Helmet Visor

[MG34]

Well, regardless of what everyone and anyone is saying, if the visor goes over with FO 3/07, it will get a real life evaluation and, if it is complicated, heavy, and / or POS, it will be pushed off to the side, along with all other ideas that didn't make it

Yeah right!!! That must be why the tac vest is still being issued,all bad kit gets pushed aside...man that's a good one

 

[geo]

Heh...
Better than the 50ish, 60ish and 80ish patterns that we used to wear.
Our new LBVs leave a lot to be desired but progress - at least from my perspective.... sorry it doesn't meet your needs MG34.  Have you sent an UCR report up the pipe?

 

[HItorMiss]

Geo for the record more then one guy went back to the 82 pattern webbing (or something similar) as a load carriage system on tour.

UCR have/are, continue to be sent up the pipe by pers from 3-06 and I imagine the same for 1-06 and soon the current Roto as well.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

stay on track here boys and girls.. we are not bashing the tacvest in this thread.. let's keep it out of here and continue with our dislike for the yet unseen helmet visor..

 

[HItorMiss]

Hey I started this thread I'll derail it as much as I like!  ;D


I semi started this thread on my dislike for all things DLR  , But yes I agree back to hating the Visor.

 

[KevinB]

Heh...
Better than the 50ish, 60ish and 80ish patterns that we used to wear.
Our new LBVs leave a lot to be desired but progress - at least from my perspective.... sorry it doesn't meet your needs MG34.  Have you sent an UCR report up the pipe?

WOW -- since its 2007 one would HOPE its better than that stuff -- nothingn like setting the bar low...
  Secondly I think the 1982 pattern webbing is better...

Anyway DLR and CTS have long proven that a UCR on kit does not mean anything. 

 

[geo]

Bzzz... not really sidetracking the topic -  I was more interested in knowing if the UCR system was working.
I have seen plenty of instances where it did..... but, by the sounds of it, there are plenty of instances where it does not.

I6 - in general, when combining web gear with body armour, I concur, the 82 pattern does make sense & does work better.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Sorry, there are just too many threads on Army.ca that end up with everyone bitching about the tacvest and UCR system.  I thought by now you too would know everyone's opinion on both.

From what I can read on here and from what I hear on the ground, the UCR system is an unknown entity to some units/soldiers.  Some people fill in UCRs which sometimes result in "technical advisor visits" which involves someone coming to your unit to "asses" what has been reported and evaluate.  From what I have read, It seems to end up with them telling the soldier they aren't using the item correctly and there is nothing wrong.  If you need to see a copy the of the TAV from overseas reference the tacvest, PM me.

 

[FMRWO]

Gee, seems like another  piece of kit I'd lose while on night ops ... no biggy !  :-X

 

[KevinB]

Not having first hand use of the Visor -- I would guess (yeah yeah ) that the designers dont really understand a lot of things, about the why's of it -- and employment of weapons from a turret (be it a LAV/Coyote, Hummer, GWagon, Bison M113 whatever).

  I will stop bitching about UCR's here though.

 

[armyvern]

For those interested in the mil specs, ballistic testing etc for this item; I can provide on request but will not be publishing here.

Be warned: I send only to appropriate DIN addys.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Vern does that mean my I_hate_CTS@hotmail.com is out of the question??  Hehe

 

[ProPatria031]

those are the absolute biggest piece of ***** i have ever seen aside from those zebra mitts. that thing would end up getting scratched and hindering visions and piss us off just like the ballistic shades we wear now. not to mention they would fog up during a ruck march for sure.

:cheers:

 

[PJOsborne]

After watching the Army News video, I have to wonder what use the visor has if it doesn't appear to have the same ballistic qualities that the glasses do. I could see the value in adding a second fragmentation resistant layer to the same level as the glasses, but to put something that is allegedly bulky, heavy, awkward and NVG-incompatible on our helmets seems silly, especially if the test video showed the projectile cutting through the visor (producing fragments, i might note) and bouncing off the glasses.

And my guess for the nose cut in the visor: makes room for the C4 gas mask?

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Patrick.. I like that theory.. gasmask.. makes sense!!

 

[PJOsborne]

I can see gas hut drills becoming even more awkward as recruits attempt to run through the decontamination drill with the cumbersome gloves as they try to unhinge the visor and remove the mask :blotto:

 

[Grunt]

And my guess for the nose cut in the visor: makes room for the C4 gas mask?

The rifle stock gets wedged in there when you attempt to take up a propper sight picture.

 

[armyvern]

The rifle stock gets wedged in there when you attempt to take up a propper sight picture.

Interesting. With this statement I assume you were one of the members at the first line Unit who did the trials?

Check. I see that you were.