Discussion
Seeing a lot of these on the news lately 
But what interests me with the footage from Ukraine is that everyone seems to be wearing the US style helmet, itself modelled on the old WW2 German Army helmet, to my eye.
Must be a nightmare working out who is friend or foe, especially as they both carry the same rifles.
I also see the bicycle helmet style thing worn by Special Forces in America.
Seems to leave a lot of the sides of one's head exposed. I guess the big 'gap' is for headphones or other communication stuff.
Not sure why some of the correspondents are wearing the bicycle helmet style. Maybe they think that they look cooler
Anyone in the forces care to assuage my curiosity.
Cheers.
But what interests me with the footage from Ukraine is that everyone seems to be wearing the US style helmet, itself modelled on the old WW2 German Army helmet, to my eye.
Must be a nightmare working out who is friend or foe, especially as they both carry the same rifles.
I also see the bicycle helmet style thing worn by Special Forces in America.
Seems to leave a lot of the sides of one's head exposed. I guess the big 'gap' is for headphones or other communication stuff.
Not sure why some of the correspondents are wearing the bicycle helmet style. Maybe they think that they look cooler
Anyone in the forces care to assuage my curiosity.
Cheers.
Helmets are measured on a ballistic level I-III. All will stop varying degrees of pistols, none will stop a modern assault rifle. Most will stop shrapnel, pistols, glass, bumps on the head etc.
I suppose it comes down to comfort, a Level III helmet will stop a.44 magnum round, a level I a 9mm round. So not used as "bullet proof" helmets where assualt rifles are being used.
Both of these are "ballistic" helmets and meet the standards that they are certified too, the higher level one covers more of the head but will be less comfortable.
I suppose it comes down to comfort, a Level III helmet will stop a.44 magnum round, a level I a 9mm round. So not used as "bullet proof" helmets where assualt rifles are being used.
Both of these are "ballistic" helmets and meet the standards that they are certified too, the higher level one covers more of the head but will be less comfortable.
Randy Winkman said:
Great topic. Anyone know what consideration has been given to some sort of slide down eye protection?
Mostly helmets are fitted for night vision to be stowed above and then positioned when needed.The UK Virtus helmet is modular in that you can add mandible protection and visors depending on role (i.e open vehicles). This is instead of goggles.
Most soldiers will be issued ballistic safety glasses, very similar to any DIY or laboratory glasses in standard issue. Others pay more for Oakley styles.
Randy Winkman said:
Great topic. Anyone know what consideration has been given to some sort of slide down eye protection?
You could always have the Sas type 
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bulletproof-...
but the Mk7 can be fitted with a visor and a mandible guard
This is just a pr thing like when we gave cbrn equipment to help in Syria.
Then it was we'd just finished kitting everyone out with new respirators, leaving shedloads of the old ones and their canisters (refills) spare. Virtually no value as the protection offered modern stuff was very poor, so made a good news story out of them.
This time it's we've replaced older mk6 helmets with the mk7 and the virtus helmets, because they were heavier and offered less protection than modern stuff. Pay for disposal or give them away for a favorable news story.
I'd lay money that the javelins were coming up to their use by date as well
Then it was we'd just finished kitting everyone out with new respirators, leaving shedloads of the old ones and their canisters (refills) spare. Virtually no value as the protection offered modern stuff was very poor, so made a good news story out of them.
This time it's we've replaced older mk6 helmets with the mk7 and the virtus helmets, because they were heavier and offered less protection than modern stuff. Pay for disposal or give them away for a favorable news story.
I'd lay money that the javelins were coming up to their use by date as well
Byker28i said:
You could always have the Sas type
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bulletproof-...
but the Mk7 can be fitted with a visor and a mandible guard
Don't think so. Perhaps you're thinking of the Virtus unit.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bulletproof-...
but the Mk7 can be fitted with a visor and a mandible guard
king off the platoon Sargent at an inspection when he found it. I hope they are more comfortable these days!Byker28i said:
Fantastic bit of kit and must have a big psychological impact in close quarters. I can see why they call it the Boba Fett. Evanivitch said:
Randy Winkman said:
Great topic. Anyone know what consideration has been given to some sort of slide down eye protection?
