# New Standard Issue Helmet



## onecat (9 Aug 2003)

This has been on my mind for a while now, so I thought I would post here and get some answers.  Lastest helmet in use with the CF, why was that design choosen?  It look very different from the current US helmet, and most Nato countries seem to be using the US design; so why aren‘t we?

Thanks


_Edited to correct the typo in the topic title -- it was driving me insane!! Vern_


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Aug 2003)

See the book TIN LIDS by Roger V. Lucy, Service Publications -  http://www.servicepub.com


----------



## D-n-A (9 Aug 2003)

I think that the current helmet we use is similar to the US one, only ours isnt as big


----------



## Recce41 (9 Aug 2003)

Ours is a French version, we did have the US crap in 94. But we designed and made our own. The new helmet will be two piece. The liner will be a bike style. The outer will be same as the one now and a crew type helmet. To keep the **** Commander of the Army happy. Only Grunts wear helmets in a veh, now everyone does. You cannot gun a tank or Coyote with a **** helmet. 
Grunt officers come up with stupid s$%^.


----------



## Redeye (9 Aug 2003)

The biggest advantage (according to some, at least) about the Cdn pattern helmet is the suspension has a different design so that in theory it doesn‘t slide forward/backward about the head like the simple single chinstrap of the US PAGST helmet.

As far as I know, the design is unique to Canada, they‘re made in Quebec somewhere.


----------



## hoganshero (13 Aug 2003)

How does the new pattern helmet interact with body armour in the prone position? I understand the US is debating replacing the "fritz" as soldiers are complaining about the collar of the body armour pushing the helmet forward when prone. Perhaps they should adopt ours if it interacts well with th ebody armour??


----------



## Devlin (13 Aug 2003)

Not sure about you guys but the little plastic adjustment clips on the straps are absolute and complete sh!t. At least put some friggin teeth on the clamping portion so the straps stay in the same place.

My 2 cents


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Aug 2003)

The screws that hold the chin-strap in place are over-engineered as well; you lose one of those screws (there are two at each attachment point IIRC, one INSIDE another one...) and there is little to do about it in the field.  We had a weapons tech who found that part of his job was using his little screwdriver and can of loc-tite to fix helmets.


----------



## kurokaze (13 Aug 2003)

> How does the new pattern helmet interact with body armour in the prone position? I understand the US is debating replacing the "fritz" as soldiers are complaining about the collar of the body armour pushing the helmet forward when prone. Perhaps they should adopt ours if it interacts well with th ebody armour??


I can attest to this.  While in the prone or
lying face-down on the ground and wearing the
flak vest + helmet it becomes very cumbersome
to look up without lifting your upper torso in
the process.  The helmet simply slides forward
almost covering your eyes.  Doesn‘t seem to be
a problem for people with long necks    but for
some of us we ended up removing the collars on 
the vests to alleviate the situation.


----------



## hoganshero (13 Aug 2003)

> I can attest to this. While in the prone or
> lying face-down on the ground and wearing the
> flak vest + helmet it becomes very cumbersome
> to look up without lifting your upper torso in
> ...


I‘m assuming it is the canadian pattern helmet your are talking about. If so does anyone know of Ottawa looking into this or resolving it outright? What type of testing did the items from the clothe the soldier project go through? How does that fact "sneak" through the system?


----------



## Doug VT (13 Aug 2003)

That will never change, there‘s no way around it.  You‘ll just have to accept it.


----------



## Jungle (13 Aug 2003)

I‘m with Doug on this, there will never be a perfect helmet/vest combination.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Aug 2003)

If and when they do come up with a helmet that doesn‘t interfere with the vest, guaranteed that rainwater will run straight off of it and down the back of your shirt!


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Aug 2003)

I get a kick out of watching new guys on patrols with rucks go to ground.  They learn pretty quick to fall on their side and not go into the prone.


----------



## Andrew_Power (23 Aug 2003)

what do you mean?


----------



## GrahamD (23 Aug 2003)

If you ever tried going to ground (or fell forward) with a backpack on, you know that the weight of the pack either A.) simply helps you fall a little faster, or B.) the weight shifts forward (or up as it were) and makes you top heavy, which helps your face accelerate toward the ground at an alarming speed.
  Put enough weight on your back (ie a rucksack full of kit) and you are looking at doing some potentially serious damage to yourself, like fracturing your wrists, or maybe even losing some teeth on a rock.

