Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > Special Forces > Base Camp

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-09-2006, 14:32   #61
DefRev
Asset
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Miami
Posts: 5
skeeter8654,

The incident you refer to (G37/USMC) happened in late April 2004. While it was the only incident of its kind, it did happen, and we did have to retract it. The retraction was published very quickly. So, you are correct. The incident you mention did indeed occur.

However, it should be noted that because of this single, solitary incident, we (DefenseReview) immediately instituted new protocols to insure that it would not recur in the future. And, it won't. It can't, actually (due to the protocols we instituted).

This post has been edited for clarification.

Last edited by DefRev; 03-04-2007 at 06:01.
DefRev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 14:48   #62
Razor
Quiet Professional
 
Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 4,509
Everybody makes mistakes; its what you learn from them that is important. In this case, unless you're absolutely, unquestionably, 100% sure about your info source, in the future you may want to reconsider questioning the methods and motives of someone personally involved in an event. Not every government decision involves conspiracy.
Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 15:05   #63
NousDefionsDoc
Quiet Professional
 
NousDefionsDoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 1,653
DefRev,
Have you tested Dragon Skin?
__________________
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.

Still want to quit?
NousDefionsDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 15:13   #64
DefRev
Asset
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Miami
Posts: 5
Mr. Masters,

Thank you, and I believe you that there is no magnesium component of ESAPI. I accept your answer as the truth. Just FYI, I haven't reported anything about magnesium being in ESAPI on Defense Review (DefRev). Anyone here is of course free to research that. Coincidentally (since skeeter8654 brought up the G37/USMC incident), one of the reasons I haven't reported anything about magnesium being in ESAPI on Defense Review is that I wasn't sure about it and didn't have any confirmation from government sources or manufacturing sources. DefRev changed its publishing protocols after the G37/USMC debacle two years ago.

Anyway, that's why I used the phrasing "it's my understanding" (because I wasn't sure about it). Based on your answer, I understood wrong. I appreciate you giving me the correct information on it.

Point taken, Razor. I agree with you.

Last edited by DefRev; 06-09-2006 at 15:33.
DefRev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 16:41   #65
Karl.Masters
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Culpeper, Virginia
Posts: 203
ESAPI Quality Assurance Testing

Skeeter8654,

Thanks for your operational observations on ESAPI vs. 7.62x54R API. At the end of the day that is exactly what it's all about.

The Defense Contract Management Agency has on site QA reps that select a random sample of ESAPI plates for quality assurance ballistic testing from each and every production lot of ESAPI - from every manufacturer that is qualified to build ESAPI for the Army. There are only 6 that have passed the ESAPI First Artical Test protocol and are qualified and under contract to build these plates.

To ensure ESAPI plates maintain consistently high ballistic performance in combat, an ESAPI from every sample pulled from every lot from every manufacturer gets tested against 7.62x54R B-32 API - before the lot is accepted by PEO Soldier.

Each and every ESAPI lot is tested against the B-32 API threat. That means that we do quite a bit of testing, but this is a small price to pay to ensure that Soldiers get kit that they can rely on to perform when it counts.

It also gives us confidence that any material problem, process change, or any other factor affecting ESAPI ballistic performance is detected - before it gets to an Operator/Soldier/Marine/Airman/Sailor in combat.

Karl
Karl.Masters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2006, 03:34   #66
VelociMorte
Guerrilla
 
VelociMorte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 137
Response to US Army's Pentagon Brief / SOUM Regarding
Dragon Skin Body Armor

After reading the US Army's latest Safety of Use Message (SOUM) dealing with the effectiveness of Pinnacle Armor's Dragon Skin body armor, and viewing the Army's press brief by Major General Sorenson, I wish to respond to the assertions, allegations and innuendo. It is our belief that your criticism of Dragon Skin is simply wrong and unwarranted.

Despite all the testing of Dragon Skin armor systems by numerous Federal, State, Local, D.o.D. and other Federal agencies, - including the Army's own Army Research Lab, as well as a D.o.D. approved ballistic test facility, the Army still refuses to accept the fact that our Level 3 and the new level 4 Dragon Skin body armor - researched, designed and produced by an individual entrepreneur - is years ahead of the currently issued SAPI/Interceptor rigid plate system.

