British HELMET PARACHUTE LIGHT WEIGHT/ HELMET PARACHUTE - facts wanted!

[Greg Pickersgill]

Right then, it is time for a bit of determined pooling of knowledge about the British Parachute Helmet. And perhaps we can collectively get somewhere near the true facts. Which are more elusive than one might think.

For a start this helmet is not and never has been called the 'M76'. Yes, I know there's a Wikipedia article headed that, but alas Wikipedia is not always right. Can we bin that for a start, even though the Fisher&Lock book quoted below perpetuates it (I did query this with Oliver Lock and he replied he called it that because it seemed common parlance rather than anything documented.)

Going by the manufacturers labels we can see that the earliest production helmets were titled HELMET PARACHUTE LIGHT WEIGHT (these are usually from Thetford Moulded Products, but other manufacturers did small runs, and there were preliminary test runs before general issue from other makers), which becomes simply HELMET PARACHUTE with the later model (all (?) by National Plastics.) Some variant labels exist but these are the main ones.

There are distinct differences between the two - the obvious ones being mainly cosmetic - smooth shell becomes textured, shiny bolts with poor paint retention are displaced by bolts which hold the paint perfectly (or is the paint changed, or even replaced by a plastic coating - another query). The chinstraps also change (three times, from start to present, the earliest test-helmets had thin nylon straps similar to those seen on very early Mk6 helmets) but this is less of a time-bound feature as the straps could have been changed anytime by the actual users. There is also a difference in the way the liner is fitted - later models have two cords for fitting (and stopping the liner from turning itself inside-out), rather than the original one. And the earlier liners have a white leather browpad, changed the black later.

Then there are the invisible differences; there is a query about the idea that the earliest helmets were made of a simple fibre-glass compound with no protective qualities except as a bump-helmet for jumping. Is this in fact true (see below). Is the actual composition of the 'smooth' and 'textured' shells actually different? (See below for evidence that the early shells were not simple fibreglass.)

Have these helmet ever been referred to as Mk1 and Mk2?

The only in-print material worth looking at is in Fisher & Lock's BRITISH AIRBORNE HEADDRESS, which includes actual images of an original test document. The document is ARMY PERSONNEL RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT TRIAL REPORT No 38/75, which refers to TROOP TRIAL PARACHUTISTS HELMET Trial No 131/73. I am reasonably assuming that '75' and '73' are the years involved.

Anyway, in DESCRIPTION OF HELMET we have -

(a) SHELL. The ballistic shell is compression-moulded from resin impregnated nylon textile, giving ballistic protection similar to that provided by the steel helmet. It is shaped to the head, with sufficient breadth to allow the wearing of the infantry headset under the helmet. The shell is provided in three sizes.

I'll skip LINER and HEADBAND ASSEMBLY for the moment and go direct to

(d) CHINSTRAP A chinstrap with chincup and neckstrap, similar in design to the Airborne helmet, made in nylon webbing, is provided for jumping. As this chinstrap cannot be worn with a repirator an alternative elasticated chinstrap has been designed for use on the ground.

Section (d) is important because it and the accompanying photo from the file show we're looking at the earliest version, *before* what we know as the Thetford with the green vinyl straps. I hadn't properly grasped this previously but its clear from this that the shell was seen as 'ballistic' in the sense of having real protective qualities. This goes against some received wisdom which seems to have it that the HPLW is essentially a 'bump helmet' only. Or did things change later and the shell was no longer classed as genuinely ballistically protective. Why was wearing the Para helmet was officially discouraged on active service in recent years - because it was either less protective than the Mk6, or just because it ws The Rules?

Whatever, there are no further clues in Fisher&Lock. There is reference to later production helmets having a rougher finish with better paint-retention on the bolts, and the later more commonly seen cloth straps, but nothing as regards ballistic qualities. Interestingly there is a reference to later-production Thetford helmets having improved paint-retaining bolts - which perhaps shuts up people who claim that not all early Thetford helmets have shiny bolts, based on seeing later examples.

So, What's wrong, what's right, what are the facts?

[Composite]

in a vain attempt to re-vitalise this excellent thread.........I didn't notice on my first 3 readings of this about the strap switching concept.....so they jump, land, unweave their webbing straps and slip into something elastic?.......marvelous........ I suspect there weren't many Paras on that committee when that was discussed.......

