The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Dirty Little Secrets Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Dragon Skin Deconstructed
Harold C. Hutchison    6/7/2007 12:00:55 AM

The recent controversy over Dragon Skin body armor has raised far more questions than answers. In one sense, it shows that the Army is serious about getting its troops the best armor available. In another sense, it shows how the media can royally get things wrong ? and in getting it wrong can get troops killed. How? Because they can create the impression that something is effective, when it really isn't.




The Dragon Skin armor was intended to provide better all-around protection against incoming fire. One problem with most protective vests is that there are places where the protective ceramic plates for the Interceptor armor currently in service don't extend. This has caused the deaths of policemen in the U.S. and military personnel overseas. Dragon Skin was intended to provide better protection through the use of many smaller ceramic, tiles that overlapped, providing a flexible armor.



One American TV network broadcast material that seemed to indicate that Dragon Skin performed better than the current Interceptor. However, the Army has now released the results of other tests, done by an independent lab in 2006, which showed that Dragon Skin armor failed in a number of areas, including those concerning high temperatures, often after one or two shots. This is not a good thing in combat. Furthermore, the ceramic tiles have proven to be fragile ? far more so than the Interceptor's ceramic plates.



The other problem for Dragon Skin is weight: It is about 20 pounds heavier than the 28 pound Interceptor Armor. This is not a minor detail for the poor grunts ? it's a major problem. The troops also have to carry a loaded M16 or M4 rifle, plus a number of spare clips for that weapon (usually six, but sometimes more). If their M16 or M4 has the M203 grenade launcher, they are carrying the grenades for that. They also tend to carry a loaded M9 pistol, and a couple of spare clips for that as well. Not to mention a first-aid kit, Camelbak or canteens full of water, knife, hand grenades (usually three or four), MRE, cans of silly string (to find trip wires), radio, and other gear (to include notebooks, pens, and a helmet). This could mean a soldier gets tired sooner when wearing Dragon Skin, and more prone to heat related injuries in hot climates. If a soldier wearing Dragon Skin is wounded, the Dragon Skin means that there is 20 pounds more for a medic to drag to cover.



The Army has prohibited the use of Dragon Skin by soldiers ? largely due to these problems. The problem the Army now faces is the fact that Dragon Skin has a lot of Congressional support. The manufacturer of Dragon Skin has claimed that the Army is lying ? in essence claiming the Army rigged the tests. In fact, the Army did the tests last year at the insistence of Congress ? who wanted the armor to be given a chance. Now that the armor has failed, the manufacturer is going to the court of public opinion to overturn the verdict of the Army, based on its tests. Now, the Army is caught in a battle to not only save the lives of its troops, but the reputation of those who test equipment for the troops.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
GunnyR    At least you got one right   6/7/2007 10:39:27 AM
Mr Hutchinson, I don't know you from Adam but you nailed the issue right on the head when you stated how the media gets things "royally wrong". YOU sir, got it royally wrong about Dragonskin and if you had done a little bit of research into this issue (aside from the "facts" presented by the Army) you would have realized that.

For example, here are some facts you should have known:
                                               Medium               Medium
                                             Dragon Skin          Interceptor
Weight (pounds). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    33.15                33.10
Protected area (sq.ft.). . . . . . . . . . .     3.40                 2.25
Weight (pounds) per Protected area (sq.ft.).     9.75                13.82

What that means is that Dragonskin provides more protections per square foot that the Interceptor for roughly the same weight and a lot less weight/square foot ratio. Where exactly did you get the 20lbs heavier fact from?

Here's another fact: The Army directive to not use Dragonskin was posted BEFORE  the "independent" testing was done. How is that possible if the test results were supposed to be the reason for the ban? Also, did you know that one of the directors of this "independent" test walked out in protest because a director from NATICK labs was not following the standard protocols?

Let me provide a link as a service to anyone else foolish enough to take your writing as true and accurate. These are the written responses of the head of the company that manufactures Dragonskin. Unlike you, he provides DATA to systematically demolish the Army claims that Dragonskin failed the Army test standards. It did not.

link a final note, I've put that Interceptor body armor to use in Iraq. I was glad to have had it. I am pissed beyond all belief that something better was out there and not issued to us.
 
Quote    Reply

GunnyR    At least you got one right   6/7/2007 12:42:29 PM
Mr Hutchinson, I don't know you from Adam but you nailed the issue right on the head when you stated how the media gets things "royally wrong". YOU sir, got it royally wrong about Dragonskin and if you had done a little bit of research into this issue (aside from the "facts" presented by the Army) you would have realized that.

For example, here are some facts you should have known:
                                               Medium               Medium
                                             Dragon Skin          Interceptor
Weight (pounds). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    33.15                33.10
Protected area (sq.ft.). . . . . . . . . . .     3.40                 2.25
Weight (pounds) per Protected area (sq.ft.).     9.75                13.82

What that means is that Dragonskin provides more protections per square foot that the Interceptor for roughly the same weight and a lot less weight/square foot ratio. Where exactly did you get the 20lbs heavier fact from?

Here's another fact: The Army directive to not use Dragonskin was posted BEFORE  the "independent" testing was done. How is that possible if the test results were supposed to be the reason for the ban? Also, did you know that one of the directors of this "independent" test walked out in protest because a director from NATICK labs was not following the standard protocols?

Let me provide a link as a service to anyone else foolish enough to take your writing as true and accurate. These are the written responses of the head of the company that manufactures Dragonskin. Unlike you, he provides DATA to systematically demolish the Army claims that Dragonskin failed the Army test standards. It did not.

link a final note, I've put that Interceptor body armor to use in Iraq. I was glad to have had it. I am pissed beyond all belief that something better was out there and not issued to us.
 
Quote    Reply

GunnyR    At least you got one right   6/7/2007 2:54:27 PM
Mr Hutchinson, I don't know you from Adam but you nailed the issue right on the head when you stated how the media gets things "royally wrong". YOU sir, got it royally wrong about Dragonskin and if you had done a little bit of research into this issue (aside from the "facts" presented by the Army) you would have realized that.

For example, here are some facts you should have known:
                                               Medium               Medium
                                             Dragon Skin          Interceptor
Weight (pounds). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    33.15                33.10
Protected area (sq.ft.). . . . . . . . . . .     3.40                 2.25
Weight (pounds) per Protected area (sq.ft.).     9.75                13.82

What that means is that Dragonskin provides more protections per square foot that the Interceptor for roughly the same weight and a lot less weight/square foot ratio. Where exactly did you get the 20lbs heavier fact from?

Here's another fact: The Army directive to not use Dragonskin was posted BEFORE  the "independent" testing was done. How is that possible if the test results were supposed to be the reason for the ban? Also, did you know that one of the directors of this "independent" test walked out in protest because a director from NATICK labs was not following the standard protocols?

Let me provide a link as a service to anyone else foolish enough to take your writing as true and accurate. These are the written responses of the head of the company that manufactures Dragonskin. Unlike you, he provides DATA to systematically demolish the Army claims that Dragonskin failed the Army test standards. It did not.

link a final note, I've put that Interceptor body armor to use in Iraq. I was glad to have had it. I am pissed beyond all belief that something better was out there and not issued to us.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy