Dragon Skin Testing and the Truth

[Snaquebite]

And if you are in the box and are wearing black plates, you're wrong. Get the green ones.

Can you educate me (and maybe others) on the difference?
Is this strictly a gov't issue plate difference?

[Karl.Masters]

Originally Posted by Snaquebite

Can you educate me (and maybe others) on the difference?
Is this strictly a gov't issue plate difference?

Roger, strictly a government issue plate difference.

US Army issue SAPI (7.62 ball protection) are black, US Army issue ESAPI (7.62 AP protection) are green.

[Karl.Masters]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Karl - IIRC the operator inspection proceedures you cite are the same thing we had 5-6 years ago. Thanks for filling me/us in on the ND test capability. That's heartening news. Were you satisfied with the pass/fail rate for the 2000 plates tested at Bragg? Peregrino

Roger-we are working to upgrade to a more reliable inspection procedure than is in the user manual & TM. Was extremely satisfied with the P/F rate and most importantly, the correlation between the machine and the manual image check. BTW-the lads get brand new green plates on their deployment issue. Life cycle management is our objective, tracking each plate through DOD's unique item identification (UID) program that is being implemented in all the services now. Key is tracking consumption by size to get "smart sustainment" via asset visibility.

[Dub]

FYI: The NBC Nightly News had just a 'wonderful' and quite long segment tonight bashing Interceptor armor and promoting the hell out of Dragon Skin.



Seemed to be a nice shot from the liberals at the Army for (in their opinion) sending our troops in without top notch gear.

Interestingly though they had the creator of Interceptor on who stated that if he was sent to Iraq tommorow he would definitely wear Dragon Skin.

-Dub

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Dub

FYI: The NBC Nightly News had just a 'wonderful' and quite long segment tonight bashing Interceptor armor and promoting the hell out of Dragon Skin.



Seemed to be a nice shot from the liberals at the Army for (in their opinion) sending our troops in without top notch gear.

Interestingly though they had the creator of Interceptor on who stated that if he was sent to Iraq tommorow he would definitely wear Dragon Skin.

-Dub

Stand by Stand by...........

nbc is about to look like cnn as far as credibility goes.....

stupid is as stupid does........

Team Sergeant

[Team Sergeant]

Dr. Gary Roberts DDS , (In laymen terms that's a dentist).

Your time is almost up.

The truth is about to be released and then I'm going to write a few letters to the Dept of the Navy as to why a LCDR, USNR and dentist is using Navy credentials to further a product that catastrophically failed military and to why a NAVY dentist is conducting armor testing in the first place?

And another question; where did all the data go that was on Pinnacle Armor's website, you know the testing you conducted, its now GONE? (well about 80%-90% is now gone)

You have still not explained WHY you left out your "medical speciality" or in other words your doctoral speciality, (DDS= Dentist) when you tested pinnacle armor's body armor. WOW, to a layperson that might be EXTREMELY MISLEADING. (See below, no DDS anywhere to be found.)

(You are amusing, especially when arguing with real Trauma Surgeons.)

You might want to prepare for questions from your superiors concerning your body armor testing and web postings. You should be happy the military repealed the sedition act years ago.


SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....



Would someone let me know just what NAVAL RESERVE unit Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center is assigned to? Thank you.

Team Sergeant
Master Sergeant
Special Forces (ret)


http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20061005-pr.php

Pinnacle Dragon Skin SOV-2000 Test by Dr. Gary Roberts : October 10, 2006
Pinnacle Dragon Skin SOV-2000 Test by Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center
Pinnacle Dragon Skin SOV-2000 level III armor was also tested the week of October 2, 2006 by Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center. These tests were conducted for a local law enforcement agency, as a control sample a stand-alone Armored Mobility Incorporated (AMI) level III steel composite plate armor was used for comparison. Both types of armor were conditioned for 12 hours at 170 degrees F, then moved to ambient air for approximately 90 min prior to being shot. The problems associated with the use of inelastic clay backing material have been well documented; as such, the armor was secured to a life-size curvilinear torso replica made of Perma-Gel. Each armor system was shot a minimum of 20 times with five shots of each ammunition type fired against each armor system -- one 90 degree perpendicular shot, two shots at 60 degrees obliquity, and two shots at 30 degrees obliquity, using each of the following loads fired at a distance of 10 feet:

continued;

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20061005-pr.php

[The Reaper]

My opinion on the Army testing of Dragon Skin http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...00121may07.pdf and the NBC "testing" of body armor http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18771902/

Hope you find it informative, feel free to share.

TR


Dragon Skin?

There may be something better called Dragon Skin, but better than what?

Bottom line up front. From 16-19 May 2006, in Department of Defense (DoD) test protocols at HP White Labs, Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests suffered 13 first or second shot complete penetrations, failing four of eight initial subtests with Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts (ESAPI) threat baseline 7.62 x 63mm M2 Armor Piercing (AP) ammunition. The Project Manager (PM) Soldier Equipment Briefing report is on line and is easily available.

I say again, of eight Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin (DS) vests tested for V0 penetration, four of them failed, and 13 of 48 rounds fired for record were complete penetrations. Of these, significant first shot failures were noted when the DS vests were exposed to diesel fuel, a serious concern since almost all of our vehicles use this fuel and between spillage during refueling and the potential for saturation after an IED attack on US convoys, vests can easily be contaminated with fuels. A first shot complete penetration was also observed after a DS vest was drop tested. Anyone who has served understands that a 48 pound vest is going to get dropped, dragged, and abused a LOT in a combat zone, even during normal patrolling and movement. Finally, and most significantly, the vest cannot be exposed to heat. With solar loads regularly generating vehicle interior temperatures well in excess of 150 degrees, the DS vest disks delaminate themselves and fall to the bottom of the vest, effectively reducing the armor protection to nearly nothing. All panels shot after high temperature exposure failed in the first shot. This is unacceptable and is hardly a characteristic I would look for in a product to replace the current proven ESAPI in conjunction with the Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts (ESBI).

According to the X-Rays in the Army report, all hits were in protected areas with full disk coverage. Also easily seen in the X-Rays is the complete failure of the vests adhesive to retain the disks in place during extreme hot and cold weather testing.

NBC also neglected to mention the weight penalty of the Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests, which can weigh up to 47.5 pounds or 20 pounds more than the Interceptor vest with ESAPI and ESBI. They appear to have tested the armor, flat, which favors the flexible Pinnacle armor. And they tested it at room temperature only, which means, I suppose, that if you are a soldier who never leaves the office, say, at NBC headquarters, the Dragon Skin may work well for you. If you, however, actually have to go outside, well, you may not want to throw away the Interceptor with the ESAPI quite yet.

The Pinnacle SOV 3000 vests tested were purchased and manufactured the same month that the Army PM test was conducted. They were tested under the ESAPI Purchase Description for front and rear, and ESBI Purchase Description for left and right side. All tests were conducted with 7.62 x 63mm 166 grain M2 AP projectiles stripped from Government Issue complete rounds and hand loaded for each shot by HP White Lab personnel. These rounds were loaded to a specific velocity (+ or – 25 fps) known to replicate the most common threat AP ammunition. In scientific testing, 27%, or more than one in four of these rounds went completely through the armor and into the target. Are you sure you want to suit up a loved one in this stuff?

Strangely, in their investigative reporting seeking to prove the superiority of the Dragon Skin armor over Interceptor with ESAPI, NBC did not appear to use actual ESAPI and ESBI plates for the comparison. Instead, they seem to have shot some other armor that Jim Magee provided and that he stated ““This is what the soldiers and Marines are wearing.” In fact, it may not be. So much for journalistic integrity.

Did the Army really ban the armor last year and issue a Safety Of Use Message (SOUM) even before formally testing it?

Not exactly. Army personnel witnessed a May 2004 test of DS in SAPI plate configuration where the Dragon Skin vests failed catastrophically. Nevin Rupert, Murray Neal, and Chief Scientist Dr. James Zheng were all on the range watching that day. I believe that Mr. Neal stopped the test early due to catastrophic failures of the Dragon Skin. There were also Army, AF, and USMC observed and reported failures of the DS armor in ballistic testing prior to the release of the Army Safety of Use Message in March 2006. The Dragon Skin armor design has a history of failure. Look at the Army PM report.

Would NBC allow soldiers to wear prayer beads and paper party hats as armor until the Army formally tested it and issued a soldier safety release?

Some people may think that Dragon Skin is the best out there, hands down, or that it is better than the Interceptor. Seemingly credible people also believe that they have seen UFOs, and that Elvis lives. That does not make it true.

The SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests are too heavy, prone to failure under threat fire, and unreliable in extreme temps. I am not sure what role James Magee, Colonel, USMC (Ret.), the former President of Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. has in this, but there may be motives here that are currently unknown. I would be hesitant taking people’s own word for their expertise, especially given his position at Soldiers For The Truth (SFTT). His claim that he is the “inventor” of Interceptor body armor seems like a bit of a stretch as well, since people who have been on the Army body armor program since the late '90s do not recognize his name.

More stopping power and more coverage? Not exactly. In the Army tests, which cost the taxpayers over $250,000 just last year, stopping power of the Dragon Skin was questionable, as was the ability of the armor to maintain ballistic integrity in high temperatures typical of the AOR. More rifle coverage and less ballistic integrity for 20 lbs. of extra weight? Hmm, not sure I like that trade-off. The GAO seemed satisfied with the Army and Marine ESAPI programs as well in their report as of 26 April 2007.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may, or may not have bought Dragon Skin for elite operatives in Iraq. I don’t have access to that information, but the CIA is not subject to US Army procurement policies or regulations. Ask them why they bought it, how it worked for them, and if they are still procuring it for their personnel.

Mr. Nevin Rupert now calls himself a whistleblower. He says the Army’s timing wasn’t coincidental. He claims that their loyalty is to their organization and maintaining funds. Rupert believes he was recently fired by the Army, he says, for supporting Dragon Skin.

