• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

PECOC - Body Armour

#1
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!
 
#3
msr said:
kitmonster said:
PS this is not a helmet or uniform thread; keep those comments for another day.
Best you start a couple of new threads then ;)

msr
I will in time but I only want to respond to threads after I have set the scene or I risk chasing comments around the board! Maybe a thread a week would be about right; assuming the series is not prematurely lifted.
 

daywalker

LE
Kit Reviewer
#4
Is this armour designed to be used like the paraclete/blackhawk system of body armor, as in you use the body armor as a vest and mount all the pouches you need on it or is it to be used in conjuction with webbing?
 
#5
Is that the prototype armour Clothing IPT was sporting on their little roadshows that they have going on? If so I put their prototype on and its f*cking comfy :D
 
#8
Looks good. Is there going to be a map/TAM/nyrex/blood group and NKA sticker holder attachment for the front, or is that zip a pocket?

(I see that the combined wisdom of all the defence scientists in the country hasn't managed to shift the '58 pattern webbing belt ;) )
 
#9
daywalker said:
Is this armour designed to be used like the paraclete/blackhawk system of body armor, as in you use the body armor as a vest and mount all the pouches you need on it or is it to be used in conjuction with webbing?
It will only take a limited amount of kit on its molle compatible front. The reason is that the key feature was the flexible and close fitting system. If you start making the cordura so thick it will support tons of weight you end up with Osprey again.

The idea is that the ballistic \ frag layer is clean and buckle free and webbing or an assault vest is where the majority of the kit is carried. The kit that is attached to it must have its own mounting system and not rely on buckles on the frag cover (apart from the Molle loops) to work. This has the added advantage that kit can be jettisoned during casevac while retaining the protection.

The 'pocket' contains the front plate. There will be some velcro for attaching combat ID and possibly a removable map pocket; but the key success factor is the clean lines so the temptation to load all the bells and whistles back on needs to be resisted if this system is to work as intended.

I intend that my '58 pattern belt is buried with me, along with my Regimental Putties.
 
#11
Vaughany said:
Are they not going ahead with the kevlar webbing. It was supposed to function like the Crye Precision blast belt.
PECOC discounts nothing but.... in the Concept Demonstrator trials, which had a webbing belt with frag filler in it, the sizing was a major issue that meant it only went together well for a limited number of people. Sometimes it was overlapping with the rest of the frag vest which made it impossible to get comfy, sometimes it was too far below the frag vest which left a dangerous gap around the kidneys. I am sure the team will try again but the problems did not seem to justify the benefits; especially as soon as the troops were asked to move quickly they inevitable hitched up the webbing to free uyp their legs for running, this just un-integrated the frag protection.

The Crye version was tested and found to look great but cared not where the protection sat on the human form and was as stiff as a locker door (and weighed a ton)
 
#12
kitmonster said:
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!
As you know ( or will have worked out) I am no longer serving. In fact Inever served with CBA/ECBA. I have, however, worn CBA in civvy life and am something of a shooter so understand clothing / weapon interface problems.

Something that really needs to be considered is that teh stock length needs to be reduced by about 2 inches to work with any body armour.

Has anyone been looking at this aspect?
 
#13
From the point of view of someone that is invloved with the design and manufacture of pouches and webbing (including Molle) will the Molle straps be of standard size, so will take Blackhawk and other companies kit, or a size just made for HM Forces?
 
#14
Warrior-Webbing said:
From the point of view of someone that is invloved with the design and manufacture of pouches and webbing (including Molle) will the Molle straps be of standard size, so will take Blackhawk and other companies kit, or a size just made for HM Forces?
IF it gets accepted I see no reason for moving away from standard Molle which I believe all the latest kit has.
 
#15
EX_STAB said:
kitmonster said:
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!
As you know ( or will have worked out) I am no longer serving. In fact Inever served with CBA/ECBA. I have, however, worn CBA in civvy life and am something of a shooter so understand clothing / weapon interface problems.

Something that really needs to be considered is that teh stock length needs to be reduced by about 2 inches to work with any body armour.

Has anyone been looking at this aspect?
If by you mean stock length you are referring to changing eye relief then on the SA80 rifle that's done by moving the sight so there are no issues. If you mean generally then probably not. The SA80 was brought in before full coverage BA was common. I will ask what tests were done with the A2 as we have a SA 80 guru on the team.
 
#16
kitmonster said:
EX_STAB said:
kitmonster said:
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!
As you know ( or will have worked out) I am no longer serving. In fact Inever served with CBA/ECBA. I have, however, worn CBA in civvy life and am something of a shooter so understand clothing / weapon interface problems.

Something that really needs to be considered is that teh stock length needs to be reduced by about 2 inches to work with any body armour.

Has anyone been looking at this aspect?
If by you mean stock length you are referring to changing eye relief then on the SA80 rifle that's done by moving the sight so there are no issues. If you mean generally then probably not. The SA80 was brought in before full coverage BA was common. I will ask what tests were done with the A2 as we have a SA 80 guru on the team.
It really wants thinking through. The purpose of the infantry is to kill the enemy with small arms fire and although marksmanship is not being taken seriously at the moment this will have to change so thinking about the problem now is a good idea. PM if desired.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#17
EX-STAB,

On what grounds do you say that marksmanship is not being taken seriously? Daft statement - just because not everyone in the army is a gun nut like you, it does not mean that they don't take marksmanship seriously.

I have not had to use osprey yet so can't comment on that, but this new design looks much more like ECBA which I have used, and stock length was not an issue at all.
 
#18
EX_STAB said:
It really wants thinking through. The purpose of the infantry is to kill the enemy with small arms fire and although marksmanship is not being taken seriously at the moment this will have to change so thinking about the problem now is a good idea. PM if desired.
It's likely to be fine - I found that for most soldiers of average height, the correct eye relief for the prone position was achieved with the SUSAT in the most forward of the three positions (but then I used to insist that people tested eye relief while wearing their respirator). Big hint - if you find yourself watching a firer whose neck appears to be imitating a tortoise in its contortions to fit behind the sight, move the sight forward, and carry on.

Subtracting two inches from that is dead easy.
 
#19
The_Duke said:
EX-STAB,

On what grounds do you say that marksmanship is not being taken seriously? Daft statement - just because not everyone in the army is a gun nut like you, it does not mean that they don't take marksmanship seriously.

I have not had to use osprey yet so can't comment on that, but this new design looks much more like ECBA which I have used, and stock length was not an issue at all.
On the grounds that I see TA units at Kingsbury week after week and they never make it further back than 100m because they can't make the standards for that distance let alone any other. I would add to that the standards required in the APWT for "firing from different positions" are so low as to be little more than saying "point it at the sand and let go".

Excuse me for sounding vehement, it's late and I've had a beer but I would be delighted to discuss this in detail in the cold light of day. Send a PM and I'll give you a call.
 
#20
Gravelbelly said:
EX_STAB said:
It really wants thinking through. The purpose of the infantry is to kill the enemy with small arms fire and although marksmanship is not being taken seriously at the moment this will have to change so thinking about the problem now is a good idea. PM if desired.
It's likely to be fine - I found that for most soldiers of average height, the correct eye relief for the prone position was achieved with the SUSAT in the most forward of the three positions (but then I used to insist that people tested eye relief while wearing their respirator). Big hint - if you find yourself watching a firer whose neck appears to be imitating a tortoise in its contortions to fit behind the sight, move the sight forward, and carry on.

Subtracting two inches from that is dead easy.
I don't recall the sight rail having that much adjustment but I'm sure you are in a better position than I to judge.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts