Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 6/29/2020 at 7:13 AM, Must Be Spoon Fed said:

Armor technology is something which had raised many questions to me. Armor is something which tends to gain more value the more you put it. For example, on a tank, extra 50 mm of raw armor thickness can sometimes mean over 500 meters of extra range where enemy fire is ineffective. In a same manner, we often do not prioritize protecting ours...anything and always seem to focus on other aspects rather than protection. In my eyes, it is like being in Imperial Guard army. You are just statistic on someone's excel spreadsheet. You do not gain any real combat performance increase if you survive being shot when you consider all the downsides. Thus, protection is here more for morale reasons and providing bare basic levels of protection for maximum benefit as cheaply as possible. Key point, cheaply. Our analogue SWAT officers were forced at one time to serve with expired body vests. Soldiers also seem to suffer from poor quality body armor issues from time to time and this is in USA, the best equipped military in the world. I can only imagine that body armor in less well equipped nations are long expired and is here more for a show.

 

This is also strange, because we do have technology to create video game equivalent of power armor. We have real cases of body armor stopping heavy machine gun rounds, helmets who can stop sniper rounds, body vests who can stop point blank grenade hits. Armor can be so much more, but we somehow do not care about it. Just look at how long it took us to figure out that creating an air gap between an armor plates makes them more effective...

No no and no, in war that happened last decade about 1000 man were saved with vests and helmets while about 200 died, had not they had vests those 1000 would have died too.  Face, neck and sides are big problem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Current helmets do no better (or worse in some area) than WW1 helmets at preventing shockwave induced injury.     The conclusions aren't really surprising, geometry, choice of mat

Some examples of some experimental Japanese body armor from the 1930s and 1940s, all from this page (Google chrome can make a reasonable translation of the text).   A 'tortoise shield', appa

By the way   Archduke Ferdinand did not wear his vest on the day he was shot.  It did not work because it was not on his person.   The narrator of that TV show wears Command Sergeant Major rank.

On 10/3/2020 at 6:51 AM, Eliz said:

No no and no, in war that happened last decade about 1000 man were saved with vests and helmets while about 200 died, had not they had vests those 1000 would have died too.  Face, neck and sides are big problem. 

 

Around 80% casualties in war is not from direct fire, but fragments, mostly artillery. Full body armor which would provide high levels of protection against firearms in key areas and protection against fragments in all others would drastically lower casualties rate and would make various weapons far less effective. From artillery bombardment to thermobaric weapons. In fact, most high tech body armor out there does exactly that, it looks far less than few loosely connected armored plates which we have today, but are rather full protective body suit. My opinion is validated by most cutting edge development of several nations and I was advocating for that since 2012.

 

180828-russia-tests-exoskeleton-03.jpg?q

 

img.jpg?width=980

 

Without any specifics, your opinion is just as valid as my own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. 

20 years ago most armies did not had body armor. 

 

120934173_2709291049318410_2580198454277owner of this armor survived suicide bomber about 3 meters away. He lost one eye and one leg. Otherwise he is feeling well.   Most fatal injuries in afghanistan for georgian soldiers comes on face, neck and head. Helmet doing its job but not enough.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Ballistic testing of K6-3 titanium helmet

 

 

 

I've wondered for a while what advantages these types of helmets offer over more conventional ones, and the number of units switching from these to more modern aramid ones would seem to indicate that the answer is 'not much'.

 

However, one thing this video demonstrates that I'd never considered is just how resistant these things are to deformation, even after repeated hits. Very impressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ADC411 said:

Ballistic testing of K6-3 titanium helmet

 

 

 

I've wondered for a while what advantages these types of helmets offer over more conventional ones, and the number of units switching from these to more modern aramid ones would seem to indicate that the answer is 'not much'.

 

However, one thing this video demonstrates that I'd never considered is just how resistant these things are to deformation, even after repeated hits. Very impressive.

 

   Well, looks like our SF are going to look at titanium helmets again, with latest Elbrus-T helmet.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

 

   Well, looks like our SF are going to look at titanium helmets again, with latest Elbrus-T helmet.