Dragon Skin exceeds in nine areas of performance and capabilities: flexibility with increased mobility, lower system weight, durability, greater torso coverage, less trauma to the body, better edge-hit capability, increased multiple/repeat hit capability, increased projectile diversity resistance, and ergonomic design. Dragon Skin capabilities have been proven to be significant improvements over the current Army issue.

Developed in 1996, we have provided full torso coverage Dragon Skin armor numerous times to deployed personnel. They purchased Dragon Skin armor with their own money after their first deployment. We hear and read reports that troops are complaining that the currently issued rigid armor is too heavy, too cumbersome, does not fit well and seriously restricts movement. And these reports are from troops who have been in-theater wearing it, and this latest iteration has been out less than three months!

We have received many e-mails from soldiers wearing Dragon Skin telling us they feel more comfortable and have better mobility, together with full torso coverage, and for approximately the same weight as the currently issued system with the new side plates; also without the lower back pain resulting from rigid plates. Proper design adds flexibility with greater mobility and coverage, without inhibiting daily performance.

Government offers exist for assistance up to $1,100.00 to soldiers that buy body armor (How does this agree with the newest and latest BAN ON ALL NOT-ISSUED armor?). Yet when they do buy something that is proven to be superior to the currently issued armor they are threatened with loss of their death benefits, told to not wear it, and to turn it in to PEO. These soldiers purchased this armor themselves, it belongs to them, not the Army.

While the Army is moving to equip its personnel with level 4 body armor, over 90% of the SAPI/Interceptor systems fielded today is level 3. The currently offered level 3 Dragon Skin body armor system has been proven on the battlefield in combat.

Our new level 4 Dragon Skin system just entering production will be as comparably advanced over the ESAPI program as over the current issued armor. We have also been able to defeat the "new emerging threat" categories; threats which, to date, the Army has not been able to defeat.

The Army says they look forward to testing Dragon Skin body armor to validate the "claims" of superior performance made by Pinnacle Armor. The Army, SOUM, states, "The Army has been unable to determine the veracity of these claims". I would like to know why - after 9 years of receiving ballistic data, both unclassified and classified, and actually witnessing several shoots at ARL, plus testimonials from battlefield survivors - that such evidence does not constitute validation. One only has to see the witnessed video shoots that were conducted showing Dragon Skin armor taking over 40 rounds of indigenous military ball ammunition from an AK-47 at 20 feet and then another 150 rounds of 9mm from 10 feet from a sub-machine gun - on top of the first impacted points - WITHOUT ANY FAILURE, to see that Dragon Skin is far superior to the current system in use by the Army.

The Army says it does not have enough information on Dragon Skin. Also, they say they helped fund its development. These statements are completely false. In 1996 we were commercially manufacturing and selling Dragon Skin body armor. Never has the Army been involved with the development of Dragon Skin body armor. We currently hold five issued patents on this technology with numerous others pending. It was patent pending before we showed it to Natick and ARL. We know Natick has tried to circumvent our patents, without success. When we first presented our armor to Natick and ARL we were told they had both spent 4-5 years and approximately 18-20 million dollars trying to develop a body armor system that could meet the flexibility and mobility requirements of the battlefield. To date, they haven't succeeded.

I think it is a travesty that men and women who continue to protect the freedoms and values that we have and enjoy are treated so shabbily - preventing them from owning and wearing the best body armor that technology can offer. We have all seen the Pathology Reports reporting lives lost due to inadequate torso side coverage by the issued armor. The Army's answer is to provide rigid side plates - less flexibility and more weight.

In my opinion such treatment borders on being criminal when you continue to place people directly in harms way yet do not provide the best equipment to protect them. Being aware of problems with the currently issued armor and knowingly preventing solutions to such problems demonstrates culpability.

We have found the following statements from the Army to be false:

