Why Soldiers Don’t Wear Full-Face Helmets

When considering why soldiers don't wear full-face helmets, it's important to keep in mind the specific conditions and situations they operate in. From a former Australian soldier who served with the Ready Reaction Force in 1RAR Townsville QLD, it was not uncommon to wear floppy hats but always have the American-style helmets carried on the back of their necks.

Comfort and Practicality

A full-face helmet, whether it's worn in the summer or in colder winter conditions, can become extremely uncomfortable very quickly if the wearer isn't moving. Open vehicles and motorcycles can help, but in stationary positions, the helmet can weigh you down.

In terms of chemical protection, full-face helmets are not a practical solution either. These helmets are not airtight or gasproof. Therefore, in the event of a chemical attack, it would be critical for soldiers to be able to quickly and efficiently put on their gas masks and hoods. This requirement cannot be met with a full-face helmet because it would obstruct the necessary movements and make putting on the gas mask more difficult.

Senses and Combat Readiness

During combat situations, the use of all senses, particularly sight and peripheral vision, is critical. Full-face helmets obstruct these senses to some extent, making it harder for soldiers to navigate and react effectively. Additionally, the extra weight of a fully enclosed full-face helmet can be a significant burden, considering the standard weight of a Kevlar military helmet is around 3-4 pounds. This additional weight can pose real challenges for extended periods of use.

New Development: Composite Material Helmets

To address some of these concerns, the army is transitioning to a new helmet constructed of composite material. This new helmet is designed to be 22% lighter than Kevlar, significantly reducing the weight burden on soldiers during long missions.

Challenges and Test Findings from Fort Bragg

As a part of a small test group at Fort Bragg in 2004, the potential problems of full-face helmets were far outweighed by the benefits. Here are the top three reasons why a full-face helmet was considered a no-go:

Communication Issues: A full-face helmet can make communication extremely difficult, especially in critical situations where battery-operated communication equipment can fail. During a chaotic firefight, muffled voices are ineffective, leading to potential chaos and confusion. Heat Build-Up: Full-face helmets can turn into a furnace after a few drills, making them uncomfortable and potentially dangerous. This can lead to overheating, which can compromise a soldier's performance and well-being. Increased Concussive Force: Enclosed helmets trap and can amplify the impact of concussive forces from RPGs, grenades, and other explosives. If proper ventilation had not been designed to negate this, it would be dangerous for delicate tissues like the eyes, brain, and hearing.

These findings suggest that while full-face helmets may seem like a logical solution, they come with significant drawbacks that make them impractical for military use.

Conclusion

The decision to not wear full-face helmets in the military is based on a careful evaluation of practicalities, comfort, and safety. While innovation is always welcome, the current designs of helmets are tailored to provide the best possible protection while maintaining the necessary functional and safety standards.