver. Tests, however, made upon the Zeglin cloth in Washington
showed that it would not resist jacketed 45 automatic revolver bullets at
600 foot seconds. In point of fact, its resistance was hardly 400 foot seconds.
Fig. 227. Zeglin silken matting (bullet-proof) in process of being woven at the Crompton-
Knowles loom, Cleveland, Ohio
Fig. 228. Zeglin silken body defense Fig. 229. Similar defense shown arranged with
reinforcing plate of ballistic alloy
the outbreak of the present war; for it might well have saved the life of
the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, who is said to have worn armor of silk
on the day of the tragedy at Serajevo. Unhappily, however, the assassin
shot at his head instead of his body (The London Daily Mail, June 29,
I
1914.)
VIII
CONCERNING TESTS FOR ARMOR
the ball may even have perforated the armor, yet have lost its velocity to
such a degree that it would not cause a fatal wound. Many instances,
indeed, are cited to show that a comparatively light defense, which would
have little value in an absolute test, has saved its wearer from a machine
gun bullet. A helmet lately received in Washington is known to have saved
the life of an infantryman who was struck in the head by such a bullet fired
at a range hardly greater than i oo yards yet the resistance of this helmet
;
to a normal impact of a similar ball was hardly greater than 700 foot
seconds while the machine gun bullet probably traveled at a rate of 2,400
foot seconds. So, too, the French helmet which resists the normal impact
of a pistol ball at about 400 foot seconds is known to have deflected bullets
at three times this velocity; in other cases, when it came to be pierced, it
had, nevertheless, reduced the velocity of the projectile to such a degree
that the wearer's skull had not been penetrated. In other cases still, such
IN MODERN WARFARE 295
a helmet had defected the ball slightly during the act of perforation and
had caused it to inflict a scalp wound only-
In a word, it is unfair to state that a helmet or breastplate is valueless
because it failed at the normal impact from service rifle ammunition at 100
yards; for it may still save its wearer from similar shots at longer range
or from shots at close range which do not impinge directly. Whoever,
therefore, deals with the problem of modern armor will go far astray if he
does not consider on generous lines the index of probability.
By these reflections, however, one does not diminish the need of estab-
lishing a definite test b}- which the value of a piece of armor is to be gauged.
And a diagnosis of the factors, conditions or criteria which determine its
usefulness is given below. The degree to which each criterion is looked upon
as essential is indicated by percentage.
Factors arranged in the order of importance^ as determining the value
of tnodern armor:
(a) Ballistic value .... 45%
(b) Weight 15%
(c) Comfort in wearing . . 10%
(d) Security in support . . . 10%
(e) Ease of recognition and the
opposite (non-visibility) . 10%
(f) Noiselessness .... 3%
(g) Cleanliness 3%
(h) Durability 2%
(i) Adaptation 2%
(a) BALLISTIC VALUE
As noted in the preceding pages all armor should at a minimum test
resist the impact ot an automatic revolver ball weighing 230 grains, jack-
eted, traveling at the rate of 650 foot seconds. Most defenses mentioned
in the foregoing pages were proved with standard ammunition in which
the projectile traveled at the rate of 800 foot seconds. The tendency, how-
ever, in practical tests is ever to demand greater resistance. A body defense
should resist 1,000 foot seconds, better still 1,200 foot seconds, though at
the present time it is difficult to insure uniformity in the case of a body
defense of this ballistic value which will weigh, back and front, covering a
considerable portion of the trunk, less than eight pounds. One heat of metal
might give an excellent practical test and the next one would fail. In order
to gauge its strength, an old and reliable method was to place the armor
in position on a dummy and shoot at it. In testing American helmets, how-
296 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
ever, where quick and precise results were necessary (see page 200) the shell
tested was placed on a slanting board, so as to present a convenient point
on its crown to the fixed line of fire of the automatic revolver; whether the
helmet lay unattached to the supporting and inclined board or whether it
was firmly clamped to the board made (in the writer's experience) little
difference in the proof.
