The Great WW1 Helmet Mystery

Possibly you know this puzzle already, but if you don't, it is a good test of your understanding of statistics. There will be an opportunity to pause the video if you want to think about it for a while, and the answer given at the end.
www.LloydianAspects.co.uk

[@MartialLoreNZ]

"Men who had previously been killed were being wounded in the head." I'd say they had all made a miraculous recovery, in that case.

[@TheSecondVersion]

"Recorded car injuries rose after the introduction of the seatbelt."

[@colouredIncognito]

As did the amount of head injuries in boxing after boxing gloves where introduced

[@achilles872]

@@colouredIncognito That's a totally different reason though. Boxing gloves mean that hitting someone hard in the head doesn't hurt as much, so they did it more. Previously, a boxer going for a full strength punch would be nearly as likely to break his hand as he would be to knock his opponent out, so they wouldn't do it. Now they just go wild and punch at the head all the time. Before boxing gloves, there were no recorded deaths due to head injuries, but since then, there have been loads. Gloves made boxing infinitely more dangerous.

[@colouredIncognito]

@@achilles872 it was a joke..

[@stellakintara]

yep people went faster lol

[@catlikepizzagaming8280]

As did syphillis cases after condoms were introduced

[@lindybeige]

WW1 helmets were made dull in many ways too. Actually, the flat-topped cloth caps were easy to see because of their shape.

[@niyacer]

Wow

[@Thutil]

There was a similar story about US planes during WWII, where the engineers looked at the damage returning planes suffered and put extra armor on the areas that were typically damaged, the problem being that they only looked at the planes which managed to return.

[@nehcrum]

I've heard a similar one about the british, but one with it's own logic. They counted number of hits on planes and where they were hit most often, and then armored the parts that didn't get hit a lot. With the logic that if they were hit in those places, they tended not to come back.

[@101jir]

Maybe there was a statistical mishap as well, but I am under the impression that especially in the case of fighters, more armor ended up being a bad thing. High caliber rounds rendered a lot of armor that was light enough to put on planes (and accessible at the time) ineffective. Ultimately, more armor just meant that they couldn't maneuver as well. BnZ was common, but even then you need to bring guns on target somehow.

[@nehcrum]

101jir For my comment, that armor thing was about bombers, which had a little more weight to spare, depending on the power of engines and size of bomb-bays etc. For fighters, I think the only real armor that worked was an armor plate in the back of the pilots seat to try and protect the pilot himself, since it was easier and faster to build new planes than it was to train new pilots.

[@101jir]

Nehcrum And I suppose the bullet had already passed through a certain degree of metal to get there I suppose.

[@HitodamaKyrie]

101jir Indeed. From my knowledge using AP ammo against fighters therefore was usually not the best idea. You'd just lightly perforate the plane or if you're lucky, take out the engine or pilot. Better to use high explosive or incendiary to destroy the airframe. With bombers though, AP would probably be more useful, for the sake of ruining the engines.

[@stoutyyyy]

"Now remember, if ever you should falter, Captain Darling and I are behind you. About thirty-five miles behind you."

[@thomasmcewen5493]

Stephen M. Stouter Would you like cream and sugar with your coffee Sir?

[@ea.fitz216]

Thomas McEwen And some of those little chocolate shavings.

[@howardhamlin7386]

Stephen M. Stouter That’s blackadder, right?

[@tomtom21194]

Don't cook the messenger pigeon, it might get you in hot water

[@dulls8475]

It was a good joke but not entirely true.

[@PhilJonesIII]

My grandfather was one of those sitting in a trench when a playful German lobbed a grenade that lodged itself under the duck-board my grandad was sitting on ( or standing, I never found out ). The blast threw him out of the trench and he landed, somewhat winded, in no-man's-land. The Germans, presumably annoyed he didn't pay for the free ride, started shooting at him. One of the bullets took his eyebrow before he was cogent enough to scramble back in to the trench. Losing an eyebrow wasn't enough to get you sent home ( nor was losing your two brothers ) so with what passed for a band-aid back then, he continued active service. He was later victim of a gas-attack though not sure which side the gas belonged to. The damage to his lungs would eventually kill him about 30 years later. Then again he was a chain smoker and serious drinker. Only one photo of him and his eyebrow is definitely missing.

[@yellowfolder]

- aring of his survival, they threw a second grenade and it bounced of grandfather's noggin, knocking him unconscious, and as he fell, his legs shot up into the air, with his boot striking the rebounding grenade, propelling it right back at the Germans, blowing them to smithereens. Grandfather had many interesting accounts of the war.

