TO SAVE MEN'S LIVES.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 September 1917, Page 2

TO SAVE MEN'S LIVES.

MORE ABOUT THE SHRAPNEL. PROOF JACKET.

How best to Teduce the loss of life among our gallant soldiers is a problem that has been exercising many keen minds (says the Westminster Gazette). Among those who have devoted their attention to the subject is Dr. C. W. Saleeby, who recently, at the Royal Institute of Publio Health, Russell Square, gave an account of a shrapnel-proof jacket which he has devised, and which has been submitted to a, distinguished member of the Army Council. Dr. Saleeby was instrumental in securing the adoption of the "soup-plate," as soldiers playfully call the helmet 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 coloring, padding, and lining, all of which had proved beneficial in affording protection to the soldier. The French were the first to introduce a helmet, which is in three pieces. The English helmet is in one piece, and is held by Dr. Snleeby to be an incontestable improvement on the French article. Both helmets have been conspicuously successful. It was the success of the helmet, both English and French, that induced Dr. Saleeby to consider the problem of body armour. Tho problem of stopping machine-gun bullets was, lie said, considered insoluble, but that did not absolve those who were studying tlie question from trying to solve the problem of shrapnel. Dr. Saleeby showed a specimen jacket, and described its construction. It has been produced, he explained, by the 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 Baw no reason why it should not be generally adopted, when an enormous saving of life would result. Dr Saleeby discussed the ethlcul point of the soldiers' dislike to armour. It had been argued, lie said, that the Army 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 the view that it savoured of cowardice for a soldier to protect himself with armour, forgot that their ancestors were covered from top to toe in mail.