The Army's latest attempts to obfuscate this issue with the american public in a Pentagon release is wrong. General Sorenson said, "Now, I will say that there is another services that has procured this type of capability, but has recently recalled it because it did not meet standards".
General Sorenson says regarding the Dragon Skin development, that we have had to take a look at the latest seven iterations of the SAPI/Interceptor system to come up with a different way of manufacturing our body armor, and that the Army has encouraged this.
General Sorenson told the press "the latest iteration of Army body armor has been completely fielded into theater".
General Sorenson still speaking on behalf of the Army again, agrees that there is lighter and more flexible body armor, but, that the Army has "not seen that this capability has done anything with respect to preventing, providing any level of force protection that we evaluate as even standard". "There is particular evidence to state that we're not really sure what it provides". The second statement we are not sure of its meaning.
General Moran states, " …it's probably not advisable because we have not found that the protection provided by these other particular systems is anywhere near what the soldiers have today".
General Sorenson further states, " If they can provide the capability that satisfies the test which, to date, anything that they've delivered has not satisfied the test".
General Sorenson replying to a question to the validity of the amount of Dragon Skin body armor in theater states, "Again, to my knowledge, I do not know. I mean, the claims are such, we have not been able to verify those claims".
General Sorenson states in regards to money that Army has paid to develop the Dragon Skin, that the Army has provided to us, close to a million dollars in an SBIR and that he is "shocked" that we would disagree that they provided us money to develop the system.

These are statements from officers of the military who should be honest, unbiased and above reproach.

CONTINUED
__________________
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill
VelociMorte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2006, 03:35   #67
VelociMorte
Guerrilla
 
VelociMorte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 137
Aside from the actual classified information and test data, the letters, e-mail correspondence, test data are available to provide proof that the Army and specifically General Moran and General Sorenson have been provided information in January and February 2006 to verify and refute these misrepresentations and false statements that were designed to create a false impression and discredit the Dragon Skin body armor. This is the level of perfidy that is allowed to go on within the Army while our troops are suffering and/or dying because of it. We can provide viewing of such for validation but will not allow any copying or removal of such documents.

We have agreed with General Moran to provide at their cost 30 complete full torso wrapped vests to be shot at a range with pre-set specifications. The test will be viewed and observed by industry and ballistic professionals. Now the Army is asking that the vests be sent to them for inspection for several days prior to the test, which was not agreed to. We will not do that when they have shown to try to do everything to cause discredit to our company, and the armor we provide, in addition to other things such as creating irregularities that would induce premature failure during the ballistic test. If the test with the Army does not take place, we will carry out a test for Congress, the House and Senate Armed Services, Senators, the Executive Branch, or other qualified observers to prove what we have said and demonstrated is directly opposite of what the Army is telling the American People. During these tests, those who attend can open the crate of vests, look at, count, inspect, weigh and then have the armor shot without any interference with the armor before it is tested.

The Army has recently stated they are looking at their needs for a flexible, greater ballistic capability, lighter weight body armor for replacement of the current system and for future systems. Dragon Skin armor has been providing what the Army now says it needs FOR THE LAST NINE YEARS!

Let's stop paying good taxpayer money for rigid plate armor that does not provide the highest level of protection and continually needs to be replaced. Purchase what will work, be durable, and meet the needs of our troops, their lives depend upon it!

We have asked the Army several times for a Ballistic "proof" side-by-side test with the Army's un-categorically best in the world and General Moran has told me that it will not happen, however, if it is categorically the best, then put the best along side the Dragon Skin for a fair and unbiased shoot to let the evidence make that determination.

Sincerely,

Murray Neal
CEO
Pinnacle Armor, Inc.
5425 E. Home Ave. #104
Fresno, CA 93727-2106
(800) 200-0915 *TOLL FREE*
(559) 320-1221 *VOICE*
(559) 320-1229/1230 *FAX*
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is not to be reproduced, printed, excerpted, copied or disseminated in any form other than the full content of this release without permission from Pinnacle Armor, Inc.
__________________
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill
VelociMorte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2006, 04:41   #68
Pete
Quiet Professional
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fayetteville
Posts: 13,080
I guess the Army was right.

Well that letter shows they wanted to have Dragon Skin tested quick and right out of the box.

And I would guess the company also knew why they didn't want the Skins hanging around for a few days. Thats why they demanded that the Skin's be shot at so quickly.

Hmmm.

You would think that something a grunt was going to drag around for a year or more could surely handle hanging out at a testing facility for a few days. I wonder "not".
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2006, 16:51   #69
VelociMorte
Guerrilla
 
VelociMorte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 137
There is a video on their web site that shows a DragonSkin taking multiple impacts from both 7.62X39 and 9mm, without a single penetration. Most if not all ceramic plates turn into a sack of rocks after a couple rounds. At 16.5 pounds, my Large SOV-2000 is about 7 pounds lighter, and provides about 40% more coverage (in standard configuration) than an Interceptor with SAPI front and rear. It exceeds DOJ level III, in that it also stops level IV 7.62X39 steel core and Green Tip. More coverage, lighter, flexible....hell, unless everything they say is total bullshit, how could you go wrong?
__________________
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill
VelociMorte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2006, 07:39   #70
MtnGoat
Quiet Professional
 
MtnGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Asscrackistan
Posts: 4,289
OPen Sourses

TS (& ALL) looks like there are others coming here to grab information to be posted on other sites.