There are plenty of disgruntled employees in every organization. I suspect that Mr. Rupert was relieved for cause. As a Federal employee, he cannot be terminated without good reason. I am sure that he would prefer that the details not be discussed, but I believe that his termination may have had to do with other matters than some dark conspiracy. He can open his employee files to the media if he really wants to.

Rupert also says he was ordered not to attend the May 2006 tests of Dragon Skin. If he was not able to be an impartial tester and finder of facts, as his job required, then what role was he to have played at the test? It would appear that the performance of the armor would speak for itself. And it did. It failed miserably, especially at temperature extremes, when most of the armor disks delaminated themselves and fell into a nice belt at the bottom of the vest. Not much protection down there, but I am sure they made a nice jingling sound as they were moved around.

As far as the officers and scientists involved in the testing, what interest would Army officers from combat arms have in supporting a lesser technology armor? Because it wasn’t invented by the Army? They don’t hold stock or care what the source of the armor is, just that it works. Do you really think that would put their brothers' lives at risk over some sort of parochial turf war? And their own as well, when they get issued the gear on their next deployment? I am sure that they would much rather be back in a unit rather than stuck in an office job pushing papers. I know I would.

(continued)

[The Reaper]

I am not sure how things work in the news industry, but does Lisa Myers know everything her staff does or brings with them to shoots? Is she responsible for endorsing everything they do? Do they occasionally deviate from her guidance? Should we follow them with a camera and see?

Does she review and approve their expense accounts for company equipment? Can she provide a list of every item her crew carries, and the source of those items? Does her driver have clean underwear? Is she responsible for knowing that level of detail? Why should the general be?

NBC News claims to have commissioned an independent, side-by-side test of Dragon Skin and the Army’s Interceptor vest. According to them, Dragon Skin outperformed the Army’s body armor in stopping the most lethal threats.

There are only two labs that are National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certified to run NIJ body armor tests. They are the HP White Laboratory in Street, MD and US Test Labs in Wichita, KS. A third lab, Chesapeake Testing in Chase, MD, is under NIJ review for certification. Additional military facilities certify body armor performance for DoD. NBC does not own one of them, nor does NBC appear to be pursuing a scientific approach at a licensed facility. A proper test would require over two dozen SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests to be placed on a human torso model and shot by specific threat rounds at a standard range and impact velocity, from specific angles and impact points, and under a variety of contamination and environmental conditions that soldiers might face in combat. Fresh off the manufacturing line ESAPI would be shot for comparison, if further certification or validation (already awarded to the ESAPI) was needed.

Was the “Interceptor” ESAPI armor NBC tested government issued or procured independently? The markings on the armor seen in the video are unfamiliar and they appear to be independently procured non-issue plates from non-standard or non-qualified vendors. Wouldn’t a fair test use the fresh issue ESAPI plates, like the Pinnacle armor provided? Are the alleged ESAPIs NBC tested fresh and certified current production? Did they come from Pinnacle or a surplus store dumpster? There are six qualified vendors that have passed ESAPI first article protocol. The vendors deny providing plates to NBC. And none of them are Canadian.

NBC has not yet mentioned what model Dragon Skin was shot. Apples have to be compared to apples. You can wear armor that will stop .50 BMG, but you will not be mobile in it. I can test a stock appearing Ford Mustang that has twice the rated horsepower too, but it doesn’t mean the one you buy will perform like it does.

What was their sample size? Did they shoot up 30 SOV 3000s or ESAPIs?

Where did they shoot it? From the video, it appears to be on a flat surface. Do you see a lot of soldiers shaped like doors? Is there a problem with testing it on a torso shaped platform, replicating the soldier that NBC is so concerned about? Did they test single and multiple round impacts on all four impact faces of the vests?

What weapon, projectile, and impact velocity did NBC use? There is only one Army performance standard for ESAPI body armor testing. Was it the prescribed threat level for testing that is required in the acquisition documents? Are we counting on the enemy firing only a single round at the Pinnacle SOV 3000 level IV Dragon Skin vest? What happens if he has plenty of ammo that day and shoots twice?

The Army conducted tests of both types of armor at the HP White test lab, the NIJ certified facility for testing body armor, in accordance with the required protocol for scientific testing. Where was the NBC test conducted? What were the protocols? What threats did the DS stop that the ESAPI did not? The Army used multiple environmental protocols designed to duplicate the different climates our soldiers serve under. Again, what protocols did NBC employ? If the user is sitting at a desk, clean and dry in a Forward Operating Base (FOB), as tested by NBC, the DS probably works fine. If the wearer has to go outside and deal with the weather, sweat, contamination, etc., according to the May 2006 test, it isn't going to stop Jack, half of the time (four out of eight vests failed in certified testing). Furthermore, a size extra large Dragon Skin weighs 47.5 pounds (vs. 28 pounds for the equivalent fitting OTV with ESAPI and ESBI side plates) for 743 sq. in. (vs. 720 for the Interceptor with ESAPI) of total coverage. With Interceptor Body Armor (IBA), rifle protection is the sum of the areas of the front and rear plates and the 2 side plates. The Pinnacle Dragon Skin armor does provide more rifle coverage, as long as it is climate controlled and not shot much, but at a significant weight penalty. I am sure that if I wanted to carry additional plates to equalize the weights, the ESAPI could have done even better.