 

 

Look at, sure, but whether it gets adopted in any meaningful numbers remains to be seen. At a glance, one of the big issues with the old assault helmets is that their cut leaves no room for ear pro, and this Elbrus-T doesn't seem to have addressed that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ADC411 said:

 

Look at, sure, but whether it gets adopted in any meaningful numbers remains to be seen. At a glance, one of the big issues with the old assault helmets is that their cut leaves no room for ear pro, and this Elbrus-T doesn't seem to have addressed that.

   Look at it again, it have increased space avaliable for ear protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Look at it again, it have increased space avaliable for ear protection.

 

It doesn't look like a lot of extra space, maybe like a centimeter on either side. I guess I'd have to see a pic of it being worn. Great if so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/4/2020 at 1:03 PM, Must Be Spoon Fed said:

 

Around 80% casualties in war is not from direct fire, but fragments, mostly artillery. Full body armor which would provide high levels of protection against firearms in key areas and protection against fragments in all others would drastically lower casualties rate and would make various weapons far less effective. From artillery bombardment to thermobaric weapons. In fact, most high tech body armor out there does exactly that, it looks far less than few loosely connected armored plates which we have today, but are rather full protective body suit. My opinion is validated by most cutting edge development of several nations and I was advocating for that since 2012.

 

180828-russia-tests-exoskeleton-03.jpg?q

 

img.jpg?width=980

 

Without any specifics, your opinion is just as valid as my own.

Fragsuit is important, but just as problematic is the issue of heatcas, fatigue, and operator load

Assaultsuit is cool and good until you stack on fifteen magazines, rifle, grenades, medical, food, and whatever other stuff needs to be packed

On 11/14/2020 at 4:27 PM, ADC411 said:

Ballistic testing of K6-3 titanium helmet

 

 

 

I've wondered for a while what advantages these types of helmets offer over more conventional ones, and the number of units switching from these to more modern aramid ones would seem to indicate that the answer is 'not much'.

 

However, one thing this video demonstrates that I'd never considered is just how resistant these things are to deformation, even after repeated hits. Very impressive.

it also has somewhat better chances at deflecting a rifle round, though given that the rifle rated helmet is on the rise again, that's not much of an adv. Still, solid headcase.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2020 at 5:27 PM, ADC411 said:

Ballistic testing of K6-3 titanium helmet

 

 

 

I've wondered for a while what advantages these types of helmets offer over more conventional ones, and the number of units switching from these to more modern aramid ones would seem to indicate that the answer is 'not much'.

 

However, one thing this video demonstrates that I'd never considered is just how resistant these things are to deformation, even after repeated hits. Very impressive.


Against SS190... Not that impressive. Not a very powerful round.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:


Against SS190... Not that impressive. Not a very powerful round.

 

Both of the helmets are 30 years old. I would say it is impressive considering their age. 

 

Anyway out of curiosity did US military or SWAT units use any sort of heavy ballistic helmets similar to these Soviet/Russian ones? 

 

Also a genuine question. Which helmets can withstand more than SS190? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Beer said:

 

Both of the helmets are 30 years old. I would say it is impressive considering their age. 

 

Anyway out of curiosity did US military or SWAT units use any sort of heavy ballistic helmets similar to these Soviet/Russian ones? 

 

Also a genuine question. Which helmets can withstand more than SS190? 

Vario Mehler has the uparmor plates, TenCate used to make similar plates up to NIJ IV, I think the SLAAP is at 5.56/7.62AK protection, and the IHPS is purported to 7n1 with uparmour. The ECH actually is a polyethylene rated to NIJ III.

Paying the tax...

64f5507fce3b97ca205afc6dc80e3340e144b354

I think this is where they got the COD Cold War stuff lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Beer said:

 

Both of the helmets are 30 years old. I would say it is impressive considering their age. 

 

Anyway out of curiosity did US military or SWAT units use any sort of heavy ballistic helmets similar to these Soviet/Russian ones? 

 

Also a genuine question. Which helmets can withstand more than SS190? 


Anything Level III.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Beer said:

 

Both of the helmets are 30 years old. I would say it is impressive considering their age. 

 

Anyway out of curiosity did US military or SWAT units use any sort of heavy ballistic helmets similar to these Soviet/Russian ones? 

 

Also a genuine question. Which helmets can withstand more than SS190? 


Even at +400 m/s velocity, SS190 isn't getting through Level III. So yeah, not very special for a helmet of that type.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...