# New CF helmet in testing



## Tuna (7 Nov 2011)

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=5591

this is a hyperlink to an army news report on new helmets that are currently being tested, does anyone have any opinions on these helmets? I personally think that the mandible will probably get a lot of twigs and such stuck in it, but it would probably make a good crew helmet. that is just my opinion though, worth watching


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Nov 2011)

Interesting.  I am intrigued by the visor.  I personally find that the ballistic glasses fog up for me and I found them almost unwearable for that reason.  If there was a visor that gave the ballistic protection but gave stand off so that it could breathe better and maybe prevent/minimize the fogging that would be a plus for guys like me.   Nice to see that they are looking at making things better at any rate.


----------



## Tom_Swift (7 Nov 2011)

I think Crye has the right idea, the helmet in that video looks crazy heavy/huge.


----------



## Troopasaurus (7 Nov 2011)

Modular eh... will probably end up just like our body armour. Designed as modular to fit different situations (shoulder guards, Arm pads, and neck Kevlar) that gets pushed by the chain to the level of most protection regardless of the role. Not to mention the fact that as seen towards the end of the video it is causing issues with shooting effectively (note the crazy system to raise the EOTech). Sometimes less armour and more mobility is the way to go and I think the R&D side of the house gets that idea but anything less than the highest level of armour is a chargable offence in some places and this prevents a modular system from actually occurring.  

For example after an Incident overseas my body armour was inspected by a Maj in the R&D area he asked if I was wearing my shoulder pads. I responded that as ordered I was. He inquired about this order and upon hearing that everyone was required to wear such armour attachments replied "that's not the way it was designed... If your in a LAV your supposed to wear the full armour but if your on a dismounted patrol it is to be adjusted." I can see this turning out the same way.


----------



## buzgo (7 Nov 2011)

Troopasaurus said:
			
		

> Sometimes less armour and more mobility is the way to go



Agreed 100% Also, yet again, the mighty Canadian Army is spending time and money redesigning  (over designing even) something that could likely be met with a COTS solution...


----------



## Towards_the_gap (7 Nov 2011)

You should have seen the storm of smelly stuff that ensued when a photo of one my guys, with sleeves partially rolled up, lying on a stretcher wounded, was on the front page of the Star. Cue furious e-mail exchanges promising that the troop commander would be charged and so on and so forth.

Regardless of the fact that he took frag to the leg anyways and sleeves or no sleeves would have done nothing.


----------



## Troopasaurus (7 Nov 2011)

OTW shirts were first allowed in 2008 however the zipper had to be removed due to the fact that it could melt to your skin... never mind our issued uniforms melting.

And Oakleys will "melt to your face" so they are not allowed to be worn... the issued eyewear will not.


----------



## RCDtpr (7 Nov 2011)

Regardless of what it is designed for, I suspect that it comes from the highest of levels that because the full system costs money, it will be worn regardless of how useless it is.  I'm referring to everything when I say this, ballistics, and especially those worthless neck guards and shoulder pads that started getting issued in the last few years overseas.

I'm still in disbelief we were actually allowed to purchase our own chest rigs in lieu of the tac vests.

Back on topic though, I'm torn on this helmet.......obviously I've never used it, but a modular helmet seems like it could be a pain in the ass.  I was also VERY unimpressed when I saw the mods that had to be done to weapon sights.  If you can't fire a weapon properly with that mandible, then it shouldn't even be considered when it comes to purchasing.  I'll sacrifice some face protection if it allows me to actually be able to fight back properly.  Just my $.02 though.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Nov 2011)

It's been done before:


----------



## HollywoodCowboy (7 Nov 2011)

Fugly


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Nov 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It's been done before:



Ancient history. Much better design.


----------



## Snaketnk (7 Nov 2011)

That's exactly what I want, a helmet that's even larger and more cumbersome.  They look like bobble-heads. I want a low profile helmet that actually is practical to wear when shooting not a total hindrance. 

I'm astounded at the stupidity in the design of these things.

