Professional Soldiers ®

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Base Camp (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Dragon Skin Testing and the Truth (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14526)

Warrior-Mentor 01-22-2006 20:14

Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin
 
Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits
By Nathaniel R. Helms
January 14, 2006

Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.

The soldiers asked for anonymity because they are concerned they will face retaliation for going public with the Army's apparently new directive. At the sources' requests DefenseWatch has also agreed not to reveal the unit at which the incident occured for operational security reasons.

On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that "all" commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.

"We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) is heavy, but it is made so we have mobility and the best ballistic protection out there. This is crazy. And they are threatening us with our benefits if we don't comply." he said.

The soldier reiterated Friday's reports that any soldier who refused to comply with the order and was subsequently killed in action "could" be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy as well as face disciplinary action.

As of this report Saturday morning the Army has not yet responded to a DefenseWatch inquiry.

Recently Dragon Skin became an item of contention between proponents of the Interceptor OTV body armor generally issued to all service members deploying in combat theaters and its growing legion of critics. Critics of the Interceptor OTV system say it is ineffective and inferior to Dragon Skin, as well as several other commercially available body armor systems on the market. Last week DefenseWatch released a secret Marine Corps report that determined that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was more effective. The Army has declined to comment on the report because doing so could aid the enemy, an Army spokesman has repeatedly said.

A U.S. Army spokesman was not available for comment at the time DW's original report (Friday - 1700 CST) was published. DefenseWatch continues to seek a response from the Army and will post one as soon as it becomes available. Yesterday the DoD released a news story through the Armed Forces News Service that quoted Maj. Gen. Steven Speaks, the Army's director of force development, who countered critical media reports by denying that the U.S. military is behind the curve in providing appropriate force protection gear for troops deployed to Iraq and elsewhere in the global war against terrorism. The New York Tiimes and Washington Post led the bandwagon of mainstream media that capitalized on DefenseWatch's release of the Marine Corps study. Both newspapers released the forensic information the Army and Marines are unwilling to discuss.

"Those headlines entirely miss the point," Speaks said.

The effort to improve body armor "has been a programmatic effort in the case of the Army that has gone on with great intensity for the last five months," he noted.

Speaks' assessment contradicts earlier Army, Marine and DoD statements that indicated as late as last week that the Army was certain there was nothing wrong with Interceptor OTV body armor and that it was and remains the "best body armor in the world."

One of the soldiers who lost his coveted Dragon Skin is a veteran operator. He reported that his commander expressed deep regret upon issuing his orders directing him to leave his Dragon Skin body armor behind. The commander reportedly told his subordinates that he "had no choice because the orders came from very high up" and had to be enforced, the soldier said. Another soldier's story was corroborated by his mother, who helped defray the $6,000 cost of buying the Dragon Skin, she said.

The mother of the soldier, who hails from the Providence, Rhode Island area, said she helped pay for the Dragon Skin as a Christmas present because her son told her it was "so much better" than the Interceptor OTV they expected to be issued when arriving in country for a combat tour.

"He didn't want to use that other stuff," she said. "He told me that if anything happened to him I am supposed to raise hell."

At the time the orders were issued the two soldiers had already loaded their Dragon Skin body armor onto the pallets being used to air freight their gear into the operational theater, the soldiers said. They subsequently removed it pursuant to their orders.

Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. Chopra, a retired Army chief warrant officer and 20+-year pilot in the famed 160th "Nightstalkers" Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), said his company was merely told the generals wanted to "evaluate" the body armor in a combat environment. Chopra said he did not know the names of the general officers wearing the Dragon Skin.

Pinnacle claims more than 3,000 soldiers and civilians stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing Dragon Skin body armor, Chopra said. Several months ago DefenseWatch began receiving anecdotal reports from individual soldiers that they were being forced to remove all non-issue gear while in theater, including Dragon Skin body armor, boots, and various kinds of non-issue ancillary equipment.

