Enhancing Ballistic Helmet Protection for Military and Law Enforcement: Analyzing War Injury Patterns and Modern Helmet Solutions
Enhancing Ballistic Helmet Protection for Military and Law Enforcement: Analyzing War Injury Patterns and Modern Helmet Solutions
In both military and law enforcement, understanding the patterns of injuries sustained during combat and confrontations is crucial for improving the design and effectiveness of personal protective equipment. This blog post summarizes key findings from various studies on the anatomical distribution of war injuries and discusses how modern helmet solutions, particularly those addressing frontal impacts and backface deformation, can enhance safety for personnel in the field.
We’ve analyzed publicly-available data from recovered helmets and casualty analyses. What we’ve found is that, in both police and military scenarios, the front of the helmet is significantly more likely to be struck by a bullet impact than any other location on the helmet. In fact, it’s more likely to be struck than all other locations combined.
Lebanon War (1982): Accurate Anatomical Distribution of War Injuries
Analysis of 405 penetrating injuries in 164 Israeli Army fatalities.
94.4% of bullet wounds were to the front of the body.
72.4% of head injuries were over the frontal bones.
Suggested enhancing frontal helmet protection to reduce fatal hits.
Operation Defensive Shield (2002): Influence of Personal Armor
Analysis of 30 Israeli Army combat fatalities.
Anterior injuries significantly more prevalent than posterior ones.
All bullet wounds to the head were anterior, predominantly over the frontal bone of the skull.
90% of face and neck wounds were anterior.
Counter-Terror Operations (2000-2009): Anatomic Distribution of Bullet Head Injuries
Analysis of Israeli Army fatalities.
76 gunshot entry wounds to the heads of 49 soldiers.
Anterior/temporal and occipital regions of the skull suffered approximately 50% of all injuries.
Parietal region of the skull had a low incidence of injury.
Lebanon War (1982): Accurate Anatomical Distribution of War Injuries
Analysis of 405 penetrating injuries in 164 Israeli Army fatalities.
94.4% of bullet wounds were to the front of the body.
72.4% of head injuries were over the frontal bones.
Suggested enhancing frontal helmet protection to reduce fatal hits.
Operation Defensive Shield (2002): Influence of Personal Armor
Analysis of 30 Israeli Army combat fatalities.
Anterior injuries significantly more prevalent than posterior ones.
All bullet wounds to the head were anterior, predominantly over the frontal bone of the skull.
90% of face and neck wounds were anterior.
Counter-Terror Operations (2000-2009): Anatomic Distribution of Bullet Head Injuries
Analysis of Israeli Army fatalities.
76 gunshot entry wounds to the heads of 49 soldiers.
Anterior/temporal and occipital regions of the skull suffered approximately 50% of all injuries.
Parietal region of the skull had a low incidence of injury.
Somalia (1993): US Army Rangers' Combat Casualties
Analysis of Ranger casualties during urban combat in Mogadishu.
36% of battlefield deaths were due to gunshot wounds to the head, primarily frontal or frontal oblique.
Only 14% of fatalities were from penetrating chest injuries, highlighting the protective effect of ceramic body armor.
Iraq and Afghanistan (2006-2007): UK Service Personnel Mortality
Analysis of UK military deaths.
Head wounds accounted for 42% of deaths due to hostile action.
Suggested enhancing personal protection based on the injury patterns observed.
British Military (2003-2009): Craniofacial and Cervical Injuries
Analysis of 448 casualties.
Head injuries were the most fatal, despite being outnumbered by face and neck injuries.
Emphasized the need for improved protection of the anterior head, face, and neck.
Operation Iraqi Freedom (2007): US Brigade Combat Team Injuries
Analysis of injuries sustained during the Iraq War troop surge.
Significant increase in head and neck injuries (36.2%) compared to historical data.
Head injuries expected to be even more prominent if fatalities were included.
An inquiry into the nature of wounds resulting in killed in action in Vietnam
An analysis of 988 Marine deaths in the Vietnam War.
Although the head and face accounts for only 9% of the exposed body, wounds to these areas resulted in 39% of the combat deaths studied.
“A large proportion of these casualties were fully and properly clothed in protective armor, yet the small vulnerable parts of the face and neck were hit.
Most of the missiles entered anteriorly.”
Somalia (1993): US Army Rangers' Combat Casualties
Analysis of Ranger casualties during urban combat in Mogadishu.
36% of battlefield deaths were due to gunshot wounds to the head, primarily frontal or frontal oblique.
Only 14% of fatalities were from penetrating chest injuries, highlighting the protective effect of ceramic body armor.
Iraq and Afghanistan (2006-2007): UK Service Personnel Mortality
Analysis of UK military deaths.
Head wounds accounted for 42% of deaths due to hostile action.
Suggested enhancing personal protection based on the injury patterns observed.
British Military (2003-2009): Craniofacial and Cervical Injuries
Analysis of 448 casualties.
Head injuries were the most fatal, despite being outnumbered by face and neck injuries.