[@apropercuppa8612]

I'd be a chain smoker and a heavy drinker after all that, too.

[@PilotAwe]

I wish to see this picture

[@NotTheCIA1961]

I'd also like to see the picture, if you have it.

[@WozWozEre]

Assuming you're not joking, but that's nonsense. A grenade contains nowhere near enough explosive to propell a human out of a trench, and even if it did the blast would have killed him.

[@magnvss]

That's why they said that there are two main ways of deception: lies and statistics.

[@scotty3739]

and for combining both, we call this, "politics"

[@ponymalone3636]

Or improperly explained statistics I suppose

[@TheRealE.B.]

Didn't they make the same mistake again when armoring planes in WWII? They tried armoring the places that returning planes were most commonly damaged... except that those were the planes that were RETURNING, not the ones that had been shot down entirely.

[@JonathanHilierChannel]

I have heard about that, however I would not say the mistake was the same.

[@sarahd2623]

+leadfoot9x I think the opposite happened actually, but I'm not sure. They armored the parts that weren't damaged because clearly those parts were needed to fly the plane :D

[@sarahd2623]

+leadfoot9x I think the opposite happened actually, but I'm not sure. They armored the parts that weren't damaged because clearly those parts were needed to fly the plane :D

[@neilwilson5785]

They examined the planes that came back. If you (!) examine the planes that don't come back, you see that you need to ptotect the engines. If you examine the palnes that returned, you get the wrong answer.

[@radiofrog]

That's what they ended up doing after making the mistake of armoring the areas which were damaged on the returning planes. Interesting how statistics work.

[@darkblood626]

I get to sit here feeling all smug now, thanks for that

[@Drewbiesauce]

This is like one of those riddles you tell at a party or campfire. Gotta love survivor bias!

[@DaneStolthed]

I love the imitation of high command, you Brits crack me up!

[@Lievcocijo]

Great Scott!

[@greernelson7419]

By jove!

[@gordongate]

Not entirely an inaccurate portrayal of the high command during ww1.

[@macnutz4206]

I love how people from Britain can laugh at themselves. Something I believe Americans should be better at. There are many advantages to it. It certainly is an aid to objectivity.

[@Babalooza]

I want to watch black adder now

[@Danox94]

I know about rotations, but pointless attempts at gaining grounds are not a myth

[@falcons1988]

Over the course of the Battle of the Somme 1.2million soldiers, on both sides, were killed. The Allied army advanced seven miles. Seven miles, the equivalent of going along the coast from Dover to Folkestone, 1.2million dead over 4 months.... My great-great grandfather was killed in the 2nd Battle of Artois, June 1915, it was one of those futile attempts to take ground. The preceding battle, Aubers Ridge, the casualty ratio was 10:1. The British advanced in to hail of machine gun fire. 10000 British, 1000 germans.

[@TheModernHermeticist]

codpiece made of metal

[@jmalmsten]

I still feel sorry for the poor ostrich... :(

[@a_random_orthodox_Christian]

Same

[@lindybeige]

I could be wrong about the five to one, but it was a huge rise. Imagine in a month 1000 dead, 50 head wounds, 40 other wounds listed. Next month, 800 dead, 250 head wounds, 40 other wounds.

[@SenorCrazylegs]

This is very similar to "hate crime" statistics. You're constantly told they're 'on the rise' by people who are content to base their whole argument on the numbers alone without further analysis. What they never consider is the fact that the government only recently legislated the topic, societal tolerance to potential incidents are lower year on year, and they are much more aware of it now. All of these produce a numeric rise over time, when in fact it's extremely likely the number is much lower than a few decades ago, and probably decreasing in relative terms.

[@georgiishmakov9588]

*laughs in Jussie Smolett*

[@MrSilvUr]

Guess: The helmets were turning would-be lethal head wounds into survivable injuries.

[@mohammadwaled409]

Have some cookies

[@MrSilvUr]

@@mohammadwaled409 Thanks!

[@panzerlieb]

No one said they were perfect. But, they were better than nothing. The helmets used now are much better, but they’re still not perfect.

[@koryfredrick1164]

Well, defined perfect No helmet can ever protect you from everything you‘re likely to encounter on the battlefield, but they have become substantially better, especially the suspension

[@sebastianbardon391]

@@koryfredrick1164 Perfect would be the woodpecker cranium. I want my helmet like that.

[@TheReaverOfDarkness]

Another thing people miss is that while in several cases, wearing armor may not confer any protection due to increased risk-taking, it still confers improved mission performance, due to putting more attention on mission specifics over defense protocols.

