PDA

View Full Version : Dragon Skin in the Military


Darth_Yuthura
06-11-2009, 01:51 PM
This is the kind of subject for Kavar's, but I don't want to discuss it there.

Dragon Skin armour by Pinnacle vs. Interceptor by Point Blank

Dragon Skin was banned by the US military before it was even tested in 2007. Is that because it didn't meet the technical specifications for ballistic protection, or was it politics? Many third-part sources say Dragon Skin is rated at level 5 ballistic protection, but the military claims it doesn't compare to Interceptor armour.

Just like to know what everyone else thinks about this. What would you prefer for our brave soldiers to have in the heat of battle? I would be all for Dragon Skin, as it is the best gear for the job.

Achilles
06-11-2009, 02:10 PM
This is the kind of subject for Kavar's, but I don't want to discuss it there.The Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)

Dragon Skin armour by Pinnacle vs. Interceptor by Point Blank

Dragon Skin was banned by the US military before it was even tested in 2007. Is that because it didn't meet the technical specifications for ballistic protection, or was it politics? Many third-part sources say Dragon Skin is rated at level 5 ballistic protection, but the military claims it doesn't compare to Interceptor armour.Sounds pretty technical. Know of any websites that break down both sides of the argument for us lay-people?

Just like to know what everyone else thinks about this. What would you prefer for our brave soldiers to have in the heat of battle? I would be all for Dragon Skin, as it is the best gear for the job.Considering that we do not seem to be able to provide even basic kevlar for our armed forces, I'm wondering how the more expensive, labor-intensive Dragon Skin could ever become a reality. Perhaps for special forces types???

Darth_Yuthura
06-11-2009, 02:21 PM
Point Blank had gotten over $50 million dollars in contracts this year for Interceptor Armour. I would think that US taxpayers would be willing to see that each one of our soldiers is protected by the best body armour, considering that they are risking their lives for us.

You can see youtube videos about it, but sites would include

http://defense-update.com/products/d/dragonskin.htm

http://www.fftt.us/ffttj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105:-dragon-skin-flexible-scalar-body-armor-defeats-rifle-threats&catid=56:the-web&Itemid=95

http://www.policelink.com/products/products/1577-dragonskin-bodyarmor

Achilles
06-11-2009, 02:28 PM
Point Blank had gotten over $50 million dollars in contracts this year for Interceptor Armour. I would think that US taxpayers would be willing to see that each one of our soldiers is protected by the best body armour, considering that they are risking their lives for us.I'm sure both of these arguments are sound, however neither one addresses the point that I was making.

If we cannot afford to give every soldier existing, cheaper body armor, then what should lead us to expect that we will be able to provide more expensive stuff that takes longer to make?

I, for one, would prefer we put more money into things that would allow us to avoid putting people in harm's way in the first place.

Jae Onasi
06-11-2009, 02:43 PM
This is the kind of subject for Kavar's, but I don't want to discuss it there.

As long as it doesn't turn into a 'hot topic', and other staff also don't object, this should be fine. Don't be surprised if it takes a turn towards Ahto silliness, however, just so you have fair warning.

I don't know enough about any of these armors to say why one is used vs. another. It could be cost, reliability, comfort in the field, ability to easily mass-produce the items, heat retention issues (important in the desert areas), weight, ability to easily fit males and females, reactions with different chemical agents, and so forth.

I, for one, would prefer we put more money into things that would allow us to avoid putting people in harm's way in the first place.Definitely agreed on that.

Darth_Yuthura
06-11-2009, 02:51 PM
I, for one, would prefer we put more money into things that would allow us to avoid putting people in harm's way in the first place.

I would have preferred that the US not invade Iraq either, but they're already committed; they're there. Now the issue is to do whatever we can to support them until they can be pulled out. It would be better to do whatever it takes to get them out of harm's way, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give them the best protection for the job in the meantime.

Achilles
06-11-2009, 03:01 PM
I would have preferred that the US not invade Iraq either, but they're already committed; they're there.I'm not limiting my argument to Iraq...or Afghanistan.

Re: Iraq: Yes, they are there, but they could also be here. It would seem that if we were to limit our options to two, we could say that our choice is either to provide them with better stuff (how long would it take secure contracts, mass produce, ship, train, fit, etc?) or bring them home (which I'm betting we could do quicker than the first option).

Now the issue is to do whatever we can to support them until they can be pulled out. It would be better to do whatever it takes to get them out of harm's way, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give them the best protection for the job in the meantime.If we could snap our fingers and have every service member in this new armor tomorrow (next week, month, 6 months from now) I could see your point, however I don't think such a scenario is realistic.

I'm all for giving them the best protection in the mean time, but again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that we can't even do that with existing, cheaper options.

Salzella
06-11-2009, 03:12 PM
Is it made of real dragon skin?

Darth_Yuthura
06-11-2009, 03:20 PM
This isn't about an issue that's yet to happen; this was about a year ago that DS was banned and since then, new contracts for interceptor armour have been awarded. If this had not been shot down by politics over a year ago, the US military could have instead awarded contracts to Pinnacle and not Point Blank for its inferior Interceptor.

Now instead of Dragon Skin, any new vests since it was banned was inferior to what could have been provided for them. The problem I present here is that if DS were superior to Interceptor, then any deaths that happened where DS could have protected them better would be depraved indifference to the lives of US troops.

IF Dragon Skin were banned because it was considered too heavy compared to the lighter Interceptor, then that might be valid enough to restrict its use; but politics has gotten in the way. And now DS armour has a false reputation for being inferior to other vests when even the inventor of Interceptor says its two steps ahead of his own design. That convinced me that was the best, but now the Army has banned it entirely for the wrong reasons.

Jae Onasi
06-11-2009, 03:44 PM
Is it made of real dragon skin?
Your choice of green, purple, red, or shiny bad-a** black

@D_Y--weight is a very real issue for soldiers. Their packs already can weigh up to 60 lbs or more, and the guy who carries the M-60 has even more weight to carry beyond that. The last thing you want to do is encumber a soldier with a lot of armor weight. The ability to run from secure point to secure point very quickly is just as important as bullet-resistant armor. There are parts of the body that can't be covered with armor (armpit, back of knee, top of thigh/portions of hip, and so on), and the soldier has to be able to move quickly if he comes under, say, overwhelming fire,

Achilles
06-11-2009, 03:44 PM
This isn't about an issue that's yet to happen; this was about a year ago that DS was banned and since then, new contracts for interceptor armour have been awarded. If this had not been shot down by politics over a year ago, the US military could have instead awarded contracts to Pinnacle and not Point Blank for its inferior Interceptor.Okay. And how many armed services personnel currently have this armor?

(I notice that we're also assuming that the Interceptor armor actually is inferior).

Now instead of Dragon Skin, any new vests since it was banned was inferior to what could have been provided for them. The problem I present here is that if DS were superior to Interceptor, then any deaths that happened where DS could have protected them better would be depraved indifference to the lives of US troops.This seems an awful lot like a non sequitur. "If" (quotin' you) DS is superior to Interceptor, then that has absolutely nothing to do with the current body count, unless you can show that a certain percentage of current casualties were wearing the armor AND that their death(s) could have been prevented had they been wearing DS instead.


IF Dragon Skin were banned because it was considered too heavy compared to the lighter Interceptor, then that might be valid enough to restrict its use; but politics has gotten in the way.I'm sorry, I can't just accept this on your say-so.

And now DS armour has a false reputation for being inferior to other vests when even the inventor of Interceptor says its two steps ahead of his own design. That convinced me that was the best, but now the Army has banned it entirely for the wrong reasons.Same for this. Citations, etc would go a long way toward building your case.

Totenkopf
06-11-2009, 03:53 PM
The govt has long had a history of going with the lowest/best connected bidder. Remember seeing something on it where they said that though the Army had passed on it that many of the bodyguards for the various generals were using it in Iraq. Frankly, doesn't matter whether the troops are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Mexico...they should get the best stuff they can. As Rumsfeld said, though, you go to war (wherever that might be) with the army you have. Would just be nice if the govt did it's best to make sure it had what it needed....both at the beginning and all along the "learning curve" of whatever conflict it finds itself in in the end. Still, costs can't be ignored. How expensive is the Dragon Skin if bought in bulk and how quickly can it be manufactured w/o cutting corners? It might just be that such armor is prohibitive in cost for your average line doggie, but that spec operators are a small enough group that the expenses wouldn't bust the budget.

Salzella
06-11-2009, 04:07 PM
Your choice of green, purple, red, or shiny bad-a** black

hah, clearly a no-brainer :xp:

CommanderQ
06-11-2009, 04:28 PM
I would think Dragon-Skin would be an excellent form of protection for our troops. It's been tested, and has proved itself more then capable in ways of protecting, it can take AK rounds at point-blank, I was pretty dang impressed by that. I really don't know exactly why the Government canceled the project...

