Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/9/2012 11:04:44 PM EDT
|
So have ECH helments been deployed yet and are they for sale on the commercial market?
Testers hoped to get about a 40 percent increase in ballistic resistance over the ACH. But Cole said in some tests, the new ECH was 70 percent stronger than the helmets worn by Soldiers and Marines today. Additionally the new helmet weighs about four ounces less than the ACH. 
anyone deal with max pro? Defender SBH More than 50% V50 improvement over ACH, protects against select rifle rounds and incorporates Seamless Ballistic® Technology which yields maximum protection Single Pre-drilled hole for NVG mount Retention System: MCIP-7 Pad (Size 6 (¾”) standard) Sizes: S, M, L, XL Color: Coyote Tan Options: NVG Shroud, Size 8 (1") Retention Pads MSRP: $1100.00 Accessories: Zippered Storage Bag, Field Mounted Shields Only; DK6H.150-6 FM Short, DK6H.150-8 FM Long. View Specs: Seamless Ballistic Helmet |
|
Ugh. Helmets. I hate all of them, ever.
For that price, why wouldn't someone buy an AirFrame? It's got the lighter than an ACH/more protection than an ACH thing going for it as well, with the addition that it's modular and breathable. The only downside is that it's ugly as sin. |
|
Quoted:
Ugh. Helmets. I hate all of them, ever. For that price, why wouldn't someone buy an AirFrame? It's got the lighter than an ACH/more protection than an ACH thing going for it as well, with the addition that it's modular and breathable. The only downside is that it's ugly as sin. The Ops Core jumps into the running to with all of the modularity(sp?) of the crye without all of the sinful fugliness... Priced under 1K MSRP as well... 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ugh. Helmets. I hate all of them, ever. For that price, why wouldn't someone buy an AirFrame? It's got the lighter than an ACH/more protection than an ACH thing going for it as well, with the addition that it's modular and breathable. The only downside is that it's ugly as sin. The Ops Core jumps into the running to with all of the modularity(sp?) of the crye without all of the sinful fugliness... Priced under 1K MSRP as well... http://www.ops-core.com/images/product/FAST-HELMET/FAST_BAL_d1.jpg While both the AirFrame and the FAST are very nice Helmets, I don't understand why you would compare them to the ECH??? the ECH's main feature is the new material it's made from which is supposed to be WAY stronger than any contemporary Helmet, which includes MICH, ACH, LWH, AirFrame and FAST. 
In fact, one of the goals was to create the first Helmet that offers Protection from Rifle Fire... IF it in fact meets those expectations, 1100 bucks is one helluva price if you ask me.... 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ugh. Helmets. I hate all of them, ever. For that price, why wouldn't someone buy an AirFrame? It's got the lighter than an ACH/more protection than an ACH thing going for it as well, with the addition that it's modular and breathable. The only downside is that it's ugly as sin. The Ops Core jumps into the running to with all of the modularity(sp?) of the crye without all of the sinful fugliness... Priced under 1K MSRP as well... http://www.ops-core.com/images/product/FAST-HELMET/FAST_BAL_d1.jpg While both the AirFrame and the FAST are very nice Helmets, I don't understand why you would compare them to the ECH??? the ECH's main feature is the new material it's made from which is supposed to be WAY stronger than any contemporary Helmet, which includes MICH, ACH, LWH, AirFrame and FAST.
In fact, one of the goals was to create the first Helmet that offers Protection from Rifle Fire... IF it in fact meets those expectations, 1100 bucks is one helluva price if you ask me.... Like I said, I hate all helmets. I'm all about the lighter weight stuff, over the ballistic protection. The odds of being hit in the head where this slight increase in protection would be the difference is minimal. I just want basic frag protection, protection from bumping my noggin accidentally, light weight, and the ability to mount the cool guy ka-jiggers like NODs and IR beacons and what have you. If I wanted to buy an expensive ballistic helmet, the AirFrame would be it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ugh. Helmets. I hate all of them, ever. For that price, why wouldn't someone buy an AirFrame? It's got the lighter than an ACH/more protection than an ACH thing going for it as well, with the addition that it's modular and breathable. The only downside is that it's ugly as sin. The Ops Core jumps into the running to with all of the modularity(sp?) of the crye without all of the sinful fugliness... Priced under 1K MSRP as well... http://www.ops-core.com/images/product/FAST-HELMET/FAST_BAL_d1.jpg You sir, Are correct. I usually forgo the helmet for a baseball cap unless I need NODs or its a heavy convoy. Same with SAPIs. I leave them behind most of the time. Why? Because Im 6'5 270 and the goddamn badguy would have to be an expert marksman just to hit the goddamn plate. An XL SAPI covers a rectangle frm my nipples to my belly button and thats it. I plan to purchase a pair of Dyneema plates and try them out. Possible an Ops Core helmet if I can find one to try on first. Those two together might be light enough to get be back into wearing everything. While both the AirFrame and the FAST are very nice Helmets, I don't understand why you would compare them to the ECH??? the ECH's main feature is the new material it's made from which is supposed to be WAY stronger than any contemporary Helmet, which includes MICH, ACH, LWH, AirFrame and FAST.
