File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Gentlemen, behold!
>> Anonymous
>>333813
Yeah, as direct hits were concerned, those were pretty useless. But then again, even modern helmets can rarely take anything larger than a handgun round. So I guess every helmet would be to protect against banging your head against a tree in a bombing or just cover from ricochets etc.
>> Anonymous
>>333817
yeah. and to keep the democrats from going ZOMGA1!e!1 THAY RNT WARYIN HED PROTEKSHUN!!!!#13

if they protect your skull from a tree, why don't we have retards in iraq?
>> Anonymous
>>333817

I remeber seeing a picture of a british soldier whose helmet had taken three AK rounds and he was fine.

Those heavy TA helmets have three layers of kevlar in them.
>> Anonymous
>>333822
they were probably a few hundred yards away and the bullets lost a lot of their velocity. kevlar isn't impenetrable, despite what the military has told fox news
>> Anonymous
>>333822
It would take more than 3 layers of kevlar to stop an AK round IIRC.
>> Anonymous
>>333822
I wouldn't be too surprised if the rounds fired where very, very cheap. You know, crappy powder, very little impact energy. I mean, that guy wouldn't be alright even if the rounds themselves where stopped. The energy would still travel to his head.

That or it was a very, very helmet. I don't really know the specs for them so I'm really just guessing here.
>> Anonymous
>>333836
A very, very _heavy_ helmet, that is.

Not like... the Helmet of all helmets or something.
>> Anonymous
this thread is fully of silly and win
>> Anonymous
I think OP is spiderman. He came webs.
>> Anonymous
OP: sorry it was FOUR bullets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2890081.stm
>> Anonymous
>>333836
There isn't *that* much force in a bullet. Newtonian physics: The guy firing the gun actually gets hit with more force than the guy who gets shot.
>> Anonymous
>>335042
Yeah, but the point of bullets is to concentrate that force to a very small point. And that's why bones still break and shatter when they hit body armour.
>> Anonymous
>>335089
Actually, it's not so much the size of the point (that's penetration) - the armor can deal with that, assuming it's not penetrated.

It's time. The bullet takes from when the powder begins burning until it exits the barrel to accelerate. This distance is much further than when armor stops it - and so there is much more time. Also, the weight of the armor vs the weight of the gun comes into play, as does the way in which one can compensate for kick with a gun vs armor.
>> Anonymous
>>335226
What are you on about? It's kinetic energy that transfers from a high velocity metal lump to a body armour or a helmet. That energy does divide on the side of the armour and it also doesn't stop like to a wall (slows down instead of a full stop). But it doesn't slow down that slowly.

TL;DR: if a bullet hits you in the head, you are fucked, armour or no.
>> Anonymous
>>333896
they admitted that this photo was staged. He found the helmet and put it on for the camera.
>> Anonymous
>>335320
I bet you are going to say the OP pic is staged, too? Conspiracy nuts.
>> Anonymous
>>333802
this is a very bizarre photo. what do you think the artist was trying to say with this?
>> Anonymous
>>335358
"Ha ha ha, look what I can get published! I wonder if I could get away with a picture of the Virgin Mary painted with elephant dung?"
>> Anonymous
someone screen cap this page
>> Anonymous
Where is the OP picture from??