May this be a lesson to everyone, Sluggos and all, that people come to PS.Com to see what we are stating. That is good and BAD GUY alike. Heed the warnings about OPSEC. This is why TS, TR, all of the Moderators ensure we do our spell checks and proper grammar, ETC. Thanks TR It's called Professional Soldier.com for many reasons, here's one of them.

As they say, your reputation starts with.... (SFQC) ETC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl.Masters
I was recently tasked by the Army to conduct the test of the 30 Dragon Skin SOV 3000 level IV body armor purchased for T&E referred to earlier in this thread. My day job is acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor.

I'm under a gag order until the test results make it up the chain.

I will, however, offer an enlightened and informed recommendation to anyone considering purchasing a SOV 3000 Dragon Skin - don't.

I do not recommend this design for use in an AOR with a 7.62x54R AP threat and an ambient temperature that could range to 120F.

I do however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents...
KARL obviously you got some eyes waiting for the report to be released to the people but the higher ups. Waiting out!!

Hopefully the Insurgents will pick up a set or two for themselves. Hee
__________________
"Berg Heil"

History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over."

COLONEL BULL SIMONS

Intelligence failures are failures of command [just] as operations failures are command failures.”
MtnGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 19:08   #71
Karl.Masters
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Culpeper, Virginia
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor
Not every government decision involves conspiracy.
Our nation is at war. Performance is the determining factor.

v/r
Karl
Karl.Masters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 19:18   #72
Karl.Masters
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Culpeper, Virginia
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
You would think that something a grunt was going to drag around for a year or more could surely handle hanging out at a testing facility for a few days.
Pete,

Spot on. Durability and ballistic integrity in environmental extremes are important considerations for anyone making a purchase decision on body armor.

v/r
Karl
Karl.Masters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 20:04   #73
Karl.Masters
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Culpeper, Virginia
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by VelociMorte
It exceeds DOJ level III, in that it also stops level IV 7.62X39 steel core and Green Tip.
VelociMorte,

Test question. How do you know it exceeds NIJ Type III (7.62x51mm FMJ) performance? For that matter, how do you know it meets NIJ Type III performance? Let's put the glossy brochures and videos aside for the moment.

NIJ Standard 0101.04 Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor establishes performance requirements and test methods used by DOJ to certify body armor.

From paragraph 4.5.1 (L) of this standard:

"For armor that has been successfully tested for compliance to this standard through NIJ's voluntary compliance testing program (CTP) at an NIJ-approved testing facility, the following statement shall be included on the label: The Manufacturer certifies that this model of armor has been tested through NLECTC and has been found to comply with Type (insert appropriate type designation) Performance for NIJ Standard-0101.04"

If your SOV 2000 armor successfully passed DOJ/NIJ testing, it would have this compliance statement on the label of the armor panel inside the carrier.

I'm curious, does your SOV 2000 bear the NIJ compliance statement above for Type 3 performance?

Karl
Karl.Masters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2006, 20:24   #74
Karl.Masters
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Culpeper, Virginia
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnGoat
KARL obviously you got some eyes waiting for the report to be released to the people but the higher ups. Waiting out!!
MtnGoat,

5x5. All this drama goes away when the results are released. Until then, we are doomed to be adrift in a sea of agendas, opinions, and speculations.

v/r
Karl
Karl.Masters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2006, 04:55   #75
Jack Moroney (RIP)
Quiet Professional
 
Jack Moroney (RIP)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 3,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl.Masters
MtnGoat,

5x5. All this drama goes away when the results are released. Until then, we are doomed to be adrift in a sea of agendas, opinions, and speculations.

v/r
Karl
Some folks may be. Your word is good enough for me. If my son was on his way back to the sandbox right now and told me he was adding this to the other 300 lbs of crap in his kit I would be, as he likes to say, "all over him"
__________________
Wenn einer von uns fallen sollt, der Andere steht für zwei.
Jack Moroney (RIP) is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:46.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies