Cher wants better helmets for soldiers in Iraq

quote:

Cher is lending her support to soldiers in Iraq by testifying before a congressional House subcommittee today about the need for better helmets.

WTF does Cher know about helmets? Who asked her to testify for Soldiers? This Soldier sure didnt. If she really wants to help why doesnt she cough up some of her millions and buy us some "better helmets".

All the guys I was with- Army or Marine - had either the new lightweight kevlar helmet or the MICH.

Is this even a problem at this point?

quote:

If she really wants to help why doesnt she cough up some of her millions and buy us some "better helmets".

I'm not a big fan of her music but I have to give her support on this. I don't remember what channel I saw the story on but they said she has made the largest donations to help pay for some privately funded upgrades. Considering the way Hollywood is these days, I wouldn't turn away anyone that wants to show real support for the troops.

Koreamarine,
I've talked to (informally) some marines who say they were deployed into the sandbox with old k-pots NOT the new lightweight helmet - something about avaliblity and budget. This was a while back though, so I am not sure if the current situtation is the same. Where the Marines you were with in an combat or support unit or both?

IIRC the Army does not allow you to cross into Kuwait without the new Helmets.

Anyone know What is the siutation in the Air Force?

At least cher is trying to help.

quote:

Originally posted by BB493:

quote:

If she really wants to help why doesnt she cough up some of her millions and buy us some "better helmets".

I'm not a big fan of her music but I have to give her support on this. I don't remember what channel I saw the story on but they said she has made the largest donations to help pay for some privately funded upgrades. Considering the way Hollywood is these days, I wouldn't turn away anyone that wants to show real support for the troops.

I've got to agree with this, considering the amount of negativity coming out of Hollywood today.

'Bout time the so-called "celebrity elite" stopped being so full of themselves and realized who the real heroes are.

I think she gave $100,000 for this effort. This is probably less than 1% of her take in the last few months, but it's better than nothing. But I am puzzled about what she has to testify about. Is she some sort of ballistics expert?

I still remeber the old steel pot days, I was not issued a Kevlar helmet until 1986! Can anyone tell me if there is something very wrong with the current generations of PASGT and MICH helmets?

the only thing I have heard is the SOUM on MICH and how some injuries could be traced to improper setup and wear. Another potential complaint is a 'lack of coverage' but then again helmet design has always been a study in Catch22's More coverage, more weight, less field of vision, environmental degradation, from all indications the MICH and similar helmets do represent somewhat the state of the art in mass-produced protective helmets

EGG

Kudos to Cher for showing not only support for our troops, but concern their safety, too.

quote:

Originally posted by CarlosDJackal:

I still remeber the old steel pot days, I was not issued a Kevlar helmet until 1986!

I was issued a steel pot in basic in 1991!

With regard to Cher, I, too, don't understand to what she can testify. But if having her name associated with it draws attention to a soldiers' issue, then I guess it's a good thing. But as Eggroll said, is this really an issue at all?

Eggroll,
IIRC the helmet upgrades Cher is pursuing are for old kevlars not MICH helmets.

The upgrades are Oregeon Aero BLU pads or similar set up - suppose to help in a. impact protection b. better ied protection c. comfort

it would be better only without the media sensationalism, this will show whether this effort passes muster or not.

EGG

As far as the helmets go... I knwo in training alot of units still use the old PASGATs. Slowly but surely all units will have MICH.

Of course the Air FOrce is the last catch on to what the War Fighter needs....

Bout time some celebrity backed up the soldiers, marines and airman.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigo:

quote:

Cher is lending her support to soldiers in Iraq by testifying before a congressional House subcommittee today about the need for better helmets.

WTF does Cher know about helmets? Who asked her to testify for Soldiers? This Soldier sure didnt. If she really wants to help why doesnt she cough up some of her millions and buy us some "better helmets".

Maybe she could step up and become a human test subject for the helmet designers

Just a little more background, for those that care about the details.

What's going on here is that the new Marine Lightweight Combat Helmet still uses the old-style web suspension that we're all familiar with from the PASGT helmet. Unlike the Army, which chose to go with a superior, elastomeric foam pad system, initially pioneered by Oregon Aero. This is significant because it's been scientifically documented (and, from anecdotal experience in Iraq and Afghanistan) that one of the primary means of injury is from shock transmissionn thru your skull when hit. The difference is significant--at least one order of magnitude. A set of Oregon Aero pads, properly set up, will allow something like two or three-hundred G impacts to be survivable. A standard, web-style suspension only allows 75 G's before transmitting a fatal amount of energy to your brain thru your skull. And, that's if it's been properly set up, and leaves the requisite space in between the interior of the helmet shell, and your head.