In testing the French helmet, earlier model, as noted on page 81, a
mechanical device was sometimes employed by means of which a small
punch recorded the strength of the shell in measuring a depth of indenta-
tion. For proving their helmets, the British, on the other hand, made use
of "fragmentation huts" wherein the objects to be tested were arranged,
e.g.^ on sandbags, about the point (say at a distance of four feet) where
a bomb was to be exploded. Under the conditions prescribed, shrapnel
bullets weighing forty-one to the pound, struck the objects to be tested
at a velocity of from 600 to 1,200 foot seconds. Such a test is obviously an
easy one in practice but not very exact. In the same way tests were arranged
in England for webbing of various kinds, waterproof covering, hide,
fabrics saturated with resinous material, etc. In all instances cards are
placed in front of and behind each object so as to record faithfully the
number of and perforations. Similar methods were employed by the
hits
French, who made numerous tests of armor in the open air, e.g., in
also
the study of the French abdominal defense, where plates were so suspended
as to form a kind of screen in front of which grenades were exploded. Spe-
cial loaded cartridges, however, with standard bullets which register 450
foot seconds, 600 foot seconds, 750 foot seconds, 1,000 foot seconds, etc.,
have been employed in various countries to great advantage. In fact, these
tests are obviousl)^ the most definite of all. In conducting such experiments,
however, numerous details must be considered which have been found to
modify results materially. Thus, as Mr. W. A. Taylor emphasizes, it is
not fair to conclude that because one plate of metal of definite thickness
will resist impact at 800 foot seconds, two thicknesses, closely apposed, of
the same plate, would resist 1,600 foot seconds. On the contrary, it was
ascertained that the resistance of the two plates was sometimes scarcely
more than the resistance of a single plate; for the part of the first plate
which was "shot in" or indented appeared to strike the plate behind with
almost the same force which was shown by the bullet at the time of its
initial impact; obviously, therefore, the second plate was apt to behave
just as though it were itself struck by the fresh projectile. This result, how-
IN MODERN WARFARE 297
ever, did not appear if the two plates were separated one from the other
by an interval.
In studying ammunition and armor in general the British have made a
great number of instructive tests. Thus, their analysis of German ammu-
nition demonstrated its effect on armor plate of many kinds and at various
distances, and the conditions which govern various cases were carefully
recorded. Thus, compared to the usual service ammunition, the A. P. bullet
is shown to maintain a much evener energy during its flight: the service
bullet starts with a slightly greater energy ( 1 .3 foot tons as opposed to 1 .2),
then it drops to about a third of its energy, in comparison with the armor-
piercing bullet, at a distance of 500 yards; thereafter, however, it ap-
proaches continuously the energy of the A. P. bullet and gives similar re-
sults at about 2,500 yards. The British have also investigated in detail the
effect upon armor plate of the service bullet reversed, for it was a well-
known trick of the Germans in the early part of the war to remove a bullet
from its cartridge and replace it back foremost; by this means, the punching
effect of the bullet became much more severe than in normal tests. They
studied further the mode of supporting the plate to be tested in order to
determine whether or not this had any relation to the test, their results
indicating that this factor was not an important one. In this series of experi-
ments the armor plate was clamped on wood or steel either by the center
of the tested plate or at the edges; they also backed it by springs. Differ-
ences, it is true, were thereupon recorded, but the results of these tests were
not constant enough to warrant one's believing, e.g.^ that a spring frame
rendered a plate notably more resistant. A plate, however, clamped in
position at its edges was always severely strained. In the study of the
deflection of bullets, the British record material progress. They examined,
also, the penetrating power of bullets of high velocity when passing through
a plate at an angle.
In their studies the British analyzed their results from two points of
view from the first of these, a plate struck at an angle presents more metal
:
to the impinging ball from the second, a bullet which is passing through
;
a plate changes its course to such a degree that it tears rather than drills
its way through the armor. This process was further analyzed in the matter
of the effect of this "tumbling" bullet upon succeeding plates; for, not
striking such a plate "nose on," it cannot pierce the second plate neatly but
must rotate through its substance and thus encounter greater resistance.