I‘ve never tried it, either with a rucksack or a rucksack and helmet combination, (just what I know from outdoor paintballing with a backpack on), but I would think that the ruck might interfere with the back of the helmet making it difficult to look forward as you go prone, or even pushing the helmet over your face.  

I don‘t know, does that happen?


----------



## MG34 (23 Aug 2003)

Well if you are going to ground with a ruck on you are doing something wrong!!!The drill is to dump your ruck so you can fight and move.The ruck stays on if you are in the kneeling position.It is no fun fighting with a ruck on,having done it for several kilometers during fighting withdrawls,anti ambush drills etc.most times in these situations you are either running or firing from the kneeling.If you come under close contact and there is time ie. you are not under effective fire the rucks are dropped off and retreived after the battle with any kit left over from casualties being divided up or destroyed if not important.This is why everyone in the section must have their kit packed the same and be inspected regularly.


----------



## N.Grundle (29 Oct 2007)

i keep searching around to find the name of the CF combat helmet, so dont yell at me for wonderin' but whats it called?


----------



## medaid (29 Oct 2007)

This is not directly related to your question, however, you are not a member of the Royal Westminster Regt, and hence should not be using their unit crest as your Avatar. Just incase those of the Regt call you out.


----------



## Thorvald (29 Oct 2007)

N.Grundle said:
			
		

> i keep searching around to find the name of the CF combat helmet, so dont yell at me for wonderin' but whats it called?



The helmet is made by Gallet out of France, though I assume it was made in Quebec under contract like everything else in the Military...  :  See the last page of the User's Manual at the link further down.

http://www.gallet.fr/index.php?id=407&L=0

It is known as the Model CG634 helmet.

Users Manual is scanned in here: http://hem.bredband.net/runmat3/Manuals/ca-cg634/ca-cg634.html

Enjoy.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2007)

Thorvald said:
			
		

> though I assume it was made in Quebec under contract like everything else in the Military...  :



LSVW.....made in BC
C7 made in Ontario
Fragmentation protection vest made in BC
Intergrated Clothing ensemble made in Winnipeg
Combat Veh Crew glove made in Winnipeg
Lightweight thermal / mortar glove made in Winnipeg
Wide-Brim combat hat made in Ontario
Combat sock system made in Ontario
Tac Vest made in Ontario
Small pack system made in Ontario


Yeah, you are right, everything in the military is made in Quebec

 :


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Oct 2007)

Question.  Does Canada produce a lot of our own Military gear because its cheaper than import?  Or does it just better reflect the country if we supply our own military?  Just out of curiosity cause the thread above looked like all our stuff is made here.


----------



## Thorvald (29 Oct 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Yeah, you are right, everything in the military is made in Quebec
> 
> :



Touché  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2007)

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=113938

Our helmet is made in the USA by a company called MSA


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Oct 2007)

Haha OK see NOW I'm getting confused cause everyone seams to think its manufactured in a different place.

In the US you say?.. I can believe that


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2007)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> Haha OK see NOW I'm getting confused cause everyone seams to think its manufactured in a different place.
> 
> In the US you say?.. I can believe that



Can you read the link i posted above........?


----------



## LordOsborne (29 Oct 2007)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> Question.  Does Canada produce a lot of our own Military gear because its cheaper than import?  Or does it just better reflect the country if we supply our own military?  Just out of curiosity cause the thread above looked like all our stuff is made here.



IIRC from mess chats, we imported the Iltis production line from Germany, had them produced by Bombardier, and apparently it ended up costing twice the unit cost in 1980's dollars...


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Oct 2007)

Yeah I did read it thats why I'm agreeing with YOU lol.


----------



## medaid (29 Oct 2007)

Other examples of vehicular SNAFU is the LSVW *shudder* Loud Squeeky Vehicle Wheeled... Gotta love 'tactical' night road moves... " I wonder where the convoy..." EEEEEEEEEK... "NVM"


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Oct 2007)

Ok I'll bite....what does "SNAFU" stand for?  ;D ???


