It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

which helmet better? Army or the Marines

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
www.usmc.mil...,helmet

www.defensetech.org...

www.olive-drab.com...

i still prefer the Marine's new helmet because even thought it aint as light as the ACH, it still provides protection all around the wearer's head and light decrease in weight so its a good improvement. The ACH just doesnt provide much of the protection needed in urban combat warfare where it is a 360 degree war.




posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The Army one is ok it looks good its lighter and still offers enough protection all around. But the second one where they guy is wearing it sucks, its ugly, its so small it doesn't offer the same level of protection. ]
I would not mind wearing something a bit heavier If I knew my brain was not going to be blasted out.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Notice the new U.S. helmets are modeled after Nazi Germany's WW2 Helmets. They work well, providing excellent rear neck support.

-wD



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Notice the new U.S. helmets are modeled after Nazi Germany's WW2 Helmets. They work well, providing excellent rear neck support.

-wD
thats not all we are copying. Seen the new army uniform? yeah it may be digi cam, and the marines is too, but it is nothing more than a squared version of the old german dot patterns. The new army cammo is cool, but I personally dont like the design of the uniform. The cammo is the most effective we have ever produced, though. even more effective than the marines' digicam.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Lighter and stronger is always better. I don't know why the military is so concerned about head shots, though.

If someone on the other side gets off a successful headshot, he could consider him or herself lucky. That is all. If they're a good shot, that's different, but I don't think that an enemy shooter would have time to take good aim with the pressure the Marines or the Army puts on the enemy during an attack or a raid, and with the amount of suppressive fire that is supposed to be used whenever one of us moves.

I think helmets should provide adequate protection to the braincase up to 7.62 so long as it doesn't interfere with individual movement or sustainment. Otherwise, it shouldn't have to protect the neck or the face. There is much more danger of someone smacking their head on something and becoming a casualty than there is of taking a head or neck shot.

The PASGT helmet worked on the principle of distribution of force rather than being 'bulletproof'. A direct hit to a PASGT from a 7.62 or a 5.56 from a realistic range (considering our most likely engagements) WILL blow right through.

I wonder how much 43,000 of these helmets cost us compared to what it would have cost us for some decent PROTEC helmets. I would have rather seen that tax money sent on better vital organ protection.

And that guy that wrote the DefenseTech article spelled hazard wrong. Dumbass.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Most helemts are only good for protection agaisnt frag.... they dont do much for direct fire




top topics
 
0

log in

join