Originally Posted by kitmonster

This is a look at a possible solution for the Body Armour. These pictures show the system without wings and collar. The ballistic protection is part of the torso sub-system which comprises of the ballistic protection, fragmentation protection and load carriage system (including webbing, vest, day sack etc)

Soldiers told the PECOC team that they wanted the flexibility, weight and comfort of ECBA with the protection of Osprey.

Key possible features:

• Soft and flexible fragmentation jacket that is close fitting to stop snagging and integration problems.
• Clean shoulder areas to help with weapon integration
• Designed to be used with a load carriage system so strap slippage etc is all eliminated.
• Able to carry some emergency kit ie one mag pouch and a trauma kit.
• A plate that is lighter but also one that does not move inside the system while running and adopting fire positions.

Just to be clear, the pictures show the ballistic torso system without wings or collars; that’s the carrier, front and back plates and fragmentation filler. Protection levels and coverage are at least as good as Osprey.

PS this is not a helmet or uniform thread; keep those comments for another day.





Sensible discussion will no doubt extend the life of this type of thread

Enjoy and discuss!

Seems good. Having been one of the first to get Osprey. It looks like it will be welcomed due to being a hell of of a lot less bulkier so you can wear it under jackets/sofies etc if needed.

I might have missed in the post. What is the weight difference between Osprey?

Originally Posted by kitmonster

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

At the risk of getting a bollocking from The_Duke for venturing an opinion when I'm not serving,

Could the zip panel for the chest plate be at/near the bottom of the vest?

As well as preventing it being used as a map pocket, it would also allow water to drain out.

Burst zip = broken toes!

Seriously it is an idea but the plate is so tight fitting inside the vest, to stop movement when running etc, there are not many options. From the design point of view the zip is best so I am minded to see how it performs in trials and then adjust as necessary.

:D

I think that the way it would actually be configured, the zip wouldn't be the sole element constraining the panel. The panel would rest into the bottom of the "pocket" and would have to be lifted up to be manoeuvred through the opening.
I would see the zip being just above the bottom webbing strip in your picture. Considering the taper of the "pocket" it could actually end up being more secure. Yes, it would be a bit of a wrestling job but then I've changed CBA fillers in and out of covers and that takes a few minutes.

(and yes, critics, I did wear CBA in a hostile overseas environment even if I was a gopping civvy at the time)

It's nice to see Body armour shrinking in size. I'm not convinced at the zip position, to my eyes that looks to be in the way of the rifle butt.

I'm also not impressed with both the shape at the bottom and idea that everything else goes over it, instead of being part of the cover or attached to the cover.

The bottom line is too straight, which tends to suggest to me that it will either dig into the legs when sat down, or be too high up the body to protect the stomach and groin area. Since we still using soft bodies to cary the plates why isn't the body shapped to allow for the hips whilst sweeping downwards to protect the groin and lower back. If you look at solid plate armour worn by cavalry from pre Christ to the 17th Century the sides are almost always cut up over the hips to allow a comfortable sitting position. If it was being done then, why not now. The other alternative was the lower plates were hinged to fold upwards when sat, which isn't possible with soft armours like this.

To my mind CBA,ECBA and the follow ons have alway been a complete c**t to wear under webbing, be it belt order, vets or chest rigs, far easier to use the solid base to attach pouches to. I'm also not impresed by velcro again! It frequently fails to hold well enough to keep armour asecure for my liking.

Is there to be another design to allow for the (often) different shape of female soldiers?

Originally Posted by Vasco

Is there to be another design to allow for the (often) different shape of female soldiers?

I don't know about a different design but the Regt in which I am currently serving are sending female soldiers to take part in trials for PECOC. This should hopefully take into account the inevitable differences.

Originally Posted by Horridlittleman

Originally Posted by Vasco

Is there to be another design to allow for the (often) different shape of female soldiers?

I don't know about a different design but the Regt in which I am currently serving are sending female soldiers to take part in trials for PECOC. This should hopefully take into account the inevitable differences.

Maybe they'll be getting issued the 'Bullet Proof Bra' soon, as the boxheads are: http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/.../t=102666.html

Where's kitmonster with the weekly update then ? Has he been mysteriously "disappeared" by Whitehall goons ?

"gone to Brigade"

Nooooo I was hoping to see pictures of his helmet !

Originally Posted by polar69

Where's kitmonster with the weekly update then ? Has he been mysteriously "disappeared" by Whitehall goons ?

No on leave and doing the Domestic CoS bidding.....
Back into work on Monday to test the water.