...and secondly, re the ballistic-ness.....I think the judgement on that changes with time....in a lot of current Composites there's a LEVEL of ballistic-ness....it's even on some of the labels. I've not yet managed to establish when the grades of ballistic-ness (ballisticity?) came in.....but I'd wager it wasn't in the early '70s

[Greg Pickersgill]

in a vain attempt to re-vitalise this excellent thread.........I didn't notice on my first 3 readings of this about the strap switching concept.....so they jump, land, unweave their webbing straps and slip into something elastic?.......marvelous........ I suspect there weren't many Paras on that committee when that was discussed.......

...and secondly, re the ballistic-ness.....I think the judgement on that changes with time....in a lot of current Composites there's a LEVEL of ballistic-ness....it's even on some of the labels. I've not yet managed to establish when the grades of ballistic-ness (ballisticity?) came in.....but I'd wager it wasn't in the early '70s

Two good points, one of which need further investigation. The first one about exchanging the chinstrap (which had slipped by me too - I was concentrating too much on the actual form and composition of the strap) makes one wonder about other things, like personal comms - did the early test liners have the cork breakaway panels for headphone spaces that we see on all issue helmets?

And regarding the ballisticness (oh let's just coin a new word while we're struggling with facts), it seems quite possible that the test definitions have changed, so we might have a state in which the original shells were deemed 'ballistic protective' when they were adequate only as a shrapnel helmet in a similar way to the original Adrian, Brodie and Mk1, not seriously intended to deflect or protect from gunshots except at extreme range. Certainly the early 'shiny shells' (I've never seen anything earlier except in photos) seem light and frankly unconvincing. The later NP helmets are apparently sturdier, but what's their actual intended protective status?

This is all speculation, really - where are the facts? Not, so far, on any of the forums I've posted this query, even the ones on which actual end-user serving or ex paras post. I'm really disappointed by the lack or responses. Just think how different it would have been if the question was about camo, scrim or helmet covers.

[Greg Pickersgill]

I copytyped some more of that test report for Adrian/Composite, so I might as well post it here too. Parts (a) SHELL and (d) CHINSTRAP are in my initial posting above.


from - ARMY PERSONNEL RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT TRIAL REPORT No 38/75

TROOP TRIAL/PARACHUTIST HELMET Trial No. 139/73

(B) INNER. The impact liner is moulded from expanded polystyrene, of thicknesss 16mm. This material is a good absorbent of energy, but will be permanently damaged by impact, so that the inner must be replaced after an impact. Break-out sections are provided over the ears, so that full protection can be given during parachuting, but a headset can be worn on the ground. If the sections are removed, the inner must be replaced before jumping. Adhesive pads are fastened to the front and back of the inner; one or both of these may be removed to alter the fit, so that three fittings can be obtained from each shell size.

(C) HEADBAND ASSEMBLY. A cradle of plastic with a crown adjustment cord allows the height of the helmet to be altered. A headband of nylon material carries two thicknesses of foamed polyurethane comfort padding.

--


Something I just noticed is that the images of the report pages start with page 2, and the first paragraph on page 2 is numbered 4, so what useful knowledge might be on Page 1 in paras 1, 2, and 3, then? Why aren't they in the book?

Still disappointing results in terms of responses to all this; I have posted the same queries in three supposedly reliable forums and got nothing - one of them includes Oliver Lock as a member! I do have a few useful observations from one person, which I will compile and post later. For the sake of posterity if not immediate interest.

NB - the mention of the breakaway panels in the test report does answer one of my questions above. Should have picked up on that the first time.

[Composite]

'doing a great job here GP.......Stick with it my friend....we WILL crack this....there are literally two people who're interested in this....and with those numbers we can't fail :-)

[Jerry B]

If I had anything to add I would.

[Composite]

Sorry Jerry.....I didn’t mean to exclude you, James etc......it’s just bl**dy frustrating when between us we don’t know all the answers about “our watch” lids. But we WILL get there....

[Greg Pickersgill]

I dread to think this posting may only perpetuate misunderstandings and wrong information, but here goes anyway.

I've gathered together a few online things about the HPLW. There actually isn't much. The guys at WORLD WAR HELMETS might have had something good but they clearly don't have hands-on with any examples yet. The most extensive is from Joseba's wbsite, and I edited the translated text down quite a bit to highlight the important parts. This appears - note, 'appears' - to be the most authoritative but there's no indication at all where his information came from. It might just be the usual 'collector bollocks' derived from secondary or even tertiary sources which were based on rumour and guesswork in the first place. You can tell this is all annoying me, yeah? How can it be so hard to find out basic facts about this piece of equipment?

