• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Helmet upgrades ? MICH / ACH style pads in CAF style kevlar, any one done one?

Your local Field Amb can likely arrange for that if you ask for it.
 
The only presentation I saw about the helmet was how pad kits were inferior because you lost that extra space that the suspension put between your head from the exterior.  The evidence (as presented to us) was anectdotal at best.  I can see how it *might* be superior in certain situations, as it is the same concept as a construction safety helmet.  However, I'm not convinced the cumbersome design is superior in all or most aspects.  I could be wrong, I don't know.  I do know, without a doubt, they are a million times more comfortable.  What type of IED explosions have they studied the effects of on a modified helmet?  Are they talking mounted or dismounted?  How many times have they actually been able to study the effects on a modified helmet to a regular one?  I'm feeling somehow doubtful about the science of it all, especially after hearing some of the stuff they tell you in those briefings.

The system i use (BLSS) isn't a suspension, but it does have a band that removes most of the pads from direct attatchment to the interior of the helmet.  Probably superior to the Skydex slap in system in terms of protection.  I know I found it to be better at everythign else.

I have yet to see a Pl 21/C inspect helmets.
 
CombatDoc said:
The reason that they are forbidden for use in the CF is because they decrease the level of head protection, not due to the "dress regs" or the "never pass a fault" philosophy.  Although they look to be superficially the same on the outside, apparently the US helmet system is significantly different from the Canadian helmet system.  Therefore, aftermarket items like the Oregon Aero pads which are designed for the US helmet won't offer the same level of protection with our helmet, which is designed to work as a system with the sometimes uncomfortable string/leather suspension.  Something to do with the memory foam transmitting the shock of a blast directly to the skull rather than attenuating it due to the stand-off distance.  This according to our BIO who is working with the DRDC folks.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I'd like to see the science before I make a judgement.  I have a feeling it's more about what someone thinks about something, not what has been proven through studies/testing.

Until it can be shown to me it is unequivocally superior under most probable threats, I won't be switching back anytime soon. Unless, of course, directly ordered to. It's like being forced to drive a K-car after having been in a Cadillac for the last 3 years.

It's not like I'm in an IED enviroment these days anyway.  I'm pretty sure the pads will get me by for most threats I face in garrison. 
 
DirtyDog said:
Probably superior to the Skydex slap in system in terms of protection. 
Click to expand...

Yes - that's the one I've seen refered to.
 
Infanteer said:
Have a bioscience officer give you the presentation on what aftermarket kits do in an IED explosion - if your Pl 2IC is smart, he'll inspect helmets.  I have since went back to my original helmet lining.
Click to expand...

Do you have this powerpoint saved somewhere, or a POC to get the brief? I've seen some reporting about pad kits in post-blast situations, but never any hard evidence to counter their use.
 
Illegio said:
I can speak for 2VP in that they were A-OK for TF 1-08, but they are verboten around the battalion these days. Most of the CoC turns a blind eye, but keep the innards of your lid out of sight while the Q or the RSM are around...
Click to expand...
Anyone at any level in the CoC who turns a blind eye to soldiers modifying PPE should be charged.  They are being absolutely stupid and putting their soldiers lives at risk.  Helmet pads impare the ability of our helmet to protect & they are a modification to PPE.  This is not new information & it has been posted on this site before:
MCG said:
Our helmets were designed to work with a suspension system and it is known that pads will significantly impair protective characteristics.
Click to expand...
There are differences between the material properties, protection mechanisms, and accepted risks between the our helmet and helmets of our allies.  If you don't believe me, then ask higher through your CoC.  The details do not belong out for public consumption, but the information is available within DND.

 
I know guys that have been charged for modifying PPE (specifically, leaving the Kevlar out of the vests and just wearing the strike plates.) People I know that turn a blind eye to the helmet kits do so because they believe the pad system is not a detriment, and we've been given no information that suggests otherwise. If you have that information, I would be happy to PM you my DWAN address.
 
Information regarding the performance levels of PPE and how it reacts in certain situations tends to be protected/classified to some extent - it could reveal certain vulnerabilities.  Your chain-of-command is likely the best to talk to in getting this info through the proper channels.
 
As Infanteer points out, OPSEC considerations preclude posting the details of how our PPE reacts to various threats.  It should suffice that our experts advise against helmet modifications.  However, for those who need to "understand the science" i.e. physics before going back to the issued suspension, all I can say it that it's your brain and brain cells don't regenerate.  :stars:
 
CombatDoc said:
As Infanteer points out, OPSEC considerations preclude posting the details of how our PPE reacts to various threats.  It should suffice that our experts advise against helmet modifications.
Click to expand...
Understandable.

But also understand we've been told by "experts" things like how the CTS ruck is ergonomically superior or a certain pair of boots they've designed is the be all end all.

Of course our people with advise against any modification of PPE.  I get that.  They have to and it makes sense.  But have they truly examined this particular issue in depth or are they just saying "Don't do it, it's a modification to a specifically designed system and will result in inferior protection"? 
 
The only testing I've seen IRT helmet pads was a G-load test, to see if the pads provided the same protection for parachutists that the suspension system did. I even believe it was on these forums. The results concluded the pads were only 2-5G worse, and still well within spec.
 