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Oct 2007)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> Ok I'll bite....what does "SNAFU" stand for?  ;D ???



http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-52,GGLG:en&q=SNAFU

God,

This is painful some nights...

dileas

tess


----------



## LordOsborne (30 Oct 2007)

MedTechStudent, take some advice from someone who has been where you are now: 

spend some time reading on this forum, instead of posting every question you have. God invented Google for a reason, after all. Also, spend some time reading all the links that Recceguy posted for you in the F88 thread. It's best to lay low for a while and get a feel for how the forum runs, instead of being overly enthusiastic. When I first joined the forum, I made an ass of myself and was promptly sorted out by the staff. I followed their advice and layed low. 

All the best

Pat


----------



## armyvern (30 Oct 2007)

N.Grundle said:
			
		

> i keep searching around to find the name of the CF combat helmet, so dont yell at me for wonderin' but whats it called?



You want the manufacturer name or the CF system name for it??

If the CFSS name:

HELMET, GROUND TROOPS'-PARACHUTISTS


----------



## medaid (30 Oct 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> HELMET, GROUND TROOPS'-*PARACHUTISTS*



Really?! Wow pretty high speed name! Why make that distinction anyone know?


----------



## armyvern (30 Oct 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Really?! Wow pretty high speed name! Why make that distinction anyone know?



Uhmmmm,

Because both ground troops and parachutists wear it??  :

That's just an uneducated guess mind you.


----------



## medaid (30 Oct 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Uhmmmm,
> 
> Because both ground troops and parachutists wear it??  :
> 
> That's just an uneducated guess mind you.




hehehehe well see whenever you see the term 'parachutists' you assume 'wow HSLD must be Gucci'


----------



## MG34 (30 Oct 2007)

The Canadian CG 364 MSA/Gallet helmet is an outdated design with a poor suspension sustem. It does not interface well with our vehicles and FCS, and doesn't wok well with the body armour. The current issue MSA Gallet TC 2000 a sused by the US Army is superior in terms of suspension system and interface with equipment and FCS systems. The higher cut of the helmet allow for a full range of motion when used with load bearing equipment or body armour. The suspension system provides much better protection from impact and shock than our helmet does, and is much more adjustable than our outdated system. The TC 2000 alows for comfortable wear of communications and hearing protection, something ours does not.


----------



## kincanucks (30 Oct 2007)

HELMET, GROUND TROOPS'-PARACHUTISTS

I am confused does that mean you can wear on the ground as well as in an airplane?


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Oct 2007)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> HELMET, GROUND TROOPS'-PARACHUTISTS
> 
> I am confused does that mean you can wear on the ground as well as in an airplane?



Only for short periods, otherwise it would be called HELMET, GROUND TROOPS'-AIRCREW

They slowly begin to deteriorate in high altitiudes.

dileas

tess


----------



## Farmboy (30 Oct 2007)

This one above (Combat Assault) is made by Global Armour and similar to the TC 2000.  Both much better than the issue Gallet.  However the ones in charge up in Ottawa have deemed this one above and our Special Forces helmet seen below, unsuitable for Afghanistan.  The reasoning from what I'm told is the issue one covers more of the head therefore offering more protection.    :

Special Forces helmet


----------



## chriscalow (5 Nov 2007)

The issue helmet offers more protection, which we will need, because we will not be as effective as we could be..  at least that's how I'm seeing this. 

But really, I imagine that plenty of troops have done just fine with the issue helmet, and I'm sure its miles above other helmets that have been issued over history.  Personally, I just got a smaller helmet, and the helmet pads from CP gear, and tighten up the chinstrap real good, it sits a lot closer to my skull and stays pretty much out of the way of my Frag Vest.  Not happy that I had to pay 90 bucks to make my kit work for me, but it does.


----------



## christer (1 Dec 2007)

the Canadian army helmet is a joke.... stupid Swedish design. it's too top heavy and the chin strap clamps slide out so your helmet tips to the side all the time. get a new helmet and I will re-enlist.


----------



## mysteriousmind (1 Dec 2007)

If you are not reenlisting due to a helmet... then the CF are not for you.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Dec 2007)

christer, you are off to a good start !!

Welcome to our warning system, have a nice day.

Milnet.ca staff


----------



## Franko (1 Dec 2007)

christer said:
			
		

> the Canadian army helmet is a joke.... stupid Swedish design. it's too top heavy and the chin strap clamps slide out so your helmet tips to the side all the time. *get a new helmet and I will re-enlist*.