Last year the DoD, under severe pressure from Congress, authorized a one-time $1,000 reimbursement to soldiers who had purchased civilian equipment to supplement either inadequate or unavailable equipment they needed for combat operations. At the time there was no restriction on what the soldiers could buy as long as it was specifically intended to offer personal protection or further their mission capabilities while in theater.

Nathaniel R. Helms is the editor of DefenseWatch Magazine. He can be reached at natshouse1@chater.net. Please send all inquiries and comments to dwfeedback@yahoo.com .

Gypsy 01-23-2006 21:09

A member of another Military board sent an email to SGLI and these were their responses. HTH...

Quote:

Sir:

This is incorrect information. Rumors, such as this one, are certainly unfortunate.

Cindy Castell
Associate Manager, Claims - OSGLI

Quote:

If a member of the military is covered under SGLI in the amount of $250,0000 at the time of death, that would be the payable amount to his beneficiaries, benefits would not be decreased because of the type of body armour worn.

Sincerely,

Patricia McKoy
Sr. Claims Examiner
Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance

Warrior-Mentor 01-30-2006 21:35

Thanks for the info. I didn't find it on snopes.

I suspect asking the SGLI office a question is like asking the IRS a question...depends on who answers the phone, what answer you'll get.

Doesn't mean some Commander somewhere didn't tell his folks that, just that someone got a different answer when they called the SGLI Office.

JM

The Reaper 01-30-2006 21:47

The only way this would be even remotely possible would be if the Army issued you armor, and you chose to wear the Dragon Skin instead and got a penetrating injury that the issued armor was rated to have stopped.

Then you could theoretically have an LOD investigation with an LOD-No determination.

Given the likelihood of that happening with the Dragon Skin's improved armor rating over the issued gear, and the reluctance of DA to screw with the benefits of a KIA's familiy members, I suspect that the issue is moot.

If you wore the Dragon Skin in lieu of the issue armor after being ordered not to do so, you could be UCMJed for Failure to Obey.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

Warrior-Mentor 01-30-2006 22:03

Spoken like a former IG...;)

FILO 01-31-2006 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper
The only way this would be even remotely possible would be if the Army issued you armor, and you chose to wear the Dragon Skin instead and got a penetrating injury that the issued armor was rated to have stopped.

TR

Exactly, they will pay the claim absent documented fundemental neglect and even then IMO they would pay.

CDRODA396 02-19-2006 16:48

Quote:

"U.S. Special Operations Command has fully tested and approved one system of ballistic stopping components and a family of vest carriers for use by Special Operations Forces. The ballistic components currently approved for use by USSOCOM elements are the Body Armor Load Carriage System (BALCS) ballistic components (which can be referred to as “ballistic components,” “plates,” or soft “armor”) fielded under the Special Operations Forces Personal Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR) program."

Quote:

“If you have purchased anything off the market other than the USSOCOM approved BALCS/SPEAR system, you may be unprotected and wrong.”
— Gen. Doug Brown, Commander, USSOCOM
I know its been a while since a posting to this thread but I am just getting around to catching up on some reading...when I retired last Sept. there were policy letters from USSOCOM, USASOC and 3d GRP all outlining what you could/couldnt wear. They were mainly targeted at stopping the wear of the plate carrier with no soft body armor, but also addressed the entire body armor "ensemble,"...as some well educated, verbose officer put it.

Alot of guys back then were buying the paraclete carrier, but were using the issue soft and hard inserts so were fine...but anyone wearing non-issue, commercially purchased units were in fact in very real danger of the army trying to cover their arse and finding their death not in the line of duty, violation of written policy, etc...I dont know if after nearly half of year of retirement if this has changed, but that was the case through 9/05.

The Reaper 02-19-2006 18:12

CDRODA396:

Thanks for the info.

How about looking at the stickies and introducing yourself in the proper place?

TR

NousDefionsDoc 02-19-2006 18:52

Has there been an official military evaluation of this Dragon armor?

Bob1984 02-19-2006 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc
Has there been an official military evaluation of this Dragon armor?

I would like to know as well.