[@trond3trond]

This reminds me a bit of what Abraham Wald concluded in WW2 (from Wikipedia): Wald applied his statistical skills in World War II to the problem of bomber losses to enemy fire. A study had been made of the damage to returning aircraft and it had been proposed that armor be added to those areas that showed the most damage. Wald's unique insight was that the holes from flak and bullets on the bombers that did return represented the areas where they were able to take damage. The data showed that there were similar patches on each returning bomber where there was no damage from enemy fire, leading Wald to conclude that these patches were the weak spots that led to the loss of a plane if hit, and that must be reinforced.

[@nhmooytis7058]

You are flat out hilarious. I don’t think you’re quite all there-you seem a bit like a Monty Python character-but your vids are lots of fun to watch!

[@ericluken1]

i thought if someone died from a head injury it would still be listed as head wound

[@johnsteve9777]

I suppose that the category of 'Head wound', or 'wounded' in general insinuates that the soldier injured was indeed still alive

[@CalicoThat]

I believe that would be fatal head wound or fatal head injury

[@TheAdronio]

But they did not.

[@patricknakasone9376]

To most of the high command dead was dead what did it really ,matter how a man died. They where only really concerned that the men where getting killed in their trenches rather then attacking across no mans land against the enemy held trenches.

[@philip1201]

People who are obviously dead (from a headwound or other means) might not often have been brought to a field hospital for proper tabulation. Millions of corpses of WW1 soldiers were never recovered, but buried hastily in the sides of trenches, or left in no man's land to rot, or thrown into mass graves. I could even imagine orders against wasting your time dragging a corpse all the way from the front lines to a field hospital because of the manpower costs and chance it offers people to leave the front.

[@Wild_Bill57]

This is actually one of my favorite logic/statistics puzzles.

[@lindybeige]

I know, I'm struggling. It's a bit warm to dance in.

[@PaulRudd1941]

You should make more stuff like this these days sir. Am I missing out on a patreon?

[@lindybeige]

@@PaulRudd1941 Right oh. I don't understand your question, though.

[@braveheart4603]

I assumed that when you said head wounds increased that that would include the death rate from head wounds also, I didn't realize that you simply meant that the introduction of helmets caused a five fold increase in head wounds survivors only or that would've been pretty obvious as to why. lol, if you can't tell I got it wrong so this is my excuse and i'm sticking to it.

[@likliklik9515]

Must have watched this video 50 times in my life. Favourite video of all time - no holds bared. Perfect.

[@Spectacular_Insanity]

Well, looks like a casualty is still a casualty, but at least a lot of good came of those battle bowlers. (A lovely name. I will be using that from now on.)

[@MrEsphoenix]

"John, pop your head over the side and see what the Germans are up to!" "Well normally I'd have refused, but now I have one of these here head shields, I suppose I'm safe to stick my head over"

[@lindybeige]

I was going to use the tern 'VT fuses' but didn't. Yes, there may have been some airbursts, but typically WW1 shells hit the ground first and then went bang.

[@Uknow_imright]

I have been watching your videos, for a while now. I always feel smarter at the end of each one. Just subscribed. Please keep the fun facts coming.

[@TheColonelKlink]

These helmets were around longer than you might think. I was quite surprised when I was issued an old style British helmet like the one in the video with my kit when I joined the Canadian military reserves in 1972. However, within a month or two we militia types (being at the bottom of the food chain, so to speak) finally got our updated battle dress with the American style helmets and all felt very modern and up to date.

[@squirrelfishfrog]

I got the thing with the injuries going up, not straight away, but when you mentioned statistics. I would have expected casualties to appear as 'fatal head injuries' though and thuslywise be accounted for. So, i think it's bold to announce the thing as an intelligence test.....

[@Poldovico]

I would have never gotten it right, because I assumed they were recording the cause of death, and not just "dead". So the dead by head injury would have figured in the statistics.

[@antocnl8345]

Poldovico haha I thought exactly the same, for me it was obvious that head injuries " included "the ones that led to death". It seems illogical to record separatly non letal head injuries and letal ones. Imho ^^ Maybe my lack of skills in english took a part too x)

[@KarstenOkk]

Poldovico Yeah that's an error I guess. They should have just noted of what cause they died.

[@Zajin13]

Poldovico Imagine you are to write a statistic of the most devastating war since Napoleon, everyday hundreds of men die. You would a) not have the time to write down every cause of death (given that it was sometimes hard to guess when someone lost 2 legs, had a stabwound and blood out of his ear etc.) and b) what good was it to write down the cause of death, wouldn't revive him, would it? xD

[@Poldovico]

Zajin13 No, but it would help the guys over in R&D protect the ones who still lived, for instance by giving them helmets.

