[Doug Kibbey]

Why are the steel pots I've usually seen on those crewing U.S. warships (especially WWII-era and beyond) so large in proportion to your basic doggie steel pot (and the wearers head)? Even when you see them with the '40's and later commo gear (huge earphones, etc.) the helmet seems way larger than it need be. Does this not make it more difficult manuvering down narrow passageways and through hatches an' stuff (I've been aboard a few, it's not like ballroom staircases in those things). What's going on under there that I'm missing?

Thanks in advance.

[aevans]

Doug Kibbey, on Thu 14 May 2009 0009, said:

Why are the steel pots I've usually seen on those crewing U.S. warships (especially WWII-era and beyond) so large in proportion to your basic doggie steel pot (and the wearers head)? Even when you see them with the '40's and later commo gear (huge earphones, etc.) the helmet seems way larger than it need be. Does this not make it more difficult manuvering down narrow passageways and through hatches an' stuff (I've been aboard a few, it's not like ballroom staircases in those things). What's going on under there that I'm missing?

Thanks in advance.

Those large helmets are just for sound powered phone talkers. Everybody else wore the good ol' M1 steel pot. There's apparently a kevlar version of the phone talker helmet out since the 80s. The Navy only issued helmets for use at weatherdeck battle stations or battle stations that could receive fire from outboard (such as the pilot house). So maneuvering through passageways or in compartments was not an issue.

[Doug Kibbey]

Well, that was easy, thanks. I suspected commo gear, but it just seemed large considering that.

[Ken Estes]

Doug Kibbey, on Thu 14 May 2009 0050, said:

Well, that was easy, thanks. I suspected commo gear, but it just seemed large considering that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e2/Sound_powered_telephone.jpg/180px-Sound_powered_telephone.jpg Large? Get a load o' them earpieces! -- traditional gear unmarred by progress. I see in this pic that the USN has indeed gone to flashproof or fire retardants for battle stations gear...about 63 years late!

[Kenneth P. Katz]

I have also wondered why the US Navy didn't have this sort of gear long ago.Also, why don't Navy ship crewmembers wear Nomex overalls like aircrews do?

http://208.84.116.223/forums/public/style_images/Tanknet_OD4/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />Ken Estes, on Fri 15 May 2009 1048, said:

[DougRichards]

http://208.84.116.223/forums/public/style_images/Tanknet_OD4/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />Ken Estes, on Fri 15 May 2009 1048, said:

Maybe they figured that male skin didn't matter if it got scarred....

[aevans]

Ken Estes, on Fri 15 May 2009 1048, said:

Large? Get a load o' them earpieces! -- traditional gear unmarred by progress.

Also unmarred by electrical power reliability issues.

Quote

I see in this pic that the USN has indeed gone to flashproof or fire retardants for battle stations gear...about 63 years late!

Flashproof hoods and gloves have been in service since at least the Eighties.

This post has been edited by aevans: 15 May 2009 - 1014 AM

[aevans]

Kenneth P. Katz, on Fri 15 May 2009 1110, said:

Also, why don't Navy ship crewmembers wear Nomex overalls like aircrews do?

Because they live on the ship 24 hours a day, year round, and might have to go to general quarters at any time. Poopie suits are intended for much more limited use. What the Navy does do is require that all shipboard wear be made of fire resistant natural fibers, mostly cotton.

[Steven P Allen]

Didn't they also give up the corfam shoes for traditional leather?

[shep854]

Steven P Allen, on Fri 15 May 2009 1052, said:

Didn't they also give up the corfam shoes for traditional leather?

Wouldn't be surprised. Back in the '70s, the Navy had a brief fling with polyester uniforms (for ease of maintenance, etc), but after a few fires where the clothing melted to the wearer's skin, it was quickly abandoned. Nomex is one of the few synthetics that won't melt.

[aevans]

Steven P Allen, on Fri 15 May 2009 1552, said:

Didn't they also give up the corfam shoes for traditional leather?

They still have synthetic shoes for dress wear, but for non-dress duty ocasions the squids all pretty much wear leather boondockers, officers, chiefs, and sailors alike.

http://www.robbooth.net/images/boondockers.jpg

This post has been edited by aevans: 15 May 2009 - 1311 PM

[Doug Kibbey]

aevans, on Fri 15 May 2009 1810, said:

They still have synthetic shoes for dress wear, but for non-dress duty ocasions the squids all pretty much wear leather boondockers, officers, chiefs, and sailors alike.

http://www.robbooth.net/images/boondockers.jpg

For the same reasons of fire, most helicopter aircrews in VN wore the issue black leather boots, not the VN jungle boot.

[Apocal]

Ken Estes, on Fri 15 May 2009 0648, said:

I see in this pic that the USN has indeed gone to flashproof or fire retardants for battle stations gear...about 63 years late!

We had something resembling flashgear way back in WW2.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h83000/h83072.jpg

I suspect it's curiously absent nature in actual battle photography is a reflection of SoPac climate and lack of air conditioning. Which is also probably why (in addition to expense) we haven't gone over to Nomex. Ships (at least mine) still occasionally get put on water hours in 110+ degree heat and 80% humidity. Aircrew manages it because all their ready rooms and offices have fully functional A/C. Less blessed waterwalker types don't have that luxury.

