Are Ballistic Helmets Bulletproof?

In any event, the PASGT helmet was adopted, and was received quite favorably overall.  There was some grumbling about its shape, with a brim which caused significant reductions of field of view when compared with brimless helmets, and there were numerous complaints about its webbing harness system, which was both uncomfortable and exhibited extremely poor blunt impact performance.

The Modular Integrated Communication Helmet (MICH) was a PASGT-derivative project spearheaded by USSOCOM that sought to correct those deficiencies.  It kept the aramid shell, but removed the brim, made slight changes to the overall geometry of the shell to better enable the use of communications gear, and replaced the webbing with foam padding.  The MICH was also slightly lighter than the PASGT &#; in part on account of changes to its geometry, and in part due to slight advances in aramid technology and composite processing methods that allowed for a lower volume fraction of resin. [7] The MICH was received extremely favorably, and, with some minor modifications, was adopted by Army as the Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH) shortly after its introduction.  The ACH became the Army&#;s primary combat helmet in the mid s.

The MICH and ACH, unlike the PASGT, were rated to stop handgun threats.  The ACH specification demands, as a condition of lot acceptance, that helmets stop the 124gr. 9mm FMJ at +50 fps.  Backface deformation limits were set at 16mm for the sides and crown, and 25.4mm for the front and rear of the helmet.  The ACH&#;s performance against fragments is improved by 10% over the PASGT, with a minimum 17gr. FSP V50 at feet per second. [8]

The ACH, MICH, and PASGT are all &#; like the steel helmets of old &#; generally incapable of reliably stopping rifle rounds.  The Army&#;s Inspector General, in a report to Congress on the performance and capabilities of the ACH, noted:  &#;The ACH is not designed to provide ballistic protection from threats more lethal (for example, higher velocity, or larger mass) than a 9mm FMJ RN. Field data indicate that the ACH performs well against its intended threats, but is penetrable from rifle threats that are most commonly seen in theater. A new product called the Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH) is currently under design and development to defeat threats more lethal than a 9mm FMJ RN.&#; [9]

The ECH program began in , with a mandate to produce a helmet with a 35 percent increase in fragmentation protection and protection from certain rifle threats common in Iraq and Afghanistan &#; at the same weight as the ACH.  [10] This was deemed possible with the utilization of UHMWPE fiber composite materials, which were at that time enabling very light armor plates, and had been in use in very lightweight French military helmets &#; such as the CGF Gallet &#;SPECTRA&#; helmet &#; for nearly two decades.

By late and through , many ECH helmet prototypes had been produced and submitted to the Army.  Overall, performance against fragments was 53% better than the ACH, performance against the 9mm FMJ was roughly 10% better, and performance against a certain rifle round was 153% better.  [10]  It must, however, be noted that these numbers are not perfectly unambiguous.   Against the 9mm FMJ threat, the ECH had to comply with helmet backface deformation requirements &#; that is, it had to stop the round with less than 16mm/24.5mm backface signature onto a clay headform.  Against the rifle threat, those backface deformation requirements were deemed &#;too restrictive.&#;  So there was no requirement at all, and testing was performed on a pass/fail basis where, even should the helmet utterly cave in, it would still &#;pass&#; if the projectile were stopped.

The ECH, at $840/unit, was also exactly three times more expensive than the ACH, which cost the US military $280/unit.

In light of these facts, the Operational Test & Evaluation Office of the Secretary of Defense (DOT&E) recommended that the Army not buy or field the ECH. They held that the unit cost is too high and that Soldiers wearing the ECH would have an unacceptably high risk of death or severe injury from excessive backface deformation from rifle threat bullets.  The Army Office of the Surgeon General &#; which, decades before, had spearheaded the Hayes-Stewart and PASGT helmets &#; concurred with DOT&E&#;s assessment and recommendations.

In a subsequent report on the state of the ECH program, the US Navy noted that &#;while the ECH protects against perforation by the specified small arms threat, it does not provide a significant overall improvement in operational capability over currently-fielded helmets against the specified small arms threat. The deformation induced by the impact of a non-perforating small arms threat impact exceeds accepted deformation standards across most of the threat&#;s effective range. The ECH is therefore unlikely to provide meaningful protection over a significant portion of the threat&#;s effective range. The ECH provides improved fragmentation protection compared to the fielded Advanced Combat Helmet and the Light Weight Helmet (LWH).

&#;[..]  It is unknown, definitively, whether the ECH provides protection against injury when the deforming helmet impacts the head. There is, however, reason to be concerned because the deformation induced by the impact of a non-perforating small arms threat exceeds accepted deformation standards (established for a 9 mm round) across most of the threat&#;s effective range.&#; [11]

The ECH was nevertheless fielded in limited numbers, and has been quite favorably received by troops and command.  Insofar as the single most common small-arms threat in theater was the 7.62x39mm MSC ball round, and insofar as the ECH is capable of stopping that round, the introduction of the UHMWPE helmet was a success.  That the ECH has extremely good resistance to high-velocity fragments must also be noted as a strong point in its favor.

