Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: When will the military finally use full face covering helmets, etc
  • Subject: When will the military finally use full face covering helmets, etc
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: When will the military finally use full face covering helmets, etc

Xtreme DEAF Gamer

"Somewhere in the heavens... they are waiting"

Posted by: Wrath Vengence
Only effective helmet I could think of would be the Mandalorian helmets in Starwars. 360 degree field of vision.
Um... Aren't the visors of Mandalorian helmets like a curved T sorta?

  • 01.13.2011 9:03 PM PDT

It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.

Posted by: chickenlittle
Cheeto is the only one among you that doesn't suck.

I don't think you know what you're saying.
Posted by: Wrath Vengence
Only effective helmet I could think of would be the Mandalorian helmets in Starwars. 360 degree field of vision.

  • 01.13.2011 9:06 PM PDT

Posted by: Dragon Lundi
Kevlar is almost ancient and military contractors have developed dragon skin, it can with stand 7.12mm rounds at automatic, 9mm and basic NATO ammo.
Dragon skin is only for the chest area, full face helmets are a big question though because if they use them it would cost the companys at least 50 dollars more to add a polarized visor and built in radio, arms and legs technology, I don't know, maybe in 500 years we have mjolnir armor.
But it just comes down to how much the government wants to spend on it's military.

We have something similar to MJOLNIR armor now. We have strength and speed amplifying not to the point of MJOLNIR. Obviously no energy shields. We also have something like SPI armor as well, buts its only issued to those who cost so damn much to train its worth giving them the unbelievably expensive self-camoflaging armor.

  • 01.13.2011 10:01 PM PDT

What a waste....

As Sam said, it restricts peripheral vision. But, about cost; if you spend 100,000 $ on the training for ONE soldier, and his basic equipment, why not spend 200 dollars more to save his life?

  • 01.13.2011 10:02 PM PDT

It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.

Posted by: chickenlittle
Cheeto is the only one among you that doesn't suck.

Because you take that 200 extra bucks you're spending + the cost of developing and testing such a helmet, times how ever many troops you're putting it on, say, 200,000 troops, 40,000,000 bucks right there. Just for the finished product, not including development cost.

Such a helmet is really a waste of time. Helmets have never done a good job of protecting against a direct impact from a bullet. If you get hit in the head with a round, you're likely dead. So all the extra money for slightly more survivability isn't really worth it in the long run. A bullet to the head is still a bullet to the head no matter how much you cover their face.

  • 01.13.2011 10:28 PM PDT

First off, whomever said Dragon Skin, Dragon skin is -blam!-. It has failed during tests more times than it has passed and the individual plates have a tendancy to shatter and do more harm than good. Also it has a lower protection-to-weight ratio than current armour systems. The only advantage it has is manouverability. I'd still rather have my Ceramic plate between me and a bullet any day.

As for why we don't have full armour systems, simple.

A) Cost,
B) Rifle and AP resistant armours and too heavy and bulky and don't conform to the users body movementss.
C) Using commercially viable materials, current systems offer the best survivability.
D) Bullet-resistant transparent materials are hard to come by. Without them a visor can be just as deadly to the user as the bullet or shrapnel that hits them.


However, as to when we will get them, the answer is very very soon.
Carbon Nano-tubes, non-newtonion liquids and other advanced materials are being perfected and it won't be long until a new more effective and re-usable ridgid and trasparent material is developed too.

  • 01.14.2011 5:35 AM PDT

Learn to accept people interest.

Here are the reasons

1) Cost to much to make a full suit of armor
2) weight to carry that full suit
and
3) I know most of you will disagree with me soldier are expendable. There the cheapess in the armys inventory.

By the way I mean not disrespect to my fellow brothers and sister that are fighting oversea. Myself being a soldier

  • 01.14.2011 6:10 AM PDT

@JosephBiwald
View my Art

Per Audacia Ad Astra

This, and full body armor + helmets= a bunch of money.
Posted by: Guscon
If you've ever been paint-balling / airsofting, you'll be able to attest to how much visibility is restricted by helmets.

  • 01.14.2011 6:11 AM PDT

I've always found it astounding that movie and game production studios seem to be able to come up with some really astounding gear for soldiers. I was particularly impressed with the Colonial Marines in the Aliens movies. I can see no good reason why their gear wouldn't work.

