Body armor for American troops

Dateline-NBC did an 'expose' on a new type of body armor that may save the lives of soldiers at war.

This was the third piece I have seen on the 'Dragon Skin" type of armor.
The first time I saw it was on the Discovery Channel and then on 'Mail Call'
on the History channel.

Dragon Skin is a type of armor that looks like reptile scales. It's flexible and covers more of a soldier's torso than the current Interceptor armor. Interceptor armor is a plate style of armor that fits into the pockets of a vest-it's rigid and doesn't extend the underarm protection that the DS style of BA does.

There are some family members that want to purchase DS armor for their loved ones but the US Army will not allow them to wear it! The reason?
The DS failed at extreme temps in their tests.

In the story one of the inventors of the Interceptor BA was asked about what he would wear into combat and he answered, "Dragon Skin."


----------------------

The Dateline piece was kinda stupid because they stated that this was the 'first time' that DS weas tested on TV.

IN the first two pieces on DS that I saw, the armor was tested with multiple hits from .223, 9mm and rounds from an AK-47. It stopped all rounds shot into it.

At the overseas lab they tested the DS against the Interceptor, they made a huge deal of stating that they would not disclose the caliber of ammo that they were going to use - because the piece would be seen by people who would try to use that info against American troops.

They then showed .223 and AK style of cartridges being loaded. :rolleyes:
----------

I am glad to see a major network take on the subject, but was disappointed at some of the outright BS in the piece.

----------

The US Armry tests the armor according to standards that they have set and won't do a side by side comparison..DS was tested by the Army but they stated that the armor failed at extreme temps and even at regular 'room' temps!

DragonSkin's manufacturer has been on a PR campaign to try and force the Army to buy the armor from day one. Is it better? In some regards, However, there are ways to get the armor into the system, and running "exposees" on the news doesn't exactly win friends.

I saw this product on 60 minutes last Sunday. It looked like better
armor to me. One General they interviewed said he & his staff wore
DragonSkin. If it was good enough for him, it's pretty darn good.

If a US Army General is wearing something specifically not allowed by regulation, there's an issue.

Generals in modern combat are not engaged in combat. They are back behind the lines controlling things from HQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

If a US Army General is wearing something specifically not allowed by regulation, there's an issue.

Generals in modern combat are not engaged in combat. They are back behind the lines controlling things from HQ.

---

I'm sure this guy knew he would be quoted, but he didn't volunteer
this information, he only responed to a question about whether he wore
it or not. He said he & his staff did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

I'm sure this guy knew he would be quoted, but he didn't volunteer
this information, he only responed to a question about whether he wore
it or not. He said he & his staff did.

---

Thanks for bringing that up..I got too far into the topic to include that tidbit.

Just to clear up my above comments:

If the General (didn't see the broadcast, don't know how many stars he has on his collar) is wearing something that his troops aren't allowed to, it tells me two things, neither of which are good:

1) His troops are less important to him than his own safety. He's violating regs, but instead of using the horsepower on his collar to change the regs, he's setting himself above his troops.

2) He doesn't care about the regs, and doesn't enforce them. Once a military leader starts picking which regs to enforce and which regs to ignore, it sets up a BAD situation. Hell, the General doesn't like reg (x) so he doesn't enforce it, I'm going to do the same with reg (y). It blurs the lines of command authority, which are set up by regs. I've bent my share of regs over 20 years, but you have to be careful how and why you do it.


I've seen a lot of debate over Dragonskin armor. Not being privy to the tests, I have no idea whether it meets all the specs laid out by the military or not. If it did in fact fail a test in extreme heat, I'd be very wary about it, as fire and explosions are all to common on the battlefield. Consider a vehicle crew in a vehicle that gets hit by an IED in an ambush. First they have to escape a flaming vehicle (extreme heat) then in all likelihood they have to engage the insurgents who set the ambush. I'd be very wary about the second part if the plates in the Dragonskin can't take heat.

The other issue with Dragonskin is that the military made their choice (Interceptor IBA) based on cost, effectiveness, and the manufacturer's ability to supply the original order plus replacements. Part of the fiasco in the media (and it was mainly a media event, as opposed to reality, there was some truth to the reports, but it was about 60-70% hype) with the IBA was due to the manufacturer's inability to supply enough to go around. If you think for a second the Pentagon is going to go through that again you have another think coming.

To effectively deploy the DragonSkin in a manner that would be "approved" by the media you would have to come up with 300,000 sets BEFORE you started issuing it to the troops. otherwise you get into the whole issue of who gets it, who doesn't, and who's going to volunteer to get crucified in the media for making the decision.

If you get a chance check out the piece.

One thing about the IBA was it's failure at arouund four hits. The frame upon which the armor was mounted had clay mounted underneath to show the impact and deflection of the plates.

-----------------------

If I remember correctly they used an armor piercing/incendiary round on the DS.it held up to that- The question of the DS holding up to a vehicle fire wasn't even broached!

DL also mentioned that there are CIA people using DS during their ops.

I see the problem with testing and then buying 300,000 sets, but nothing is too costly if it saves one life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RICHARD

I see the problem with testing and then buying 300,000 sets, but nothing is too costly if it saves one life.

---

It's red tape at it's worst. :( Contracts have already been made & it takes
a lot of personal "effort" to consider a change now. Vets are cheated in
their care & treatment here at home, but they should have the best available
when they are in the field. IMO.

Richard,

Just happened to run across this interesting article. Lots of info here.

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

Fox news did a 'round table' on the subject today.

I didn't see the whole thing but will try to find the text.

The 20 pound difference between the vests is a HUGE issue, as an infantryman is already carrying about 40 pounds of equipment BEFORE the vest is added to the combat load. (Want to see the difference? Put 60 pounds in a backpack, walk around with it all day, and then after giving your body a while to recover, then try the same with 80 lbs. That weight doesn't even take in the extra 20 pounds that an RTO or a machine gunner is carrying.)

While the DoD procurement system is a bureaucratic maze at best, they do occasionally get some things right. The maker of Dragon Skin has been deeply embroiled in a PR campaign for about 2 years now to get the vests accepted, and the media is just making a mess out of it.