[@KarstenOkk]

Poldovico Exactly. Not sure what Zajin is talking about. Confirming reports on causes of death is *extremely* important, especially in the most devastating war since Napoleon's time.

[@derek-press]

my first thought when you asked was "I am now invincible therefore I can put myself MORE in danger" but your explanation was quite a surprise, very interesting TY

[@6022]

I'd heard a similar story about a study of where to add armour plating to WWII planes. They studied the bullet holes in their planes and found the holes were predominantly on the wings, and least commonly found near the engine. The reason was that the planes that had been hit in the engine never returned, so they armoured the areas with fewest recorded bullet holes.

[@jeffreyplum5259]

It seems these helmets were more like construction hard hats than what poeople think of as Armor. They intercepted stuff on the way to your skull, rather than creating a truly bulletproof shelter for your head. It could not stop the bullet with your name on it, but it did stop junk labelled "to whom it may concern. " It proved, " good enough for government work. "

[@spacecadet35]

These helmets were never meant to be "Bullet" Proof, they were meant to be "Splinter" proof. Most casualties were from the artillery and these helmets were to protect from overhead shell bursts, hence the wide brim.

[@nehcrum]

spacecadet35 That still holds true. Helmets aren't capable of stopping full powered rifle rounds, they would be too heavy to wear if they had that capability. They are meant to stop shrapnel, since shrapnel is actually the biggest killers on the battlefield. Those that caused the most injuries among enemies weren't infantry or armored personell, but the guys manning the big guns in the rear.

[@tn_bluestem]

Even modern kevlar and composite helmets are hardly bulletproof. You're a lucky man to survive if your helmet stops one. They're still more for blunt trauma and shrapnel protection than rifle fire. The force of a rifle bullet is still enough to kill you instantly even if the helmet stops the bullet.

[@jamesforgie6594]

Modern military grade helmets will stop a small caliber pistol round, but even that leaves a giant dent and presumably gives the wearer a near terminal headache. Even the best body armour won’t stop a decent sized rifle bullet, never mind what a sniper rifle or a 50 cal would do to you. If a 50 cal will punch through steel plate, Kevlar doesn’t stand a chance. But most of you probably already knew that.

[@GunShocka]

James Forgie true their is that video of a soldier in the Middle East who got shot in his helmet by a sniper and he got lucky cause the Kevlar changed the direction of the bullet on entry it ricocheted of the metal inside and out the other end. But that was more of a lucky graze than it taking the tip of the bullet where the most energy it’s head on

[@Gkitchens1]

Why do I think the number of head wounds went up? Because the helmets game a false sense of security and people started poking their heads up out of the trenches. Let's see if I'm right. I was wrong.

[@akriegguardsman]

Apparently it did happen but only a small amount and they'd die

[@lindybeige]

I didn't say that they died. I said that they were listed in hospital records as 'head wound'. If you are dead, you are not wounded. You have to be alive to be wounded.

[@fixitfeilix5051]

I knew the correct reason because I remembered a story. The story talked about airplanes, they wanted to make their planes better, and so they looked at the ones that survived the fights. People saw that certain parts on the planes were damaged, so they tried armoring those better. In reality, the planes they were looking at were survivors, so the pieces that were unharmed were the ones vital and the ones that needed better protection.

[@stevebrownrocks6376]

The Brodie was designed more as a defense from air-burst shrapnel from artillery. they (like all other helmets), Wouldn't stop a rifle bullet.

[@alexbowman7582]

Modern helmets like the American Mich will stop rifle bullets.

[@edwhatshisname3562]

@@alexbowman7582 Yes they stop the bullet but not the force the bullet imparts, that passes on into the soldier's head.

[@0623kaboom]

no they wouldnt but the chance of a ricochet did increase as well ... beats losing a section of your skull

[@raimundoalaniz4111]

I think you may only be half right. When seatbelts were introduced, people drove faster...

[@zachary4670]

Yeah , but it only takes one or two of your buddies having their heads shot off before everyone else in the trench gets wise.

[@blackie5566]

Thank you sir, loved your explanation and that great sense of humour. Top notch!!!

[@LoreAccurateHusky]

I feel proud of myself that I was able to figure out the answer during the given break to think about it. That's honestly a really cool kind of statistics based riddle and I might need to use that from time to time.