Achilles
06-11-2009, 04:34 PM
It's been tested, and has proved itself more then capable in ways of protecting, it can take AK rounds at point-blank, I was pretty dang impressed by that.To be fair, I've only seen one DS demonstration (and it was several months ago), however I would really need to see this independently verified before I accepted it.

An AK-47 will shoot through lots of things (like houses) from very far away. To stop a bullet at point-blank is truly impressive (if it's true).

I really don't know exactly why the Government canceled the project...I'm guessing cost.

Darth_Yuthura
06-11-2009, 04:46 PM
I'm sorry, I can't just accept this on your say-so.

Same for this. Citations, etc would go a long way toward building your case.

Look up a few posts.

Go to youtube, type 'dragon skin,' and watch a few videos. If you don't have the time, then just watch 'The Shocking truth about DS' and this should just about cover it all.

Marine kernal, Jim Mcgee, says DS was way better than his own design of Interceptor. That is a source.

The Army's limited tests that showed how the armor failed are quite difficult to locate. Here are some more sites that have some reading involved:

http://www.defensereview.com/pinnacle-armor-level-iv-dragon-skin-passes-esapi-fat-test-at-aberdeen/

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/060707cdam1.htm

http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/9207202.html


The lack of credible sources which verify that DS failed the ballistic tests and how it was blackballed from Army use before even being tested brings to question the actual results of their tests. There is reason to doubt the results of these tests because numerous 3rd parties have done their own and showed it to be vastly superior to the Army's current generation of Interceptor Armour. Many have seen for themselves how it withstood dozens of AK rounds and allowed no penetrations.

Totenkopf
06-11-2009, 04:51 PM
...it can take AK rounds at (near) point-blank, I was pretty dang impressed by that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THQwO7-JMvE

Darth_Yuthura
06-11-2009, 05:00 PM
I really don't know exactly why the Government canceled the project...

They banned it because those who advocated against it had something at stake for killing off Point Blank's competition. Everyone who have 'seen' these tests where the armour failed can't be considered credible because they had something at stake for lying.

Those sites and videos performed by Pinnacle, likewise, would be subject to question. I can conceive the company showing it off on Mail Call and Future Weapons, but there are many 3rd party sources that verify the armour would be rated at level 5 ballistic protection. This is not an official term, but DS would qualify as level 5.

Pho3nix
06-11-2009, 05:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THQwO7-JMvE
how do all u people kno so much stuff about guns and bullets gotta give you all props its pretty amazing u kno like which bullets penetrate more and like alot its crazie
:golfclap:

ForeverNight
06-11-2009, 08:46 PM
That still doesn't address the point made earlier, Cost-per-unit. What is the difference in cost between this kickass DragonSkin and the Interceptor armor? If this Interceptor can take a few less hits/provide less protection at a unit price that is very much lower as compared to the DS, then I have no problem using Interceptors.

Reason? Infantry aren't the valuable parts of an Army. Sure men go where vehicles can't, but you can throw away squads whereas you can't throw away tanks, APC's and other vehicles. However, I remember reading in article in Machine Design a little while back dealing with DARPA and some mechanized body suits... basically we're going to be developing Powered Battle Armor one of these years....

So, basically, what's the Cost-Per-Unit?

@Jae, I'll take a little bit of every variant.... with double Black of course.

ironheart
06-11-2009, 09:35 PM
Having spent way too many ridiculously long hot days in my Kevlar, not too fond of the stuff. especially when it's just those big old plates shoved into the IBA vest. (I've heard there's better, more flexible stuff but the guard doesn't see it. Hmph.) But it does do it's job. most of the time. Assuming you don't get shot in the small side area that the IBA doesn't cover. Yeah.

It's a price thing. The Army's cheap. They want it in bulk and they want it affordable. So long as it's moderately functional, phhhaaah, the higher ups don't care. In their view, men are easier and cheaper to replace than equipment.

Aash Li
06-11-2009, 10:58 PM
I wish we could avoid having to send out our loved ones to protect us from the various people that want to kill us too. No one really wants war. No one wants to go and get maimed or killed, or end up blinded.
But unfortunately you can only have true lasting peace if both you and the enemy want it. If you go over "there" (being a general term, not just the mid-east) and claim that were not at war, we dont have anyfight with them. Then were just going to get bombed or have more innocents murdered by hijacked planes...

And Ironheart, its not the military thats cheap, its Congress. They hold the financial purse-strings of the military in general.