CDRODA396 02-24-2006 07:36

Hate to take up so much room, but I think this makes for some good reading. I wonder is the term "proponent" means "paid lobbist?"


FIGHT NIGHT: Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin vs. Interceptor Body Armor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Army scientists say, look, be careful with dragon skin because it's good for a knife fight, but we don't want to take it to Iraq because of the ballistic issues." Really? Defense Review is interested to see if someone can actually back up this statement.

By David Crane
Editor, DefenseReview.com


About DefenseReview.com


DefenseReview.com is an online tactical technology/military defense industry magazine designed to keep active U.S. military personnel (including Special Operations), PSD/Security Operators, law enforcement SWAT operators and 1st Responders, security professionals, and civilians informed about the latest developments in cutting-edge military, law enforcement, and security technologies from around the world.


DefenseReview received some interesting information yesterday regarding this NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (PBS) interview of Lt. Col. Roger Charles (Ret.) and Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis (Ret.) conducted by Margaret Warner on Pinnacle Armor SOV Flexible Body Armor/Dragon Skin vs. the Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System Outer Tactical Vest (OTV), a.k.a. Interceptor Body Armor. As many of our readers are probably aware, DefenseReview has published a number of articles on SOV/Dragon Skin. We first started writing about Dragon Skin body armor in October 2001. We followed that original blurb up with a more in-depth article on May 27, 2004. Our most recent article on Pinnacle Armor SOV/Dragon Skin reported on an actual save made by a Dragon Skin against three 7.62x39mm API (armor-piercing incendiary) round hits. The vest's wearer was PSD operator (Security Operator) employed by DynCorp International, and when he got hit (during an ambush that turned into a firefight) he didn't even feel the bullet impacts. That particular article is titled, appropriately enough, Flexible Body Armor Saves PSD/Security Operator from 7.62x39mm API Round Hits.


I also wrote an article specifically for Military.com SoldierTech, titled Body Armor Times 10: Pinnacle's Innovative, Flexible Body Armor that provides more detailed information about Dragon Skin/SOV flexible body armor's unique protective attributes and capabilities. After reading that article, Nat Helms from Soldiers for the Truth (SFTT) ended up interviewing me and subsequently quoting me in his excellent article on Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin, titled Getting America's Best?. We highly suggest that you read it.


Once you read those, you can understand our surprise upon reading some of the statements made by Lt. Col. Maginnis (Ret.) (Interceptor Body Armor proponent) during the aforementioned interview, including this one:


[On Dragon Skin] "Well, it would be if it was all proven through science. You know, certainly the shoulders and the neck, major difference with this -- no groin protection. And, you know, the contracting people as well as the Army scientists say, look, be careful with dragon skin because it's good for a knife fight, but we don't want to take it to Iraq because of the ballistic issues. And they're not comfortable with it yet, but perhaps in the future."


Hmm. So, according to Lt. Col. Maginnis (Ret.), Pinnacle Armor's SOV Flexible Body Armor/Dragon Skin isn't proven enough through science and, according to "Army Scientists", one needs to "be careful" with Dragon Skin because, again, according to "Army Scientists", "it's good for a knife fight, but we don't want to take it to Iraq because of the ballistic issues." Really. Folks, this one's about to get REALLY interesting. We're interested to see if Lt. Col. Maginnis and his "Army Scientists" can actually back up his statement. Defense Review is particularly interested in seeing their data regarding the "ballistic issues" Lt. Col. Maginnis (Ret.) mentioned.


Lt. Col. Maginnis' (Ret.) statements were challenged by Lt. Col. Roger Charles (Ret.) (Pinnacle Armor SOV/Dragon Skin flexible body armor proponent), who said "[on Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin body armor] This will not only will take that hit but will take multiple hits and the ceramic plate used in Interceptor, one of the complaints from the troops in the field was that too often after one round impact, then you had a bunch of gravel basically inside the pouch.". Lt. Col. Charles (Ret.) went on to say, "[on Dragon Skin] There was an unsolicited letter from an American contractor over there who was shot eight times in the back wearing one of these that he purchased for his own use. And he did not know he had been shot until he got back and took it off and saw the bullet perforations in the canvas cover. There was no soft tissue damage so it's proven in the field that it can take multiple hits and still provide protection."