[@MaverickCulp]

I don't completely disagree with that little comment at the end about the generals not being safe in the back, however they were usually not in danger in the front (that would be Colonials, Majors, Captains, and all the other sub-ranks that go with them). Instead they were most just careless and killed be well placed German artillery or good snipers.

[@modemanslutning]

"But fortunately, wiser heads prevailed." XD

[@dooglemcdoogle4062]

Thank you for this very informative short video. Very interesting

[@7Cherubim]

That was really fascinating. Thankyou.

[@joekurtz6587]

Did you all knew that these helmets could be used as a soup bowl in case of early retirement?

[@mh1ultramarine]

+Paul Alvarez I would put money on them being used as soup bowls in action at some point

[@Fawkes42]

+Michael Hughes I'd put money on them being in the soup at some point. Well, at least the chin straps

[@laszu7137]

Best one for that is american M1. One the other hand the very worst one (of those I tried) is east german helmet.

[@michaelcrockis7679]

Actually, helmets in all armies during WW1 and especially WW2 were widely used as pots for bringing water and in extreme cases to prepare a food. Especially in WW2, due to its mobile nature hence very frequent troubles with supplies. So the situations when the mobile kitchen is lost, some individual pots of soldiers are lost, and guys have to fix their meal only with what contraptions they got were not as uncommon as it might seem.

[@fabiogalletti528]

in WWII the british Mk4 helmet had the harness connected to the helmet by a single snap-and-plug, so it easily used as container/bowl. US M1 helmet are in two parts: the steel pot and a fiber liner with webbings. The steel part was just an empty pot with chinstrap. Using the pot as bowl for washing was common. Actually, cooking in an helmet was forbitten because steel would loose the hardening if put on a fire. But none really gave a damn.

[@lindybeige]

The usual cited reason was that up-blast from a bomb could break your neck. No, troops were ordered to use chin straps. If you don't use one, helmets fall off all the time.

[@lindybeige]

Curses! You are right. I shall just hope that few will notice, and those that do will be understanding.

[@pleeeeep]

Please please please please make more videos like this, about historical arms and armor. They answer alot of questions i have.

[@mr.ramixhardbass3331]

I thought the answer was: brit soldier- HEY WE GOT HELMETS NOW WE ARE BULLETPROOF! *puts head over parapet, gets shot, dies*

[@xxportalxx.]

Huh, and here my initial thought was "The damn idiots must be hitting each other on the head!" Ha

[@KadzarTathram]

I realized it pretty quick, but I think it's because I've heard this one before. Still nice of you to point point it out for those who haven't.

[@Akula114]

Very good! Not a bad performance at all, I say. Quite good, actually. Have you done or considered doing a video about your channel, how and why you produce your videos? I always enjoy them tremendously.

[@connorbarnes8697]

I’m embarrassed that I thought it was for the reason that the fictional commander thought was happening.

[@shoominati23]

This guy reminds me of one of the presenters off Play School. Only he points guns at you!

[@JimRiven]

For a children's entertainer in 1970s Britain, a gun might have been one of the better things they had pointing at you.

[@Yan00004]

Jim Riven Its bad i know, but i laughed my ass off.

[@3vimages471]

Another fact along the same lines..... once men were issued with helmets, the percentage of men dying from head wounds dramatically increased ..... that is because the helmet prevented most attacks that would have left survivable wounds. Any projectile that had force enough to penetrate the helmet usually led to the death of the wearer.

[@JH-xf3zr]

Damn do I love this channel

[@s071john2]

Typing this as the video is paused before the end: I am assuming that injuries became more prevalent because more people were surviving what would have previously been a fatal injury.

[@fuckgoogleanditscrap2941]

Head/wounds/, not deaths...they actually survived.

[@lindybeige]

Muskets came in and helmets are not much use against them. Men stood in the open to fight. Helmets came back with artillery and trenches.

[@CarbonKnights]

I love the Brodie helmet, it's such an iconic look for British (and Commonwealth, I'm Canadian) troops. I've never heard of it called the Battle Bowler before though, but I think I'm going to start using it!

[@strelokstalker737]

I've heard people make the same argument against motorcycle helmets.

[@captainoblivious_yt]

The helmets were also sometimes called "Doughboy helmets", especially when worn by americans.

[@ghostfella]

Your videos are so addicting

[@BrianS1981]

I'm sure there were a couple of instances where people did get cocky with the new helmets and exposed themselves to unnecessary danger. But that wouldn't have pushed the numbers hard in any direction.

[@magila1]

Yessss I got it!