Gary K. Roberts, DDS, Commander, US Naval Reserve is also cited as conducting a test of the DS armor. While he is a Navy dentist, and an alleged ammo expert, I am unsure how he has become a scientific tester of body armor, or what his official role is. He seems to be interested in environmental testing of body armor, but does not appear to be familiar enough with Military Standard (MIL STD) 810E/810F to understand the ESAPI test protocol. The Armored Mobility Inc. (AMI) armor used as a control in his test is not a military issued plate. He is also quoted on the Pinnacle web site. What was his involvement? Was his a sanctioned Navy test? If so, it failed to follow DoD or NIJ protocols. Was he testing on behalf of Pinnacle? Was he compensated for his testing? Who sponsored it? Unless Dr. Roberts, DDS is able to substantiate his testing as meeting the HP White and NIJ standards for body armor testing, I would have to discount the validity of this test as a basis for comparison with military or NIJ certification of the armor.

The alleged NIJ test that Pinnacle refers to on their web site did not follow the DoD armor test protocol either. NIJ certification tests do not include high temperature, low temperature, or temperature shock conditioning tests. NIJ test conditioning is limited to water spray, all done at ambient conditions. NIJ is looking at adopting temperature cycling and accelerated aging in the new revision, NIJ Standard 0101.05, to be published, but this test was not conducted to the Army standard, so for Army procurement, it is irrelevant. I have heard that law enforcement units who have the Pinnacle armor use one set for training, and keep another locked away in climate control for actual call-outs. Maybe they are aware of this problem as well.

Incidentally, it would appear that Pinnacle continues to have additional legal problems with the government, as the investigators continue probing them for their fraudulent NIJ certification claim problem.

There is a one-time failure policy in the test business for Resistance to Penetration (RTP) tests. Because an actual failure during use may be a death sentence. First shot complete penetrations are NOT allowed in the ESAPI RTP tests. These are considered catastrophic failures, resulting in automatic failure of the First Article Test (FAT). Ballistic limit (V50) tests are looking for 3 partials and 3 completes at the worst case shot location-a single disc area of coverage. The SOV 3000 failed RTP tests 50% of the time, as opposed to the issue ESAPI failing 0% of the time, at twenty pounds less weight. Not sure what kind of odds you like, but if it is my torso inside the vest, I would rather be lighter, faster and better protected over the cool guy factor, especially when it hits over 150 degrees in the back of the vehicle.

General Downing’s comments after observing the tests, even as an employee of NBC, were still non-committal. Perhaps he is aware of the protocol for testing body armor, and NBC’s compliance with that protocol, or lack thereof. Or perhaps not. He was a Ranger and a commander, after all, not a procurement officer.

(continued)

[The Reaper]

So these independent, limited tests by NBC raise questions about the Army’s claims?

It would appear that Pinnacle already has some serious credibility issues, including claims posted on their web site. For example, despite Pinnacle's claim, US Army Special Forces Command, which equips all US Special Forces, has never heard of Pinnacle, much less purchased armor from them.

Why does NBC not speak with the purported father of flexible armor, Mr. Allan D. Bain, whose web site http://www.evolutionarmor.com/Flex.htm states:

“The fact is most of Pinnacle Armor's systems were invented by Allan D. Bain formally of Armor Technology Corp. Pinnacle Armor started manufacturing after we educated Mr. Neal how to make armor by contract executed in October of 2000 that was fair and honestly fulfilled. Pinnacle Armor and Mr. Neal never manufactured any body armor prior to this date. So if you hear about Pinnacle Armor or the "Dragon Skin" armor being manufactured since 1995 your talking about armor that Pinnacle Armor never made or developed. In fact Murray Neal was a sales representative for Armor Technology from 1997 - October of 2000 a company owned entirely by Allan D. Bain, the true inventor of Dragon Skin."

"There are quite a few reasons, and if you have read the Pinnacle Armor propaganda you will hear about tales of fraud, sabotage, and protection of the good old boy network as it relates to The "Interceptor Vest". I can tell you as someone who works with the military on this kind of endeavor there are a lot of reasons why this armor hasn't been universally adopted and the reasons above are basically false. The truth is Pinnacle Armor received clearance to forward samples to the Army and was paid 170,000 dollars, and that was after they were paid almost a 1,000,000.00 dollars to develop the armor from where we left off after we sold patent rights to Pinnacle Armor in October of 2000."

"The major flaw was not observing the Article One testing environmental conditioning protocol, which calls for the armor to withstand 165 degrees F for 6 hours. After five years of development and having the protocol in hand you would figure that the adhesive used to affix the tiles to the high strength fabric would be of the high temperature variety, it wasn't, and because of that these vests failed. OOPS!"

Essentially, the inventor of Dragon Skin freely admits that the current manufacturers of the armor are aware that it cannot handle temperature extremes without falling apart, and pretty much ripped the government off last time. Did NBC look into that?

Critics told NBC they’d like to see the Army re-test and re-evaluate Dragon Skin, so why not retest the DS vest now? Because it is too heavy, and not reliably bullet resistant. Warfighters want lighter and flexible, not heavier and flexible. What if Pinnacle has changed the adhesive? Will Pinnacle be recalling Dragon Skin armor with substandard adhesive manufactured before the Army discovered this shortfall? Well, I would hope so, after a free FAT test at taxpayer expense. All other vendors pay for the FAT if they fail, Army pays if they pass. Would Murray Neal like to donate another 30 vests for destructive testing? Even so, the Army may retest, at a cost of many more tax dollars since the Pinnacle vests are several thousand dollars each. At the end of it, will there be an expose by NBC on how the Army wastes our tax dollars retesting failed body armor? Why is NBC promoting this failed technology? What is their agenda?

For any vendor that wants to compete for Army body armor work, the system is evaluated against the ESAPI standard/requirements as stated in the performance specification-not evaluated against the IBA itself. If you meet the standard, you are eligible for an award if pricing is in the competitive range during Full and Open competitions. To my knowledge, Pinnacle has never responded to a Full and Open competition. Why doesn’t Pinnacle Armor compete for Army business like every other body armor vendor? Why should they get special treatment? It appears to me that Pinnacle is attempting to restrict competition. I wonder how other manufacturers of body armor that have passed the ESAPI FAT protocol feel about this?

What about it, Mr. Neal? Are you willing to ante up this time for a round of government testing, or do you just want to sell the Army another load of defective armor?

And for NBC, would this have been an even juicier story if the Army bought and issued the Dragon Skin, after knowing that it was inadequate and defective, and dozens of soldiers died? Again, this armor failed the Army tests, not slightly, not on a technicality, but miserably and utterly. The designer of the Dragon Skin armor himself admits its inadequacy. Yet some would like it fielded more widely. Look at the Army test results. They speak for themselves. As an American soldier, I am glad that the Army tested it and discovered the real truth, rather than listening to armchair quarterbacks, snake oil salesmen, and charlatans. This refusal to yield to the SFTT, Dr. Roberts, and NBC has saved soldiers' lives. And that is the real bottom line here.

[Team Sergeant]

Army Says Dragon Skin Armor Falls Short

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press
Monday, May 21, 2007; 7:39 PM

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."

Holding up an armor-piercing bullet, Brown showed video of the tests, including footage of officials peering into the bullet hole in the Dragon Skin armor. "At the end of the day, this one disc has to stop this round. It didn't. Thirteen times," he said.

In response, Murray Neal, president of Pinnacle Armor which produces Dragon Skin, suggested that the Army lied about some of the testing, and he questioned why the Army was counting shots that "were fired into the non-rifle defeating areas."

The body armor debate has raged almost since the Afghanistan and Iraq wars began, as the Army struggled at times to get all of the needed equipment to its soldiers _ both active and reserve. At times, family members around the country were raising money, having bake sales, and spending thousands of dollars of their own cash to buy armor and equipment for their loved ones going to war.

In some of those cases, families were considering buying Dragon Skin armor because they believed it would provide better protection. The Army Monday said it was releasing the test details to help prevent families from spending money on body armor that is not as good as the protection already issued to the soldiers.

Brown described "catastrophic failures" by the Dragon Skin armor, and said that in 13 of 48 shots, lethal armor-piercing rounds either shattered the discs that make up the armor, or completely penetrated the vest.

"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.

After seeing the latest television reports, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., sent a letter to Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey asking for more information and saying he's concerned that the Army may not be providing better body armor to the soldiers as quickly as possible.

And Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency, seeking an investigation to assess the body armor being used by the military.

Army officials said they would be going to Capitol Hill this week to talk to lawmakers about the armor issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052101297.html

[Team Sergeant]

Army Defends Body Armor Quality
May 22, 2007
BY Sgt. Sara Wood

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, May 22, 2007) - U.S. troops operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have the best body armor in the world, and the Army is constantly looking for ways to improve force protection, the general in charge of the program told reporters here today.

"Force protection is the No. 1 priority of the U.S. Army. We value our Soldiers very highly, and we do everything we can do to ensure that they have the finest in force protection as they go into the battle," Brig. Gen. R. Mark Brown, Program Executive Officer Soldier, said at a Pentagon news conference.

In response to a May 17 NBC News report challenging the Army's use of Interceptor body armor vs. the newer "Dragon Skin" armor developed by Pinnacle Armor Inc., Brig. Gen. Brown today released information about the testing that ruled out Dragon Skin a year ago.

The tests were conducted May 16 to 19, 2006, at H.P. White labs near Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. The Pinnacle armor was subjected to the same tests Interceptor body armor goes through, first being X-rayed and analyzed and then undergoing a series of live-fire tests, Brown said. The live-fire tests included room-temperature tests, harsh environment tests, and durability and drop tests.

Of the eight Pinnacle vests tested, four of them failed the tests, with 13 rounds penetrating completely on the first or second shot, Brig. Gen. Brown said. After the first complete penetration, the vests technically failed the test, but the Army continued the testing to be fair, he said.