The result of such a study led the British to experiment in the direction
298 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
of attaching to the sides of their armored cars a series of outstanding plates,
which, in point of fact, were found under certain conditions useful i^e.g.^
in tank armoring).
For testing its armor, each nation has naturally been led to employ the
ammunition of its enemy. And would evi-
a complete tabulation of results
dently be of value for all experimental work on armor. The accompanying
table deals with the question of ammunition in its broader lines.
Distance in
IN MODERN WARFARE 299
U. S. Army Colt 45 —weight of bullet 230 grains
809 336
Penetration 8 in. white pine
U. S. Army Colt 45 —weight of bullet 200 grains
368
Penetration 8 in. white pine
British
Range in
300 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
Mauser service automatic 303 Mark VI
Range in
yards
IN MODERN WARFARE 301
ward atan angle of 45 degrees. The former type of curvature is shown in
the forehead of the German hehnet; the latter in helmet model No. 2,
described on page 211. In this regard the second helmet had only to com-
bine in its curves those of standard models of early armorers in order to ob-
tain greater ballistic resistance without using heavier plates; a study, by the
way, which few can appreciate who have not examined closely the work
of master armorers. In the matter of providing deflecting surfaces, one
should, of course, not lose sight of the fact that projectiles do not always
impinge from the exact direction which an armor wearer might prudently
have selected. But, everything considered, chances favor the armor which
bears well-curved surfaces. Such surfaces, it will be seen, strengthen the
plate against a projectile by bringing into play the physical principle of
the arch as a resistant device. That is to say, a flat plate will resist a pro-
jectile less perfectly than a plate pressed into hemispherical form (assum-
ing, of course, that in the process of pressing the metal be not thinned out
at the height of the curve). And converseh^ it is known that armor gives
a poor test if upon a surface which is concave. Thus the helmet of
struck
the British model which resists adequately a projectile impinging on its
crown is apt to fail (10 to 20 per cent weaker) if struck in or near the
concave zone where the rounded crown spreads outward to join the flattened
rim. This strength and weakness is an obvious condition of the arch which
resists a blow of a certain strength from above and fails il a similar blow
be given from within.
The angle at which a projectile impinges is unquestionabl}^ an impor-
tant factor in the proof of armor. In a general way, it may be stated that
this angle becomes less important ballistically the greater the velocity of
the impinging projectile. That is to say, a bullet which travels at the
rate of 2,500 foot seconds may
penetrate a plate struck at an angle of 75
or 80 degrees from the normal. A similar bullet traveling at the rate of
1,000 foot seconds would, on the other hand, probably be deflected at an
angle of 40 degrees from the normal. Into these considerations, however,
many factors enter which are analyze; and at the present time
difficult to
we are unable to establish a formula which will determine the angle of
deflection for projectiles of different weights and different velocities when
striking armor plates of different thicknesses and different degrees of hard-
ness. It may be said, however, that an effort is now being made to deter-
mine such a formula; in this, when definite values can be assigned to
definite elements, we may then be able to calculate what the value will be
302 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
for the remaining elements. If, for example, we know the degree of hard-
ness of a plate (H), the degree of hardness of the projectile (H'), the
shape of the projectile (S), the thickness of the plate (T), the velocity of
the projectile (V), and the weight of the projectile (W), we may be able
to determine at what angle (A) our armor will deflect the bullet. By means
of such an analysis, always checked by ballistical tests, we may learn that
a projectile which perforates a plate of definite thickness on normal impact
(90 degrees to the surface) will fail to penetrate a plate 75 per cent ot the
same thickness if impinging at an angle say of 60 degrees, or of 50 per
cent if impinging at an angle of 35 degrees, or of 30 per cent if imping-
ing at an angle of 15 degrees; all of which would indicate, of course, that
armor which would be rejected by an examining board as too weak for