Mostly helmets are fitted for night vision to be stowed above and then positioned when needed.The UK Virtus helmet is modular in that you can add mandible protection and visors depending on role (i.e open vehicles). This is instead of goggles.
Most soldiers will be issued ballistic safety glasses, very similar to any DIY or laboratory glasses in standard issue. Others pay more for Oakley styles.
loskie said:
The Alpha and Riot helmets are made in Scotland, pretty much all the rest is US maderodericb said:
The people who want "better" eye protection have to pay for it themselves?
Yes.It's the same thing repeated throughout the British Army. Nearly every British soldier without doubt has a piece of non-issued kit because it's better than the issued item. It might be a pair of boots, a smock, trousers, webbing, weapon cleaning kit etc etc.
rodericb said:
Evanivitch said:
Randy Winkman said:
Great topic. Anyone know what consideration has been given to some sort of slide down eye protection?
Mostly helmets are fitted for night vision to be stowed above and then positioned when needed.The UK Virtus helmet is modular in that you can add mandible protection and visors depending on role (i.e open vehicles). This is instead of goggles.
Most soldiers will be issued ballistic safety glasses, very similar to any DIY or laboratory glasses in standard issue. Others pay more for Oakley styles.
When I retired from the army I was issued with ESS (Eye Safety Systems) 'Ice' Eyeshield glasses, and ESS goggles similar to the 'Advancer' model. Each set was cased, came with interchangeable lenses, and has been tested to a high standard...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KCj-7eu0Jg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZoLv-MMQTo
There used to be another Youtube video out there showing what full caliber rounds do to the glasses, but rest assured they give good protection.
Mine are now 17 years old and still providing sterling service protecting my eyes from road grit and other debris thrown up by passing vehicle tyres when I'm out cycling.
Mine were issued to me as part of my theatre-specific kit before I deployed to Op Telic in Iraq. Prior to these glasses and goggles, which I believe were initially purchased as a UOR (urgent operational requirement), all we had were motorbike goggles (if we could persuade the QM to permit their issue) and some ghastly tortoiseshell framed sunnies (with or without clear side screens) which may or may not have had some small degree of ballistic protection. The difference in the standard of PPE we were issued between my first "shooty war" experience in the Gulf War of 1991, and what we were issued by 2004/2005 was night and day. Back in 1991 I'd felt the need to buy lots of my own kit, like boots, rucksacks, etc, because what we were being issued was quite obviously out-of-date and sub standard in the field. By 2004 I was happy with all of my issued kit to be honest. Most of it was commercially available stuff anyway, and easily identified as such, so we had a better idea of what we were getting compared with the military stores system "anonymised" kit foisted on us early in my career.
As for helmets, I'd started off with a steel Mk 5 combat helmet with a net full of scrim on the top. Then moved to the Mk 6 "Kevlar" combat helmet. In the Royal Engineers we had face protection if we wanted to use it, in the form of the 'Kit, Visor, Anti Mine" which came in the form of a set of brackets to be attached to the helmet, and a ballistic protection visor (and elasticated cloth cover) which attached to the brackets with twist-clips. The visor kit was hefty, though, and only really designed to protect your face from anti-personnel mine blasts when clearing minefields. And then only really effective against a mine someone else set off
Anyway. Define "better". A lot of soldiers are swayed by things that "look Gucci" even if the protection the item offers is similar or inferior to the issued kit.
Evanivitch said:
rodericb said:
The people who want "better" eye protection have to pay for it themselves?
Yes.It's the same thing repeated throughout the British Army. Nearly every British soldier without doubt has a piece of non-issued kit because it's better than the issued item. It might be a pair of boots, a smock, trousers, webbing, weapon cleaning kit etc etc.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff