Dragon Skin Testing and the Truth

[Chalmers]

Dragon skin discussion was nasty over past years but right now it seems that Pinnacle took its mouth too full and Army leadership responded in a proper way.

It is nearly funny to see the argumentation for Dragon SKin over the past years. At first level III SOV2000 was praised as "superior in every field" to IBA. It was mainly advertised because of its larger coverage, weight reduction and flexibility. Flashy videos showing the vest catching dozens of rounds did the rest (mostly 9mm). The scary part is that back then weight reduction and increased comfort in order to increase mobility were main arguments. Also IBA
was called junk because e.g. SFTT claimed that "heavy, brittle SAPI plates don't stand up several hits". If NBC testing showed anything, than that ESAPI plates own an extreme multihit capability even during testing that is disigned to proof they have not. Also fielding of side plates was criticized because
of increased weight. Quite strange, because right now it is said that SOV3000 is worth a weight increase between 10-20lbs.
Reality in Iraq and Afghanistan showed that encountered threats required level IV protection because snipers used PFL or old Russian rifles using e.g. 7,62x54R. Even thus this threat SOV2000 supporters said main threat is Ak and so SOV2000 is enough. I won't comment on that.
IBA offers protection against levelIV threats. Ballistic side protection was fielded especially to prevent shots in the axillariy line which was a popular sniper target. Right now there is only a small gap between ESAPI and ESBI. A frontal shot in this area is not likely to hit any vital organ or a big blood vessel. It riquires either an expert marksman shooting the small gap between two plates in a certain angle to achieve a life threatening wound or simply bad luck. But unlike media claims it was possible to close this gap even with fielded equipement. Depending on your build a XS Esapi instead of ESBI nearly closed that gap. But it was unpopular because of its weight and bulk.
Now SOV3000 appeared and failed testing. Pinnacle claimed: "Dumb and corrupt Army testers sabotaged tests". Strange. Now let's see, who has more credibility. Yes corruption occured in the Army. When personal is corrupted they lie in order to do what evil companies tell them. But d'uh Pinnacle is an Armor company... So they don't even need to be corrupted to lie. In fact they were lying all the time or to say more nicely used "misleading information" and aggressive marketing. And they still do so. Mr. Neal insited that Dragon SKin never failed any tests. As I remember it failed several tests. He also claimed before that "evil Army testers" shot soft armor portions of his vest. In fact they did. Because the rifle protected area fell off and only soft armor was left. Directly after testing he claimed that those hits were on shoulder straps. Now, it was an anomaly of the glue. Strange...
They were also using weight and size infos that were designed to confuse. Claims about lightweight level IV SOV3000 were common thus actual weights were hardly offered. Also their sizing was one number smaller than IBA. So an Army L is a Pinnacle XL. Thus that a weight comparison between an L Interceptor and L SOV3000 is still pretty bad for Dragon skin because of a 12lb weight difference.
Best part of their lying campain is their "rebuttal to unofficial Army Info Paper". They compare medium sized IBA to a medium sized SOV3000. First they are using wrong weights. As far as I know a medium sized SOV3000 with full torso wrap weights 36lbs not 33. Second a medium sized IBA with ESBI neither
weights 31,1 nor 33,1lb. A fully rigged up medium sized IBA only weights 33lb with ESAPI, ESBI, groin protector, DAP, neck/ throat protection. Thus that it is still not as heavy as SOV3000. IOTV with all that stuff will weight about 28lb.
Also the claimed coverage of an IBA is also too small. Their result is: A medium sized IBA is 47% percent heavier than SOV3000. What? And hard armor proteciton by Dragon skin is lightweight compared to IBA? HArd to believe. One square inch of SOV3000 hard armor protection weights 0,065lb. One square inch of ESAPI coverage weigths 0,047lb. So hardly convincing...
How do you want to trust somebody who states such nonesense?
Now let's ignore that Dragons skin failed FAT testing and is heavier. "Greater coverage is only possible with Dragon Skin. Huge gaps in IBA don't protect vital organs." Again misleading. Because offered coverage options by Pinnacle also leave gaps that have a deadly potential like those that were closed: e.g. shoulders, abdomen, lower back, axillary, upper chest, neck... Do want to cover all those gaps? You'd have to carry 60lb or even more for that and eg. your head still remains unprotected. There is no total security. You have to find a compromise between weight and protection. IBA offers that compromise thus it is already on the egde because of its weight.
Thus the ban of purchased body armor soldiers that want to carry more rifle coverage can do so. Different armor companies offer plates that can be worn additionally to IBA: XS Sapis instead ESBI to close the gap between side and front protection (actually fielded!), shoulder SAPIs, plates for groin protector or plates for neck/throat area.
So if you want to have greater coverrage you can buy/ get this stuff. Why aren't soldiers, Marines or members of other first rate armies running around with that? Because it is simply to heavy. Another point: Due to overlapping air catches between discs. That forms an insulation barrier. Great for winter combat, but bad for Iraq and Afghanistan.
The flexibility of Dragon skin is also praised. But in fact it has no real impact. You'll get better weight distribution by IOTV and the "flexibillity" of Dragon SKin is like a live vest or wearing two level IIIa vests over each other. Add your gear
to your vest and it is nearly as hard to move as with plates. This "advantage" is not worth the extra weight.
Back face trauma is another point. NBC says it reduces backface trauma. But the Dragon Skin inserts were shot on a flat surface. So there was more overlapping which resulted in less backface trauma. Hardly convincing.
Pinnacle bought the idea of flexible body armor and had huge problems to construct a working product. 10 years later their vests are as faulty as in the beginning. None of their flashy videos nor NBC testing adressed its eaknesses. Their marketing is only suited to impress uneducated civilians, idiots or fat journalists.
SOV3000 is good for what it was used until now: Entertainment shows and protecting dudes who didn't leave their air conditioned offices. It is heavy,it is brittle, it is not suited for current AOs.

