ARmy Rumour SErvice

OK her goes my pennies worth as a helmet geek when i first joined the Mk6 helmet was loosing its first cover two horizontal pieces of elastic around the DPM cover, popular looked smart

however natural foliage in the elastic for cam and con meant a bold patch on the top and with the front lower strap being near the brim the soldier may get foliage obscuring his view hence the like it or hate it replacement elastic harness

carried on through DPM desert and into MTP did not fit the Mk7 so troops did what they do made it fit sniper tape etc as I left H15 the incoming H16 got the new cover made for the Mk7 helmet



its a better attempt Peripheral vision ear cut outs for the soldier excellent helmet now not hindered by its cover, just point to note back to the more popular two piece elastic as for the scrim thing on top a longer chat but covers getting better no doubt troops as they always will will try to personalize it

Peps

Missing the thread on this one. I thought the only helmet that needed covering and worth SERIOUS conversation was our own private helmets. Anyway, crack one off or,,, ahem, on.

Originally Posted by Buzz

Surface is a funny one and a bit abstract.

It's not one thing it's combination of things that are used to make the flat look not flat, a bit like matte painting in films.

Fuck me. Toulouse Lautrec: The Army Years?
'Surface... Don't look different from your surroundings'. Easy.

NI never reached the full on direct and indirect fire 'excitement' of Afghanistan. Probably largely because the conflict was self- limiting (Catholic insurgency in a 'democracy' and civ cas cultural aversion) AND we had right troop density straight away, something we never achieved in Afghanistan.

But over 1000 died in NI and the worst year was worse than Afghanistan to date. It is also instructive to look at how we 'fought' both campaigns. Patrolling on foot or in vehs in S Armagh considered too dodgy so helo lifts, 3d patrolling and decent OP towers the order of the day to allow us to get 'behind the IED crust' as todays war would have it. How many less soldiers would have died in Afghanistan if we could lift from PB to without transiting the VPs/ VAs surrounding each base? The same goes for Basra, how many less would have died if we had resupplied by air? Difficult? Yes. Expensive? Very. But that is how we sustained lots of NI locations.

Comparing the two without context is just daft.

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

NI never reached the full on direct and indirect fire 'excitement' of Afghanistan. .

I think those at Derryard and other similar incidents may disagree.

Attack on Derryard checkpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to the rest of your post, I do agree!

Cynically, I have to speculate that the major difference between Herrick and Banner was that successive British governments pursued a consistent strategy, with a clearly defined end state, in NI - and succeeded - and made the resources and political will required to achieve that end state, even if it took 30 years, available. Those same successive governments didn't, except perhaps, early on in the Troubles, convince themselves that what was essentially a political problem might have a military solution. Compare and contrast.