The USMC hasn't bought into this, and has not procured the elastomeric foam suspensions. An organization has been buying the pad kits from Oregon Aero, and that's what Cher got involved supporting. Kudos to her, even if she is something of a talking head for the organization. The Navy doctor who's spearheading this is the guy who deserves the actual credit.

I think what's happened here is that the USMC just got caught on the wrong side of a technical issue that they hadn't been aware of. They actually went out of their way to choose a helmet with more coverage, which was why they didn't opt for the MICH/ACH. They probably weren't aware of the research and testing Oregon Aero did, for the MICH, and, as usual, it didn't get incorporated. Sort of the same sort of thing that got us Universal Camouflage Pattern, vs. MULTI-CAM. Now, of course, the media has ahold of it, and the Marines are getting beaten up, perhaps unjustifiably. I honestly don't know the whys and wherefores of why they didn't go with the elastomeric pads, but I doubt it was a deliberate choice not to give Marines the best helmet available.

And, one of the ironies is that I think they chose a superior chin strap, for the Lightweight Combat Helmet, which is made by Gentex. What Gentex calls the X-Strap is a hell of a lot better than the H-harness affair that's standard on the MICH/ACH--I ordered one from Gentex, and haven't had to adjust the damn thing once since I put it on. No loosening, whatsoever.

i had an interesting discussion over email about a year ago which dealt with the issue of helmet foam padding vs. suspension system and this might provide insight (bear in mind that it's one person's personal opinion) into to why the USMC was skeptical of a foam system. i've cut and pasted some of it here (some extraneous stuff is edited out). It's long, so ignore it if you're not interested:
XXX: "Dear Sir,

First, congratulations on an excellent website.

I wanted to point out a few issues related to foam padding added to combat helmets.

USMC is looking at the foam-pad products you've reviewed on your website; however, neither product has passed testing for attenuation of ballistic energies applied to the helmet shell. Protection against impact from a fall is very different from the very short-duration high-energy impact from a bullet or fragment striking the shell.

Our current concerns are that the pads absorb moisture from perspiration, increasing the transmission of ballistic energy, and the material hardens in cold temperatures, also increasing transmission of ballistic energy. These factors may allow sufficient transmission of energy to the brain to negate the helmets protective benefits.

For comfort alone, they are an improvement, but to prevent traumatic brain injury, they may actually increase the likelihood. Until manufacturer testing demonstrates adequate protection, I am skeptical.

This information is unofficial and not for attribution and does not represent official Marine Corps policy or opinion. However, it is the basis for current USMC hesitance to adopt these helmet suspension systems.

I thought this information might be of interest to you and your readers.

RS
CDR XXX (edited for PERSEC), MD, MPH
Preventive Medicine Officer
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps
address XXX"

MM: hi XXX,
thanks for writing and the kind words on my site. thank you also for
sharing some insight into the issue.

i was speaking to the crye precision guys about precisely the same
thing - they were talking about blunt trauma vs ballistic protection
requirements.

i have a few questions, so do humour me, as i'm quite ignorant on the
subject.
how has the skydex vs oregon areo pad performed under the conditions
you listed? the skydex system relies on geometry, and from what i
understand, is a closed system, and is unable to absorb much moisture.
how much moisture does the oregon aero pad absorb, also being closed
cell?

in cold temperatures, what is the temperature of the foam when worn in
a head? body heat coming off the head is going to warm the foam
padding to a certain extent - does the cold-temp testing take body
heat into account or is testing done on a non-heated test fixture?

By the way, do you mind if i share or discuss the information we're discussing with others?"

XXX:"Agree on the head heating the padding. But we test for worst case
situations. Helmet off head until the last moment so no time to heat up the
pads.

Old pads with worn surface allowing fluid penetration? Prolonged wear in
tropical climates so lots of slow soaking over days without time to dry out,
etc.

Dunk the helmet and repeatedly squeeze the pads while submerged. Sure it's
tough, but daily wear in a combat environment is tough.