service might nevertheless prove of considerable actual value, for it may
fairly be said that of the number of projectiles which in action would be
received upon a given plate only a limited percentage would impinge di-
rectly or normally. To develop the idea of glancing surfaces more clearly
we refer to Figs. 230, 231 and 232, which represent three types ot breast-
plates: the first was made about 1540 by a well-known armorer of Augs-
burg, the second is the new American model of heavy, or sentinel's armor
(cf. page 244), the third is the similar defense of the Germans (cf. page
these curves having been measured as angles from a series of parallel lines
approaching the breastplate from directly in front. Comparison of these
three models shows that a bullet which would pass through the German
breastplate from directly in front (go degrees) or from an angle of inclina-
tion of 70 degrees from this line (or normal) would be dangerous through-
out the entire wide central area shown here dotted. The same projectile,
however, would perforate a similar breastplate of the American model only
in the narrower unshaded zone. Note, however, that it would everywhere
be deflected by a similar breastplate in the ancient model. So, too, from a
further arrangement of glancing surfaces, the model of the German breast-
plate would be penetrated more readily in the peripheral zones of its sur-
face,assuming always that the projectile approached from the front, than
would the American breastplate; while this in turn, from the same point
of view, would be distinctly inferior to the breastplate of 1 5'40. From all
this, it follows that one type of body shield might be used successfully if
Figs. 230 to 232. Three breastplate models in which similar curvatures of surface are
indicated by similar types of shading. Below each model is its transverse section
(b) WEIGHT
Weight is a factor of great importance in determining whether armor
may be used; for without weight and, alas, in a very material degree, no
complete protection can be promised, —
yet with the needed weight the
armor becomes unendurable. One may safely say, from the developments
of the last months, that unless armor wearing should be made obligatory,
there is little chance that American soldiers will consider wearing any type
304 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
of body defense which is heavier than six or seven pounds. A greater weight
than would surely throw off at his first opportunity. Here
this the soldier
we assume that he would be expected to carry his armor for considerable
distances. However, should he be given his armor at the point where he is
about to attack or where a defense is to be made, it is quite possible that
armor of ten to twenty pounds (possibly more) might be considered that —
is, for use during short intervals. This, however, even under favorable con-
ditions, would entail considerable discomfort to the wearer and its use
would by no means be probable except in the case of special men prepared
to do special work.
The additional questions dealing with the weight of armor are closely
akin to the present headings three (c) and four (d), q.v.
* Sir Robert Hadfield, discussing this matter, speaks of the critical moment in
the testing of armor plate when a between the projectile and the
"conflict takes place
armor: if the projectile gains the mastery, the plate submits passively and is per-
forated: if the plate wins the test, the projectile is pulverized or deformed." In many
cases a plate which fails shows apparent lamination, i.e., a defect in structure, as when
a bit of slag had been crushed or rolled into the plate. Such a two-layered appearance,
however, may not have been caused in this way. According to Mr. W. H. Baker of
Bridgeville, Pennsylvania, one of the greatest American experts in this field, the
apparent layering is sometimes the result of a purely physical process it may be ;
neither more nor less than a zone of rupture, which appears when the plate fails for ;
at the critical moment in the test during the "conflict for the mastery," the projectile
suddenly pushes in the one surface of the plate, while the back of the plate resists
stiffly hence in the middle of the plate, there arises a definite layer of compression
:
and if the latter ruptures with the force of the blow, a visible lamination may result.
3o6 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
the body of the wearer and is converted instantly into other forces, mainly,
perhaps, "vibratory" in nature, such as sound, heat, light and electricity.
As an example of the lack of pushing force with which a rifle ball impinges
upon an object, one recalls that when plates of various materials are set on
Fig. 234
Fig. 234A
edge practically unsupported and then shot at, the ball is apt to perforate
without knocking them down. Again, if a cylindrical shield supported by a
ball-bearing (Fig. 233) receives the impact of a rifle ball in the direction
A-B, it may be perforated before it has any "chance" to rotate upon its
easily turning base. So also if spring slips bearing plates of steel at their
IN MODERN WARFARE 307
ends (Fig. 234) be placed in the position shown in Fig. 234A, several of
them may be perforated by a bullet traveling in the direction A-B before
they "have time" to react and bend back upon their neighbors.* In a word,
returning to modern armor, we may repeat
that the question of the spring-
like support of such defensesnot an extremely important part of our
is
Fig. 235
Fig. 235. Shield formed of bent-over metallic plates. Joubert model, 1915-1916
broad shoulder straps at such an angle that they shall not press upon the
shoulders of the wearer save throughout their entire breadth. If properly
adjusted, armor even of considerable weight can be worn with surprisingly
little discomfort. Experiments with armor of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries show how carefully this problem was considered by the armorer;
his straps need not be tightened to such a degree that the wearer of the
armor felt burdened* by his trappings. In modern armor the arrangement
of buckles and snap-catches should be devised for special cases; in their
arrangement the degree of security is to be considered and the ease with
which the pieces may be put on and taken off. The strong leathern straps
of old armor have now given place to bands of webbing which may be had
in many widths and thicknesses. These woven straps are stronger by about
25 per more durable, and more safely attached. They deteriorate less
cent,
speedily from moisture and drying; and their use is a distinct war-time
saving; not only are they cheaper but cotton is far easier to secure than
leather, which for the rest is greatl}^ needed elsewhere.
To be securely supported does not mean that a piece of armor need be
attached rigidly. Elastic supports, e.g., of sponge rubber, are on the con-
trary often to be recommended, for they break the jolt of the armor, espe-
cially when heavy, during the wearer's quick movements. This is aside from
the question as to whether cushioning helps to resist the impact of a
projectile.
* Experiments with authentic armor have convinced the writer that it may be
worn even by a novice three hours at a stretch without causing extraordinary fatigue or
subsequent lameness.
IN MODERN WARFARE 309
at long range. The outline of the crown of the helmet can be distinguished
readily whether flat, hemispherical or peaked. A straight line passing from
the brow region to the nape of the helmet differentiates instantly the Eng-
lish from the German helmet, or a down-bent line in this region identifies
the helmet as French. Every effort made to produce an American helmet
which would protect the side of the head of the soldier did not meet the
favor of the General Staff in France, since each model of this kind pre-
sented was held to resemble too closely the headpiece of the German.*
gunner to become his own camouflage artist (Fig. 236). In the meanwhile
his defenses could only be painted a color, e.g.^ olive-drab, useful in as many
instances as possible. This in fact was the procedure which had already been
adopted in experimental work generally.
(f) NOISELESSNESS
This factor is of less importance than at first appears; for in the majority
of cases where armor might be worn to advantage, any rattling sounds
which, even at close distance, it would produce, would readily be drowned
by gunfire. In fact, when used at close armor would be apt rather
quarters,
to disconcert the enemy by any sound it would The Japanese, who,
cause.
it may be recalled, wore armor almost within our own time, have regarded
this feature as of great protective value. And in this direction they took into
account not only the noise which armor produces but also the effect upon
the enemy's nerves caused by grotesque steel masks — a war device in con-
nection with armor used in close combat, which seems at first sight hardly
—
worthy of a moment's consideration childish, in fact until we admit —
that the Japanese are among the most resourceful soldiers in the world and
that their war mask as a means of inspiring an adversary with wholesome
respect, if not panic, was recommended in Japanese tactics for over 600
years.
IN MODERN WARFARE 311
(g) CLEANLINESS
Use in trenches is apt to ruin equipment speedily; any defenses which
become materiel should not go to pieces if subjected to repeated wettings
and dryings. Hence, woven materials unless very heavy are not to be recom-
mended for covering plates of metal, for tissues are injured by rust and
soon become mildewed and soften. Such stuffs, moreover, are difficult to
clean; they become sodden with dirt and are apt to harbor vermin and germs
of disease. Best in practical use would be armor whose surface is protected
only with paint.
