Author Topic: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short  (Read 2392 times)

Ron

  • Guest
Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« on: May 22, 2007, 11:31:15 AM »


By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer Mon May 21, 7:39 PM ET

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.
ADVERTISEMENT

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.

___

On the Net:

U.S. Army: http://www.army.mil

Ron

  • Guest
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2007, 11:33:23 AM »
Too bad it doesn't live up to its hype. 

Maybe with the testing the Army did the designers can work out the bugs. Anybody ever done an A/B comparison between the two types of armor?

Brad Johnson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,134
  • Witty, charming, handsome, and completely insane.
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2007, 11:34:00 AM »
Quote
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.

Well there's your problem.  Duh...

Brad
It's all about the pancakes, people.
"And he thought cops wouldn't chase... a STOLEN DONUT TRUCK???? That would be like Willie Nelson ignoring a pickup full of weed."
-HankB

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2007, 11:37:06 AM »
Falls short? Is it better than the regular issue stuff?

If it's not, then it falls short. If it is, then it doesn't fall short.

Sounds more like they're trying to distract from the fact that all the VIPs over there always get Dragon Skin...


Quote
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."

And the results of the Interceptor vest shot at alongside it at exactly the same range, same benchrest, same lot of ammo as a control for comparison were...?




Ron

  • Guest
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2007, 11:45:03 AM »
They also said rounds shattered the plates.

Isn't that normal even with issue armor?

lupinus

  • Southern Mod Trimutive Emeritus
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,178
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2007, 11:55:32 AM »
So what happens when they did the same to the issue armor?  Of course it is going to fail, no armor anywhere will work 100% of the time as there will always be failures, areas of the vest not designed to withstand the type of round, etc.  And yeah, they used armor piercing rounds, so what do you think will happen?  There are two key words there.  About the only comparison I see mentioned is the weight.
That is all. *expletive deleted*ck you all, eat *expletive deleted*it, and die in a fire. I have considered writing here a long parting section dedicated to each poster, but I have decided, at length, against it. *expletive deleted*ck you all and Hail Satan.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,503
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2007, 12:23:41 PM »
Did anyone else notice that the writer's name is Lolita?   undecided

If this stuff is truly twice the weight of standard-issue armor, that would seem like quite enough to limit it to specialized roles, such as diplomats who aren't doing any heavy lifting and won't be out in the sun for too long. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

PPGMD

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2007, 12:27:07 PM »
Sounds more like they're trying to distract from the fact that all the VIPs over there always get Dragon Skin...

And the results of the Interceptor vest shot at alongside it at exactly the same range, same benchrest, same lot of ammo as a control for comparison were...?

The VIPs are likely wearing the concealable version of Dragonskin that is level 3 in a profile of the typical level 2 armor, it doesn't look good for the VIPs to appear clad in body armor in promotional shots saying that the war is going well.

I think the temperature profile can likely be fixed, but it's likely that both sets of armor would fail this test.

Anyways for the Level 4 stuff it seems to me that it's mostly hype, Dragonskin gives the same level of protection with a lower profile, and increased range of movement with a penalty of increased weight and cost.

crt360

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,206
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2007, 12:39:18 PM »
I saw that NBC news report.  The video footage of the tests run by the independent lab sure made Dragon Skin appear superior to Interceptor as far as reducing death and injury to the wearer.
For entertainment purposes only.

elrod

  • New Member
  • Posts: 32
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2007, 01:28:03 PM »
Greetings from the deep South, good to be here. Heard on talk radio today that many families bought Dragon Skin for their loved ones in the middle east because the regular issue stuff was inferior. Could the Army have some face-saving to do?Huh?Huh? Makes you think!
Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2007, 03:42:44 PM »
I do believe the RBA I was issued way back when was good for 7.62AP.  I would hope the newer stuff was as good.

That Dragonskin stuff is HEAVY at 47+ lbs.   For that sort of weight penalty, it not only should protect its wearer better than issue gear, it ought to do your laundry.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

wmenorr67

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,775
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2007, 04:01:06 AM »
The Interceptor Armour may only weigh 28 lbs as an empty shell.  But once you place the armour plates inside it, the side plates and the daps it now weighs in the neighborhood of 40+ lbs.  The empty shell of the Interceptor is designed to stop 9mm only, to stop anything else you need to add the plates.
There are five things, above all else, that make life worth living: a good relationship with God, a good woman, good health, good friends, and a good cigar.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.  One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Bacon is the candy bar of meats!

Only the dead have seen the end of war!

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,705
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2007, 05:40:52 AM »
And the results of the Interceptor vest shot at alongside it at exactly the same range, same benchrest, same lot of ammo as a control for comparison were...?
This is precisely the information needed if one is even to begin to draw a conclusion.
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2007, 05:52:50 AM »
And can anything currently deployed stop the 7.62x54R that the Iraqi snipers seem to be favoring?

When you think of how many millions and millions of rounds of that are out there, dirt cheap, and it can come from anything from a Dragunov to an ancient Mosin-Nagant with a scope...

 


nico

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 678
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2007, 07:30:51 AM »
Quote
Could the Army have some face-saving to do?
whether or not their conclusions are accurate, it's definitely in the Army's best interest to get the result they did and to conveniently interpret the data in their favor.  As someone mentioned, if dragon skin at 40+lbs is comparable to an Interceptor vest with plates, it's dishonest to compare the weight of Dragon Skin with an empty Interceptor shell.  IMO, the only way to really prove the inferiority of Dragon Skin is to have an independent lab do side by side testing

crt360

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,206
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #15 on: May 23, 2007, 07:37:54 AM »
The tests they showed on NBC did not disclose the specific types of ammo used, but said they were those that the soldiers were likely to face in Iraq and Afghanistan, and included both armor-piercing and incendiary rounds, which were both stopped.  I don't know if they were 7.62x54R AP, which the army supposedly claimed went through the DS at high ambient temperature.
For entertainment purposes only.