[SF18C]

Pardon me SF18C,

Chalmers, first read the rules and then the stickies. And then heed what SF18C posted, or you will find your stay short. Team Sergeant



Chalmers...post an intro

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ad.php?t=13758

[txzen]

On the .pdf linked in the first paragraph of this thread it says on the last page that 8 vests were tested and 4 failed, but when I go through the data on the 8 vests tested there are only 2 with no penetrations and I think I heard mr brown say that 1 penetration is a failure is is 100 percent success or 0 percent success. What am I missing? Page 3 says sov 3000 failed "4 of 8 subtests," I assume a subtest is a single vest. But the data shows 6 of 8 vests had at least one penetration. and yet in two places on page 3 and page 18 it says 4 of 8. What is the rub here?

[txzen]

Anyone else notice that the 60 below test that is listed as a catastophic failure because of disc "slippage," everyone can see that the discs are in different places before and after testing, got 4 "OK," ratings? Wow is that just dumb luck that after a catastophic failure of the adhesive the discs slip out of their intended places and the vest still stopped 8, I think they fire 2 shots at each side front back left and right, shots? These tests have some weird stuff to talk about. Something made me laugh about this observation "how catastophic can a failure be if after it happens 8 level IV threats in the form of 7.62x63 APM2 Armor Piercing bullets are stopped." Also I found it strange that the Germans NBC hired to test the IBA and the DS refused to tell the caliber of the round fired at the vests but the army released it in their .pdf, maybe since the NBC test came before the army released the .pdf they were just playing it safe.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by txzen

I found it strange that the Germans NBC hired to test the IBA and the DS refused to tell the caliber of the round fired at the vests but the army released it in their .pdf, maybe since the NBC test came before the army released the .pdf they were just playing it safe.

Because they were asked not to. They fired rounds beyond the M2, and did not reveal the muzzle velocity.

Do you want the enemy to know what our guys' armor protects against and what it doesn't protect against? Can we help the bad guys kill them better to satisfy your idle curiosity? Please refresh your OPSEC training.

Sheesh.

TR

[txzen]

I thought it strange that the army would release the caliber of weapon they used in testing, but more stange was the .pdf showing 6 failed tests and then saying 4 of 8 failed and then just the weird phenomenon that on the -60 test a "catastophic disc failure," occured but not one shot penetrated. And to be clear I don't need or want opsec violated for my curiosity. I think I get that since DS isn't fielded by the US military they don't mind saying what they used to defeat just thought it was strange the army would be specific about their testing methods and the german nbc test wouldn't. I get why the nbc test didn't and can understand why the army did, it just would have surprised me less if neither had released ammunition specifics.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by txzen

I thought it strange that the army would release the caliber of weapon they used in testing, but more stange was the .pdf showing 6 failed tests and then saying 4 of 8 failed and then just the weird phenomenon that on the -60 test a "catastophic disc failure," occured but not one shot penetrated.