Bottom line, distance is the only consistent protective measure for a bullet
(or fragment) hitting a helmet. Look at all the combat helmet designs over
the decades. They use a suspension system that allows free flow of air
around the head and provides a gap between the shell and the head.
Engineers figured it out a long time ago but we seem to be forgetting it
now.

To answer your question, no helmet pad vendor has provided test results for
ballistic protection under the conditions noted.

Share away. Just make sure they understand that this is a personal, and not
official Marine Corps, inquiry."

MM:"i understand about testing the worst-case scenario. possible vs
probable. you've got me thinking - on the cold-heat issue, i was
wondering how long it takes for the head to warm the pad up, which of
course, depends on ambient temperature. also, if it's that cold
outside, soldiers might wear a fleece helmet liner that might slow the
transfer of heat from the head to the pads and helmet.

i stuck both dry pads in the freezer for a bit. the oregon aero
pad did harden up slightly, whereas the skydex one didn't noticeably.
they both returned to room temperature within half a minute of being
held in my hand.

i think i understand what you're getting at, though. if pad material
is wet or cold enough to harden, a short-duration impluse to the shell
of the helmet can be transmitted through the pad almost as if it were
solid, as the duration of the impact is too short for the pad material
to compress.

now, aren't the oregon aero pads used in the ACH/MICH? i'm assuming
that the MICH was tested using those (or identical) pads under all the
conditions we're talking about here. how did the MICH pad system get
adopted if it didn't perform under ballistic tests?"

XXX:"My concern is ballistic impacts from
bullets/fragments striking the helmet.

I'd be interested in knowing whether closed cell foam absorbs or transmits
energy delivered by a 9mm bullet striking the shell.

Key point, it's all about objective certified testing. The pads MAY be OK,
but it has to be proven in the ballistic environment, not just in drop
testing. When marketing efforts exceed testing efforts bad things can
happen and there may be unintended consequences.

For the Marine Corps, the official helmet liner is the hammock-type liner.
There are a lot of the pad systems in use in theater, but they aren't
officially sanctioned. I have no idea about Army's system."

MM:"i did a bit of looking on the OA website
(http://www.oregonaero.com/p81BLSS1_01.html), and it says that the pad
is enclosed in a coating that provides the waterproofing. that's why
it wasn't able to absorb any water, but now you've got me thinking
about the coating wear and puncture - would the foam still not absorb
moisture, or would it?

another thing they stated was "The BLSS™ Kit has already passed
testing for submersion to 66' in salt water, exposure to fuels, oils,
insect repellants, camouflage face paint and gas mask use. It also has
passed temperature test of –40˚F to +160˚ F and ballistic testing. "

so, they do claim to have done ballistic testing on it - what testing
was done they don't specify.
it's very surprising to me (and worrying) that they've been fielded if
they haven't passed ballistic testing (either independantly or by the
military).

another issue that i'm wondering about is backface deformation of the
shell - standoff distance with air space seems to be the best way to
protect the user from that. is that another concern you have with
pads?"

XXX:"In reading the fine print of their "ballistic testing" they used ANSI
standards for construction hard hats and an impact velocity of 3m/s.

Their velocity is off by a factor of, oh, let's just say 100. 300 m/s for a
slow 9mm round.

Standoff is used by every other combat helmet to protect the skull. When
you fill that space with anything that could transmit the energy, you have a
potential for a problem.

Since Oregon Aero hasn't tested for this, they can't really say that this is
a safe system for a combat helmet. A crash helmet, sure, but not for
combat.

That's the take home point. For police where trips and falls are most
likely, it's fine. If they expect to survive a bullet/fragment hit, maybe
not.
And BTW, the ANSI standard Oregon Aero used is for testing is for
recreational helmets like bicycle and motorcycle helmets. Not an appropriate
standard for a combat helmet."

MM:"quick question back at ya (playing devil's advocate) - have you heard
any feedback concerning the issues that we're discussing pertaining to
injuries to soldiers whose ACH/MICH have been hit by rounds, that show
that the current pad system can (in some cases), protect the wearer
less than a conventional suspension system?
i've seen some reports on MICH's getting hit by rounds or IED
fragments, and i recall the most serious injuries mentioned being mild
concussions.
much of the feedback i've seen is comfort/weight related, not
ballistic performance."

XXX:"A Marine who is impaired due to a mild concussion is at increased risk of
more serious injury in a high-threat environment. You can't just "knock it
off" because you're disoriented. So even a mild concussion is a concern if
it could be avoided entirely.

That's why we do testing because in the real world you can't control for the
variables. Any idea of the impact velocity or size of the fragments that
caused the mild concussions? We have no way of predicting performance when
we don't really know whether there should or shouldn't have been symptoms.
Either the helmet system did really well (exceeded standards) or very poorly
(failed standards), but we don't know without testing to standards.

Same reason we crash test cars in a lab. It's not real world, but it is
reproducible, comparable and applicable."

MM:"understood. i didn't think about the ability to continue on with the fight.

i completely agree with you that anything approved for use should be
certified/tested according to some standard, be it NIJ ballistic
helmet certification or some mil-std. at least we know that it meets
minimum requirements. or hope so."

I contacted both oregon aero and skydex and asked them about ballistic testing of their pads:

"i'm asking about the ballistic testing as some people have asked me
about it, and i didn't have the information in order to answer them.
the question was brought up as a concern about a pad system vs. a
conventional suspension system (that uses standoff distance to isolate
the head from the shell).
some of the issues brought up are:
1. when subjected to a bullet hit, which is a very quick impulse, does
the foam have time to compress enough to absorb the shock and how much
of it is transmitted to the head.
2. the foam hardens in cold temperatures and takes a while to warm up
after being worn. it might not be likely that someone puts a cold
helmet on with stiff foam and then gets shot, but they always look at
worst-case scenarios.
3. is the OA foam closed cell, and can it absorb water/sweat if the
outer coating on the pad gets punctured or wears. the question here is
shock transmission through a liquid medium vs air space.

safety systems (SSC) sent me their version of their pad kit, which
uses skydex, as opposed to foam, like yours. the same issues apply,
and i've asked them for information as well. i did a dunk test in
water (soaked the pads and tried to squeeze them like sponges). your
pad wouldn't take on any water, but i didn't want to sacrifice a pad
and puncture it or cut a hole in it to see if that would affect it.
theirs uses a two-layer system - skydex (more rigid) and an open cell
material (more spongy). the open cell material held water.

i then stuck them both in the fridge for a while. your pad became
stiffer, and the open cell material on the SSC stayed pretty much the
same.

i asked SSC the same questions i emailed you with, and they're sending
me some test data. however, they said that there is NO requirement for
the suspension/pad system to be tested during the shell's ballistic
tests. the shell is tested and passed for it's ability to stop
bullets. the suspension system usually undergoes shock absorption
testing for blunt trauma/low impulse impacts, but isn't tested to see
how much shock is attenuated during a ballistic hit. at least theirs
was not tested that way.

the concern was that even though the soldier's life is saved, the
ability to continue fighting might be impaired for a brief period
(from mild concussion etc) and can further endanger the soldier. it's
a valid point.

i wasn't aware that the helmets aren't tested that way (i might be
wrong, which is why i'm asking you), and i'm wondering what
requirements the Army has and if the ACH/MICH pads system went through
ballistic shock testing before it was adopted."

Answer from skydex:
"The ACH helmet specification does not require the pad sets to meet any
impact requirements during ballistic impacts, only NON-ballistic impacts.
For ballistics, the spec has a lot of requirements for "ballistic
resistance", i.e. - will the shell stop the bullets. The pad sets, or
suspension system as the spec calls them, are somewhat independent of
ballistic resistance of the shell and there are no requirements that the
pads have to meet during the ballistic resistance testing."

OA pretty much answered along the same lines - the testing they perform is for blunt trauma, not ballistic shock (as of the time of this correspondence). i played phone tag with the owner of OA but never got a chance to discuss the other details.

MM to XXX:"i just got of the
phone with the skydex guy (who make the pads for safety systems), and
he said that they have tested their pads according to the Army ACH
spec.
he agrees with the issues we brought up, but until a spec requires
ballistic shock testing, they haven't looked into going beyond the
current requirements.

the OA system has been approved for use in the MICH by the Army, the
safety systems one hasn't yet.

i think the problem is that the manufacturers are not required to test
ballistic shock - if the Army or USMC puts forth a requirement to test
to some kind of standard, the manufacturers will have to meet that
criteria. but until then, i don't think we're going to see anything
along those lines.

i've attached a copy of the Army ACH helmet performance spec, which
covers the shell and the pads."