(h) DURABILITY
Armor cannot be used unless it is kept in good repair. Cleanliness and
indestructibility go hand in hand. Leathern straps, as we have noted, are
less permanent than closely woven bands of tissue which, under modern
conditions of manufacture, present a surface so tightly woven that it sheds
dirt and moisture in no little degree. In the matter of indestructibility,
critical attention should be given to the way in which straps are riveted.
Thus the rivets should be provided with washers wherever practicable.
Especially where plates require a certain freedom of movement, the use of
rivetshaving washers is always to be recommended, a practice which, by the
way, has come down to us from centuries of experience.
(i) ADAPTATION
The value of a piece of armor depends in a degree upon the way in which
ithas been adapted to a special use. A helmet strap, for example, should be
adapted for use with a gas mask so that by a separate device it may be
312 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
passed immediately under the "proboscis" of a gas mask and made fast
again to the helmet. So, too, a breastplate becomes of greater value if it is so
laminated that the wearer can keep his position close to the ground yet push
hisway forward, A helmet also should not cover the ear region so completely
that a telephone receiver cannot be used if needed. In this connection should
be mentioned the adaptational value of a helmet ot which the nape region
could be used as a brow defense in case of need.
IX
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
the foregoing pages we have traced the development of hehnets
IN and body armor up to the present time, Le.^ throughout the period
of the war, and have shown broadly in what lines modern armor
has been successfully employed. It remains for us to consider the
possibilities for its future development. In a word, we have still to attempt
to answer such questions as these ( i ) Whether we have attained the final
:
development in our ballistic alloys for thin plates; (2) whether we have
solved the problem of the best helmet; (3) whether it is possible still to
develop a body armor which shall be willingly used.
( 1 ) Have we as yet solved the problem of providing the best alloy for
helmets and body armor? Many eminent metallurgists, European and Amer-
ican, have attacked this problem constantly and intensively during the past
few years. Their results, we believe, show clearly that the end in the im-
provement of thin plates for ballistic uses is not yet in sight. At the present
time a sheet of metal of twenty gauge (.0368) can be made in newer alloys
which will resist the impact of the standard bullet (230 grains) jacketed,
traveling at the rate of about 1,000 feet per second. Their result nets an
advance of about 30 per cent over the conditions of a couple of years ago.
It seems onl)^ a fair conclusion, therefore, that metallurgists, attacking the
problem with similar industry, will be able to add an appreciable percent-
age to the value of armor plate during succeeding years. From all this, it
follows that if the helmet of 1917-1918 was a useful defense, the helmet
of 1920-1921 will be a decidedly more efficient one. The struggle, however,
between bettering the armored defense on the one hand and increasing the
destructive action of the missile on the other, is keener today than it was in
the early history of armor. Still, judging from present data, we are con-
vinced that recent developmental advances have favored armor rather than
projectiles. Viewing the problem at closer range, we believe that an im-
provement in the quality of ballistic alloy may be expected even in the
314 HELMETS AND BODY ARMOR
course of the next months which will greatly influence all further armor
work. But whether the newest alloys will be capable of being pressed into
the shape of a helmet is distinctly another question. The studies of Professor
Howe on helmet alloys, carried on under the direction of the Ordnance
Department, have shown that it will be extremely difficult to press certain
of these plates which have the highest ballistic resistance.
(2) Have we as yet the best form of an American helmet? We doubt
gravely whether we have as yet solved the problem of the American helmet.
That the "porridge-bowl" model of the British is not the best for our use,
there can be but little doubt. American experts both here and abroad have
agreed that this model is too shallow to protect adequately the region of the
back and sides of the head, nor is it without defects in other directions.
Moreover, it is fair to assume that in helmets, as in other objects of equip-
ment, a national type should be adopted. We have noted, none the less, that
the advantages of the British helmet are many we
; recall especially that it
. COMPOUND FRACTURE OF
IMPORTANT STRUCTURES (viSCERAl). INJURY BY
THIGH BONE WHICH STILL
A SMALL SPLINTER HERE CAUSES A HIGH REMOTE
HAS A HIGH MORTALITY
RATE
BUT NOT NECESSARILY A HIGH IMMEDIATE MORTALITY
6. IMPORTANT
Fig. 238. Diagram showing the anterior portion of the chest and indicating by dots entry wounds
in 163 cases. Heart and roots of large vessels are here indicated.
Fig. 239. Diagram indicating by small dots entry wounds in chest and abdomen as recorded in
about a thousand cases (163 thoracic, 834 abdominal). The deeper the shading,
as here indicated, the greater the danger.
Figs. 237 to 239. Anatomical diagrams furnished by Trench Warfare Section, London (Captain
Rose) these indicate "areas of danger" and tabulate "entry wounds"
:
front have shown that even without armor the infantryman carried into
actual combat as great a weight as he can be expected to bear, and that even
a few extra pounds would burden him to a degree which would interfere
with his effectiveness. Hence at the most he would not be apt to be given
any armor which would weigh more than a couple of pounds, e.g.^ in the
form of an abdominal defense, as suggested by General Adrian, or the neck-
letdeveloped by the Ordnance Department in Washington, or the gas mask
container.*
In summary, the whole major problem, so far as the writer can inter-
pret it, hinges upon the possibility of assuring adequate transport for
armored defenses to regions where they are actually required. The writer
is fimily convinced that if defenses of various types were kept in reserve,
INDEX
Abadie (d'Oran), Dr., 71 Armor of proof, 25
Adrian, General, 8, 65, 66, 74, 80, 88, 260, Armored cart, Japanese, 176
316; abdominal shield, 106; breastplate, Armored case for gas mask, 255
108; epaulets, 108; helmets, 66, substitutes Army and Navy body defense, 123
for, 85, used by Belgians, 156 Askew, Colonel, 8
Aeroplanes, armored, 266-268 Astori Co., Milan, 152
Agricola, Georgius, 36 Austrian helmets and armor, 147
Aigeltinger, 8, 273 Aviator's, armored chair, 265, 266, 269 ; hel-
Alloys for armor, 273-281 improvement in, ; mets, American, 228-232
280, 313; resistance, 273, 276, 277, 278, 279,
280 tabular analysis, opp. 274
;
133> 233
^
132 see also Eye defenses
;
Eye wounds, statistics, 72, 73, 102, 104, 133
Gorgeno-Collaye breastplate, Italian, 156
Eyes, injury to the, 72-73
Gorget, 54
Gould, Charles W., 8, 27
Face defenses, British, 131 ; see also Eye de-
Grayson. Mr., 245
fenses. Visors
Gun Wharf in Portsmouth, Giants' helmets
Face-guard (baviere), American, 237-239
in, 128
Face shield, American, silk, 227 French, for ;
in, 48-50
137; ventilation, 136; weight, 137, 139, com-
Kosciuszko, wore armor, 52
pared with British, 134
Italian, 149-151
Laboisiere, Hospital of, statistics of eye
Portuguese, composition, description, re-
wounds tabulated at, 102
sistance, weight, 160-161
Ladysmith, siege of, heavy helmets used, 60,
Slavic, description, 161
128
Spanish, description, 171
Lalain, Jacques de, 30
Swiss, criticism, 167 ; description (experi-
La None, 43, 48
mental model),
165; lining, 166; resem-
La Pcrsonne, 72
blance to Dunand helmet, 165, 167 ; stand-
Leather and steel compared, 228
ard model, 168; symbol, 166
Leathern armor, 28, 284 casque for aviators,
;
Shrapnel, Siege
Pickelhaube
Helmet making, stages and time consumed Leatherwear Co. of America, 195
in, 36 Le Blanc, Major, 190
Helmet steel, results of tests on various types Lee Tire Company body defense, American,
of, 279 260
Helmets, developmental sequence, 47 orna- ;
Learning, Captain, 8
mental metal of XVHI-XIX centuries, 57 ; Leg armor, American, 262-264; French, 109
weight of ancient, 46, 48-50 Le Maistre, Commandant, 8, 88
Henrion, Ernest, 157 Leniewitch, General, 163
Holbein, 25 Leonardo, 25
Hopkins, Maj. Nevil Monroe, 262 Le Platenier, Charles, 167
Horter, Mr., plastron designed by, 258 Ley, Capt. C. H., 8, 288
1
Manganese steel, 129, 273; value of, in pro- Noiselessness of armor, 310
ducing helmets, 129 North, Roger, 287
Manganese Steel Shoe & Rail Co., 273
Martin, Dr. Walter, 69
O'Callaghan, Gen. Desmond, 128
Masamune, Japanese sword artist, 35 Oman, Ch., 30
Matchlocks, Japanese, improvements in, 172
Orient, armor wearing in, 58
Maxim, Sir Hiram, 62
Ornaments, see Symbol
Maximilian, Emperor of Austria, 25, 84
Osborn, Col. Perry, 8
Merkert, J., 8
Metallurgy of ancient armor, 35, 270 an- ;
Spanish helmet, 171 Van Allen, Mr., shield-like devices of, 258
Sparks-Withington Co., 195 Ventilation, French helmet, 78 ; German hel-
Sprecher, Colonel, 165 met, 136
Springs, value of, in deadening force of blow, Verney Family, memorial of, 44
260 Victor Amadeus IV, proof of armor of, 44
Standard Aircraft Corporation Works, 268 Visor,American helmet, 219-220, 228, 234;
Star Body Defense, British, 123 Dunand, 88, 96, 98, 99, 102 considered by
;
Statistics of wounds, 68-73, 264 Helmet Board, A.E.F., 210; handicap of,
Steel, for modern armor, 272-280 resistance ; 104; Landret and Polack, 89; Folack, 89-
of, compared with leather, 228; see Alloys 96, 210; perforated, sensation produced in
Stellite, alloy, 281 wearing, lOO; silk, American, 228; useful-
Strozzi, saved by armor, 32 ness for helmet, 72
Swiss body armor, 163 Vulcano of Brescia, 43
Swiss helmet, see Helmet, Swiss
Swiss War Technical Division, 168 Wagram, Prince of, wears corselet and casque,
Sword blade, Japanese, analysis, hardness of, 57
35 Wearing armor, 314-317
Symbol, French lielmet, 76, 78 ; Swiss hel- Weckers, Prof., 157
met, 166 Weight, ancient armor, 43, 45, 46, in various
Szmyt glass armor, 260 collections, 48-50 Ansaldo shield, 151
; Bel- ;
Taylor Co., 195 steel for trench shields, 178; tilting armor,
Taylor-Wharton Co., 195
45
Telley body defense, American, 259 Welch, Alexander McMillan, 8
Terron, 73 White, Capt. Grove, 72
Test of British helmet, 130 Whyler jazeran, 258
Testing marks on armor, 44 Wilkinson's Safety Service Jacket, 114
Tests, ancient, 38-45 degrees of strength used
;
Williams, Gen. C. C, 8
in proof and half proof, 41, 42; modern,
Wilmer, Col. W. Holland, 236
294-300 ; types of ammunition used, 298-300
Worcester Pressed Steel Co., 195
Tiberias, battle of, 30 Worisbeverfeld defense, 259
Tilting armor, extraordinary weight of, 45 Wounds, anatomical diagrams tabulating
Tinney, Captain Roy S., 56 entry, 315; classification of, 71; frequency
Tinsley, Francis X., 8 proportion due to
in location of, 70-71 ;
^
RD-108
o . . • «'\
<&•
o «» " • • '^
r^" . C^ /- . ^o 1-^ .
V- *^^*
<^ *'7Vr» ,0 .
"• A
*
!T. AUGUSTINE _^
^m FLA.
r\
^ <*:. •