TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.military.com/news/article/ne ... =army-a.nl

Thought some of you might be interested in this breakthrough re: a stronger, lighter replacement for the Kevlar helmets currently in use. I love the line about having to get stronger test guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_GIQ3eKOvc

The above link is a 1M:23S long video of British Army soldiers who were
saved by bullets striking their helmets, armored vests, or iPods.

**************************************************************************************

http://www.gizmag.com/face-shields-on-a ... ets/17037/

The above link refers to research showing that American military helmets
should have face protection in order to more fully protect from IED blasts, etc.

SIA

Someone commented on that article re: face shields, but another made a statement that marching up a mountain with a face shield on would not be preferred. I would be inclined to agree, as I would worry about additional heat, the shield fogging up, potential vision distortion, etc. On the flip side, more protection for the noggin and its surrounding parts is definitely something I would favor.

TexDotCom wrote:Someone commented on that article re: face shields, but another made a statement that marching up a mountain with a face shield on would not be preferred. I would be inclined to agree, as I would worry about additional heat, the shield fogging up, potential vision distortion, etc. On the flip side, more protection for the noggin and its surrounding parts is definitely something I would favor.

No free lunches; adding protection (or weaponry, or water, or fuel, or food, or batteries, or...) gives a plus in one area but a negative in another -- true whether the weapons system is a fighter plane or an infantryman.

Best you can try to do is "optimize" for some set of functions, which is really a way of saying of coming up with the set of compromises that does you the most good for the least harm in the most likely conditions.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Agreed. The more moving parts a thing has, the more it may be prone to breakage. The heavier, the less likelier to be used effectively. Some form of flip/slide up face shield (shatterproof, etc.) that is lightweight and will not fall down when not wanted. Just my 2 ¢ .... Basically, keep is simple, keep it safe, keep it effective. That makes is usable and useful. That's worth more than 2 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ......

I don't see a real downside to a helmet that is stronger and lighter, unless of course some other problem such as degradation occurs. Secondly, it said the helmet was capable of stopping a 7.62 round... 7.62x39? 7.62X51? 7.62X54R? And that's not even going into different types of bullets.

Zoomie wrote:I don't see a real downside to a helmet that is stronger and lighter, unless of course some other problem such as degradation occurs. Secondly, it said the helmet was capable of stopping a 7.62 round... 7.62x39? 7.62X51? 7.62X54R? And that's not even going into different types of bullets.

Just a hunch, but I bet they are testing it against the x39. Its the preferred round of our enemies world wide, after all.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_GIQ3eKOvc

The above link is a 1M:23S long video of British Army soldiers who were
saved by bullets striking their helmets, armored vests, or iPods.

**************************************************************************************

http://www.gizmag.com/face-shields-on-a ... ets/17037/

The above link refers to research showing that American military helmets
should have face protection in order to more fully protect from IED blasts, etc.

SIA

As a former paratrooper with the 82nd, not sure how this would work. The shield would need to be strong enough to sustain a close proximity blast. I'm not sure it could be an attachment, rather a perminant type fixture on the helmet.

You certainly could not jump with some type of shield unless it was made like a aviator's helmet. I think that would be pretty expensive, I like the idea though.
Jim

I know that the alternative is less than desirable, but imagine what the impact must be like when a .30 cal rifle round is stopped cold by your helmet without deflecting it, fired from close range. It must be like getting hit by a sledgehammer. That's better than having the round penetrate, but I'll bet it would give you a heck of a headache.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I know that the alternative is less than desirable, but imagine what the impact must be like when a .30 cal rifle round is stopped cold by your helmet without deflecting it, fired from close range. It must be like getting hit by a sledgehammer. That's better than having the round penetrate, but I'll bet it would give you a heck of a headache.

Probably like getting beaned by a 100 mph fastball. I wouldn't like that either!