Because the "new" helmet isn't new. It's the original interim helmet pre-1224 that gets incorrectly called QGF11. FWIW some units that switched from the 1224 helmets kept the helmet rails and still use them as they don't require any holes drilled.
Infantry Combat Equipment (non-firearm): Vests, Body Armor, NVGs, etc.
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Also probably because they are finding out the hard way in Ukraine that high-speed low-drag gear designed for special forces are suboptimal for general issue to line troopers who are getting spammed to shit with artillery all the time.
High cut helmets and drilled holes might make minimal difference to operators, but it probably cost a hell of a lot of soldiers their lives in Ukraine, dying from shrapnel wounds that would have been protected by a regular helmet.
But the Chinese helmet doesn't have any drilled hole. Instead the entire rail and mount system is clamped to the edges. Frankly, I quite like it. Compared to other helmets I've used, it's quite well thought out, just somewhat annoying the rails do not allow headset mounts.
Of course infantry in an Ukraine style battlefield should be issued with helmets that protect as much as possible. You can have a low cut with earpro and NVG mounts..
I don't think people understand just how powerful night vision and thermal is, hence why helmets that are procured from now on should at least have NVG mounts and side rails. They don't cost much more than regular helmets, and allow you to have that NV/thermal capability
plawolf
Lieutenant General
But the new Chinese clamp rails gives you the ability to mount NVGs without needing to drill holes into the helmets themselves. That reduces costs and weight while also removing a source of critical structural weakness at the most important part of the helmet.
I think another major lesson from Ukraine that the west has not really picked up on is how much more important dedicated thermal weapons sights are compared to helmet mounted NODs.
Passive aiming with NODs is basically terrible for range, accuracy and speed. Viable against opfor who don’t have NODs, but a total mess against opfor who do have NODs. Same with active aiming, only that’s worse against peer foes.
If you want to actually hit a target at range at night, nothing beats a dedicated thermal weapons sight. And that appears to be the PLA’s focus in terms of priority issue. Which makes sense.
The main advantage of classic NODs compared to thermal are in terms of navigation in the dark. But line troopers very rarely need to move at nigh in high threat environments. That means you can get away with only having a few sentries and scouts in a squad with top tier NVGs while the rest just use digital units that are good enough to keep them going in the dark without risk of tripping over.
But for the lion share of night time combat tasks, having all your guys with dedicated thermal weapons sights is incomparably better than giving them all IIT NODs.
Those are not new helmets so very unlikely, It's just a rail extension for their currently existing helmets to attach nvgs or other devices.
if cost is not a factor, it would be ideal to have a digital MNVG for navigation (along with other cool capabilities such as sharing images etc), and have a weapon mounted thermal scope.
Those vests looks way smaller as well when they wear them properly.This is the first image I have seen in years in which every soldier is wearing his vest properly (instead of letting it hang low like an apron and leaving half of the thorax exposed).