Emphasized the need for improved protection of the anterior head, face, and neck.
Operation Iraqi Freedom (2007): US Brigade Combat Team Injuries
Analysis of injuries sustained during the Iraq War troop surge.
Significant increase in head and neck injuries (36.2%) compared to historical data.
Head injuries expected to be even more prominent if fatalities were included.
An inquiry into the nature of wounds resulting in killed in action in Vietnam
An analysis of 988 Marine deaths in the Vietnam War.
Although the head and face accounts for only 9% of the exposed body, wounds to these areas resulted in 39% of the combat deaths studied.
“A large proportion of these casualties were fully and properly clothed in protective armor, yet the small vulnerable parts of the face and neck were hit.
Most of the missiles entered anteriorly.”
Estimating the Impact of Improved Frontal Helmet Protection
To estimate the percentage of injuries that could be prevented with improved frontal helmet protection, we analyze data indicating
head injuries and the proportion that are anterior (frontal). Here's a summary of the relevant data:
1982 Lebanon War: 72.4% of head injuries were frontal.
Operation Defensive Shield (2002): All bullet wounds to the head were frontal.
Israeli Army (2000-2009): Approximately 50% of head injuries were to the anterior/temporal regions.
U.S. Army Rangers in Somalia (1993): 80% of head injuries in fatalities were frontal.
Second Palestinian Uprising (2001): 56.3% of head and neck injuries were to the frontal regions.
British Military (2003-2009): Head injuries were notably more fatal.
Vietnam War (~1964-1973): Head injuries were notably more fatal, and most wounds were from the front.
If we average out the data points which have numbers attached (72.4, 50, 80, and 56.3%), it leads us to the tentative conclusion
that if the front portion of helmets were rated to stop rifle projectiles, approximately 71.74% of penetrating bullet injuries to the
head could potentially be prevented.
Estimating the Impact of Improved Frontal Helmet Protection
To estimate the percentage of injuries that could be prevented with improved frontal helmet protection, we analyze data indicating
head injuries and the proportion that are anterior (frontal). Here's a summary of the relevant data:
1982 Lebanon War: 72.4% of head injuries were frontal.
Operation Defensive Shield (2002): All bullet wounds to the head were frontal.
Israeli Army (2000-2009): Approximately 50% of head injuries were to the anterior/temporal regions.
U.S. Army Rangers in Somalia (1993): 80% of head injuries in fatalities were frontal.
Second Palestinian Uprising (2001): 56.3% of head and neck injuries were to the frontal regions.
British Military (2003-2009): Head injuries were notably more fatal.
Vietnam War (~1964-1973): Head injuries were notably more fatal, and most wounds were from the front.
If we average out the data points which have numbers attached (72.4, 50, 80, and 56.3%), it leads us to the tentative conclusion
that if the front portion of helmets were rated to stop rifle projectiles, approximately 71.74% of penetrating bullet injuries to the
head could potentially be prevented.
Additional Insights from FBI LEOKA Data
Recent FBI Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) data supports these findings. It shows that injuries to the "Front Head" outnumber those to the "Rear Head" and "Side Head" significantly (102 vs. 63). Furthermore, most officers shot in the back or side of the head were most likely ambushed, suggesting that in situations where officers are prepared and wearing helmets, frontal injuries are even more predominant.
Recovered police helmets support this assertion. In seven recently publicized cases, seven police officers were each shot in the helmet. In every instance, the bullet struck the front of the helmet.
Modern Helmet Solutions and the Issue of Backface Deformation
While monolithic rifle-rated helmets exist in the market today, they have a significant drawback: backface deformation. These helmets use ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) to stop rounds, but the very mechanisms that allow the stoppage of the round also cause severe BFD. Although advanced protection is a plus, limiting backface deformation is crucial for end-user safety.
At Hard Head Veterans, we focus on using a ceramic up-armor plate that addresses the need to keep the front of the head safe while minimizing backface deformation. This innovative approach provides enhanced protection against rifle rounds without the significant BFD we see with current UHMWPE technology.
Additional Insights from FBI LEOKA Data
Recent FBI Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) data supports these findings. It shows that injuries to the "Front Head" outnumber those to the "Rear Head" and "Side Head" significantly (102 vs. 63). Furthermore, most officers shot in the back or side of the head were most likely ambushed, suggesting that in situations where officers are prepared and wearing helmets, frontal injuries are even more predominant.
Recovered police helmets support this assertion. In seven recently publicized cases, seven police officers were each shot in the helmet. In every instance, the bullet struck the front of the helmet.
Modern Helmet Solutions and the Issue of Backface Deformation
Modern Helmet Solutions and the Issue of Backface Deformation
While monolithic rifle-rated helmets exist in the market today, they have a significant drawback: backface deformation. These helmets use ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) to stop rounds, but the very mechanisms that allow the stoppage of the round also cause severe BFD. Although advanced protection is a plus, limiting backface deformation is crucial for end-user safety.