The end result of the correspondance was that the issue was (is) still open, as far as i know. i didn't investigate further.
cheers,
MM

So what kind of ballistic testing was done for the webbing that was not done for the pads? I would think that even with the webbing, you might still get a concusion. Also, are the concusions the troops are getting directly related to a bullet strike, or are they from the blast of IED's. That in turn brings up another question, what type of head injuries are we seeing more of, injuries from bullets or injuries from IED's? In the end, what is more dangerous, the webbing, the pads, or a helmet the troops don't want to wear because it's too uncomfortable?

no idea, BB493, but those are all the right questions to ask about both systems. i just haven't been able to find much info that answers them.
if i stick something up on my website, i try to do as much research on it as i can. the correspondence above was just part of my quest to learn more about the 'bigger picture' beyond the product and what the manufacturer tells me.

quote:

Originally posted by BB493:

quote:

If she really wants to help why doesnt she cough up some of her millions and buy us some "better helmets".

I'm not a big fan of her music but I have to give her support on this. I don't remember what channel I saw the story on but they said she has made the largest donations to help pay for some privately funded upgrades. Considering the way Hollywood is these days, I wouldn't turn away anyone that wants to show real support for the troops.

Roger that!

MM, for what it's worth, which apparently isn't much, since my memory gave me the wrong numbers about the shock transmission data, (for those curious, go to the source at the Oregon Aero website...) there is science behind the viscoelastic pad superiority.

When I was first researching the Oregon Aero stuff, back in 2002-3, I noticed that the new chinstrap used a fastex buckle, with no snap release. Now, I paid attention in Basic, and when the drill taught us about the helmet, he mentioned that the snap on the chinstrap was there to prevent the helmet from breaking your neck when the concussion from an artillery shell hitting nearby--the snap would release, and it was important to keep it clean, functional, and so forth... So, when I saw the fastex, I wondered--was this ancient wisdom now forgotten?

Being the curious type, I called Oregon Aero. Gentleman I talked to, one of the engineers, basically told me that the concussion wave snapping of necks was an old soldiers story, and not to worry about it, but I could call the guy at Natick if I wanted corroboration. Which I did. Long conversation with said "guy at Natick" taught me a lot, about more than the chinstrap. I left that phone conversation convinced that the viscoelastic pad system was the way to go, period. Immediately put one in my PASGT, and I've been happily using Oregon Aero pads ever since.

From what I remember, talking to him, I have to conclude that the Marine you have quoted above has no idea what he's talking about, and doesn't know about the research done at Natick on the mechanisms behind head injury from ballistic trauma. The guys at Natick, and SOCOM, who were behind the MICH, didn't just pull the viscoelastic pad idea out of their ass, and go with it. There was quantifiable science done, and the results were that the pads were far superior. One of the things that convinces me your Marine doesn't know what he's talking about is that statement where he says that:

"Bottom line, distance is the only consistent protective measure for a bullet (or fragment) hitting a helmet. Look at all the combat helmet designs over the decades. They use a suspension system that allows free flow of air around the head and provides a gap between the shell and the head. Engineers figured it out a long time ago but we seem to be forgetting it now."

This may have been true, oh, say, circa 1938, when the M1 steel pot was being developed, but it sure as hell isn't true, today. When I was talking to the guy at Natick who handled this issue, he stated that one of the key mechanisms for causing brain injury was the secondary impact of the helmet shell itself hitting the skull, after the impact of the bullet or fragment. The "hammock" suspension does nothing to alleviate this, in most cases, due to poor adjustment, and the fact that the nylon webbing stretches under the impact load, allowing that nice, hard helmet shell to hit the skull, milliseconds after absorbing the hit from bullet or fragment. You also have the problem of shell deformation, under load. Again, the "hammock" suspension doesn't do a damn thing for you, when that shell "dents" in, under a bullet strike. The pads do. That's why the MICH/ACH manual is so pissy about pad placement, and how the helmet is worn.

