Citation

Breeze J, Watson CH, Horsfall I, Clasper JC. Mil. Med. 2011; 176(11): 1274-1277.

Affiliation

Academic Department of Military Surgery and Trauma, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham Research Park, Vincent Drive, Birmingham, England B15 2SQ, UK.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, Association of Military Surgeons of the United States)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

22165655

Abstract

The aim of this trial was to undertake an assessment of ballistic neck collars to assess comfort and potential military performance restriction. Neck collars from six different countries were procured with 71 U.K. servicemen assessing two randomly allocated collars to rate one against the other. 58% of participants had worn UK neck collars previously on exercise, but only 6% had used them on operational tours. Body armor with shorter and thinner collars was rated the most comfortable, despite lying close to the neck. It was easier to aim a rifle wearing collars with overlapping segments, especially when in the prone position. Although higher and more rigid collars fared worse overall, this could potentially be offset by the higher levels of ballistic protection they provide. There is a need to evaluate other methods of protecting the neck such as nape protectors and ballistic scarves in combination with the use of backpacks and biometric data collection. Currently, there exists no agreed method of performing ergonomic (or human factor) assessments of the varying components of military body armor systems. Published standards for the minimum military performance requirements of the various components of body armor, including neck collars, need to be established.

Language: en