At Hard Head Veterans, we focus on using a ceramic up-armor plate that addresses the need to keep the front of the head safe while minimizing backface deformation. This innovative approach provides enhanced protection against rifle rounds without the significant BFD we see with current UHMWPE technology.
The Green-Tip Problem
Another significant drawback associated with monolithic UHMWPE helmets is that they don’t stop the ubiquitous 5.56x45mm M855 “green-tip” projectile. This is one of the most common rifle threats in America. What’s more, all modern military-issue rifle threats are similar to it – they all have steel penetrators that will penetrate monolithic UHMWPE helmets. It’s entirely fair to say that a helmet that doesn’t stop M855 isn’t really “rifle rated” – if you’re facing down a threat wielding an AR, or any variety of enemy soldier, those helmets won’t give you peace of mind.
Our approach, with a ceramic applique, is proven to stop M855 and will stop other rifle ball threats with light penetrators made of hardened steel.
Rational Helmet Design
Prevalence of Frontal Injuries:
Studies show that a significant majority of head injuries in combat and law enforcement situations impact the front of the helmet, highlighting the critical need for enhanced frontal protection.
Lethality of Frontal Head Wounds:
Frontal head wounds are disproportionately fatal, with data indicating they account for a high percentage of combat deaths, and penetrating frontal head wounds immediately incapacitate soldiers who suffer from them.
Impact of Backface Deformation:
While existing monolithic rifle-rated helmets offer advanced protection, they suffer from severe backface deformation, which can cause significant injuries despite stopping a bullet.
Steel-core protection:
Monolithic UHMWPE helmets fail against common threats like the 5.56x45mm M855 “green-tip” projectile, which is an ubiquitous rifle threat on American soil, and which is also representative of all modern standard-issue rifle rounds, domestic and foreign.
The Green-Tip Problem
Another significant drawback associated with monolithic UHMWPE helmets is that they don’t stop the ubiquitous 5.56x45mm M855 “green-tip” projectile. This is one of the most common rifle threats in America. What’s more, all modern military-issue rifle threats are similar to it – they all have steel penetrators that will penetrate monolithic UHMWPE helmets. It’s entirely fair to say that a helmet that doesn’t stop M855 isn’t really “rifle rated” – if you’re facing down a threat wielding an AR, or any variety of enemy soldier, those helmets won’t give you peace of mind.
Our approach, with a ceramic applique, is proven to stop M855 and will stop other rifle ball threats with light penetrators made of hardened steel.
Rational Helmet Design
Prevalence of Frontal Injuries:
Studies show that a significant majority of head injuries in combat and law enforcement situations impact the front of the helmet, highlighting the critical need for enhanced frontal protection.
Lethality of Frontal Head Wounds:
Frontal head wounds are disproportionately fatal, with data indicating they account for a high percentage of combat deaths, and penetrating frontal head wounds immediately incapacitate soldiers who suffer from them.
Impact of Backface Deformation:
While existing monolithic rifle-rated helmets offer advanced protection, they suffer from severe backface deformation, which can cause significant injuries despite stopping a bullet.
Steel-core protection:
Monolithic UHMWPE helmets fail against common threats like the 5.56x45mm M855 “green-tip” projectile, which is an ubiquitous rifle threat on American soil, and which is also representative of all modern standard-issue rifle rounds, domestic and foreign.
Advanced Protection Solutions
At Hard Head Veterans, our focus is on developing helmet solutions that provide comprehensive protection while addressing the issue of backface deformation. Our ceramic up-armor plates are designed to:
Enhance frontal protection against high-velocity rifle rounds.
Reduce backface deformation, preventing secondary injuries caused by helmet buckling.
Maintain a lightweight design, ensuring that personnel can move freely and comfortably without compromising safety.
Broaden the threat profile, enabling protection from modern rifle rounds with steel penetrators.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Predominance of Frontal Injuries: Most combat gunshot wounds to the head enter through the front, penetrating the frontal bones.
Urban Combat and Counterinsurgency: Gunshot wounds to the occipital and frontal/temporal bone intersection are more common, but frontal wounds still predominate.
Low Incidence in Parietal Region: The parietal region of the skull consistently shows a low incidence of gunshot wounds.
Impact of Body Armor: Thoracic injuries have declined since the advent of ceramic torso armor, but head injuries have increased proportionally.
Fatality of Head Injuries: Penetrating gunshot injuries to the head are the most deadly form of combat injury.
Current Helmet Limitations: Existing helmets do not offer significant protection against penetrating gunshot injuries.
Need for Enhanced Protection: Developing a lightweight ceramic helmet system that protects key regions of the head could significantly reduce penetrating gunshot injuries.
Final Thoughts
For both military and law enforcement personnel, understanding the anatomical distribution of combat injuries is vital for improving the design of protective gear. The insights from these studies highlight the need for continued innovation, particularly in helmet design, to better protect those who serve and ensure their safety on the front lines. By addressing issues like backface deformation and focusing on protecting the most vulnerable areas, we can make significant strides in enhancing personal protection and reducing fatalities in combat and law enforcement operations.