[I was about to say something akin to what DD said, and:]

Let me share a personal experience:

One Wednesday night before trg started my troops were shooting the shit, talking about this new awesome armor: Dragon Skin. At the time I already had heard about the shortcomings of Dragon Skin, so I told them I would not use it and why. Although they were a bit skeptical, I had well articulated information (Thank you KevinB) as to why. The next week I had some of that info with sources on the cork board. That killed the debate and helped my credibility. The next trg night I informally talked to the guys/girls about being careful about new gadgets and new gear, told them to do some research and ask around. End result is I have no issues with troops using crappy kit and we are not afraid to try new stuff and admit when we made mistakes (Serpa holsters being one for example).
 
DirtyDog said:
Understandable.

But also understand we've been told by "experts" things like how the CTS ruck is ergonomically superior or a certain pair of boots they've designed is the be all end all.

Of course our people with advise against any modification of PPE.  I get that.  They have to and it makes sense.  But have they truly examined this particular issue in depth or are they just saying "Don't do it, it's a modification to a specifically designed system and will result in inferior protection"?
Click to expand...
Yes.  They have examined this in depth.  Canada has a ballistics & munitions experimentation centre that has extensively tested terminal effects of various things against our PPE and against many sorts of PPE that we have rejected for use.  They have experimentally proven, several years back, that pads impare the function of our helmet and increase the chances of significant head injury & death.

It is also no secret that every soldier killed in Afghanistan (and the soldier's PPE) are medically/sceintifically examined in Toronto.  The CF biosceinces community has developed an unfortunate wealth of knowledge of how our PPE functions through this process.

The ballistics & medical communities in the CF are saying not to use pads.  That is a pretty significant backing, and any leader turning a blind-eye to the use of pads is being negligent.
 
If you look here at this Maple Leaf article:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=6692

You will find the name of a fellow CFMS officer Major Natalie.  I know him well.  He is a ex-Infantry Officer now a Bioscience Officer with first hand experience on looking at armour post strike in the sandbox. The article mentions that he is now the OIC for the entire project within the Directorate of Soldier Systems Program Management in Ottawa so he still in the know.

He is also a straight shooter and will tell you how it is.  If he does not have the science/stats he will let you know. I would strongly recommend for CF members who have an interest in this matter (especially those commanding personnel who maybe recommending IPE modifications) to drop him a line on the DWAN to see what his feeling / the science is on the matter.  You owe it to your troops.

Good luck.  Post back and tell us how you make out, of course keeping OPSEC in mind.

MC

 
MedCorps said:
You will find the name of a fellow CFMS officer Major Natalie Natale.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.    ;)

He was in KAF when I was there.  Super nice guy!  :nod:
 
I emailed Maj. Natale in regards to the issue, and suffice it to say that the response was more than satisfactory. The concept is sound, and while it is publicly available information, I'll forgo posting it here in case there are any OPSEC issues. Anyone interested in a copy of the email, PM me your DWAN address and I will be more than happy to pass it along.
 
Of course I found out about Dragon Skin after buying a set and running them for a about three weeks in Iraq...
  I also ran poly plates for a long time in Afghan and Iraq, and found the heat was delaminating them, so sometimes the next best newest thing is not always the right thing.

I'm curious about the Pad issue, as the BLSS kit effectively comes in a very similar helmet to the CF issue helmet from the OEM, the melon cover I currently have, that I wore for about 6 months in Afg, and 2 years in Iraq.  While I agree that some PPE issues are moronic (leaving out the soft armor with a non stand alone plate...) the pad issue does strike me as odd.


 
Maj. Natale's explanation was very good, and made some sense. I may experiment with a hybrid system between suspension and pads, and see if I can get a comfortable fit with the proper mechanics of protection that he outlined.
 
I'm curious about the Pad issue, as the BLSS kit effectively comes in a very similar helmet to the CF issue helmet from the OEM, the melon cover I currently have, that I wore for about 6 months in Afg, and 2 years in Iraq.  While I agree that some PPE issues are moronic (leaving out the soft armor with a non stand alone plate...) the pad issue does strike me as odd.
Click to expand...

Kevin, I think you're right in that not all pad systems are created equal - BLSS vs. Skydex being the prime example. However, suffice it to say that the pad systems are, for now at least, under a blanket ban. Having gone street-legal, I personally don't feel the urge to buck the system on my own dollar again, but Maj. Natale did extend the possibility of a follow-up from his helmet expert. I'm as curious as you to learn the specifics.

Maj. Natale's explanation was very good, and made some sense. I may experiment with a hybrid system between suspension and pads, and see if I can get a comfortable fit with the proper mechanics of protection that he outlined.
Click to expand...

Ech... The only issue that arises here is that an objective comparison between a stock helmet and one fitted w/ a pad/hybrid system requires destructive testing. The "tests" on the Oregon Aero website fail to address the key issue that was brought up, and so without a definitive analysis, everything is just supposition.

I'd do it myself, but I imagine the folks at clothing might get a bit squirrelly if I started bringing in the results for exchange.  ;)
 
Anybody interested in the issues surrounding helmet protection - and the possible road ahead - might get something out of this article.

http://www.army.mil/-news/2011/02/18/52093-brain-experts-meet-to-further-soldier-head-protection/?ref=news-health-title5
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top