In fact, one of the goals was to create the first Helmet that offers Protection from Rifle Fire... IF it in fact meets those expectations, 1100 bucks is one helluva price if you ask me.... Like I said, I hate all helmets. I'm all about the lighter weight stuff, over the ballistic protection. The odds of being hit in the head where this slight increase in protection would be the difference is minimal. I just want basic frag protection, protection from bumping my noggin accidentally, light weight, and the ability to mount the cool guy ka-jiggers like NODs and IR beacons and what have you. If I wanted to buy an expensive ballistic helmet, the AirFrame would be it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ugh. Helmets. I hate all of them, ever. For that price, why wouldn't someone buy an AirFrame? It's got the lighter than an ACH/more protection than an ACH thing going for it as well, with the addition that it's modular and breathable. The only downside is that it's ugly as sin. The Ops Core jumps into the running to with all of the modularity(sp?) of the crye without all of the sinful fugliness... Priced under 1K MSRP as well... http://www.ops-core.com/images/product/FAST-HELMET/FAST_BAL_d1.jpg While both the AirFrame and the FAST are very nice Helmets, I don't understand why you would compare them to the ECH??? the ECH's main feature is the new material it's made from which is supposed to be WAY stronger than any contemporary Helmet, which includes MICH, ACH, LWH, AirFrame and FAST.
In fact, one of the goals was to create the first Helmet that offers Protection from Rifle Fire... IF it in fact meets those expectations, 1100 bucks is one helluva price if you ask me.... Like I said, I hate all helmets. I'm all about the lighter weight stuff, over the ballistic protection. The odds of being hit in the head where this slight increase in protection would be the difference is minimal. I just want basic frag protection, protection from bumping my noggin accidentally, light weight, and the ability to mount the cool guy ka-jiggers like NODs and IR beacons and what have you. If I wanted to buy an expensive ballistic helmet, the AirFrame would be it. October 8, 2009, 12:43 pm A Heads-Up About Helmets By C.J. Chivers Nearly 60 years ago, a researcher with secret government clearance at Johns Hopkins University reviewed a set of military casualty statistics that confirmed something combat soldiers and military surgeons had long sensed intuitively: the human head suffers a disproportionate amount of trauma on the modern battlefield. An analysis of nearly 600,000 injuries to American infantry troops in World War II found that while the head makes up about 12 percent of the typical infantryman’s body area, it suffered 21 percent of the reported injuries from bullets and shrapnel. Moreover, because of the head’s fragility and the dangers inherent in trauma to the central nervous system, head injuries accounted for 47 percent of deaths in the infantry ranks. These were important findings. The author of the study, Norman A. Hitchman, worked for the Operations Research Office, which was under government contract during the early cold war and made many independent recommendations about military equipment decisions. One conclusion from the data was self-evident. There is no better investment in battlefield safety equipment than a good helmet. Mr. Hitchman estimated that the M-1 helmet worn in World War II had saved 76,000 American infantrymen from serious injury or death. He further noted that the helmets available in the 1950s weighed 3 pounds, and that “to effect about the same decrease in total battle casualties” provided by this helmet, more than 20 pounds or armor would be required elsewhere on a soldier’s body. I dug up Mr. Hitchman’s now-declassified report a few years ago while scouring archives and military libraries looking for materials related to the evolution of infantry tactics and military small arms. Like many largely forgotten military studies, Mr. Hitchman’s study is germane today. Why? Because beneath the din of news from Afghanistan and Iraq, one of the constant conversations heard among soldiers and Marines in the field revolves around questions of protective gear. How much is enough? What constitutes too much? What can be left behind? What is being lost by wearing what is worn? American troops today are issued and usually required to wear a full suite of protective items – helmets, flak jackets with plates that can stop the bullets most common to the battlefield, ballistic eyewear, ear plugs, fire-resistant uniforms and gloves. Some soldiers choose to add even more. Over-the-counter knee pads, to be worn during the rough and painful work of searching buildings and bounding during contact, are a common sight. Turret gunners often wear fire-retardant undershirts and hoods. Almost every experienced unit has members who have been spared death or serious injury by this gear. Naturally, many soldiers are grateful to have it. But others question whether the perceived benefits are overstated. The objectors point to the perpetual trade-off of a combat soldier’s life: weight versus mobility. When a contemporary American foot soldier slips into battle gear and then adds the other equipment typically needed for a mission – weapons, ammunition, fragmentation and smoke grenades, first aid kits, food, water, compasses, G.P.S. units, radios, batteries, night-vision equipment, flashlights, flex-cuffs, maps, pens, paper, cameras – the total burden can quickly exceed 70, 80 or even 100 pounds. And a soldier carrying this poundage, step by step, hour by hour, dash by dash, is slow, prone to dehydration, vulnerable to exhaustion and arguably less effective on patrol than a soldier more lightly equipped. Soldiers and Marines know this. They discuss it endlessly. Some officers advocate drastically lightening loads. The sentiments are far from unanimous, but I cannot count how many times I have had grunts in the field, from privates to lieutenant colonels, tell me that they wish they could wear less gear, and thereby cover more ground, and more difficult ground, and more quickly and for a longer period of time. How are they ever to keep up with insurgents, they ask, when insurgents often wear nothing more than clothing and sneakers, and are burdened by only a rifle and a few magazines? The question fuels an argument that has raged for decades. For those units that do choose to shed some of their protective gear on certain missions, Mr. Hitchman’s study, compiled from a larger sampling of casualty data than what is available from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, suggests one thing. The helmet should be the last item left behind. Put another way, it is the best piece of protective gear – by weight and by the nature of the area it protects — that any soldier has. |
|
I'd love to find a source for these even at the high cost, though I doubt they will be availible any time soon. I think rifle protection for helmets will be a pretty big game changer, especially considering the shift away from soft body armor in certain circumstances to more hard/rifle oriented protection to limit unneccessary weight. Now you can have head, front/rear torso, and side torso protection (and possibly shoulder and groin with the MSAP plates) from rifle fire in addition to heavy frags at managable weight (at least as compared to the past) without running multiple layers of over lapping soft armor. Obviously coverage goes down a bit, but we IDF/artty isnt as big of a threat tons of soft armor don't really seem neccessary when the weight could be used to stop rifle threats (as well as large frags) which are the most prevelant threats in places lie Afghanistan.
The idea of thermoplastics/HDPE and kevlar for a hybrid helmet seems really cool though. I wonder if there is any other matterials that have been integrated in there as well like ceramics? Also I wonder if that solved some of the heat degredation issues that HDPE's like Dyneema and Spectra can have. Some of the articles on testing I saw mentioned that the test rig actually couldn't get teh velocity high enough to determine v50 which makes the helmet sound very promising if true. I wonder how well it does against steel core stuff (something that HDPE usually does poorly with). I'd bet the "cool guys" will end up adopting the tech as well, though it will probly be repackaged in another helmet. Rifle protection for the head at no weight penalty relative to current issue is to big of a deal to ignore, even if the folks that wear ball caps don't want to wear somethat looks standard issue. Does anyone know what the cut on the ECH is, I can't seem to find whether its a PASGT style or ACH/MICH. |
|
Quoted:
*snip* I understand the need for helmets, even as I hate wearing them. Sometimes I didn't wear mine, but that's just because I'm an idiot. The majority of the time I did wear mine. But my point remains, that the odds of a rifle protection level helmet protecting you where a traditional fragmentary protection would fail are minimal. It's a diminishing returns thing. If they made an AirFrame out of this new kevlar stuff, and it was just as light or lighter than the current AirFrame, I'd rather take that. That goes without question. The thing is, the majority of potential injuries to the head and neck that are protected by the helmet are stopped by them. I don't see why anyone would get excited for a rifle level protection helmet, unless it also comes with either the same or better weight/comfort/usability levels. Just like I don't need a plate carrier that stops 12.7 HMG rounds for that one in a million chance, I'm fine with one that stops 7.62x54R AP, which covers the vast majority of rifle threats. Unless it weighs the same as or less than my current plates. |
|
Being the head is on a swivel and the helmet isn't hard attached some of the energy will be directed around the brain. Or blow the helmet off like in some football collisions.
But that is the question. How likely is survival from that level of energy transfer. But if it weighs the same I would still want one. |
|
Quoted:
Hell even if it would stop a round I bet it'd jack you the fuck up or kill you from the energy transfer Ever seen a guy balance one one foot and take a .308 center mass? The energy transfer isnt as dramatic as Hollywood makes it out to be, you could place your buttstock on your forehead and pop off a round if you want a general idea what it would feel like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd9-hreCYz8 2:23 for the shooting. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hell even if it would stop a round I bet it'd jack you the fuck up or kill you from the energy transfer Ever seen a guy balance one one foot and take a .308 center mass? The energy transfer isnt as dramatic as Hollywood makes it out to be, you could place your buttstock on your forehead and pop off a round if you want a general idea what it would feel like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd9-hreCYz8 2:23 for the shooting. Second Chance? Did the guy have a phone book betweeen the vest and his body? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hell even if it would stop a round I bet it'd jack you the fuck up or kill you from the energy transfer Ever seen a guy balance one one foot and take a .308 center mass? The energy transfer isnt as dramatic as Hollywood makes it out to be, you could place your buttstock on your forehead and pop off a round if you want a general idea what it would feel like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd9-hreCYz8 2:23 for the shooting. Second Chance? Did the guy have a phone book betweeen the vest and his body? He did for the .44 mag test. Rifle guy stood there with his armored apron on one foot. |
Armory Sponsor