Just to add, when I see stuff like this It makes me wish they would cut military spending... because when we give them the money all they do is throw it away on useless, overpriced, junk that's often worse than the stuff it's replacing.


----------



## Robert0288 (7 Nov 2011)

I wonder if the issued visor will come with an issued ice scraper?


----------



## FlyingDutchman (7 Nov 2011)

That helmet almost looks to big.  Like 'well thats a nice big target' big.


----------



## McG (8 Nov 2011)

I suppose the upside is that the with the new sight adapter, the simunition armour will work with the rifle the same way that the "battle armour" works (ie. no cheek weld).

In any case, you guys are all wrong.  This helmet does not go far enough.  I won't be happy until we're fighting in this outstanding piece of kit:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Nov 2011)

;D


----------



## FlyingDutchman (8 Nov 2011)

How about this?


----------



## Silverfire (8 Nov 2011)

Is anyone noticing the similarity to the HALO style helmets?


----------



## Arctic Acorn (8 Nov 2011)

So, there's a lighter version for the "more logistical trades", but come on...if there's a chance it's going to be needed, everyone will likely wind up having to wear the whole thing anyway.

Also, how much does that thing weigh? I wonder if they're going to include a pamphlet with special neck strengthening exercises. 

If I've gotta wear something that heavy and awkward...ya might as well go with something a little more fetching...like a Batman cowl!


----------



## buzgo (8 Nov 2011)

Check out what Norway is doing:

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2011/09/07/ops-core-helmets-for-the-whole-norwegian-army/

They are buying the Ops Core FAST helmet, with the full option set including MANDIBLE protection...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 Nov 2011)

Slightly off-topic; I was watching the video and towards the end it shows a soldier firing. I was just curious as to the type of sight he has on his rifle. Image here:


----------



## Tuna (8 Nov 2011)

Silverfire said:
			
		

> Is anyone noticing the similarity to the HALO style helmets?



maybe in the future Canada will be the home of the mjolnir project! haha


----------



## buzgo (8 Nov 2011)

That weapon sight is an Eotech on some kind of kludged up mount. The helmet looks like it really messes up eye-relief.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (8 Nov 2011)

0tto Destruct said:
			
		

> So, there's a lighter version for the "more logistical trades", but come on...if there's a chance it's going to be needed, everyone will likely wind up having to wear the whole thing anyway.
> 
> Also, how much does that thing weigh? I wonder if they're going to include a pamphlet with special neck strengthening exercises.
> 
> If I've gotta wear something that heavy and awkward...ya might as well go with something a little more fetching...like a Batman cowl!


Perhaps its lighter than it looks.  One can hope so anyways.


----------



## Snaketnk (8 Nov 2011)

It's not the weight that worries me, it's how cumbersome it looks to shoot with. I want a helmet that's high in the back and doesn't cover my ears. They gave me the opposite.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Nov 2011)

My suggestion, see picture


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Nov 2011)

I failed to mention the helmet also gives the soldier the power to choke the living sh!t out of his opponents.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Nov 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I failed to mention the helmet also gives the soldier the power to choke the living sh!t out of his opponents.



Without even touching them.   :nod:


----------



## Tuna (8 Nov 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> My suggestion, see picture



first the helmet, next the walkers, eventually the death star the Canadians' time will come, and we will one day form the empire!


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Nov 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Without even touching them.   :nod:



Yes.  Good point. It also works to change peoples minds - these aren't the drunk Imperial Storm Troops you're looking for.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (8 Nov 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> My suggestion, see picture


I own one of those, piss poor visibility unless your oppenent is waving around a glowing sword.


----------



## twistedfang790 (8 Nov 2011)

just noticed the thread, was wondering what combat arms units were trialing these helmets and in what conditions, i really dont want another lsvw experience , especially when it comes to my skull. 
PS, i miss the helmet that helped against scrapnel, i could use to help dig my shellscape in a hurry or the best....... holding my  shaving water !! 8)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Nov 2011)

twistedfang790 said:
			
		

> just noticed the thread, was wondering what combat arms units were trialing these helmets and in what conditions, i really dont want another lsvw experience , especially when it comes to my skull.
> PS, i miss the helmet that helped against scrapnel, i could use to help dig my shellscape in a hurry or the best....... holding my  shaving water !! 8)



Go back and watch the video that's linked in the very first post, where most people start reading from.


----------



## twistedfang790 (9 Nov 2011)

thanks recceguy, checked out the video , kinda surprised that only 24 people from one regiment of all 3 regiments of the infantry , never mind the rest of the combat arms were "invited " to test out the helmet. The reality of military testing of equipment for ground troops tend to be a bit more complicated then having politically chosen soldiers giving the green light for equipment while the rest of us have to suffer the"its approved and issued,thank us you have new kit"that doesnt quiet meet the soldiers"real" standards of survival. Just my opinion. I've only always been a working soldier and might be missing a bigger picture out of my ...paygrade . 
The helmet itself does look pretty cool, even to an older guy like me. Mind you a helmet is a helmet when it comes to the work , whether you are infantry, clerk, cook arty,driver.Helmets will not stop bullets, they will help agains scrapnel and getting thrown against something harder than your head(at the right angle). 
thats my 3 cents.


----------



## Dissident (9 Nov 2011)

Good gods, SERIOUSLY?


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2011)

Re: testing

Eons ago, I ran into PPCLI soldiers in Wainwright doing trials on "new" gear.

One group was the control group with the usual Canadian issue "stuff" (C-1 rifles and C-2 automatic rifles, steel helmets etc.)

One group had FN-CAL 5.56mm rifles, FN Minimi LMG's and Israeli paratrooper helmets

The last group had PASGAT helmets (US Kevlar), M-16 rifles and FN Minimi LMG's (apparently the LMG was already finalized by that point)

The group with the FN-CAL rifles and Isreali paratrooper helmets were very pleased with the equipment. The ones with the PASGAT helmets and M-16's were far less pleased with that equipment. Needless to say, we never got FN-CAL rifles, Israeli or PASGAT helmets...(The C-7 is quite evolved from the M-16, so I'll give that one a pass).

I have no idea why the equipment the troops chose was rejected, although factors like price and politics comes to mind (maybe FN wasn'r willing to let us build their rifles here or something), but I doubt that straightforward questions that you or I would consider important are at the top of the list when making these decisions (the LSVW is perhaps the most notorious case in point).


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I have no idea why the equipment the troops chose was rejected, although factors like price and politics comes to mind (maybe FN wasn'r willing to let us build their rifles here or something), but I doubt that straightforward questions that you or I would consider important are at the top of the list when making these decisions (the LSVW is perhaps the most notorious case in point).



There are several reasons - and you mentioned one. Licensing agreements are one, the potential to create jobs in Canada is another. If a corporation refuses to allow its technology to be transferred to a Canadian corporation to create jobs - then the liklihood of that equipment being bought is lessened. 

Cost is another factor - and the lowest bidder does not always win - its who gives the best bang for the buck!


----------



## aesop081 (10 Nov 2011)

twistedfang790 said:
			
		

> The reality of military testing of equipment for ground troops tend to be a bit more complicated then having politically chosen soldiers giving the green light for equipment while the rest of us have to suffer the"its approved and issued,thank us you have new kit"that doesnt quiet meet the soldiers"real" standards of survival. Just my opinion.



Politicaly chosen soldiers ?





> scrapnel



The term is "shrapnel".........


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Nov 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> There are several reasons - and you mentioned one. Licensing agreements are one, the potential to create jobs in Canada is another. If a corporation refuses to allow its technology to be transferred to a Canadian corporation to create jobs - then the liklihood of that equipment being bought is lessened.
> 
> Cost is another factor - and the lowest bidder does not always win - its who gives the best bang for the buck!