[@freddyduran2555]

The amount of head wounds recorded probably went up because people weren't dieing anymore they were just getting injured.

[@freddyduran2555]

aced it

[@djprosser2010]

It never ceases to amaze me that the Brodie won a competition. How could it have been possible for the other ones to offer less neck, and ear protection? The German one is better. Ditto for the US WWII one, and the Russian one. Glad I never had to wear one.

[@DR-mk2in]

it was a simple quick cheap and easy to make design that worked and was strong

[@djprosser2010]

+devin roubsouay Yes, that makes sense. governments usually buy from the cheapest tenderer.

[@frankjocle7697]

+David Prosser You always have a myriad of things to take into consideration with helmet design. Examples are the wearing of headsets while wearing the helmet. Weight, metal thicknes, comfort, reduction of hearing ability, suction and friction etc. during concussive exposure, chin strap comfort and danger during concussion ( example being a quick release was designed for US M1 helmets because a near-by explosion could create enough force to take your head off if the chin strap was done up and did not properly separate.) Areas of protection and ease of production and supply. The Brodie was mainly a helmet to protect you from falling debris and to give your eyes shade and your neck protection from the rain. It was not to protect you from bullets, shrapnel or shell splinters. That is a myth.

[@djprosser2010]

+Frank Jocle You're right of course. I'm still glad I never had to be an infantryman.

[@tommeakin1732]

+David Prosser I always understood it to be designed to protect from anything coming from above. If you looked at these different helmets from a birds-eye view the British one would protect most of the body

[@aebirkbeck2693]

Another reason was when a blast was close enough the shock wave kicked the larger area of the helmet forced the head back either snapping or at least causing injury to the neck so when you look at some old photographs you see the men wearing their helmets with the chin strap behind their head to hold the helmet in place rather than under the chin to prevent damage to the neck.

[@twistedhelixbiker]

Trick question. We don't have the hospital logs, and at no point did the man here state how those logs were made, or that deaths and headwounds came from clumps of dirt but instead mentioned guns. I was also in the camp of "aha my new helmet will protect me" so placebo safety conscious. We weren't given the numbers or facts so it's a little difficult to say one is bad at statistics when only given a tiny misleading portion of the data.

[@hawkeyepierce9794]

I agree and not just because I got it wrong (I thought it was because more troops were being sent into battle).

[@dooleyfussle8634]

I had a similar reaction, based on the increase in accidents in taxicabs after the addition of anti-skid brakes: drivers just increased their speed in slippery conditions, thinking they were safe.

[@brianjonker510]

I jumped at two guesses. One the helmets increased visibility or lead to more concussions because bad design/larger area

[@intrepid35sweden]

That riddle was so misleading. You start by mentioning death along with records of head wounds and then you said, again, that >head wounds< hade been increased five-fold. Since you previously mentioned it in the context of death(it was these that was reported on dead bodies) it is reasonable to assumen you mean dead people. tl;dr You link casualties to head wounds and then you ask why the number of head wounds increased after the helmet was introduced.

[@sauron1427]

+intrepid35sweden yeah, I did think of the right answer but until he he said it I was unsure because of that. Oh well, I'm sure it was unintentional.

[@extrememark13]

+intrepid35sweden I thought the same. But then I search for "casualties" as a military term in wiki and I've seen that it means "dead,wounded,ill,captured and even soldiers who have deserted". So it seems that the key here is to understand the term and think as casualties, soldiers who become unable to fight.

[@intrepid35sweden]

extrememark13 Well, that makes more sense if casualty mean that :D

[@countchocula2169]

I found someone who got it wrong...

[@tomewyrmdraconus837]

That's the thing, when you're dealing with any highly regimented/logical field, word choice matters a LOT. That standard inference of natural language is detrimental to comprehending a logically constructed sub-language. Think computer code or legalese, the same kind of thing happens with statistics and other forms of math. That he didn't say casualties the second time is what tipped me off to the solution.

[@jowabro]

Kind of threw us off with that opening bit about all the head wounds that were being recorded before helmets were issued, before telling us that they didn't record deaths as "head wounds." So that suggests that the number of survivors with "head wounds" went up 5x. But that's not what happened?

[@MrMartibobs]

loved this! Thank you so much.

[@SamSam-wx4rf]

The Germans started the war with Helmuts.... Sorry, I'll get my coat.

