# Marine Corps to Explore Helmet Redesign



## GAP (11 Jul 2006)

Marine Corps to Explore Helmet Redesign  
http://www.military.com/MilitaryReport/0,12914,104425,00.html?ESRC=miltrep.nl

 Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) recently commended a decision by the Commandant of the Marine Corps to study the issue of how best to protect the heads of all Marines and servicemembers from traumatic brain injuries from blasts caused by improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Helmets have been designed only to protect from the effects of fragmentation and blunt force impacts. The Marine Corps recently initiated studies to explore ways to protect from blast. Buyer has gotten bipartisan support for funding helmet tests. Showing their own support for improvements, the Marines say that money should not be an issue.


----------



## Red 6 (11 Jul 2006)

There's been a lot of debate on the whole body aromor issue. In my opinion, a great deal of it is politically motivated. The crux is mobility vs protection. The Marine Corps just spent miliions of dollars "upgrading" the SAPI plates and making more peripheral armor for the Interceptor vests currently in service. The trouble is, not many Marines want to wear the stuff because it's so cumbersome. They feel that mobility is as important as the proterction offered by layers of armor. It's nice to think about how helmets can be improved to protect the brain housing group, but reality has to set in here somewhere.You can only carry so much weight on top of your melon,  and then you wind up with neck fatigue, head aches, shoulder trouble.


----------



## GAP (11 Jul 2006)

Both of us, who have worn the helmets, can attest to the fact, that neither of us would advocate additional weight. That said, the helmets never were designed for concussive absorbsion, rather for protecting the noggin from bits & pieces.


----------



## McAllister (11 Jul 2006)

If they issue us new bulkier heavier helmets I guess I'll luck out cause my platoon only uses the 'mitch' style helmets. Nice and light and they don't interfere with the scout sniper day scope. All the force recon dudes use em and ours are secondhand when we get em so I'd bet we're gettin force's second hand junk. Nice brain buckets though.


----------



## Red 6 (12 Jul 2006)

Yeah, the MICH is a good helmet. This issue highlights the conflicting demands of combat gear design.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Jul 2006)

Here's a radical idea - adopt the US Army ACH.


----------



## Red 6 (12 Jul 2006)

The MICH and the ACH are basically the same helmet. MICH is the technical name of the helmet system. Two different companies make them; Gentex and MSA. Gentex markets their version under the name "Tactical Ballistic Helmet." MSA calls theirs the "Advanced Combat Helmet." So far as I know, only a few units in the Marine Corps wear the MICH, mostly reconnaissance units. The Corps opted several years ago for a redesign of the old K-pot with an improved suspension system.


----------



## McAllister (12 Jul 2006)

Hey I just got my mich but I havent put the Nvg adapter on it. Will it fit the MICH?


----------



## Red 6 (13 Jul 2006)

Roger, but with a caveat. Your unit needs to get the adapter bracket for the MICH helmet. It's a different part than the adapter for the old K-pot. The NSN is 5340-01-509-1467 in case your supply sergeant doesn't have it already. Good luck. Your unit can also do a direct purchase from ITT Night Vision for them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jul 2006)

Sorry I couldn't resist.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Jul 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> Yeah, the MICH is a good helmet. This issue highlights the conflicting demands of combat gear design.



I have my MICH issued, but although externally it appears the same as its US brother, its Aussie made, and the Aussie version has a different liner, and a chin strap set up similar to the CF type.

The helmet is light and comfortable. Pics to follow in a week or so.

Cheers,

Wes


----------