If I remember correctly the main reason Canada chose the M-16 was for interoperability with American forces.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2011)

Let's stay on track folks. The thread is about new helmet trials.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Tank Troll (10 Nov 2011)

Wonder how well these one will work in a tank? Current ones work like crap! "But don't worry we are currently developing an armour vehicle crew helmet." That was only a dozen years or so a go  :


----------



## Snaketnk (10 Nov 2011)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Wonder how well these one will work in a tank? Current ones work like crap! "But don't worry we are currently developing an armour vehicle crew helmet." That was only a dozen years or so a go  :



I've seen armoured crewman helmets around once and a while. Older ones. It seems that the inner layer of the new helmet would be mainly for crewman who they don't think require the ballistic protection.


This design seriously makes me mad.


----------



## MedCorps (10 Nov 2011)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Wonder how well these one will work in a tank? Current ones work like crap! "But don't worry we are currently developing an armour vehicle crew helmet." That was only a dozen years or so a go  :



The combat vehicle crew modular helmet is being fielded now.  if you are entitled you should be seeing them already or in the next 17 months as the fielding plan concludes.  This is project 23 of 25 in the Clothe The Soldier program. 

MC


----------



## McG (12 Nov 2011)

Having been through both the Valcartier and Toronto research establishments around the time this idea was kicking off, I am happy to see the product has come along way from the motorcycle helmet mock-up that they originally had (along with a few others that mostly looked like a G.I. Joe Steele Brigade thing).

The modular idea was there in the beginning.  A helmet that could provide all the protection of our current helmet and more, could provide hearing/ear protection (possibly with directional sound amplification too), environmentally sealed as needed for CBRN environments, climate controlled and integrated or compatible vision aides.

Anyway, I am curious where this fits in the spectrum from ADM(S&T) directed experiment to Army directed product development.  The science guys will go technology demonstration projects (TDPs) that design and test something only to prove the something is possible.  TDPs are not generally setup well to transition the end product to general issue ... and TDPs are not intended to deliver an issueable product either.  The TDP lessons can go on to help define requirements (we've proven what is possible, so we can now ask industry to provide it) or be shared with partners in industry.  

The exact nature of this particular experiment would give an idea how far down the road a new helmet might actually be.  If this were something more than a TDP and a new helmet were imminent, then I would have expected LFTEU to have been at the forefront with the various DRDC being told to take a spectators only seat.

Anyway, going back to my previous post - I would like to see our next issue helmet as one of those Storm Trooper or late model Clone Trooper helmets.


----------



## Tank Troll (14 Nov 2011)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> The combat vehicle crew modular helmet is being fielded now.  if you are entitled you should be seeing them already or in the next 17 months as the fielding plan concludes.  This is project 23 of 25 in the Clothe The Soldier program.
> 
> MC



Just in time too! That was close, we almost had to send them to Astan, and see if they would work in an actual theater of war.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Nov 2011)

We got to try out the Israeli paratrooper helmet in Germany in 84, it was great, didn't flop around and didn't interfere with head movement. Did not provide to much protection to the neck/ears though. When we marked it higher than the rest, we told by the officer overseeing the trial not to be silly and there was no way would be buying an Israeli product. Also tested body armour at the same time.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Nov 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> We got to try out the Israeli paratrooper helmet in Germany in 84, it was great, didn't flop around and didn't interfere with head movement. Did not provide to much protection to the neck/ears though. When we marked it higher than the rest, we told by the officer overseeing the trial not to be silly and there was no way would be buying an Israeli product. Also tested body armour at the same time.



I've heard similar stories about other items - the result was predetermined but they had to go through the steps.


----------



## startbutton (14 Nov 2011)

On the Stars and Stripes web site today there is an article about the new helmet they are testing and looks similar to the one being tested by us . And ya they have some of the same points good and bad being said about theres


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Nov 2011)

Mind you we were still wearing the steel pot at that time, so almost any newer helmet was an improvement. The Steel pot did make an excellent washbasin however, a feature lost in the newer helmets. I have to wonder how much an improvement is the new basic helmet over the current issue?


----------



## aesop081 (14 Nov 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have to wonder how much an improvement is the new basic helmet over the current issue?



I would say that this is one of the purposes of the R&D and testing going on, no ?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Nov 2011)

I don't knock them for testing new stuff, but issuing it if the basic helmet does little different might not be a good use of funds. Not to mention Crown assest clamouring to get the "old helmets" to sell to some 1/3 rd world country at 10 cents on the dollar or to have them destroyed to meet some dim witted UN treaty.


----------



## WLSC (12 Oct 2012)

It seem's someone was faster then DLR !!

http://www.45enord.ca/2012/10/la-firme-montrealaise-revision-military-recoit-un-contrat-de-larmee-danoise/


----------



## Jimmy_D (12 Oct 2012)

Pardon my ignorance, but is there a translator anywheres on that link. I get the jist of most of the article but am lacking on a bit of its detail.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2012)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> Pardon my ignorance, but is there a translator anywheres on that link. I get the jist of most of the article but am lacking on a bit of its detail.



Watch the video. It's in (American) English.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Oct 2012)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> Pardon my ignorance, but is there a translator anywheres on that link. I get the jist of most of the article but am lacking on a bit of its detail.



Funny you should say that, because the French in the article is atrocious: It was clearly written in English and run through an automated translation program. I suspect reversing the process will give you a highly readable article in English.


----------



## Jimmy_D (12 Oct 2012)

Surprisingly it did come out perfect English. I normally do not bother with online translators because it usually always comes garbelled, so I normally rely on what bit of french I actually understand and try to piece things together.

Thanks.


----------



## Shrek1985 (12 Oct 2012)

The lobster tail in back needs work...but what strikes me most of how very similar this is to the "Greek" style helmets the CombatReform.com guys have been tossing around for years and years.

Question is protective value, which will of course be classifed.

I was under the impression that a helmet heavy enough to provide protection equal to a ballistic plate was too heavy with current tech.

I agree with above comments re; modular---NOT! higher will just push the max protection at all times for CYA.

The thing I want most is a helmet that will not push up in back when I go prone.


----------



## MeatheadMick (12 Oct 2012)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> The lobster tail in back needs work...but what strikes me most of how very similar this is to the "Greek" style helmets the CombatReform.com guys have been tossing around for years and years.
> 
> Question is protective value, which will of course be classifed.
> 
> ...



Interesting, the thing I want most in a helmet is something I can wear comfortably for hours, or days if need be, without giving me a splitting head-ache.


----------



## Shrek1985 (14 Oct 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> Interesting, the thing I want most in a helmet is something I can wear comfortably for hours, or days if need be, without giving me a splitting head-ache.



 That's an option?


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Oct 2012)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> That's an option?



Its called Skydex helmet pads, but our helmets aren't "designed" for them.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Oct 2012)

If I recall, our helmets aren't designed to have helmet pads stuck right into the helmet itself as they don't provide much "stand off" distance.  You know, the distance that your actual head is from the hemlet itself.  Thing is, when a bullet or whatever hits that helmet it will dent through, the pads being stuck right to the helmet won't absorb/protect from that deformation and will most likely cause injuries.  Imagine a construction helmet without its suspension system and how much it would hurt to have a brick dropped on it.  Same concept.

I have an ops core pad set that comes with an inner ring, this has the same stand off as you would expect with the issue helmet suspension but with all the comfort of a pad system.

I also recall seeing a power point or something from CRDC T-Dot that showed Canadian test of our own pad system.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2012)

Reading the bits about "lobster tails" and Greek helmets simply tells me we are reinventing the wheel yet again. WRT helmet pads, even that was known in ancient times, ancient helmets have holes and bits of fiber that would correspond to our idea of helmet suspension, and in the Middle Ages, a knight or man at arms had a piece of kit which resembled a straw filled donut to place between his head and the helmet...

Of course there are a few differences since these ancient helmets were to protect you from being bashed in the head with a mace or sliced by an edged weapon, but overall the principles are remarkably similar.


