Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 9/27/2005 8:14:33 PM EDT
Basically just asking what the difference is between the PASGT and MICH helmets, and which you guys believe to be the better of the two designs. Also, which one is newer? And am I missing any major helmet designs that are also worth mention?
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:36:16 PM EDT
the MICH is newer, its primary benefit is that it does not conflict with commo gear. as a communicator i got one when they first came out. slowly everyone is getting them. they are MUCH lighter than the PASGT as well and the suspension is more like some of the after market upgrades right out of the box.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:52:03 PM EDT
So I wouldn't need to get that Oregon Aero upgrade-type stuff for a MICH? What is the protection level? IIIA? II? IIA?
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 1:26:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By theWalrus:
So I wouldn't need to get that Oregon Aero upgrade-type stuff for a MICH? What is the protection level? IIIA? II? IIA?



No, MICH and ACH come with the full deal, no upgrades needed. I wanna say it is for threat level IIA, could be wrong. Just too lazy to search right now. There is a guy in the EE selling Canadian Gallet helmets for $110. They are just like MICH IIRC.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 7:06:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By a320az:

Originally Posted By theWalrus:
So I wouldn't need to get that Oregon Aero upgrade-type stuff for a MICH? What is the protection level? IIIA? II? IIA?



No, MICH and ACH come with the full deal, no upgrades needed. I wanna say it is for threat level IIA, could be wrong. Just too lazy to search right now. There is a guy in the EE selling Canadian Gallet helmets for $110. They are just like MICH IIRC.



can you post a link to the ad? i cant find it
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 10:02:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 10:04:14 PM EDT by a320az]

Originally Posted By MP906:

Originally Posted By a320az:

Originally Posted By theWalrus:
So I wouldn't need to get that Oregon Aero upgrade-type stuff for a MICH? What is the protection level? IIIA? II? IIA?



No, MICH and ACH come with the full deal, no upgrades needed. I wanna say it is for threat level IIA, could be wrong. Just too lazy to search right now. There is a guy in the EE selling Canadian Gallet helmets for $110. They are just like MICH IIRC.



can you post a link to the ad? i cant find it



The ad is down. I bought one from him. If I dont like it, I'll sell it to you.

MICH:


GALLET:
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 9:17:59 AM EDT
The MICH is like the PASGT a Level IIIA.
There is an upgrade for the front...but I don´t know the level...but I guess it will be a like III or so.

Whats wrong with the Gallet compared to the mich ?
$110,- don´t sound sooo bad.

Link Posted: 9/30/2005 1:09:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Polizei-Berlin:
The MICH is like the PASGT a Level IIIA.
There is an upgrade for the front...but I don´t know the level...but I guess it will be a like III or so.

Whats wrong with the Gallet compared to the mich ?
$110,- don´t sound sooo bad.




The MICH has the cool pad inserts and upgraded harness. The Gallet is a step above the PASGT. I think.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 12:26:14 AM EDT
In terms of protective value, is there any difference between the PASGT, RBR, MICH, ACH, and any other common infantry helmet?
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 2:26:41 AM EDT
I don´t think so.

The "Fritz" and the german K-Pot as well as the new germany Airborne-K-Pot are rated IIIa
I could not belive that the Military would exept anything below that.
But a Level III would be to heavy...I guess.

Thanks a320 for the input...but what do you mean by "coolpads ? Just light material or pads that realy do "cool" you down ???
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 2:37:25 AM EDT
I don't think most helmets are IIIA but rather II and III. Although they do occasionally stop a 7.62 round they are not guaranteed to do it and some have been breached by 7.62 hits. The newer style helmets are a compromise they offer less protection but more SA. When you wear one you have to be aware you are more likely to be hit by a piece of frag since they cover around 10 or so percent less of the head.

The surgeon General of Army Released a report a while back about the increase in casualties because of the new helmet (ACH2000) offering less peripheral protection
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 5:40:26 AM EDT
The MSA Gallet and the MICH are the same thing, the TC2000 made by MSA. The ACH is the big Army designation for the MICH. The ACH is also produced by SDS, and a very similar if not identical helmet is produced by Gentex.

As the military MICH name implies and others have mentioned, the helmets purpose is too allow the use of specialized comm gear. It is also lighter and has a better suspension system than the PAGST. Fragmentation protection is the same as the PAGST, protection from small arms is slightly increased (NIJ IIIA), and the improved suspension system offers better protection from bumps. But, the fact that fitting it properly to ones skull takes extra time and care, and the decrease in coverage from the PAGST, rates of head injuries in the Army are up since it's adoption.

The Marine Corps has wisely chosen to go with a lightweight version of the PAGST for the extra head and neck coverage it offers with the exception of some units which need the comm capability.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 7:20:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SSeric02:
The MSA Gallet and the MICH are the same thing, the TC2000 made by MSA. The ACH is the big Army designation for the MICH. The ACH is also produced by SDS, and a very similar if not identical helmet is produced by Gentex.