The new IHPS appears to be to the ECH as the ACH was to the MICH.  It is a helmet system currently in development that appears to be intended for general issue &#; as a total replacement for the ACH &#; that incorporates most of the features of the ECH.  As of this writing (Nov ) it is being fielded in limited numbers.  Like the ECH, it is made of UHMWPE, and its ballistic capabilities are seemingly identical to those of the ECH.  The IHPS specification, like the ECH specification, expressly notes that backface deformation is to be measured when the helmet is tested against 9mm FMJ projectiles, but not measured when tested against rifle rounds. [12]

longkui are exported all over the world and different industries with quality first. Our belief is to provide our customers with more and better high value-added products. Let's create a better future together.

Follow DA

Share this

Adept Armor provides combat helmets and body armor systems for military and law enforcement personnel, including the NovaSteel&#; helmet, one of the world&#;s toughest ballistic helmets. 

The development of combat helmets has progressed significantly from the original steel M1 helmet used in the mid-20th century to modern designs, reflecting advances in materials and technology.

Understanding the ballistic capabilities of these helmets is crucial for evaluating their effectiveness in the field, and advancing technology for the future.

M1 Steel Helmet

The M1 steel helmet served as the standard-issue for US soldiers for decades, primarily designed for protection against shrapnel rather than small arms fire. Despite its limitations, it remained in service until the early s. Notably, the M1&#;s performance against handgun threats was objectively poor, particularly when compared to contemporary standards.

Transition to Modern Materials

Beginning in the s, the military sought to replace the M1 with improved materials. While various options like titanium alloys and polycarbonate were explored, none provided a substantial upgrade over the M1&#;s Hadfield steel. Fiberglass helmets demonstrated better ballistic properties but lacked durability, particularly in saltwater environments.

In the late s, Brigadier General George Hayes initiated a project to develop a nylon-laminate helmet, known as the Hayes-Stewart helmet. However, its ballistic performance did not exceed that of the M1, leading to its discontinuation in .

If you are looking for more details, kindly visit Bullet-Proof Helmet.

Learn more about the Adept NovaSteel&#; helmet >>

Introduction of Kevlar® Helmets

The turning point came with the introduction of Kevlar® 29, a high-modulus polymer fiber significantly stronger than previous materials. Helmets made from Kevlar were developed under the PASGT program, which was issued to troops in . The PASGT offered improved performance against fragment-simulating projectiles (FSPs) and demonstrated capabilities against 9mm FMJ ammunition, although it was notably heavier than the M1.

Despite the improvements, the PASGT helmet remained incapable of reliably stopping rifle rounds, a limitation echoed in subsequent designs.

Advancements with the ACH and MICH

The Modular Integrated Communication Helmet (MICH) was developed to address the shortcomings of the PASGT by removing the brim and optimizing the design for communications gear. It was slightly lighter and featured enhanced padding. The Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH) evolved from the MICH and included specifications to stop 9mm FMJ at specific velocities, with improved performance against fragments.

Both the ACH and MICH continued to face limitations against rifle threats, as highlighted by reports indicating their vulnerability to high-velocity rounds commonly encountered in combat scenarios.

The Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH)

Initiated in , the ECH aimed to provide superior protection against fragmentation and certain rifle threats while maintaining the weight of the ACH. Made from ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), the ECH outperformed the ACH against specified threats, yet the high cost and concerns regarding backface deformation led to mixed reviews regarding its overall effectiveness.

IHPS and Future Developments

The Integrated Head Protection System (IHPS) is currently being developed as a replacement for the ACH, incorporating features from the ECH and providing similar ballistic capabilities. However, both the ECH and IHPS are limited in their ability to stop steel-core projectiles, which are standard in modern military ammunition.

Performance Limitations and Future Directions

While current helmets like the ECH and IHPS offer improved protection against certain threats, they are not designed to withstand the penetrative power of steel-core rounds, including common military ammunition. This presents a significant gap in protective capabilities.

In contrast, a modernized steel helmet&#;such as the Adept NovaSteel&#;offers a viable solution. Were the M1 made heavier and produced from a modern steel alloy, it stands to reason that its protective capabilities could have kept pace at a lower cost. The Adept NovaSteel helmet is lighter than the PASGT and provides superior performance against both fragments and handgun rounds.

The evolution of combat helmets reflects ongoing advancements in materials science and design. As technology progresses, the focus will likely shift toward helmets that can stop a wider range of threats, including steel-core projectiles, while minimizing backface deformation. Future developments promise to enhance soldier protection in increasingly complex combat environments.

Read the original article on the Adept Armor website >>

The company is the world’s best UHMWPE Fiber supplier. We are your one-stop shop for all needs. Our staff are highly-specialized and will help you find the product you need.