[@TheRhinehart86]

WW1 generals were mostly classically educated, aristocratic cowards. 78 generals KIA is nothing, Napoleon lost scores of generals in the 1812 invasion alone, the Arc De Triomphe lists nearly 600 generals killed over a period of around 15 years. That's nearly ten times as many generals over a period that's only three times as long and fought with less lethal weaponry, meaning that British generals were so far away from the action that even artillery couldn't reach them from miles away whereas Napoleon's generals were often right at the front or leading charges in person. Same in WW2, Germany and Russia lost hundreds of generals throughout the war.

[@thenoobfactor]

Its not actually possible to lead a 20th or 21st century army from the front. In the napolionic wars each officer had his men in neat blocks, and the whole army was usually within eyesight. Now look at the massive area even a division or regiment in WW1 or WW2 occupied. A commander of anything bigger than a company HAD to be back looking at maps, and could only occasionaly go up to the front when he wasnt needed.

[@nehcrum]

The Hanged Man WWI also had something entirely new, namely a war between industrialized nations, where resources and men suddenly became almost limitless. No longer could you defeat an enemy simply by defeating his army, because there were more people to recruit and they could set up new armies. You couldn't break an enemy in the same way you used to, armies were no longer limited by how many men they could recruit but by how many they could supply in an area for an extended period of time. Meaning they could just continually send fresh reinforcements to replace losses.

[@TheRhinehart86]

***** I'm not necessarily saying its the sign of a good general to go and get killed on the front lines, but at the same time generals of the WW1 era in particular were a certain kind of officer. In the Napoleonic period generals were aristocrats but they still had to be brave and close to the front for communication purposes if nothing else. The WW1 generals were all still largely aristocrats but most of them had never seen action before owing to the long peace following the Concert of Europe and their education had consisted largely of reading Thucydides and the campaigns of Alexander the Great. To them the military was little more than a social ladder. You could see the difference in the WW2 generals, most of them were veterans of WW1, had risen up due to merit and were often as close as possible to the front lines keeping track of things for themselves and winning the respect of their troops. Also it was harder for them to hide behind the lines thanks to air-power and mechanized combat.

[@AbelMcTalisker]

Ah well, statisically in a typical army there are fewer generals than there are enlisted men (or most of them anyway!) so in terms of numbers fewer get killed. Also in Napoleonic times Generals tended to sit at the side of battles on horseback, usually on tops of conveniant hills while watching what was going on through telescopes. Using runners or mounted couriers to tell their subordinates what to do. Napoleon himself was NEVER at the front line leading a charge. By WWI battles were much bigger and the only reliable way to communicate over the sort of distances that were normal was by telephone, radio`s being unreliable and difficult to transport. Radios small enough to fit in a motor vehicle or aircraft did exist but these were Long Wave (big arial),spark (morse code) transmit only types. This meant that the commanders HAD to be some distance away from the front line and close to a telephone exchange in order to send and recieve orders, trouble was once any offensive started individual units were having to rely on signal flags, carrier pigeons or runners to communicate back or forwards from where the phone lines ended so there always was a communications lag for any attacks (usually the Allied forces!). Leading from the front has always looked heroic in stories but in practice its been just a dumb move for any senior commander in warfare at any time in history. It means that all he can see of the battlefield is what is in front of him so he dosn`t know what`s going on elsewhere and puts him at risk of being killed by any individual enemy soldier.

[@Gronk200]

TheRhinehart86 Hardly. Most generals in WW2 were aristocrats or drawn from the elite of society. Most of them did not fight 'as close as possible to the front lines' but were as far back or even further than the so-called 'chateau' generals of WW1. Also many of the generals in WW1 had fought before. There was no 'long peace' after the Congress of Vienna. To list some examples: Franco-Prussian War, the Wars of German Unification, the 'little' wars of empire and the Crimean War. So many generals had the chance to participate in a war at a junior level.

[@CoffeeGoblyn]

It's interesting - my first though was that the metal helmets were heating up and causing heatstroke (hence the injuries). Your explanation actually took me by surprise, but it made sense.

[@gaybear]

I am so glad I wasn't the only one having Blackadder flashbacks! :D

[@Seallussus]

A while ago I read something like that with ww2 american fighters, they wanted to better armor the fighters and though of armoring the places which got hot the most. however, some one told them they got it all wrong, and that since those areas got more damaged yet the fighters returned home there was no need to reinforce them and they should instead reinforce the areas of fighters that did not come home or otherwise did not function after taken damages in those areas since they are more sensitive and their current armor did not protect them enough.

[@henrikhilskov]

Sorry but that give no sense. If part of the story is correct the idea must had been "we need to protect planes better so from what distance will we accept a FLAK grenate to fragment and not be able to damage a plane so much that it will go donw."