Let's just say that all .30 rounds are not equal and leave it at that.

Maybe someone else can answer your questions about the disposition and methodology of the tests.

TR

[Karl.Masters]

Originally Posted by txzen

On the .pdf linked in the first paragraph of this thread it says on the last page that 8 vests were tested and 4 failed, but when I go through the data on the 8 vests tested there are only 2 with no penetrations and I think I heard mr brown say that 1 penetration is a failure is is 100 percent success or 0 percent success. What am I missing? Page 3 says sov 3000 failed "4 of 8 subtests," I assume a subtest is a single vest. But the data shows 6 of 8 vests had at least one penetration. and yet in two places on page 3 and page 18 it says 4 of 8. What is the rub here?

txzen-

Any first shot complete penetration is a catastophic failure and results in an automatic First Article Test failure.

All four failed RTP tests have 1st shot completes.

Karl

[Karl.Masters]

Originally Posted by txzen

...and then just the weird phenomenon that on the -60 test a "catastophic disc failure,"....

txzen,

You're right, we don't need any "weird phenomenon" or "anomalies" on armor that is going to be issued to US Army Soldiers.

Since we have never, until this FAT test, seen armor that dissolves or fails to maintain ballistic integrity after the temperature conditioning tests, I am adding a new criteria to the FAT test.

Any armor that dissolves, as evidenced by a post conditioning/pre-shot x-ray, is now an automatic FAT failure.

The failure will be documented by placing shots into any area that is revealed by post conditioning x-ray to have degraded ballistic integrity.

We currently use this exact protocol for the impact test, where a pre-drop x-ray is taken, the armor drop tested, a pre-shot x-ray is taken to detect cracks. The shots in the impact tested armor are placed on any crack(s) detected, and a post shot x-ray is taken. That's why you see 3 x-rays on the impact drop test chart.

Continuous process improvement at work here.

Bottom line is the lads don't need armor that cannot maintain ballistic integrity at at extreme temperatures, particularly temperatures found in the current AOR.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Karl

[txzen]

I really do appreciate the answers and information you have provided. Instilling confidence where before there were questions. Thanks again.

[7624U]

I want to just wear my plate carrier again with a stand alone hard steel plate damn it... yea you might get alittle impact splash from the bullet but it wont ever go threw

[Karl.Masters]

Christian Science Monitor has picked up the debate.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0524/p99s01-duts.html


US Army and armor-maker embroiled in debate over body-armor safety
Army refutes claims that Pinnacle Armor's product superior to troops' armor, and plans to brief Congress on subject.
By Arthur Bright | csmonitor.com
An NBC report on the US Army's rejection of a new type of body armor has sparked a widespread debate over the safety of US troops in the field.

The NBC investigative report, which aired over the weekend, suggested that Interceptor body armor – which the Army current uses, calling it "the best in the world" – may be inferior to a privately-developed armor called Dragon Skin. Dragon Skin, made of a series of overlapping ceramic disks "like Medieval chainmail" that defend against bullets, has been sought by military personnel and their families in the belief it offers better protection than the Army-issued Interceptor vests, NBC said.

NBC News tracked down the man who helped design Interceptor a decade ago, Jim Magee, a retired Marine colonel:

LISA MYERS: What is the best body armor available today in your view?

JIM MAGEE: Dragon Skin is the best out there, hands down. It's better than the Interceptor. It is state of the art. In some cases, it's two steps ahead of anything I've ever seen.

MYERS: You developed the body armor that the Army is using today.

MAGEE: That's correct.

MYERS: And you say Dragon Skin is better?

MAGEE: Yes. And I think anybody in my industry would say the same thing were they to be perfectly honest about it.

But Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, who oversees the Army's body-armor program, told NBC that the Dragon Skin armor "failed miserably" in Army testing, which NBC says he suggested led to its ban from use by personnel. But NBC notes that the Army banned soldiers from using Dragon Skin two months before the Army tested the armor.

