When choosing a helmet for soldiers there are many parameters to consider. One of these is the helmet area coverage, which varies with different helmet designs. A helmet that covers most of the head and neck will naturally give a better protection than a smaller that just covers the upper portion of the head, given that the ballistic protection performances are the same. On the other hand, the smaller helmet will be lighter and in case of a high-cut helmet it will enable the use of high protective noise reduction head-sets. This work presents a study on how the helmet covered area of a soldier's head influences the probability of different kinds of injuries in a non-tactical situation where the soldier is attacked by a fragmenting warhead, using the AVAL vulnerability/lethality assessment tool. The threats are positioned all around the soldier and the injury probabilities are calculated based upon direction to the warhead, distance to the warhead and height of burst. The simulation results shows, not surprisingly, that it is better to wear a helmet that covers as much of the head as possible than a smaller helmet, which in turn is way better than not wearing any helmet. Among three studied helmets, base line, base line with mandible and high cut the base line with mandible covers the greatest part of the head. The relatively small reduction in injury probability does however not seem to be in correlation to the rather large increase in helmet area compared to the base line helmet.