|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote: On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side of a helmet at 500 yards. -- cheers, John B. John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were not designed to be bulletproof? All the armies that do not use them This is the 21st century and I suggest you come up to date. 1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it. 2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better. For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything. Oh, you are only talking about the US Army. I'm looking at the rest of the world. |
Ads |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 08:05:28 -0800, sms wrote:
On 1/21/2020 4:27 PM, news18 wrote: On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:08:39 -0800, sms wrote: On 1/20/2020 11:14 AM, jbeattie wrote: Hasn't cut down or ridership in Portland. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/407660 To you, it is an end-of-world issue. To the cycling population in PDX -- its meaningless. Kids are used to wearing helmets, and people over 16 do what they want. For children, the compulsory helmet laws probably increase cycling in my area. Parents have this idea that all that's necessary to keep their child safe while cycling is for them to wear a helmet (often incorrectly). This leads to the children being allowed to cycle but often without any other knowledge of proper behavior or other proper equipment. Weird, definitely doesn't happen here. The little darlings are largely driven the few metres to school, rather than work or horror, ride a bicycle. i suspect their parents ar such terrible drivers, they fear their children sharing the roads with drivers like them The only day kids ride their bicycles to school here is when it is the annual bike safety day and half of those actually walk them on the foot path. When a new middle school opened in my city they put in a small bicycle parking area, certain that few parents would permit their children to ride a bicycle to school. I think that was based on the fact that close to 0% of elementary school students ride to school by themselves (I did know of one in my neighborhood). Surprisingly, from day 2, there was an enormous number of students bicycling to school. They rushed to build a second secure bicycle parking area. I'd estimate that 15-25% of students bicycle to school, with the percentage varying by weather and time of year. Always nice to here. Personally, I was riding my bicycle to elementary school from 1st grade--of course with no helmet! Plus it was 10 miles, uphill both ways, in the snow, and it was in Florida so it was hot and humid. Obviousy you should take a navigation class from a long term bicycle users. They'll teach you the tricks to avoid that hill for a start. VBG |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote: On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side of a helmet at 500 yards. -- cheers, John B. John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were not designed to be bulletproof? All the armies that do not use them This is the 21st century and I suggest you come up to date. 1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it. 2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better. For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything. Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it. Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice as common as gunshots. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/ And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide (28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Tom has the nub of it right. The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better minds than mine have given the thing great thought and consistent improvement: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/ As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable injury is not the point. What they use now works better than what they had before. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 01:06:05 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote: On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote: On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side of a helmet at 500 yards. -- cheers, John B. John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were not designed to be bulletproof? All the armies that do not use them This is the 21st century and I suggest you come up to date. 1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it. 2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better. For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything. Oh, you are only talking about the US Army. I'm looking at the rest of the world. The current U.S. Army helmet is the "Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH), used since the mid-2000s", and yes it is bullet proof at close ranges against bullets fired from a 9mm pistol. An updated helmet, the Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH) is in the works and said to "protect against certain rifle projectiles" however a description of penetration tests refers to " fragments fired by test guns", rather than bullets fired ... whether this is an indication that the helmet is not proof against a direct hit by a rifle is unknown. Note: The criteria that the M-16 was developed under required the ability to penetrate one side of the older steel army helmet at 500 yards (460 meters). -- cheers, John B. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:30:18 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote: On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side of a helmet at 500 yards. -- cheers, John B. John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were not designed to be bulletproof? All the armies that do not use them This is the 21st century and I suggest you come up to date. 1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it. 2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better. For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything. Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it. Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice as common as gunshots. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/ And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide (28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Tom has the nub of it right. The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better minds than mine have given the thing great thought and consistent improvement: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/ As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable injury is not the point. What they use now works better than what they had before. Yes :-) I was replying to Tom's seeming assertion that the Pentagon doesn't want to lose highly trained soldiers and thus sends them out wearing super-duper helmets. The Pentagon is a lot smarter than that and are well aware that more than 70% of hostile wounds, in modern warfare, are caused by explosive devices, in the case of Iraq often IED's and 7.6% prove to be fatal while gunshot wounds amount to 9% of which 5.7% are fatal. Note that I previously mentioned that in combat death by explosion, was almost twice as common as gunshots. It now seems that in more recent wars it is nearly 8 times more likely. -- cheers, John B. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 5:30:40 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote: On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side of a helmet at 500 yards. -- cheers, John B. John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were not designed to be bulletproof? All the armies that do not use them This is the 21st century and I suggest you come up to date. 1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it. 2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better. For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything. Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it. Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice as common as gunshots. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/ And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide (28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Tom has the nub of it right. The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better minds than mine have given the thing great thought and consistent improvement: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/ As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable injury is not the point. What they use now works better than what they had before. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Since I did some work fairly recently for the military I had some idea of the things that were being used in the 80's and developments since then. As Andre pointed out even the case around his phone offers some hints of things to come in the future which obviously I have no intentions of ever talking about since I held a security clearance when I chanced upon it among other things. I see below that John whose entire knowledge of military comes from the era of the B50 figures that since soldiers can be injured in a variety of ways one needs not attend to the most obvious. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:29:00 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 5:30:40 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote: On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side of a helmet at 500 yards. -- cheers, John B. John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were not designed to be bulletproof? All the armies that do not use them This is the 21st century and I suggest you come up to date. 1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it. 2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better. For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything. Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it. Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice as common as gunshots. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/ And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide (28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Tom has the nub of it right. The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better minds than mine have given the thing great thought and consistent improvement: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/ As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable injury is not the point. What they use now works better than what they had before. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Since I did some work fairly recently for the military I had some idea of the things that were being used in the 80's and developments since then. As Andre pointed out even the case around his phone offers some hints of things to come in the future which obviously I have no intentions of ever talking about since I held a security clearance when I chanced upon it among other things. I see below that John whose entire knowledge of military comes from the era of the B50 figures that since soldiers can be injured in a variety of ways one needs not attend to the most obvious. Nice try, Old Tom, eh? Knows all them there secrets? The Army works in percentages... based on reality. Any time you go to war a certain percent of your troops are going to die, and it behooves the Army to know what the percentages are so they spend considerable effort to discover the numbers, reasons why, and anything that they can do to prolong the life, and therefore capability, of their forces. For example, one of the things that the Army has learned is that in any combat situation a certain percent of the soldiers don't even fire their weapon and another percent don't aim, they just point and pull the trigger. In fact, the ratio of rounds fired to a single enemy fatality is currently in the 200,000 range per fatality. Which is part of the reasoning behind the design of the M-16, i.e., lower weight, can carry more ammunition, shoots faster, etc. And the Army does all these studies and writes all these reports and they aren't usually classified. In fact they are quite frequently deliberately made public. After all, the army has to generate some kind of justification to get their budget increased next year. So most of the "secrets" are freely available and all you have to do is look. -- cheers, John B. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:29:00 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:
Since I did some work fairly recently for the military I had some idea of the things that were being used in the 80's 80's, Recent? |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 20:30:40 UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote: On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side of a helmet at 500 yards. -- cheers, John B. John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were not designed to be bulletproof? All the armies that do not use them This is the 21st century and I suggest you come up to date. 1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it. 2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better. For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything. Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it. Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice as common as gunshots. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/ And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide (28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Tom has the nub of it right. The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better minds than mine have given the thing great thought and consistent improvement: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/ As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable injury is not the point. What they use now works better than what they had before. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I demonstrated how a fully lead non-jacketed .308 caliber (7.62 NATO)bullet would go right through a steel M1 helmet and liner. Most people were quite shocked at the ranges that would happen at. Cheers |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Sad helmet incident
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:13:16 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:29:00 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote: Since I did some work fairly recently for the military I had some idea of the things that were being used in the 80's 80's, Recent? I worked at Sandia National Labs and Lawrence Livermore Labs which is next door in the 2005 time period and the improvement of the old tin hat started in the 1980's with improvements every couple of years and enough improvement to make full scale changes about every 5 years. That means that the latest improvements have gone on-line about something in the last five years. But the stuff I was hearing about is still at least 10 years off. Through with the papers I have recently read I can see pretty much how it will be done. What have you done with your time besides posting here? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another RLJ incident | Simon Mason | UK | 6 | September 30th 11 07:31 AM |
An Incident | Jorg Lueke | General | 28 | June 17th 08 04:51 PM |
First incident in ages | Chris Eilbeck | UK | 12 | September 22nd 06 07:52 PM |
Strange incident | Tom Crispin | UK | 7 | March 3rd 06 06:54 PM |
Another incident | MikeyOz | Australia | 18 | January 17th 06 09:48 AM |