Dragon Skin Armour

#2
Exit the Dragon By 2004, a newer generation of body armor was gaining the respect of military and law enforcement experts. Dragon Skin, produced by Pinnacle Armor Inc., was thought by many to be far superior to Point Blank's Interceptor vest, and soldiers and Marines bound for combat zones began to acquire their own Dragon Skin vests (in some instances, service members' families and friends contributed money to buy the newer style body armor). In March 2006, the Army banned the use of privately bought armor. Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army, said at the time that, "We're very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn't provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they're, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff." The Army's ban specifically addressed Pinnacle's Dragon Skin, stating "the Army has been unable to determine the veracity" of claims that Dragon Skin was superior to the Interceptor armor.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-30-bodyarmor_x.htm

msr
 
#3
msr said:
Exit the Dragon By 2004, a newer generation of body armor was gaining the respect of military and law enforcement experts. Dragon Skin, produced by Pinnacle Armor Inc., was thought by many to be far superior to Point Blank's Interceptor vest, and soldiers and Marines bound for combat zones began to acquire their own Dragon Skin vests (in some instances, service members' families and friends contributed money to buy the newer style body armor). In March 2006, the Army banned the use of privately bought armor. Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army, said at the time that, "We're very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn't provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they're, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff." The Army's ban specifically addressed Pinnacle's Dragon Skin, stating "the Army has been unable to determine the veracity" of claims that Dragon Skin was superior to the Interceptor armor.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-30-bodyarmor_x.htm

msr
I saw an investigative report about this and they did trials on the dragon skin with ballistics experts. They found that it met or exceeded the Interceptor and that the Interceptor failed after a few hits in the same place where DS did not and the DS caused less body trauma.

They interviewed Brig. Gen. Mark Brown and he said that dragon skin failed all the military test although independant testing said otherwise.


Here's a link to the test:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18771902/
 
#4
This is a good read - http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2007670055.asp

Also I have read that the escale design is more susceptible to the elements and hence degrade faster. Hearsay thoough - no personal experience.

Oh screw copyright...

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.
:oops:
 
#6
The US Government and the Dragon Skin armour blokes have chucked so much mud at each other it's impossible to tell who's telling the farking truth.
 
#7
I was chatting to an american mate on another website about this last year or so who was present when the army trialled it.

Story goes, as a demo for his unit, they put a set of dragon skin out on the range and shot the cack out of it. Loose scales everywhere, he said. Though it did take a few solid hits. But he was unimpressed by it overall.
 
#8
I have watched the "future weapons" epsisode with the dragon skin armour and to a layman (in that field) such as myself it looked impressive, but that is half the problem. Putting out this kind of program without proper analysis or counter argument simply sways those who do not have the scientific knowledge, which of will of course include the general public and the decision makers aswell.

As someone who has made decisions with regard to equipment (aerospace - civilian and military) I simply cannot fathom how anyone making decisions that have the potential to affect lives can simply push equipment regardless. It sickens me that corporate profit and pork barrel politics can come ahead of (servicemen's) lives. And yes I am fully aware that engineering is not black and white, one can never account for all possibilities, but the onus is on us to provide equipment that is the best within the remit, civilain or military. Yes you can call me naive but I've put my balls on the line once or twice to ensure that the right thing should be done and I've won out.

If it ain't upto scratch then the employee at the coal face will do his damndest to improve the kit so it does the job specified and earn the company the sale. Fecking politics should not come into it, but sadly history is littered with such failures. Failures that are not paid by the decision makers or their sons but with the lives of others.

mmmn - just realised that was a bit of a rant, but hopefully it's a relatively clear one.
 
#9
On June 6, 2006 in comments posted on an online discussion forum, Karl Masters, director of engineering for Program Manager - Soldier Equipment, said he recently supervised the retest and commented on it. "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 [tests and evaluation]," Masters wrote. "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 an 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..."[13]
From Wiki. Funny fcuker.
 
#10
Probably as good as you're gonna get.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june06/armor_1-11.html

MARGARET WARNER: As U.S. casualties have mounted in Iraq so too has criticism of the body armor supplied to soldiers and Marines. It's called interceptor body armor and its design has been modified five times since the war began.

But insurgents appear to have figured out how to exploit gaps and weak points in the troops' protective vests.
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
#11
From what I've read from other BBS's it's not as good as regular stuff though is more comfortable to wear and use, did fail during testing in some instances, opinion was that it would be very good for law enforcement, very bad for military.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top