Talk:Modular Integrated Communications Helmet

Military history: Technology / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Protection[edit]

What is the level of protection these helmets provide? NIJ standarts, IIIA or III ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.240.248 (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armchair warlords strike again![edit]

It seems like with the proliferation of blogs has come a multiplication of the usual moaning and groaning over new equipment from wannabes, airsoft players and self-proclaimed experts who will never use it in the field (and an occasional terminally malcontent soldier). I deleted the poorly-written critical rant on the MICH from the article. You want to put that crap in here, get a source besides some fifty year-old chickenhawk's blog. Every soldier I've ever talked to about the MICH in real life has been highly enthusiastic. Kensai Max 04:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the simple fact is Wikipedia has guidelines:

content must be verifiable: Wikipedia:Verifiability),
citing reliable sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources) and
precludes original research: Wikipedia:No original research.

--Deon Steyn 05:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MICH helmet is a huge deal better than the old PASGTs. Did some moron say the MICH was a bad replacement? -Atfyfe (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information[edit]

This helmet includes "integrated communications" in the nomenclature, but no mention of communications capability is stated in this article. While improved visibility due to reduced obstruction might be construed as a form of communication, as well as sensors to measure medical trauma, the term implies embedded systems for speaking or fire control. I'd like to see an encyclopedic elaboration on what IC is supposed to mean for this helmet.--Woerkilt (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Any data with regard to protection of military helmets in motor vehicle accidents? On occassion I read of stories where soldiers in war zones get killed in auto accidents. I assume most would not be wearing seat belts, so as to be able to react quickly from an attack.

It may sound strange, but I think that people (not just soldiers) should wear helmets when traveling the highways. Not to save lives, but to save the brain of the survivors. (Some driver is changing radio stations or writing text and serves into the other lane for less than a second only to hit an oppsite car head on.)

How much does each helmet cost? If it saves a life I would not put a price on it, it would be nice to know anyway.

71.127.17.39 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]