[Doug Kibbey]

Apocal, on Mon 18 May 2009 1739, said:

We had something resembling flashgear way back in WW2.


I suspect it's curiously absent nature in actual battle photography is a reflection of SoPac climate and lack of air conditioning. Which is also probably why (in addition to expense) we haven't gone over to Nomex. Ships (at least mine) still occasionally get put on water hours in 110+ degree heat and 80% humidity. Aircrew manages it because all their ready rooms and offices have fully functional A/C. Less blessed waterwalker types don't have that luxury.

That it's thought hot surprizes me. I wore Nomex (Shirt and Pants, Flying, Man's, Hot Weather) whenever I could in VN (often sleeping in it, at least the shirt) and felt mightily blessed when we were authorized it on test projects at the Armor Board (fire risk, etc.). I found it cooler and more comfortable than regular fatigues, and it's ability to dry very fast (we called 'em "Quick Dries") were highly valued. At that weight, though, it probably doesn't have the wear resistance of whatever working shipboard stiffs are wearing these days. I still have a couple of pair, for old times sake.

[Bob B]

Apocal, on Mon 18 May 2009 1739, said:

We had something resembling flashgear way back in WW2......



I suspect it's curiously absent nature in actual battle photography is a reflection of SoPac climate and lack of air conditioning. Which is also probably why (in addition to expense) we haven't gone over to Nomex. Ships (at least mine) still occasionally get put on water hours in 110+ degree heat and 80% humidity. Aircrew manages it because all their ready rooms and offices have fully functional A/C. Less blessed waterwalker types don't have that luxury.

During WW2 the USN would sometimes use anti-flash burn cream. My father mentioned it, and there is a picture in his ship's WW2 cruise book, USS Yorktown CV10, that shows guys applying it all over their faces. I think it was a zinc based cream. It is obvious from the amount of WW2 film and photos that show no signs of it's use that the stuff wasn't very popular.

You also she a lot of photos of WW2 Royal Navy sailors wearing flash proof hoods, that I am guessing were made out of Asbestos back then.

[shep854]

B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob B @ Mon 18 May 2009 1656) </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->During WW2 the USN would sometimes use anti-flash burn cream. My father mentioned it, and there is a picture in his ship's WW2 cruise book, USS Yorktown CV10, that shows guys applying it all over their faces. I think it was a zinc based cream. It is obvious from the amount of WW2 film and photos that show no signs of it's use that the stuff wasn't very popular.

You also she a lot of photos of WW2 Royal Navy sailors wearing flash proof hoods, that I am guessing were made out of Asbestos back then.[/quote]

As an aside, the only mention of flash cream that I have ever seen was in the novel Away All Boats, where a "by-the-book" captain was depicted wearing the stuff at GQ, and was considered somewhat loopy by his crew. I have also seen a few WWII photos of USN sailors in flash gear, but they were so rare that I wasn't sure about general use.

This post has been edited by shep854: 19 May 2009 - 0713 AM

[binder001]

shep854 said:

Away All Boats[/i], where a "by-the-book" captain was depicted wearing the stuff at GQ, and was considered somewhat loopy by his crew. I have also seen a few WWII photos of USN sailors in flash gear, but they were so rare that I wasn't sure about general use.

Sir, I think you are confusing Jeff Chandler in "Away All Boats" with the classic "The Caine Mutiniy" with Humphrey Bogart, Van Johnson, et al.

Gary

[Steven P Allen]

binder001, on Tue 19 May 2009 1412, said:

Sir, I think you are confusing Jeff Chandler in "Away All Boats" with the classic "The Caine Mutiniy" with Humphrey Bogart, Van Johnson, et al.

Gary

Gary,

It's been a few years since I read the book, but I am sure that one of Belinda's captains wore flash cream in the novel, and I think it was Hawks, but it could have been Geddy. In any case, shep was referring to the book, not the movie, and so am I.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Nomex clothing is not particularly uncomfortable in hot weather.

The expense seems fairly trivial compared with the human consequences of burns not to mention the financial cost of caring for a burned sailor.

Apocal, on Mon 18 May 2009 1739, said:

Which is also probably why (in addition to expense) we haven't gone over to Nomex. Ships (at least mine) still occasionally get put on water hours in 110+ degree heat and 80% humidity. Aircrew manages it because all their ready rooms and offices have fully functional A/C. Less blessed waterwalker types don't have that luxury.

[rmgill]

Kenneth P. Katz, on Tue 19 May 2009 1447, said:

Nomex clothing is not particularly uncomfortable in hot weather.

The expense seems fairly trivial compared with the human consequences of burns not to mention the financial cost of caring for a burned sailor.

As a motorcyclist who wore proper full coverage gear in Atlanta summers, I have to agree. People would ask me if I was hot.
"I sure am!"
"Then why do you wear all that?"
"Because bleeding sucks more than sweating and bandages and pain from large abrasions is worse."

Mike Yon wore several layers of nomex when he went out with various units in Iraq. He was wary of severe burns from an IED.