The Pinnacle vests also were subjected to extreme temperature variations, from minus 25 degrees Fahrenheit to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, which would be a realistic cycle if the equipment was loaded onto a plane and flown to the Middle East, Brig. Gen. Brown said. These temperature tests caused the adhesive holding the Dragon Skin's protective discs together to fail, and the discs gathered at the bottom of the vest, leaving gaps in protection, he said.

Brig. Gen. Brown also noted that the Dragon Skin vests are significantly heavier and thicker than the Interceptor vests. Dragon Skin vests in size extra large are 47.5 pounds and 1.7 to 1.9 inches thick; the Interceptor vests in size large, which offer an equivalent coverage area to the extra large Dragon Skin vests, weigh 28 pounds and are 1.3 inches thick.

"Bottom line is it does not meet Army standards," the general said of the Pinnacle body armor.

Brig. Gen. Brown showed reporters videos of the tests, which were supervised by the chief executive officer of Pinnacle. He also displayed the actual vests that were tested, with markers showing the penetration sites.

The Army did not initially release the information about the tests because of possible security concerns, Brown said. "We are facing a very media-savvy enemy," he said. "They're not only media-savvy, they are Internet savvy. ... Everything that we put out into the public domain, we pretty much assume that they get. We don't like to discuss our vulnerabilities and our counters to the vulnerabilities in the open public."

However, after the NBC report, Army leaders felt they needed to counter any doubts in the minds of servicemembers and their Families, Brig. Gen. Brown said. "Our Soldiers and, more importantly, the Families - the wives, the children, the parents - have to have confidence that our soldiers have the best equipment in the world," he said.

Right now, the Army's safety-of-use message mandates all Soldiers use Interceptor body armor, which has passed the same tests the Pinnacle armor failed, Brig. Gen. Brown said. The Army is interested in a more flexible armor, like the Pinnacle design, and if the company improves its product, it could be reconsidered, he said.

Brig. Gen. Brown stressed that the Army has more than one set of body armor for every Soldier in the combat theater, and that he has all the money and support he needs to make improvements to force protection. Also, the Army is constantly working to develop new technologies that will deliver better protection.

"This is not just a matter of debate for us; this is personal," he said, noting that many of his staff members have relatives or friends who have served or are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

(Sgt. Sara Wood serves with American Forces Press Service.)


http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/05/22...armor-quality/

[Team Sergeant]

Army Defends Interceptor Body Armor as the Best for the Best
May 22, 2007
BY Debi Dawson

After enduring a year of debate on the supremacy of its Interceptor Body Armor in relative silence, the Army is going public to put to rest any doubts that IBA is the best available and that it has out-performed other armor in rigorous testing.

According to Brig. Gen. R. Mark Brown, Program Executive Officer Soldier, the Army had been reluctant to release test results that could inform the enemy of U.S. capabilities. "Right now, we believe it's critical that our Soldiers have confidence in their equipment and that their families know force protection is the Army's number one priority," Brown said. "So it's a balancing act. We have been freed to discuss limited data on body armor testing."

"We provide our Soldiers the best body armor available, bar none. It is live-fire tested and proven in combat," Brown said.

Driving the decision to release May 2006 test data is an assertion by Pinnacle Armor Inc. of unfair treatment. Pinnacle, based in Fresno, Calif., is the manufacturer of Dragon Skin SOV3000 body armor, which Brown said failed "catastrophically" when it was tested by HB White Labs in Street, Md., one of two labs in the nation certified by the National Institute of Justice.

"It failed to stop 13 of 48 [first- or second-round] test shots," Brown said of the testing at H.P. White. "The CEO and vice president of Pinnacle witnessed it. One bullet penetration is cause for failure to meet the Army's standard."

Pinnacle's Dragon Skin SOV3000 body armor was subject to the same fair and independent testing, in a variety of environmental conditions, as products from the six producers of the Army's current body armor. All six of the current producers passed every test with zero failures, which is the standard. In addition to failing ballistic testing, Dragon Skin is also operationally unsuitable because of its greater weight and bulk and compared with the Army's body armor. Depending on size, Pinnacle is 46% to 70% heavier than the current IBA. "We are trying to make the armor lighter, not heavier," Brown said.

Brown said, "We never stop trying to make our body armor and other gear even better. We welcome innovative ideas that offer even better protection, and we will continue to evaluate all viable approaches in open competition and with fair testing that ensures the highest standards."

IBA, the newest generation of multiple-threat body protection, features a modular design with pieces that work together to provide a personal shield against bullets and fragments, including those from improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Protective inserts can withstand multiple small-arms hits. Throat and groin protectors can be attached, and recent upgrades add protection to the upper arm and underarm areas. The overall design greatly reduces the number and severity of wounds.

PEO Soldier designs, produces and fields virtually everything that the American Soldier wears or carries. The organization's Soldier-as-a-System approach ensures that equipment works in an integrated manner, thus preparing our troops for peak performance.


http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/05/22...-for-the-best/

[Team Sergeant]

Go here to discuss The Reapers article.

