California Tanker
05-23-2007, 01:22 AM
This argument has been going on and off for ages. It started a couple of years ago when Pinnacle's advertising crowd said it was better than the standard issue body armour. A number of troops, or troops' families paid plenty of cash to buy them for the troops and send overseas. Controversy continued when the Army issued an instruction to the soldiers saying "Don't wear non-approved armour."
Pinnacle's crowd went about crying foul about how the testers were involved with the Point Blank crowd (who make the current IBA) or how the DOD would not consider the armours being sumitted to a different agency's testing standards. Made quite a big deal about it. The Army held its ground.
Well, Pinnacle didn't give up, and NBC had a report on it a few days ago, which is pretty damning to the government. See it here.
YouTube - Military Rejects Dragon Body Armor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTrTrsJu3pk)
As a result, various congrescritters, including Clinton and Kennedy decided to make waves.
The Army's been fairly quiet about the whole thing until now, preferring to not rock any boats, it's also asked Pinnacle to submit to any RFPs after they failed it the first time. After the most recent bout of anger from the media and politicians, they finally went public with full details, to the detrement, I think, of future credibility from Pinnacle.
Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_body_armor)
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army, in a rare move Monday, released a barrage of test results showing that a privately-sold flexible body armor that some families have sought for their soldiers failed extensive military testing.
Pieces of the hefty Dragon Skin armor, with ragged holes torn through its yellow inner skin, were propped up on the floor in the Pentagon, as Army officials systematically detailed the battery of ammunition and temperature testing the armor failed.
Although the tests were done nearly a year ago, the Army declined to release details until Monday, after recent NBC News reports suggested that the Dragon Skin may be better than the Army-issued Interceptor armor.
As a result of the reports, some members of Congress have asked for an investigation into the matter, and others have asked the Army for more information.
"We take this personally," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, executive officer for the Army's armor testing program. "One third of the general officers in the United States Army have either a son or daughter either in theater (at war) today or (who) has been to theater."
Article continues.
Have a gander at this from DefenseTech.
Defense Tech: Dragon Skin vs. Army (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003504.html)
It emphasises why DOD standards are different from, say, other organisations like police tests. Most police/security types do not wear full battle gear in 120 degree heat whilst trying to run down insurgents. Dragonskin's extra 20 pounds in weight might be an issue, which is not addressed by NBC. I would be very cautious of any armour which falls apart if oil/fuel is spilled on it, which isn't an uncommon occurrence on the battlefield. Also not mentioned by NBC's report. The ability to stop a full magazine of 9mm rounds vs only a couple for IBA might be handy for a policeman on the streets of detroit but if it can't stop a single Russian long 7.62mm from a Druganov sniper rifle, or a NATO-standard 7.62x51 from an FAL or G3, I can see that being an issue. IBA will, but Dragonskin won't. The NBC test only fired short 7.62mm rounds from an AK. Conducting inspections to determine the servicability of the armour plate is nigh on impossible for Dragonskin, IBA just involves pulling out a plate.
Basically, it's a wonderful example of people jumping on a bandwagon, even though they may know bugger-all about the subject matter.
NTM
Pinnacle's crowd went about crying foul about how the testers were involved with the Point Blank crowd (who make the current IBA) or how the DOD would not consider the armours being sumitted to a different agency's testing standards. Made quite a big deal about it. The Army held its ground.
Well, Pinnacle didn't give up, and NBC had a report on it a few days ago, which is pretty damning to the government. See it here.
YouTube - Military Rejects Dragon Body Armor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTrTrsJu3pk)
As a result, various congrescritters, including Clinton and Kennedy decided to make waves.
The Army's been fairly quiet about the whole thing until now, preferring to not rock any boats, it's also asked Pinnacle to submit to any RFPs after they failed it the first time. After the most recent bout of anger from the media and politicians, they finally went public with full details, to the detrement, I think, of future credibility from Pinnacle.
Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_body_armor)
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army, in a rare move Monday, released a barrage of test results showing that a privately-sold flexible body armor that some families have sought for their soldiers failed extensive military testing.
Pieces of the hefty Dragon Skin armor, with ragged holes torn through its yellow inner skin, were propped up on the floor in the Pentagon, as Army officials systematically detailed the battery of ammunition and temperature testing the armor failed.
Although the tests were done nearly a year ago, the Army declined to release details until Monday, after recent NBC News reports suggested that the Dragon Skin may be better than the Army-issued Interceptor armor.
As a result of the reports, some members of Congress have asked for an investigation into the matter, and others have asked the Army for more information.
"We take this personally," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, executive officer for the Army's armor testing program. "One third of the general officers in the United States Army have either a son or daughter either in theater (at war) today or (who) has been to theater."
Article continues.
Have a gander at this from DefenseTech.
Defense Tech: Dragon Skin vs. Army (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003504.html)
It emphasises why DOD standards are different from, say, other organisations like police tests. Most police/security types do not wear full battle gear in 120 degree heat whilst trying to run down insurgents. Dragonskin's extra 20 pounds in weight might be an issue, which is not addressed by NBC. I would be very cautious of any armour which falls apart if oil/fuel is spilled on it, which isn't an uncommon occurrence on the battlefield. Also not mentioned by NBC's report. The ability to stop a full magazine of 9mm rounds vs only a couple for IBA might be handy for a policeman on the streets of detroit but if it can't stop a single Russian long 7.62mm from a Druganov sniper rifle, or a NATO-standard 7.62x51 from an FAL or G3, I can see that being an issue. IBA will, but Dragonskin won't. The NBC test only fired short 7.62mm rounds from an AK. Conducting inspections to determine the servicability of the armour plate is nigh on impossible for Dragonskin, IBA just involves pulling out a plate.
Basically, it's a wonderful example of people jumping on a bandwagon, even though they may know bugger-all about the subject matter.
NTM