It's Lt. Col. Charles' (Ret.) opinion that the reason the U.S. Army has chosen to outfit U.S. troops with Interceptor body armor over Pinnacle Armor SOV flexible body armor/Dragon Skin is that the U.S. Army suffers from "not invented here" syndrome. "The basic reason, as hard as this may be for your audience to understand, is not invented here: Bureaucratic turf protection because the Army people that were charged with providing this ten, fifteen years ago had a program -- it produced something beginning in 1998 I believe, 1999. But it wasn't this - and they didn't want to use this because they did not claim invention of it." Lt. Col. Charles (Ret.) continues, "We were told by several independent consultants who work for the Pentagon that cannot be named because of fear of losing their jobs that this was probably the best available body armor. It's what they would take to Baghdad. They do not have any financial ties with Pinnacle Armor. We're not saying it's the best. We're saying it ought to get a fair test."


Here's one solution (to settle the argument): Have one or two independent testing centers that both U.S. Army Natick and Pinnacle Armor trust test both body armor systems (Interceptor body armor and Dragon Skin body armor) side-by-side in set number of combat-relevant ballistic tests under a set time period limit to determine a winner. The number, type, and duration of the ballistic tests should be determined and overseen by an independent and impartial group/entity, with both parties (U.S. Army Natick and Pinnacle Armor present as witnesses during all tests). If the U.S. Army doesn't want to do that (for instance, if they wee to claim it's too expensive), there is another way:

It's Defense Review's understanding that Pinnacle Armor's SOV/Dragon Skin flexible hard armor system has been tested to according to Mil-Spec protocols at the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center (ATC), United States Test Laboratory (USTL), and H.P. White Laboratory, Inc.. It's our understanding at present that both Level III+ and Level IV (Classified) Dragon Skin has been tested. If the U.S. Army's Interceptor body armor has also been tested via identical Mil-Spec testing protocols by at least two of these same facilities, those facilities (and both Pinnacle Armor and U.S. Army Natick/Natick Soldier Center (NSC)) should already have enough ballistic data to present on their respective body armor systems to declare a winner, right now.(Those facilities and Pinnacle Armor, Inc. would only be allowed to present data on their Level III+ armor, since Pinnacle's Level IV armor's anti-ballistic capabilities are classified). There should also already be a fair amount of field performance data for both systems in terms of wearability, durability, and anti-ballistic performance. We'll investigate it.


DefenseReview will be following this story very closely and posting follow-ups to this article. Needless to say, we're going to try to secure interviews with Lt. Col. Maginnis and the Army scientists he refers to, as soon as possible.


So, stay tuned. This should be good.

Razor 02-24-2006 09:50

I stopped reading it when I came to the part about some contractor claiming he didn't even feel getting hit 8 times by rifle rounds in the back. :rolleyes:

Bob1984 02-24-2006 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor
I stopped reading it when I came to the part about some contractor claiming he didn't even feel getting hit 8 times by rifle rounds in the back. :rolleyes:


That part seems a bit fishy. Most of the stories I've read of people who've actually been shot tend to describe it as similar to being hit with a sledgehammer and that experience seems to be the same regardless of wether or not the shootee was wearing armor.

CDRODA396 02-27-2006 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc
Has there been an official military evaluation of this Dragon armor?


Based on the article below, I doubt that any testing of the Dragon Skin did, or will take place as some well funded lobbiest has convinced the right somebody that this is the product to have! I'd be willing to buy lunch for the 4th ID that not one soldier down range was included in the development/testing/evaluation of this particular item. Article off of the Army Times website.


February 24, 2006

Contract for flexible body armor awarded

By Alex Dominguez
Associated Press


BALTIMORE — A Florida firm has been chosen to produce flexible body armor and other products based on technology developed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., and the University of Delaware. Fabric used in the armor is treated with a solution that stiffens when force is applied, but remains fluid otherwise.

The first products, which will initially focus on protection for law enforcement and corrections officers, are expected to be introduced later this year by Armor Holdings, Inc., a Jacksonville, Fla., company best known for providing armored Humvees for the military. Body armor vests, helmets, gloves and extremity protection are among the products planned, the company announced Friday.

Body armor fabric treated with the fluid, for example, can resist an ice pick that would normally penetrate the fabric. Tests have also shown the treated fabric is better able to spread the force of an impact over a wider area, said Dr. Tony Russell, chief technology officer for Armor Holdings.

When force is applied, the fluid, which contains nano-sized particles, acts “more like a solid. It locks the fibers in place and makes them more resistant to penetration,” Russell said.

“If you take a normal ballistic fabric that’s pretty good at stopping bullets and you hit it with an ice pick, the fibers will move out of the way. So what you normally have to do is put more layers to stop that ice pick,” reducing flexibility that can inhibit motion.

The new technology allows the vest to stop penetration with fewer layers. The treated fabric, meanwhile, has virtually the same look, feel, texture, weight and flexibility, Russell said.

“You may get a little residue on your fingers but it doesn’t feel wet to the touch,” Russell said.

The company hopes the technology will eventually lead to lighter, more comfortable body armor that will cover more of the body.

The technology takes advantage of a property known as shear-thickening, in which fluids become solid when a force is applied. A common example is a paste of corn starch and water. A spoon rested on the surface will slowly sick to the bottom, but if force is suddenly applied the paste can’t move to the sides quickly enough.

The technology Armor Holdings will use was developed by the University of Delaware’s Center for Composite Materials and the Weapons and Materials Research Directorate of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.

University of Delaware professor Norman Wagner said the technology has the potential for new products that will “provide better protection to those who need it.”

In addition to body armor, potential applications include vehicle armor, bomb blankets, industrial environments and transportation — “anywhere you want to protect people against sharp flying objects,” Wagner said.

Warrior-Mentor 03-22-2006 11:47

SAFETY OF USE MESSAGE
 
This is a Safety Of Use Message. MACOM Commanders will retransmit this message to all subordinate Commands/Activities within 24 hours of receipt of this message and acknowledge receipt of this message within five working days to: DELETED FOR SIGSEC.

2. PROBLEM DISCUSSION:

A. There may be Soldiers deployed in OIF/OEF who are wearing a commercial body armor called "Dragon Skin," made by Pinnacle Armor, in lieu of their issued Interceptor Body Armor (IBA). Media releases and related advertising imply that Dragon Skin is superior in performance to IBA. The Army has been unable to determine the veracity of these claims.

B. The Army has been involved in the development of Dragon Skin and the different technology it employs. In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements. In fact, Dragon Skin has not been certified by the Army for protection against several small arms threats being encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

C. Although this message specifically identifies Dragon Skin, it applies to other commercially available body armor products (such as commercial police vests) that are not Army approved and issued.

3. USER ACTIONS: {Menu}

A. Commanders at all levels will ensure only IBA, and its components, is used by our Soldiers. All other body armor should be immediately replaced with IBA.

B. Authorized components of the IBA include the outer tactical vest and ballistic plates, throat protector, collar, groin protector, Deltoid and Axillary Protector (DAP), side plates, and side plate carriers. Commanders may tailor the IBA configuration to meet threat and mission requirements.

C. Soldiers may dispose of unauthorized body armor by sending the items directly to PEO Soldier or by turning them in to the local CIF who will ship the items to PEO Soldier. PEO Soldier will refund shipping expenses from anywhere in the world however, it cannot reimburse any purchase expenses for the items. Contact the PEO Soldier POC identified in paragraph 6 below for shipping instructions.

D. Parts, Assembly, Components or End Item inspection procedures: N/A.

E. Category of Maintenance: N/A.

F. Task or inspection suspense date: Commanders have 30 Days after receipt of this message to complete a body armor inspection and be in compliance.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20.


Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®