TO SAVE'MEN'S LIVES

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3188, 12 September 1917, Page 7

TO SAVE'MEN'S LIVES

MOBE ABOtJT THE SHRAPNELPROOF JACKET. Hon- best to reduce the loss of life among our gallant soldiers is a problem that lias been exercising many keen minds (says tlio "Westminster Gazette"). Among thoso wbo have dovoted cli'eir attention to the subject is Dr: C. W. Saleeby, who recently, at the Royal Institute of Public Health, Russel Square, gave an account of a shrapnel-proof jacket which he has devised, and which has been: 6nbmitted to a distinguished member of the Army Council. Dr. Saleeby was instrumental in securing the adoption of tho "soup-plate," as soldiers playfully call the helmot they now .wear in. action, • and he explained that, ever since, its introduction, the authorities'had been' steadily improving this soldiers' 'head-piece. Since the Battle of Arras, on April 23 last, it had been fitted, with a visor of delicate chain-mail, as a protection to the eyes, and there had also been improvements in colouring, padding, , and lining, all of which had proved beneficial in affording protection to tho soldier.

The French were tho first to introduce a helmet, which is in three pieces. Tho English helmet is in one piece, is held' by Dr. Saleeby to bo an incontestable improvement on the French' article. Both Emmets have been conspicuously successful. It was the success of'the helmet, both. English ,■ and French, that indued Dr. Saleoby- to consider the problem of body niinour. The problem of stopping machine-gun bullets was, he said, considered insoluble, but that, did not abisolve those who were studying the question from trying to solve the problem of Dr. Saieeby showed a specimen .jacket," and described its construction. It has, been produced, .he explained, by tho experts at the Ministry of Munitions, and is at present in the experimental stage. The- jacket is, in Dr. Saleeby's opinion, perfect for the. use of soldiers, and especially for airmen. He saw i)o Tcason why it should not be generally adopted, when an enormous saving of life would result. Dr. Saleeby discussed the ethical point of the soldiers' dislike to armour. It Tiad been argued, h© said, that tn© ;Arroy would never ask for this sort of protection. and would never consent to it, but would rather "be blown to* bits.' But the experience of the helmet had converted our soldiers, and those who still took tho view that it savoured of cowardice for a soldier to protect himself rwlth armour, forgot that their ancestors wore covered from top to toe m mail.