Leatherneck

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,028
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2007, 09:44:22 AM »
We just got a Tasker...

Congressional
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CORRESPONDENCE ROUTING SLIP
Action Agency: UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY &
LOGISTICS
Action Required: PREPARE REPLY FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SIGNATURE
Coordinate With: LA
References:
Remarks:
Document Type: INCOMING
Special Instructions:
Suspense Date: June 4 2007 Routing Date: May 23 2007 CONTROL #: OSD 08728-07
INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
OFFICE
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY REAR
EXECUTIVE SUPPORT OFFICE
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL & READINESS
DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS)


May 21,2007
Honorable Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Washinpton, DC 20301-1000

Dear Mr. Secretary:
We are aware of the continuing controversy regarding the technical capabilities of commercially available individual body armor. Recent press reports raise questions about the fairness and reliability of Army tests of a commercially available body armor and whether it fails, meets, or exceeds the military's ballistic protection requirements.

We are convinced that the Department of Defense must definitively and officially
determine the facts regarding the protective qualities of the body amor we are currently providing our troops and that of any other commercially available comparable and competing system. Accordingly, we request that you order the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, under the oversight of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, to conduct a comprehensive technical assessment of the individual body armor systems currently available in the domestic market that claim to be capable of level IV protection.

We ask that you complete these tests as soon as possible and provide us with both classified and unclassified results. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,

JohnMcCain          Carl Levin
Ranking Member   Chairman


* * COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES * *
TC
RT Refugee

Otherguy Overby

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 256
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2007, 05:16:03 AM »
Yeah, and I expect a "fair" test?  Ever seen the movie "Pentagon Wars"?

Will they come up with the equivalent of a "sheep procurement" officer to hinder realistic testing?
Guns
Motorcycles
Jeeps
Never enough!

Boomhauer

  • Former Moderator, fired for embezzlement and abuse of power
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,363
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2007, 07:16:46 PM »
I'm going to have to get that movie...

The military has been known to rig tests. Just ask John Boyd. (Well, you can't actually, so read his biography Boyd)
It is an age-old problem, and it leaves our troops with inferior gear (early M16).

Quote from: Ben
Holy hell. It's like giving a loaded gun to a chimpanzee...

Quote from: bluestarlizzard
the last thing you need is rabies. You're already angry enough as it is.

OTOH, there wouldn't be a tweeker left in Georgia...

Quote from: Balog
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! AND THROW SOME STEAK ON THE GRILL!

Phyphor

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,330
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2007, 07:27:06 PM »
And can anything currently deployed stop the 7.62x54R that the Iraqi snipers seem to be favoring?

When you think of how many millions and millions of rounds of that are out there, dirt cheap, and it can come from anything from a Dragunov to an ancient Mosin-Nagant with a scope...

 









Recently, the Fresno Bee did an article on the Dragon Skin armor, where a M1a/M14, AR-15 and AK were used.  More than 30 rounds were fired into dragon skin armor and none penetrated.

http://www.fresnobee.com/business/v-printerfriendly/story/49611.html
"You know what's messed-up about taxes?
You don't even pay taxes. They take tax.
You get your check, money gone.
That ain't a payment, that's a jack." - Chris Rock "Bigger and Blacker"
He slapped his rifle. "This is one of the best arguments for peace there is. Nobody wants to shoot if somebody is going to shoot back. " Callaghen, Callaghen, Louis La'mour

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2007, 04:46:05 AM »
And can anything currently deployed stop the 7.62x54R that the Iraqi snipers seem to be favoring?

When you think of how many millions and millions of rounds of that are out there, dirt cheap, and it can come from anything from a Dragunov to an ancient Mosin-Nagant with a scope...


Recently, the Fresno Bee did an article on the Dragon Skin armor, where a M1a/M14, AR-15 and AK were used.  More than 30 rounds were fired into dragon skin armor and none penetrated.

http://www.fresnobee.com/business/v-printerfriendly/story/49611.html

.308, 5.56 and 7.62x39. Still no 7.62x54R. Why not? It's what the insurgent snipers are using.
If they couldn't get a Dragunov, someone couldn't at least bring a $79 91/30 and some old Combloc AP to the test? Huh?

Leatherneck

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,028
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2007, 05:24:08 AM »
Quote
Ever seen the movie "Pentagon Wars"?
Actually, I'm in it (well, the book version).

Quote
Yeah, and I expect a "fair" test?
The guys across the aisle from me are in the Live Fire T&E office and have a Reserve Marine in charge of the test oversight. Aberdeen has pretty strict protocols for ballistic testing.

I'd take the word and judgement of the army's professional ballistic test lab over that of a contractor with a large vested interest in selling armor any day of the week.

TC
TC
RT Refugee

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,503
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2007, 05:31:38 AM »
Quote
Ever seen the movie "Pentagon Wars"?
Actually, I'm in it (well, the book version).

Owned!  I was waiting for that.  Are you identified by name in the book?  I need to pick up a copy, so I can find out what you were up to.  Especially since I used to drive one of those suckers.   smiley
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Leatherneck

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,028
Re: Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2007, 06:59:31 AM »
Yup. Tom Carter in the story of the DIVAD Gun system. Forced (tricked) the Army into doing a realistic operational test and wrote the assessment afterward that caused SecDef Weinberger to cancel that turkey.

TC
TC
RT Refugee