Farmboy said:
Don't give me the "it's classified" line either.
I can appreciate that you find it frustrating that CF protection thresholds are not publicized for you to compare against your products. It makes it hard for you to you’re your goods. The good news is that the CF does extensive testing (including of commercial PPE options) and the CF knows that it is issuing superior protective equipment.
I’m not going to argue you on issues of kit to keep soldiers warm & to make their lives easier (things like load carriage or stealth suites). These are things that soldiers experience daily, can (for the most part) safely experiment in and express in relatively quantifiable terms. You are then able to speak to the soldiers and directly ascertain the requirement yourself. The same is not true of blast and ballistic protection. You’re going to have to trust me on this. I know I can trust my information having seen some of the test facilities, set-ups and effects; and I think that I’ve also established a fairly decent track record showing my understanding of blast & ballistic protection trumps yours.
There was a time you doubted me on the inferiority of many commercial BEW options: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33365/post-686690.html#msg686690
But it seems you’ve since come round:
Farmboy said:
... The BEW looks pretty good for protection, which has made me go back to one of my suppliers and say "This needs to be improved" and ...
There was a time when you doubted my claim that a civilian police standard was not an adequate measure to determine military armour suitability: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39069/post-572231.html#msg572231
But you seemed to have accepted when others corrected you: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39069/post-572453.html#msg572453
When it comes to items of soldier preference, I have no doubt you are able to please more people with your products than the options available in the supply system. When it comes to safety and protective equipment, I strongly doubt your ability to better protect our soldiers. You seem to accept suggestions in manufacture glossy brochures at face value while assuming ineffectiveness of the CF equipment entirely. Here is the dangerous thing: without the supporting facts (and despite having gotten the PPE thing wrong a few times), you continue making promises to your customers that your products will provide superior protection to issued CF PPE:
Farmboy said:
The Oregon Aero BLSS and BLU kit provide so much more protection over the leather, paracord and foam POS stuck in the helmet it's not even funny.
I know your intentions are good, but promising things without knowing that your PPE can deliver may eventually get a soldier killed.
Infidel-6 said:
I dont trust DLR as far as I could throw the building ….
IN this case, you do not have to trust DLR. The blast & ballistic testing of PPE is done by an organization which does not report to DLR … it is not even under the Land Staff (and it’s not Toronto either).
Infidel-6 said:
I use a TC2002 and people from MSA have told me the CF Gallet helmet is identical except for the shape.
Shape is a rather important element in the mechanism of how a given helmet will protect and so shape alone can have an impact on the suitability of a liner.
Infidel-6 said:
… I just want the best. From what I have had access to - that is not the CF helemt and issue liner.
Maybe not the best for comfort and such related factors that are a matter of individual preference. However you wouldn’t have had access to adequate data related to protection in order to make the definitive statement that the CF helmet and issue liner offer inferior protection to any other option.