----------



## Loachman (15 Oct 2012)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> If I recall, our helmets aren't designed to have helmet pads stuck right into the helmet itself as they don't provide much "stand off" distance.  You know, the distance that your actual head is from the hemlet itself.



Presuming that one's helmet is the proper size for one's head and does not shrink when the issued suspension is removed, the stand-off distance with pads will be precisely the same. The only other factor that could account for any claimed reduction in stand-off distance would be an increase in skull size.

I do not buy the stated reason for "pad=bad" claims.

Show me the comprehensive tests with both.

Show me the comprehensive tests with both for all other likely injuries as well.

I rather doubt that the US Armed Forces would change to pad suspension systems if they did not provide, at minimum, equal protection.

This seems, to me, to be more Clothe The Soldier Tac Vest/Small Pack/Rucksack reputational protectionism than anything.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Oct 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Reading the bits about "lobster tails" and Greek helmets simply tells me we are reinventing the wheel yet again. WRT helmet pads, even that was known in ancient times, ancient helmets have holes and bits of fiber that would correspond to our idea of helmet suspension, and in the Middle Ages, a knight or man at arms had a piece of kit which resembled a straw filled donut to place between his head and the helmet...
> 
> Of course there are a few differences since these ancient helmets were to protect you from being bashed in the head with a mace or sliced by an edged weapon, but overall the principles are remarkably similar.



On the Bright side when we finally decide to "go Roman" on the barbarians we will be looking the part.


----------



## McG (15 Oct 2012)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> If I recall, our helmets aren't designed to have helmet pads stuck right into the helmet itself as they don't provide much "stand off" distance.  You know, the distance that your actual head is from the hemlet itself.


It is not that the pads do not provide enough standoff but that they transmit the shock directly to the skull when the helmet shell deforms on projectile impact.  With the suspension system, the air gap between helmet shell & head does not transmit this impact.

The LCMM has access to experimental data to show this.  The tests were done by these guys:  http://www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/drdc/en/centres/drdc-valcartier-rddc-valcartier/


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Oct 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> It is not that the pads do not provide enough standoff but that they transmit the shock directly to the skull when the helmet shell deforms on projectile impact.  With the suspension system, the air gap between helmet shell & head does not transmit this impact.



As I wrote: "Thing is, when a bullet or whatever hits that helmet it will dent through, the pads being stuck right to the helmet won't absorb/protect from that deformation and will most likely cause injuries." 

There are actually different types of pads out there.. mine are memory foam type but there are some that are made of different materials.  I am curious as Loachman said, how many US soldiers have been affected by the lack of protection provided/not provided by a pad system?

I know the first response will most likely be "different helmet, different factors".. but I am pretty sure the US MICH is close to our helmet, no?


----------



## Danjanou (15 Oct 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> Interesting, the thing I want most in a helmet is something I can wear comfortably for hours, or days if need be, without giving me a splitting head-ache.



We used to have something like that once  8) 







On the down side it also made a lousy container for shaving with and the ballistic protection left something to be desired.  8)


----------



## George Wallace (15 Oct 2012)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> We used to have something like that once  8)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



...but you could pretend you were Robin Hood.    ;D


----------



## Danjanou (15 Oct 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ...but you could pretend you were Robin Hood.    ;D



or Elmer Fudd  8)


----------



## UnwiseCritic (3 Mar 2013)

Does anyone know if this is actually going to be implemented?

As I can see a few problems:

Improper sight picture
Fatigue leading to laziness when it's necessary to keep your head up
The lack of breathability leading to more heat casualties
Parts going missing 
Less manouvreabilityDisrupt ones abilities to hear as well or have as good of directional hearing
Just more weight when having to run
And what about grabbing a quick drink?

I see it being a good piece of kit for anyone (with space) operating with vehicles where they can be exposed from time to time and no need to dismount at short notice.

I also understand that people have the best of intentions, but more isn't always better. I want to be comfortable, extremely mobile with as much breathability in my kit as possible.


----------