Really? I guess it only takes a shortcoming of a helmet to get you to change your tune.



			
				christer said:
			
		

> hello, I was just wondering how hard it will be to *get back into the cf reserves if I am mid way through being released*?? I just had my exit interview with my rsm last week



If you are here to troll, which your last post was binned BTW and you were more than likely placed on Verbal for, leave now.

You are now on the ramp without a chute.
*
The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## christer (1 Dec 2007)

touchy group, lets take it easy here gents. remember, no one enlisted to talk on this forum. we're all here for the same reason, an interest in the CF. so why do you have to take offense to everything up there on your high horses?


----------



## the 48th regulator (1 Dec 2007)

christer said:
			
		

> touchy group, lets take it easy here gents. remember, no one enlisted to talk on this forum. we're all here for the same reason, an interest in the CF. so why do you have to take offense to everything up there on your high horses?



Can you please knock it off?

You are not the first, and that post may be your last.

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------



## geo (1 Dec 2007)

Christer,
Keep the tone of your statements down and then we'll talk civil like.
Your initial catagorical statement didn,t leave much room for discussion... did it?
If you read thru the whole thread, you'll find that we aren't necessarily the world's greatest fans of the helmet.... but wouldn't quit over the darned thing... 

Wanna try again?


----------



## christer (2 Dec 2007)

hahaha sure! sorry about that, it's just the way I am. A proper knob most of the time. But I would like to ask is there any prospects of getting a new tin lid anytime soon? I actually really like the British helmet, it's about half the weight and covers more of your swede


----------



## Sig_Des (2 Dec 2007)

If people stayed out because of equipment, we wouldn't have an Armed Forces.

Unless you're crew, no new helmet project advertised on CTS Website.


----------



## riggermade (2 Dec 2007)

While it may have its drawbacks it is still alot better than what we were using


----------



## mysteriousmind (2 Dec 2007)

yo my humble opinion, for what it count; 

The helmet we are using now is not perfect....but it does the job...if you had a problem with it...perhaps it was not settle correctly for you, to large...or something like this.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2007)

mysteriousmind said:
			
		

> yo my humble opinion, for what it count;
> 
> The helmet we are using now is not perfect....but it does the job...if you had a problem with it...perhaps it was not settle correctly for you, to large...or something like this.



I am waiting for the Jean Chretian photo with his helmet on backwards..................................................................................


----------



## cadettrooper (7 Dec 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am waiting for the Jean Chretian photo with his helmet on backwards..................................................................................









Hahaha.......Couldn't resist...


----------



## Jammer (7 Dec 2007)

Hey George...
Remember those crap helmets we had before going over to Bosnia in 1994? They were truly............something??!!


----------



## KevinB (7 Dec 2007)

Yeah but the old USGI kevlar was miles ahead of the old M1 Steel pot with or without the jump liner, that we where issuing at the time.

  The curent CF helmet could be easily fixed by a decent suspension system and integrated NV mount plate (hint Nortos) bolted into it.

FYI I prefer the MSA TC2002 "Gunfighter" its cut a little higher than the TC2000 - but not nearly as open as the TC2001 "SF" helmet.


----------



## COBRA-6 (7 Dec 2007)

Kev, do you have any feedback on Rabintex/Protech Delta LT? I have a line on one...

http://www.protechtactical.com/bhelmets.aspx


----------



## KevinB (7 Dec 2007)

nope


----------



## MG34 (10 Dec 2007)

Why is it when I see the phrase" constructed of a light weight high tech aramid" I instantly think Zylon and failure??


----------



## COBRA-6 (10 Dec 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Why is it when I see the phrase" constructed of a light weight high tech aramid" I instantly think Zylon and failure??



I hope all aramid does not equal zylon, cause the issue helmet is made of it!  ;D


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Dec 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Why is it when I see the phrase" constructed of a light weight high tech aramid" I instantly think Zylon and failure??



Kevlar and Nomex are also aramid fibres and are proven in their respective fields.


----------



## MG34 (16 Dec 2007)

Thanks... Tips  ;D
Usually when a product is made from Kevlar it says so,same for Nomex usually as a plug for the manufacturers, when the term " woven aramid fibres " is used with no explanation of what the fibers are we are entering off shore production or the wonderful world of Zylon, at least in my experience with numerous body armour manufacturers.


----------