And really, do we really need to talk about cost when discussing the Pentagon budget? Really?

  • 01.14.2011 11:13 AM PDT

~Thomsn0w

Most likely Military Budget.

  • 01.14.2011 11:26 AM PDT


Posted by: Guscon
If you've ever been paint-balling / airsofting, you'll be able to attest to how much visibility is restricted by helmets.

Yep.

Not so much airsoft, because they use glasses, but definetly in paintball. Also, overheating would be a problem, and so would cost.

  • 01.14.2011 1:20 PM PDT

Why does everyone keep saying it would restrict periph vision? The visor would be extended enough to not restrict it, I don't know why you all assume it would. You all seem to assume were talking the odst helmet itself, not a military made helmet made by people much more knowledgeable about the subject than video game designers.

A paintball mask is not even remotely comparable. When life and death is on the line they wont make a visor that limits periph vision. Like a helmet used in the military would be even remotely like a paintball visor. Come on guys.

[Edited on 01.14.2011 2:00 PM PST]

  • 01.14.2011 1:59 PM PDT


Posted by: flamedude
A fullface helmet would also risk the soldier of overheating, and all helmets are prone to steaming up too. A helmet would also restrict peripheral vision and hearing.

There are also social disadvantages. Squad members would find it harder to instinctively spot their fellow squadmates or read body language from each other which is very important. Also its hard to strike up relationships with local citizens if you are faceless.


Hence Spec OPs ODSTs being the only enclosed-helmet Mariens out there.

  • 01.14.2011 7:04 PM PDT

I don't thinkhaving a full-faced helmets would help when it comes to the covenant.

The shrapnel that their weaponry would produce would be superheated.

  • 01.14.2011 7:14 PM PDT

The world is not beautiful: And that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty.

~Kino's Journey

Posted by: Guscon
If you've ever been paint-balling / airsofting, you'll be able to attest to how much visibility is restricted by helmets.


not to mention how much they can fog up and how hot it can get

  • 01.14.2011 7:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Everybody loves Grunts!

I assume that the military would try to prevent that, they are the military, after all. When we needed a supercarrier for airplanes in WWII, we invented one. I hardly think it would be a problem to work out a way for the visor to not fog up and possible vent the heat somehow.

  • 01.14.2011 8:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag: tsassi
  • user homepage:

The problem is cost. You can do almost anything but there is always the cost problem. Using billions of dollars to research good materials for protection, making an air conditioning system to a helmet and then perfecting them wouldn't be very cost effective. Then there would be the problem that each armor would probably cost over 1,000 dollars to produce. High tech materials aren't cheap.

  • 01.14.2011 9:13 PM PDT

I'm an Anarchist. I don't need a government to be a good person, but I'm glad it's here because some of you clearly do.

We have the technology, but we don't want to spend a lot of money.

The biggest opposing factor to any kind of implementation of full-coverage body armor, in my opinion, would be how incredibly conservative many of the worlds leading governments tend to be.

I'm sure that we're all aware that the M16 is the US's primary service rifle, and I'm willing to be that most of us are also aware that the US recently (last 20 years or so) has been seriously considering replacing it.

What I'm sure a lot of us don't know is that the US government refused to change over to a new rifle unless that new rifle was statistically twice as good as the M16.

I don't want to push my opinion on anybody, but isn't that a little ridiculous? Standards a little too high?

Also consider that none of the modern rifle designs that even made it into public view were bullpup rifles. Now why's that? Who knows? I'm putting my money on the idea that it's because it's too new or something.

How does this relate to full-coverage body armor? Because I believe reasonably practical full-coverage helmets do already exist, but that they will not be contracted by governments like the US in part because governments tend to be conservative, and in part because they're not mind-blowingly better than what we're currently using, which, I admit does justify not investing in such a contract, especially in the economical condition of the modern world.

[Edited on 01.15.2011 1:25 AM PST]

  • 01.15.2011 1:23 AM PDT

If you were fighting in the desert would you really want a full face mask? That -blam!- would get hot fast, better off wearing goggles or safety glasses. And as far we know the average joe on the ground does not have access to such equipment, perhaps those in the special forces community do.

  • 01.15.2011 1:23 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2