Tested: How Effective Is the 6B47 Russian Army Helmet?
As ground conflicts continue to rely heavily on dismounted infantry, the helmet remains one of the most vital pieces of personal protective equipment for soldiers. Modern combat helmets are designed to shield against various battlefield threats, mainly fragmentation, blast waves, and gunfire. But how well do today‘s military helmets actually perform when tested?
In this in-depth technical review, we assess the effectiveness of the 6B47, the latest combat helmet fielded by Russian ground forces. Produced by St. Petersburg‘s NPP Zaslon, the 6B47 replaced previous Soviet-era steel helmets starting in 2015. Russia contends that its current-issue 6B47 helmet offers superior ballistic performance – but does testing support these claims?
Background on the 6B47 Russian Combat Helmet
The 6B47 represents a new generation of lightweight composite helmets adopted not just in Russia, but neighboring states like Belarus and Kazakhstan as well. Its designers tailored the helmet to optimize protection from blast and fragments, while reducing weight.
Constructed using aramid fibers including Kevlar, the 6B47 weighs just 1kg to 1.2kg – over 35% lighter than previous Russian steel models. It provides almost twice the area coverage around the head and neck as well. The interior harness offers modular sizing, while side rails allow goggle, face shield, and other accessories to be mounted.
Intended for use by Russian Army personnel including motorized rifle troops, Spetsnaz special forces, and tank crews, the 6B47‘s development focused on enhancing survivability against modern artillery and explosives. But how does it hold up when tested against live ammunition?
Methodology: Types of Impacts and Measured Effects
To test the 6B47‘s protective qualities, samples were systematically shot with various small arms ammunition. The goal was to simulate fragmentation hits as well as perpendicular projectile strikes, which could be realistically sustained during combat.
Initial impacts tested the helmet‘s capacity to halt spall – casing fragments and armor pieces that break free upon bullet or explosive contact. These fast-moving debris often prove lethal to ground troops.
Further shots then evaluated the helmet‘s ability to actually stop bullets of differing calibers and velocities. Documenting penetration, back face deformation, or excessive blunt trauma gives a sense of real-world effectiveness against gunfire.
Key results are summarized below:
Spall Impacts
- 7.62x54R LPS round (steel core, 822 m/s muzzle velocity) – No penetration or noticeable spalling occurred. The impact did not produce any cracking or damage to the helmet shell either.
Pistol Caliber Projectiles
-
9x19mm ball (408 m/s velocity) – While some minimal deformation resulted from repeated shots, the helmet stopped this FMJ handgun ammo. No bullets penetrated the helmet structure.
-
.22LR ball (320 m/s velocity) – Multiple .22LR rounds were tested. As with the 9mm projectiles, the helmet prevented penetration and showed only minor indentations.
High Velocity Rifle Rounds
-
7.62×39 M67 ball (735 m/s velocity, AK-pattern rifle round) – Although cracking noise was heard, the bullet did not fully penetrate through the helmet‘s inner shell. Some bending of interior straps occurred as well.
-
5.45×39 7N22 armor-piercing round (900 m/s velocity) – No penetration or pass through resulted from this high velocity spitzer bullet. Significant back face indentation did appear behind the point of impact however.
-
5.56×45 M193 (960 m/s velocity) – When hit with this FMJ 5.56mm NATO projectile, extensive damage resulted. Cracking sounds signaled that the bullet breached the outer helmet shell, while inner textile layers were also compromised.
Key Takeaways on the 6B47‘s Ballistic Performance
What conclusions can be drawn from actively testing the 6B47 helmet versus live ammunition? The following key points stand out:
Effective for Fragmentation Protection – As intended, the helmet demonstrated reliable defense against simulated shrapnel and munition blasts. Spall impacts from a high-powered rifle round did not compromise its structural integrity or produce penetrations.
Resists Pistol-Caliber Gunfire – Multiple 9mm and .22 caliber bullets failed to fully penetrate the 6B47‘s composite shell during consecutive test shots. Some back face deformation resulted, but bullets were stopped.
Partially Stops Rifle Rounds – Evaluators noticed that some indentations formed behind the liner where it lacked ballistic padding. Still, medium-velocity AK-47 class rounds were impeded by the helmet. However, high velocity NATO ammo (5.56mm) defeated both its outer shell and interior components.
Remains Lightweight – Especially given these satisfactory test results, the 330 g (11 oz) mass of a size 2 6B47 remains highly impressive. This keeps the burden low for mobile troops, artillerymen, and vehicle crews facing fragment dangers.
In summary, the helmet met designers‘ intent – preventing penetration from blast debris and lower-velocity ammo, while retaining relative light weight. It offers vastly improved protection over past Soviet steel models. The 6B47 cannot fully stop high-powered NATO rounds, but excels at its anti-fragmentation role.
Comparison to Other Modern Combat Helmets
How does Russia‘s new 6B47 stack up against cutting-edge US and European helmet designs though? Western militaries have also invested heavily in next-gen head protection over the past decade.
The US Army and Marine Corps have both adopted the Integrated Head Protection System (IHPS). Fusing a ballistic shell, pads, and a mandible guard, the IHPS provides 360° coverage plus applique mounting points. The Marines‘ Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH) offers similar advances like reduced weight and modularity.
Meanwhile, the UK‘s Virtus program introduced lightweight integrated helmets with composite layers and sectional padding akin to the 6B47. And Germany‘s future Infantryman of the Future ensemble will incorporate carbon fiber helmets tailored to counter diverse threats.
While Western helmets offer broadly comparable designs and materials to the 6B47, they integrate multiple Attachable Ballistic Protective Modules as well. These auxiliary shields provide neck, face, and occipital reinforcement lacking in the baseline Russian helmet.
The 6B47 does align with many recent trends – pursuing lighter, slimmer, and more ergonomic helmets adapted to contemporary threats. But modular add-on armor found on US and European counterparts currently gives a protective edge versus the stock 6B47.
The Outlook for Helmet Technology
What future directions can we expect in tactical helmet technology and employment? Besides incremental improvements to ballistics, we anticipate more emphasis on:
- Greater situational awareness – Helmet cams, night vision integration, heads-up displays
- Enhanced sensors – Inertial measurement, target designation interfaces
- Connectivity to network battlefield data
- Augmented/virtual reality overlays to assist shooters
- Adaptive padding using remote diagnosis of possible concussion
- Embedded electronics will facilitate rapid 3D printing of replacement helmet components
Militaries will continue striving for the optimal balance between protection, comfort, and practicality as helmets evolve. Expect leaps in materials science like graphene to yield exceptionally strong yet featherweight designs as well.
Conclusion: A Capable Helmet, but Improvements Remain
In evaluating the modern Russian 6B47 combat helmet, testing substantiates that it delivers crucial defenses against explosion trauma and lower-threat ammunition – mitigating overpressure, debris, 9mm rounds, and medium-power AK fire. This aligns with the protective criteria that Russian designers optimized it around.
However, the absence of attachable upgrades or more extensive use of composites leaves certain vulnerabilities unaddressed. The 6B47 lacks comprehensive 360° coverage of its US counterparts. And without modular rifle-rated attachments, it falls short defending against NATO high-velocity threats.
So while an innovative, field-ready design for fragmentary warfare, the 6B47 will likely see expanded protective elements incorporated like snap-in ballistic applique plates. As battlefield threats mutate, we can expect the sophisticated layering and tech integration showcased in Western helmets to further influence Russian models – enhancing soldier survivability against multidirectional attacks.