As the military MICH name implies and others have mentioned, the helmets purpose is too allow the use of specialized comm gear. It is also lighter and has a better suspension system than the PAGST. Fragmentation protection is the same as the PAGST, protection from small arms is slightly increased (NIJ IIIA), and the improved suspension system offers better protection from bumps. But, the fact that fitting it properly to ones skull takes extra time and care, and the decrease in coverage from the PAGST, rates of head injuries in the Army are up since it's adoption.

The Marine Corps has wisely chosen to go with a lightweight version of the PAGST for the extra head and neck coverage it offers with the exception of some units which need the comm capability.



Is it a III or IIIA, I probably have my NIJ ratings backward.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 7:31:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/2/2005 7:38:47 AM EDT by SSeric02]
Everything I've read says either IIIA or 9mm ball at 1450 fps.

NIJ Level III is more protective than IIIA.

Email sent STLRN. Let me know if the attachment doesn't make it through.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 9:05:33 AM EDT
@STLRN:

I guess you got there something wrong.
The Helmets will be IIIa (9mm FMJ at SMG speed)
A Level II (9mmFMJ from handgun) is between IIa (38special/45ACP from a handgun) and the IIIa.
The level III sould protect you from rifle rounds like .308 and .223 FMJ.
Anyway...the Level IV should stop Armor Piercing round in .308 and so on.
Hope I could help.

I don´t know if they even make helmets in Level III.

Semper Fi.

Link Posted: 10/2/2005 2:13:12 PM EDT
There is a difference in ballistic protection between the PAGST and the MICH/ACH. The military standard for protection, the V50 requirement, is different from the NIJ level, and is oriented toward fragmentation protection vice small arms ammunition. The MICH/ACH and PAGST both meet and exceed the V50 requirement fro protection against shrapnel at 2150 fps.

However, the PAGST also demonstrates the ability to meet NIJ Level II. The Lightweight PAGST, also known as the KM2 PAGST and the MICH/ACH both demonstrate the ability to meet the NIJ Level IIIA for protection against high velocity 9mm rounds at 1400 fps.

Link Posted: 10/9/2005 5:42:50 PM EDT
HOw can you tell the difference between a PASGT and a Lightweight PASGT when looking at them?
Link Posted: 10/9/2005 7:55:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By akconvert:
HOw can you tell the difference between a PASGT and a Lightweight PASGT when looking at them?



Hmmm, good question. Outwardly, they look the same. They may have different markings on the inside where the size marking is, but I've never compared them side by side. Other than that, they are the same shape.
Link Posted: 10/9/2005 8:51:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SSeric02:

Originally Posted By akconvert:
HOw can you tell the difference between a PASGT and a Lightweight PASGT when looking at them?



Hmmm, good question. Outwardly, they look the same. They may have different markings on the inside where the size marking is, but I've never compared them side by side. Other than that, they are the same shape.



Really the biggest outward difference is the suspension, the LW has a Gentex 4 point suspension with a leather type pad at the rear/nap of the neck and 2 trapezoidal leather type pads on the cheeks.
Link Posted: 10/9/2005 9:11:27 PM EDT
So if the casualty rate has gone up since the introduction of the MICH, and theres a a lightweight alternative to the helmet it's replacing, what's the point of the MICH in the first place?

Also, how does the PASGT do with comm gear? Is it really bad enough that there needs to be a new helmet for people who wear head-mounted communications gadgets?
Link Posted: 10/9/2005 10:20:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By theWalrus:
So if the casualty rate has gone up since the introduction of the MICH, and theres a a lightweight alternative to the helmet it's replacing, what's the point of the MICH in the first place?

Also, how does the PASGT do with comm gear? Is it really bad enough that there needs to be a new helmet for people who wear head-mounted communications gadgets?



It also provides a better field of vision
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 12:14:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Readmenace:

Originally Posted By theWalrus:
So if the casualty rate has gone up since the introduction of the MICH, and theres a a lightweight alternative to the helmet it's replacing, what's the point of the MICH in the first place?

Also, how does the PASGT do with comm gear? Is it really bad enough that there needs to be a new helmet for people who wear head-mounted communications gadgets?



It also provides a better field of vision



Yes, the MICH/ACH was designed as part of a package with the comm gear, that's where the MICH name came from. As Readmenace stated, it does offer a better field of view at the cost of the decrease in coverage. It also seems to integrate better with the IBA, SAPI plates, and rucksack for the average user. The PASGT is a pain to use with some com gear. Let me caveat that with A LOT of new stuff is being designed and fielded these days though.

I can't answer why the big Army has chosen to go with the ACH. Most of the Army units I've seen that use it (other than SOF) do seem to be light units such as those from the 82nd and 101st. So, it may just be a matter of light units getting it due to obvious advantages for parachuting applications.

On that last note, I find the similarities in current US helmets to WWII German helmets quite interesting. The PASGT is very similar to the standard German style helmet of WWII. SO much so that the media picked up on it when the helmet was first fielded and used in Grenada where it earned the "Fritz" nickname. The MICH/ACH closely resembles the Fallschirmjager helmet used by crack German Airborne troops in WWII. An interesting parallel given it's proliferation in use with US SOF units.
Top Top