Anyway -

NP ARCHIVE (2009)

The Para helmet provides for the highest impact performance of any in-service helmet available today. Using NP's patented preforming technology, long term reliability is assured. Nato Codified.


ARRSEPEDIA (2011)

Introduced in the early 1980s to replace the HSAT that had changed little since WW2. Manufactured from glass fibre the helmet could be worn either with the GS nylon and PVC harness (as utilised on the Northern Ireland Combat Helmet), or be retrofitted with the old style webbing 'chin cup' harness.

Later marks of this helmet pattern are made from ballistic nylon which offers significantly more protection than the earlier lightweight variants - but still less than offered by the Mk.6 Combat Helmet.


WIKIPEDIA (2013/14)

The M76 Paratrooper helmet is a combat helmet of British origin issued to paratroopers and airborne forces of the British Army.

The M76 helmet has been issued since the Falklands war, replacing the World War II era Helmet Steel Airborne Troop.[1] The first variants were made from fibreglass, offering less protection than the Mk6 combat helmet. It also first came with vinyl/leather chinstraps; these were prone to wear, but later replaced with the previous but durable webbing chinstraps from the HSAT, which would later come in green webbing with a black leather chin pad. Later variants came with improved ballistic protection found on the Mk6 which are still in use today. The liner is made from polystyrene with cork ear sections, removable for installing earphones etc.



JOSEBA website (2014)

Helmet Paratrooper M76.

First production 1974. Distributed: 1976
Chinstrap - three-point fabric with leather chin guard.
Variant: Several pre-series.
Material: GRP ( Glass Reinforced Plastic )
Characteristics: Infrared coating.
Weight: 1470 gr.
Size: Three sizes: S, M, L.
Ballistics: Few ballistic properties (but higher than AT).
Color: Olive green (in the material).

The helmet known as M76 was identified for the first time in the conflict of Northern Ireland, used by the parachute patrols, it looked more like a riot helmet, often with a hinged methacrylate screen.
It was the first version of a fiberglass helmet, lightweight, of obvious comfort for the user and very effective against blows. It will be known as M67. This first version had a wide leatherette of synthetic leather in which the chinstrap was sewn with hook and fit buckle.
The need for a new helmet for the paratrooper troops lighter than the veteran AT, had encouraged to try new materials. A combination of reinforced glass fiber "GRP" ( Glass Reinforced Plastic ) was used. The first 500 helmets were manufactured in 1974 for a first evaluation of their possibilities, subjecting them to various tests in maneuvers and use and delivered to the 16th Parachute Brigade.
The manufacture of these helmets was entrusted to the companies: "National Plastics", "Thetford Moulded Products Ltd.", Mill Lane, Thetford and "Courtaulds", Essex, You can see some difference in the chinstraps supplied by each of these manufacturers, from the fabric with the leather chin guard to the leather, lighter, the second.
After some corrections the new helmet of parachutist was distributed in 1976 without being considered this version as definitive.
Considered more as a jump helmet than a combat helmet, compared to the previous steel AT, it could be approved for the intended function since it offered greater ballistic resistance (although the manufacturer "Thetford Moulded Products Ltd." indicates on its labeling: Helmet, Parachutists, Light Weight (Casco Paracaidistas, light).
The lot was not homogeneous since the delivery included at least three types of helmets that differed slightly in secondary elements.
The use of a helmet still in the study phase (cataloged semi-prototype) in such hard combats as those held in the Falkland Islands was a risky test, but it was definitive.
Semi-spherical, with greater protection under the neck, and clear visual area (although it does not allow the adaptation of gas mask) its simple and compact design gives it solidity and is reinforced with flange.
Three M67 types are recognized with few variants. British paratrooper helmet M76 of the first model. Its exterior finish is smooth.
In the beginning, the harnesses were the element that allowed to identify the different prototypes and manufacturers (the wide cheeks of green synthetic leather, with white interior of the former, became familiar). The first helmets, presented a smooth surface. Subsequently they would be endowed with a rough finish.
The final elimination of the cheek pieces "modernized" the image of the M76.
Inwardly it has not changed. A white plastic "cork" coating appears, varnished in black as a protection that gives it a certain consistency.
In the M67 outwardly three beveled screw heads with a groove for fixing the anchors of the harness stand out. Depending on the model, they can be painted (normally the metal has been visible with the use) or with a plastic layer of the color of the helmet in the most recent series.