[@extragirth64]

I did not get it right. :(

[@lindybeige]

The cloth caps they wore before had flat tops, which were easier to spot than a bare head.

[@Hibernicus1968]

This reminds me a lot of the study done by the US army air force in WWII about improving armor on bombers. Bombers that returned were examined, and the first reaction was to put additional armor on the damaged areas. Then people who actually understood the problem told the people in charge to put additional armor on the areas that _weren not_ full of bullet and shell holes. They understood that even though these bombers were heavily damaged in these areas, _they were still making it back._ The bombers that were getting shot down were obviously taking damage in the areas that the returning bombers _didn't_ have it.

[@karlish8799]

Battle bowler. That's genius.

[@BoMwarriorVlog]

"WuFlu reports increased after more tests were introduced."

[@hiimryan2388]

Wuflu really mate?

[@BoMwarriorVlog]

@@hiimryan2388 I didn't make up the term. 🤷 Neither did I "Swine flu", "Bird flu", or "Spanish flu". 🙄

[@LudwigSpiegel]

Very interesting video! Thanks for uploading it.

[@lindybeige]

No, it implies nothing about the ratio to deaths. Also, presumably the helmets also saved men from being listed as casualties at all, and those men wouldn't show up in hospital records either.

[@ericanderson4801]

Why? Because once they introduced helmets the brass began paying attention to the stats.

[@thomasmcewen5493]

They added safety belts in cars, so the drivers felt safer so they drove faster.

[@kentknightofcaelin4537]

A speed limit exists for a reason

[@GiDD504]

2021 and just now getting the recommended. Thanks KZbin.

[@jacobandrews2696]

nice, got your little riddle right. I'll have to share that one with the family.

[@D4l4m4r]

This reminds me a lot of how the invention of insulin production led to a drastic increase in people with diabetes :D

[@thomasmcewen5493]

D4l4m4r remember millions of men were shipped to Europe got VD, so the cause is clearly shipping them to Europe, liberty ships were breeding grounds for sexual maniacs.

[@bakunicorn]

you should make a video about lightsaber combat...

[@Erick_Bloodaxe]

Loved your point about the stats. I have worked in conflict zones with statistics and stupid things like that frightfully often will go over the heads of the commanders until someone sits down and explains it to them. That's not a knock against them necessarily, they aren't analysts after all. Statistics, without the proper context, can tell the wrong story even if they seem to convey an obvious truth.

[@lindybeige]

The head in all periods tends to get armoured first, yes.

[@0623kaboom]

armoured no ... protected and defended yes ... BIG difference .. churchill spent his time in his suit ... and in bunkers ... no armour ... heck Monty spent his time in a tank ... so LOADS of armour ... ok crap armour against a tiger but still armour

[@DavidKFZ]

nailed it

[@paulliu8502]

Aha, the survivor bias. Something similar happened in WWII with British planes.

[@henrikhilskov]

maybe but the versions of that story that had been mentioned before you comment give no sence.

[@2serveand2protect]

INTERESTING! Thank You.

[@xXJarvACEXx]

Glad to see a RE Capt's No 10 (Mess) Dress feature...

[@fabian1939]

*videopaused* the numbers increased because soldiers that died weren't listed in the "wounds" statistic. The helmet saved many soldiers lives but they still were wounded (just not fatally). *videostart*

[@fabian1939]

Yeah!

[@fds7476]

Show-off...

[@GeneralGiffel]

Gay

[@Boomeus]

Okay, I"m at 1:37, and I'm gonna say BECAUSE THEY LIVED

[@Boomeus]

+Boomeus I was right, I suppose, but the bit about falling debris wasn't what I expected. I was thinking a headshot without a helmet is pretty well a killshot, but the helmet just makes that a very-unpleasant-shot.

[@oso2400]

+Boomeus A bullet to the helmet would _probably_ still kill you, but I guess it depends on the thickness of the helmet. Armour during the world wars was generally for shrapnel because they hadn't developed kevlar yet.

[@CountArtha]

+Daemon Blackfyre Bullets pass through kevlar helmets too. It's for shrapnel protection, but also for ordinary head protection like a bicycle helmet would give you. When your job involves vaulting over walls and dashing out the back of a steel APC with no headroom, the confidence a helmet gives you is extremely important.

[@lindybeige]

Ceremonial. They were not serious weapons. I doubt they scared anyone much, and they may have given away the positions of many Germans. They made them look good on the parade ground and in open battle, but were unsuited to trench warfare, and the Germans got rid of them.

[@charjl96]

I would love to see more videos on WW1