Help support TMP

"A New Helmet For U.S. Army Soldiers" Topic

18 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board

Action Log

17 Jun 2018 4:32 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from Modern Media board
  • Crossposted to Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) board

Areas of Interest


1,089 hits since 15 Jun 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP16 Jun 2018 9:46 p.m. PST

"A new helmet under development by the U.S. Army promises to reduce the weight of a soldier's protective head cover, bringing it down to World War II-levels. The new Advanced Combat Helmet Generation II will be easier on a soldier's neck muscles than ever before while protecting the wearer from head injuries.

The Advanced Combat Helmet Generation II (ACH II) promises up to a 24 percent weight savings over earlier helmets, including the current issue Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH). At the same time, ACH II is rated to stop nine millimeter bullets, shrapnel, and the effects of improvised explosive devices. The helmet was developed by the Army's Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center…."


Main page


Cacique Caribe Inactive Member16 Jun 2018 10:37 p.m. PST

Hmm. Even though the material will be lighter, will the final shape be similar to the style worn today?


Brad Jenison Inactive Member17 Jun 2018 5:09 a.m. PST

Dan, if the photograph is of the new helmet, I can see how they get the weight savings. No ear protection, not as much protection for the back of the neck. Weight reduction by reduction in the amount of area protected looks to me. Delta force has been wearing helmets that look much the same to me for years.

Steve Wilcox17 Jun 2018 7:21 a.m. PST

Pics of the new helmet from a link in the OP article:



Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP17 Jun 2018 11:04 a.m. PST

Loos more for raid on bike than to go to war….


Pan Marek Supporting Member of TMP17 Jun 2018 11:33 a.m. PST

How much will it cost taxpayers?
Is it absolutely necessary at this time?
Who is manufacturing it, and who are the Senators and Representatives for that district?

Cacique Caribe Inactive Member17 Jun 2018 11:43 a.m. PST

Pan Marek

Cost and need are always important, of course.

Then again, if people demand and get their football players new and improved helmets to avoid fatalities and debilitating lifelong injuries, then the least we could do is go and do the same for those who are actually putting their lives on the line for us.

Yep. I'd like to see which senators and representatives vote against improvements. We might actually notice a pattern too.

PS. What some people seem to forget (or choose to forget) is how these new developments end up saving law enforcement and civilian first responders (meaning tax payers) and others much more money than doing their own independent research, development and production costs.

CorpCommander Inactive Member17 Jun 2018 12:20 p.m. PST

Looks like a nice improvement over the MICH. However the protection has gone from IIIA to II. That is a bit of a worry. Perhaps the statistics show that Level II protection is adequate for the job.

Personal logo Jeff Ewing Supporting Member of TMP17 Jun 2018 12:38 p.m. PST

How much will it cost taxpayers?
Pay for head protection now or rehab for the rest of the vet's life.

Bunkermeister Supporting Member of TMP17 Jun 2018 2:55 p.m. PST

The cost of a new helmet is chump change compared to so many other things we spend money on as a nation.
This article explains even more about this $98 USD million dollar contract. link
They get the helmets for $333.87 USD each. A decent motorcycle helmet can cost that much or more.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Lion in the Stars17 Jun 2018 3:09 p.m. PST

I dunno about making the helmets lighter… The SCA doesn't allow lightweight materials in helmets because the mass of the helmet is part of what protects you from concussions (because it takes more force to make your brain slosh).

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP17 Jun 2018 3:53 p.m. PST

Good point Pan! Let's see. We want to be fair about this. Military spending hasn't been over 5% of GDP since the 60's, but let's call it that to be fair. So if you're making $100,000 USD a year, about $5,000 USD goes to the military. Given what they're paying for littoral combat ships, aircraft carriers and F-35's, I'd be astounded if issuing new helmets got up to 0.1% of military spending the year they're issued, but we want to be absolutely fair, so call it that. Your share of the cost of new helmets would be $5. USD I'll send you a check--in return for an agreement that if you or anyone you love enters a combat zone, that person will be wearing a knit cap at all times.

Cacique Caribe Inactive Member17 Jun 2018 4:29 p.m. PST

Robert: "wearing a knit cap at all times"

Perhaps a pink one, with little ears? :)


Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP17 Jun 2018 6:22 p.m. PST

Don't sweat the money.
We have it available from the cancelled fraudulent global warming studies scams.

USAFpilot17 Jun 2018 7:49 p.m. PST

Money well spent. And it is made in the USA, so at least that money is going back into the country.

surdu2005 Sponsoring Member of TMP19 Jun 2018 2:27 a.m. PST

The original ACH was the first helmet -- ever -- designed to stop a bullet. The first use of the helmet in combat was Grenada. There is an ACH in the 82nd Airborne Museum at Ft. Bragg, NC, with a 7.62mm bullet in it. The soldier was knocked unconscious, but he lived. With the previous steel pot, he would have been dead. Since then, there have been numerous cases of the ACH saving lives -- both military and law enforcement. I'd say with the amount of money we waste in the Government every day, the ACH and ACH II are worth the price.

The soldier's combat load has been about 120 pounds since ancient Rome. Whenever we reduce soldier load, we use that as an opportunity to add something else. In this case, as most US soldiers are wearing -- or will soon have -- night vision equipment, the weight savings has already been spent.

Buck Surdu

surdu2005 Sponsoring Member of TMP19 Jun 2018 2:28 a.m. PST

… And one other comment. The Natick folks have been looking at a fully enclosed motorcycle style helmet for years, but despite the increase in protection, there are a number of reasons why this is currently impractical for the infantry.

SouthernPhantom30 Jun 2018 9:30 p.m. PST

I couldn't imagine trying to get a sight picture with my rifle while wearing a full-face helmet. It just wouldn't work without some sort of helmet-mounted display.

There is always a tradeoff between protection and mobility. Full-face infantry helmets are far too heavily on the side of protection, in my opinion.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.