All comments concerning the Reapers article were moved to the general discussions forum.

Team Sergeant

[Team Sergeant]

BRIGADIER GENERAL ANTHONY CUCOLO (chief, Army Public Affairs): Good afternoon, everybody. Brigadier General Tony Cucolo, chief of public affairs, United States Army.

And this afternoon we've got an Army press briefing all about body armor. Now, why are we doing that? Well, primarily because news reports last Thursday, Sunday evening -- between last Thursday and, quite frankly, this morning, have caused us to be concerned about the confidence that soldiers' families, parents, spouses might have in the body armor that their soldiers are wearing in combat right now.

And so we thought it important to brief you on facts, give you some context, clarify any issues that you might have with your questions. And to do that today, I've got Brigadier General Mark Brown. He is our Program Executive Office Soldier boss. He's the boss of Individual Soldier Kit for the United States Army. And he has brought a team of experts from his office with him. And without further ado, I'd like to turn the podium over to General Mark Brown.

GEN. BROWN: Thank you, Tony.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to welcome you here this morning to this briefing. I'm very glad that you took the time to be here because we would like to get ground truth out there in the wake of recent reports that have been in the media.

The first thing I'd like to do in my statement, before I throw it open to questions, is introduce you to some folks that I've brought with me, some subject matter experts, if you will. And you'll have access to them as we go along.

First I'd like to introduce you to the program manager for soldier equipment, Colonel John McGuiness. He's an airborne Ranger infantryman, Desert Storm -- I mean OIF veteran.

He has also got a master's degree in operations research from the Air Force Institute of Technology.

Second, I'd like to introduce you to Karl Masters, my chief engineer and test director. He is a retired lieutenant colonel of 21 years, special operator, Airborne Ranger jump master, master's degree in engineering from George Washington University in engineering management.

Third, I would like to introduce you to my sergeant major, works directly for me, Sergeant Major Thomas Coleman. Four combat tours, the first in Operation Just Cause in Panama, the second in Desert Storm, and two in Iraq, one with the 82nd Airborne and one with the 101st Air Assault, most recently returned from the 101st Air Assault. In Iraq he is an Airborne Ranger infantryman, CIB with a star.

They are my subject matter experts and they advise me on all matters of soldier equipment.

The first thing I'd like to do is get the point out that force protection is the number-one priority of the U.S. Army. We value our soldiers very highly and we do everything we can do to ensure they have the finest in force protection as they go into the battle. Force protection is not merely a matter of body armor. It is a matter of overlapping protective measures that we take, and the body armor is one component of that that must work in conjunction with every other component that we issue that soldier as they go downrange.

The four points I would like to make to you, if I were to say that you could take away four key points today, is number one, our soldiers and Marines today have the best body armor in the world bar none. It is live-fire tested and it is proven in combat. As a matter of fact, recent news clips on Thursday, Friday and Sunday opened up with a soldier being shot by a jihadist. That soldier was knocked down from the force of the impact and he got up and maneuvered and returned fire on the enemy. That body armor he was wearing was Interceptor body armor, the Army's current body armor.

Number two, I have more than one set of body armor for every soldier in theater. Number three, I have all the money and all the leadership support I need to get body armor and to get improvements to body armor.

Number four, although we are highly confident that we have the best body armor in the world bar none, we are never satisfied with the status quo and we are always looking for the next best thing. And to borrow a phrase from Lee Iacocca, if there's something better out there, we're going to buy it -- after we've live-fired tested it.

As a matter of fact, I have ongoing programs to ensure that that happens. Three times a year at least, we have a soldier protection demo at Fort Benning, Georgia, under the auspices of the U.S. Army Infantry Center. I have an up and running and funded soldier enhancement program that can either improve existing Army products or off-the-shelf products to meet our requirements, and we are in a constant dialogue with industry to get that next best thing.

So in conclusion before I throw it open for your questions, I would say that this is not just a matter of debate for us; this is personal. Sergeant Major Coleman has a brother that is getting ready to deploy into Iraq. My director of Administration and Personnel has a son in Iraq. My director of the Rapid Equipping Force has a son that is headed into Iraq. We take this personally. In fact, one- third of the general officers in the United States Army have either a son or a daughter either in theater today or has been to theater, so it is a matter of great import to us, and it is our number one priority and it is robustly funded.

So without further ado, I will move over and I will show you some facts and figures to make the point. If you'd flip to the first chart.

This is the actual test X-ray prior to live-fire test of the Pinnacle Dragon Skin SOV-3000 Body Armor Vest. And you'll see the configuration of this -- much like the news report said, is chain mail.

Now, body armor is about stopping the bullet, but it's not just about stopping the bullet. You'll see the way this configuration is there are actually three separate areas of protecting overlay. This white area here is single-disc coverage -- one disc, like this. This gray area is dual-disc coverage, like a Venn diagram. This dark area here is triple-disc coverage. So what you see -- the laws of probability and statistics will take hold in the live-fire test. There is probably a 50 percent probability of impact in a single-disc coverage area. This is very important information, and you will see why in just a moment.