The report adds that the CIA has tested and approved the armor for use by its own operatives, and one former Army ballistics expert, Nevin Rupert, says he was fired for supporting the use of Dragon Skin, and believes that the Army is eschewing the armor because "it threatened their program and mission funding."

NBC later posted the results of its own testing, which found Dragon Skin to be superior to the Army's Interceptor vests. In two tests, performed earlier this month by the Beschussamt Mellrichstadt laboratory in Germany, an Interceptor vest was penetrated by gunfire after several shots, while the same number of shots did not penetrate a Dragon Skin vest. A third test of a Dragon Skin vest against a more lethal caliber of bullet - one that the Army does not require its vests to protect against - also showed no pentration of the armor.

The Associated Press writes that, in response to the NBC report, the Army "in a rare move" released the results of its Dragon Skin testing on Monday. In a press conference (transcript available on the Defense Department's website) General Brown said that the armor suffered "catastrophic failures," failing to stop 13 of 48 armor-piercing rounds.

"Zero failures is the correct answer," he said. "One failure is sudden death and you lose the game."

Brown added that the armor failed to endure required temperatures shifts - from minus 20 degrees to 120 above zero - which weakened the adhesive holding the discs together. And he said that the Dragon Skin's heavy weight was also a problem for soldiers who need to carry a lot of gear.

The Dragon Skin, he said, weighs 47.5 pounds, compared to the Army-issued Interceptor armor, which weighs 28 pounds.

The NBC report was also met with some skepticism on military community websites. DefenseTech, a military technology blog run by Military.com, points out that in NBC's video of the armor tests, the Dragon Skin armor is on a flat surface, which maximizes the overlap of the protective disks that make up the armor. When worn, however, the armor would be curved, reducing the disks' protection. DefenseTech also notes that the armor's excessive weight reduces its "operational suitability." A post at the military website ProfessionalSoldiers.com, run by and for members of the Special Forces, also criticizes the testing in a lengthy article endorsed by the site.

Stars and Stripes, a daily paper for the US military authorized by the Defense Department, writes that Murray Neal, the founder of Dragon Skin manufacturer Pinnacle Armor, says the Army is lying about the test results.

Murray Neal said eight of the rounds that penetrated the Dragon Skin vests were specifically aimed where there were no ballistic discs.

Of the remaining shots that went through the vests, five needed to be verified by a follow-up test, but the Army failed to do so, Neal said.

As for the Army's contention that the mesh of ceramic discs falls apart after being exposed to extreme temperatures, Neal said, "That's a bold-face lie."

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Neal has made similar accusations against the Army in the past, but, "the test results speak for themselves."

ABC News affiliate KFSN in Fresno, Calif., reports that Mr. Neal says third-party testing is needed to resolve the issue of which armor, Interceptor or Dragon Skin, is safer. "[The test] won't be conducted by the Army. It won't be conducted by me. That's the whole issue here."

Military.com reports that Brown said the Army has "gotten a flurry of interest" from Capitol Hill since the NBC report was released, and that the Army will be meeting with members of Congress this week to discuss the armor issue.

[armorman]

Wow, so Mr. Neal wants the Army to wear something they are not allowed to test personally?

[KevinB]

I would guess that he is trying to have an independant test prior to Army acceptance (the .mil would then be free to test lots during acceptance)
My guess.

[smp52]

Originally Posted by KevinB

I would guess that he is trying to have an independant test prior to Army acceptance (the .mil would then be free to test lots during acceptance)
My guess.

From my understanding, the government isn't even thinking lot acceptance yet. Independent testing is great, but all testing for material the military accepts is conducted under their eyes ( Army, Navy, Air Force, USMC, or Defense Contract Management Agency QA reps). The armor failed First Article Testing, which is essentially required prior to any production even beginning (contractor can always produce at their own risk). Once FAT is successful, production begins and along with inspection requirements stipulated in the spec/contract for Critical, Major, and Minor characteristics, an LAT (lot acceptance test) of the appropriate sample size is tested for conformance to the requirements for individual lots. At least this is how it is for the ammo world. I would reckon it is somewhat similar to the weapons side of the house.