You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Personal view
UK military helmet design and test methods
  1. Debra J Carr1,
  2. E Lewis2 and
  3. PF Mahoney3
  1. 1 Impact and Armour Group, Centre for Defence Engineering, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, UK
  2. 2 Senior Fellow, Defence Equipment and Support, Bristol, UK
  3. 3 ADMACC, RCDM, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Debra J Carr, Impact and Armour Group, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, UK; djcarr{at}dstl.gov.uk

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to provide the military medical community with an expert summary of military helmets used by HM Armed Forces. The design of military helmets and test methods used to determine the fragmentation and non-ballistic impact protection are discussed. The helmets considered are Parachutist, Combat Vehicle Crewman, Mk6, Mk6A, Mk7 and VIRTUS. The helmets considered provide different levels of fragmentation and non-ballistic impact protection dictated by the materials available at the time of the helmet design and the end-user requirement. The UK Ministry of Defence defines the area of coverage of military helmets by considering external anatomical features to provide protection to the brain and the majority of the brainstem. Established test methods exist to assess the performance of the helmet with respect to the threats; however, these test methods do not typically consider anatomical vulnerability.

  • fragmentation
  • non-ballistic impact
  • protection

https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2018-001123

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors DJC proposed this paper which was written by all three authors.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.