Chart.

Okay. This is the live-fire first article test sequence that we put Pinnacle SOV-3000 Body Armor through.

It's the exact same test protocol that we put every single body armor producer through that is in the employ of the U.S. Army today.

I will say up front that all six of the body armor producers of the U.S. Army in their employ passed this live-fire test protocol with zero failures. Zero failures is the correct answer. One failure is sudden death and you lose the game.

So what we do is we do a configuration analysis of the test article; we receive the vests; we establish accountability, storage and security; we label, weigh, measure the dimensions, x-ray and photograph the test article. Then, we move into the ballistic testing, and I'll get into the exact test protocol in a moment. But it is a series of events not unlike a decathlon in the Olympics. It's a multi-event test. We start off with the most difficult, most rigorous event first, because if we can induce a failure early on, that means that we don't have to spend $250,000 on the test because one failure, one penetration, you fail the test.

[Team Sergeant]

We also conduct harsh environment tests. Downtown Baghdad and 10,000 feet in Afghanistan is not a room temperature war. Our equipment has to stand up to the harshest of conditions not only in use by the soldier, but in deployment -- when you put it in the belly of an aircraft at 120 degrees in Nevada and then fly up to 30,000 or 40,000 feet where it's minus 60 degrees and then land back in Baghdad again where it's 125 or 130 degrees in the street. So the structural integrity of the product must hold up to that harsh environmental testing. We also do durability and drop tests, such as soldiers diving and hitting the ground when they come under fire, to make sure that that product holds up under those conditions. And then, we record and analyze the results.

Next, please.

This is just a cartoon view of how we go through the configuration analysis, and we do this hand in hand with the CEO and the vice president of Pinnacle. We received delivery of the box, interviewed them, tag, tally and weighed them, and then we measure, weight, photograph and put them on a scale and x-ray them. Then we send them into appropriate storage or conditioning prior to environmental testing, and then we analyze, correlate and print all the measurements and x-ray the vests both before and after the live- fire test.

Chart, please.

This is the test protocol.

It is a three-day test event. These particular tests in yellow are very expensive test protocols, so we defer them to the end of the test to see if the test article will pass the test, because it may not be necessary to spend the dollars to conduct that part of the test if the vest has already failed.

It's just like if you were taking an exam in high school, and the max score on the exam was 100 and you already missed 51, there is no way that you can pass the test. It's mathematically and physically impossible. Also, these two test protocols are less rigorous than the initial protocols. And so if it can pass the highly rigorous test protocol, it is -- then we can go on to the less rigorous protocol. But the bottom line is, there were 30 vests tested, 30 vests per test, 27 tested and three were control items. Chart, please.

Okay, as I said, body armor is about stopping the bullet, but it's not just about stopping the bullet. It has to do area-of- coverage; it has to be compliant with the needs of human factors engineering and soldier usability. And therefore it's more than just stopping the bullet.

What you see here is the actual Pinnacle body armor, SOV-3000, worn on the same soldier as the interceptor body armor. In the test we rationalized a size extra-large to a size large to get a similar area of coverage. The Pinnacle-size body armors actually run a bit small, and therefore the most equal comparison is between these two.

And you can see, the weight of the SOV-3000 is 47-and-a-half pounds. The weight of the interceptor body armor is 28 pounds. That is before auxiliary protection, deltoid protection, groin protection and throat protection.

Thickness is also a key issue, because many soldiers fight mounted. They fight in armored vehicles, and the hatches of those vehicles are designed and they are inflexible. When soldiers have to get in and out of those vehicle hatches, it's a matter of great importance. So the fact that Pinnacle is 1.7 inches to 1.9 inches thicker as related to 1.3 inches thick for interceptor body armor, that makes a big difference.

The reason for the range in here is the configuration of those disks. When they're laying flat, they're like that. But when they get curved on the soldier's body, they open up like that.

Bottom line coverage area -- because we chose a Pinnacle SOV- 3000, we actually advantaged Pinnacle in the test to provide them greater area of coverage than we did the interceptor body armor.

Had we chosen a large Pinnacle, SOV-3000, the coverage area would have been less than the large Interceptor body armor.

To make this point, we have an actual Interceptor body armor on this scale and an actual Pinnacle SOV-3000 body armor on this scale. If you would like to come up and inspect those after the briefing, you're welcome to do so, but I think you'll find the weights are fairly accurate.

Chart, please.

Q Is that the large and the extra-large?

GEN. BROWN: This is the large, this is the extra-large. Okay.

The U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps do not fight room- temperature wars. They fight in very harsh places -- Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. Nonetheless, the very first test we run through is an ambient room temperature live-fire test. And we have a specific firing pattern protocol that we go through.

As you see, we x-rayed the Pinnacle SOV-3000 prior to the live fire test. Then we took shots at the front -- there's two shots at the front, two shots at each side and two shots at the back. What you see is in the front, at room temperature, the second shot did a complete penetration, one round on one disc. At that point Pinnacle had failed the test. However, in the interest of fairness and giving the contractor a good shake, we decided to proceed on and we tested it under other conditions.