Having read the quotes from your Marine correspondent, I have to wonder, now, if the Corps doesn't deserve some condemnation for the choices they made with their helmet design. From the sound of things, they haven't done their homework, at all. I don't have access to the email or contact information for the Natick Labs contact I spoke to, since I'm in Iraq, and it's been about four years, anyway, since I talked to him. I'm sure that a quick phone call to the right place in the lab would get the information we'd need, to conclusively answer this question, and I can't understand how a Marine who's supposed to be knowledgeable on this subject wouldn't have made the same call. Incomprehensible.

thekirk,
thanks for the response and insight. i believe the Marine i corresponded with was sincere in his concerns (while of course, being biased towards the system used by the USMC), and the same questions can and should be posed about a 'hammock' suspension as they were for the foam pads. he was looking for information as well. but why he didn't contact Natick, i have no idea.
both systems depend on them being adjusted correctly, and a properly adjusted hammock system should not allow the outer shell to contact the head under impact (as i understand it). a pad system is much less prone to being adjusted incorrectly. a hammock suspension system still begs the question as to how much the webbing can stretch (it must, to absorb energy) before the shell contacts the skull.
you're right - there should be open communication between the services and standardized tests and sharing of data, but you know how that goes. when there's a difference of opinion between services about a fundamental thing like ballistic head protection for troops, it's not very confidence inspiring (for the troops).
from a purely engineering standpoint, i'd just like to see ballistic tests performed to measure the acceleration transmitted to the skull from ballistic shock (as opposed to blunt force trauma) comparing both systems, which should settle any disputes. seems like a simple question that's difficult to find an answer to.

quote:

Originally posted by militarymoron:
from a purely engineering standpoint, i'd just like to see ballistic tests performed to measure the acceleration transmitted to the skull from ballistic shock (as opposed to blunt force trauma) comparing both systems, which should settle any disputes. seems like a simple question that's difficult to find an answer to.

This would be a fairly simple and straightforward test. Maybe it's time to call Mythbusters!

quote:

Look at all the combat helmet designs over
the decades.

I have seen a number of ballistically-protective helmets (one: UK Mk6) that use pads wholly or entirely, of one sort or another instead of a floting suspension.

quote:

So what kind of ballistic testing was done for the webbing that was not done for the pads?

My guess is, originally, little or none. Remember that an ACH-era upgrade was redesigning the attachment hardware to reduce the incidences of parts of the helmet becoming secondary projectiles. How was this not considered in the original design, or discovered in original test?


I still find it hard to believe that the helmet-ripping-your-head-off old wive's tale is still spread as absolute truth. I heard this authoritatively decades ago. I think the Army knew it by the time they designed the M1 helmet.


I don't buy the 'transmission' of force thru a waterlogged or frozen foam pad. What has to happen is that any shock wave has to propogate thru the medium. Foam is definately going to disrupt this effect, even if soaked. Fuel tanks are sometimes filled with foam to reduce not just sloshing, but vibration effects from items mounted in them. If its frozen, the foam is still a lot more compliant than your skull or the shell, and limited compliance is what disrupts the wave effects.

Acceleration (or deceleration and momentum, rather) is another problem. So, even if a shock wave gets thru some pad to my head, it strikes me as better than the helmet itself flying against my head.

quote:

This would be a fairly simple and straightforward test. Maybe it's time to call Mythbusters!

Yeah, sure. I dare someone to show me a mythbusters ep. that has a usefully consistent and rigorous testing approach. The mistakes are so obvious I can't even watch it anymore.

Shoobe, I'm certain the tests have been done. And, validated, ad nauseum. The SME at Natick that I talked to in the fall of 2002 talked extensively about what they'd done, and what they'd found out. All summed up as "viscoelastic/elastomeric pads good/harness bad".

As for the neck-breaking helmet myth, well, that's not something I heard recently. Basic for me was in '82. I've got no idea what they're telling the troops, these days, but I kinda doubt they're telling them much of anything about setting up their gear, anymore, judging from how I have to teach most of 'em how to put together their ALICE larges and frames. Probably a lot more important to make sure the little darlings have all had their COO training...

Hopefully, they've made some changes, of late. At least, some of the kids seem a bit more switched on, coming to the units. Of course, knowing you're going to a war tends to make one pay just a *bit* more attention to things.

<sigh> I'm getting too old for this shit...

quote:

Originally posted by Shark1-1:
Bout time some celebrity backed up the soldiers, marines and airman.

Hey you forgot us squids...... Some of us have to wear helmets too.

AF is kind of hit or miss, some units have the ACH others don't.

I've got the old Kpot and donuts inside, but in my unit before you deploy, you get an ACH. They have a limited number, so when you come back, they swap it out with a K-pot and give the ACH to someone else going to the sandbox (so is the theory, I've seen a few ACHs floating around here months after guys came back).

Just watched on CNN that Cher called C-span 3 times on air condeming the adminstration for sending troops to iraq without the proper helmets. Wish she could have left the political rhetoric at the doorstep.