Dragon Skin Body Armour.

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by DaPs, May 10, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Has anyone heard about this? Supposidly the Dragon skin armour is much better than what the US rmy currently have, yet the Army banned it's use before even testing it.

    They have a level 5 armour out which is classified by the government.

    If it really is better and more safe, then why isn't it being used?
  2. Cost?
  3. It seems as if the cost is no more than the standard armour, otherwise this wouldn't be such a hot issue.

    What does everyone think about this? If our troops are going into the field with inferior equipment, then surely it should be changed?

    Has the British Army got it's hands on any of this stuff?
  4. Been discussed in depth:

    Consensus seems to be "nice idea but not all that good in practice."
  5. " 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 120 F. I do, however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents..."

    My bold. Hahahaha.
  6. From what I've heard, the Dragon Skin is pretty heavy

    Michael Yon is less than impressed.

    The Sales manager for Dragon Skin goes on about the way the US government tested his armour differently without acknowledging that this is necessary due to the fundamentally different construction of the vest.

    For a good article, try the chap who designed the concept that Dragon Skin uses:
    Evolution Armour
  7. This is a pretty common tactic amongst aggressive US start-up companies looking to get a lucrative defence contract.

    They start agressive media campaigns, often with the help of several less-than-well-informed bloggers on how the Pentagon is failing to get the best kit for 'our boys' by not buying their latest wunder bullet/weapon lubricant/body armour/vehicle (take your pick). If they are really lucky, their campaign will catch the eye of some congressman or senator, who can make life uncomfortable for 'the system'. However, when these things are tested properly, a lot of the claims just don't stack up.

    Occasionally, some good stuff comes from small companies like these, but often it is just a deeply cynical attempt to cause trouble and raise the profile of their products. Personally, I find it pretty revolting: IMHO it is the defence industry version of ambulance chasing.
  8. So if it's such a piece of crap armour, what's the rage about it?

    Why are people still going on about it? Why do independent tests show how good it is? Why did the US Army ban it before testing it? Why do Generals and top men in the US Army wear it over the pinnacle armour, if it's been proven to be shit?

    Smells like bullshit to me.
  9. DaPs,

    Use the search function... back over a year ago when this issue first came up I posted the results of the US Army's tests of dragon skin... it failed period. No senior officers in my Army are wearing the garbage and anyone who states such is merely mouthing the manufacturer's bullshit advertising end of story.
  10. The thing is, the 'independent tests' play to the strengths of the Dragon Skin in ways that aren't of much use on the battlefield. Like stopping umpty-dumpty-odd pistol calibre rounds. Great, except much lighter soft armour can do that. Most people don't know the difference between a rifle calibre or a pistol calibre. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in the world (and particularly the Web) like sounding forth on subjects they actually know very little about.

    Hang on...
  11. is that the same stuff prince harry wore out in the stan
  12. no.
  13. Blackhawk Osprey Plate Carrier. "SF Issue" aparently, though it's more widely used than that.