My comment seems off topic, but I was just responding to other bits of conversation I didnt quote. Sorry... and since I dont have any feedback on the armour issue, Ill leave with this:

I want what ever sort of armour that will help keep our soldiers alive. We fund the military to keep ourselves safe. We cant spend our taxpayers money on "green" nonsense or education or whatever if we are just a smoking crater...

swphreak
06-11-2009, 11:43 PM
<- not an expert

The Interceptor thingy is modular and can swap out plates and stuff right? It doesn't look like Dragon Skin can be switched out. Instead of replacing a damaged DS vest, a soldier can just replace their damaged plate in the Interceptor one. I bet that was a factor in the Army's decision to drop Dragon Skin.

Though my money is on that Interceptor body armor is cheaper.

Rogue15
06-12-2009, 09:22 AM
from what i read at goarmy.com it doesn't hold up so well in the desert.

Q
06-12-2009, 11:41 AM
Yeah, I've read that prolonged exposure to heat will make the ceramic layers that make up the "scales" separate because whatever substance is used to bond them together breaks down.

As has been pointed out above, Dragon Scales is not modular and costs roughly twice as much as Interceptor. And as Jae indicated, hauling 35 pounds around is not practical and can be more of a liability than an asset in a combat situation. New materials will have to be invented before the weight issue can be properly addressed, though.

Darth_Yuthura
06-12-2009, 12:07 PM
That still doesn't address the point made earlier, Cost-per-unit. What is the difference in cost between this kickass DragonSkin and the Interceptor armor? If this Interceptor can take a few less hits/provide less protection at a unit price that is very much lower as compared to the DS, then I have no problem using Interceptors.

Dragon Skin isn't marginally better; it's a leap beyond Interceptor. Where you had four ridged ceramic plates that didn't provide full torso protection, Dragon Skin's flexibility can ensure as much protection around the shoulders as every vital organ.

And in regards to cost, I have seen prices at $5000 last year that could drop to under $1600 per vest if Pinnacle had been awarded a military contract. When you mass produce vests, the price goes down, so it would compare to Interceptor at about $1000. I think they spend more arming US soldiers than armoring them.

If mobility is the concern, then DS would be great for those who man turrets where the soldier is completely exposed to enemy fire.

Jae Onasi
06-12-2009, 03:02 PM
So, it currently costs 5 times more than the interceptor, weighs more, has had a history of not holding up under field conditions, isn't reparable with the same ease as interceptor, and looks like it takes longer to make.

I don't care how good it is at stopping bullets in the lab. If it fails in the field and can't be repaired easily, you may as well put these soldiers in no armor at all. It's a $5k useless pile of crap if it falls apart in the middle of battle, and it leaves the soldier at far greater risk than if he'd been given the interceptor armor. Now I understand why they weren't awarded the contract, and agree that this was an appropriate decision.

If the makers of DS can fix the problems with failure in the field and address the repair issues, then they might have a viable product worthy of consideration.

Totenkopf
06-12-2009, 04:17 PM
I'd agree that if the price can be brought down to less than 2x the cost of the other product and that any remaining performance issues are resolved, that DS would be a worthy addition to ballistic protection, even if it's use is limited to certain types of units. As I recall, even in 'Nam, the heat often resulted in many troopers not always using their vests. When you consider that many of these soldiers are moving around w/ gear that weighs as much as a small child in 110+ degree heat, the weight issue is not insignificant. What problems dose the DS have in temperate or cold climates? Perhaps it might prove more useful in Korea and other more temperate environments.

ironheart
06-12-2009, 04:36 PM
I'd agree that if the price can be brought down to less than 2x the cost of the other product and that any remaining performance issues are resolved, that DS would be a worthy addition to ballistic protection, even if it's use is limited to certain types of units. As I recall, even in 'Nam, the heat often resulted in many troopers not always using their vests. When you consider that many of these soldiers are moving around w/ gear that weighs as much as a small child in 110+ degree heat, the weight issue is not insignificant. What problems dose the DS have in temperate or cold climates? Perhaps it might prove more useful in Korea and other more temperate environments.

The lightest ruck I've ever seen was 50 pounds. Usually they're more than that. So yeah, weight is a factor. And if it can't hold up to the heat, it's pretty much useless for the soldiers running around out there in Iraq. There's not enough action going on in places like Korea to justify getting special armor just for them. I've heard from my buddies that depending on where you are over their the hardest job you have is baby sitting the border. Which incidentally , hehe, is why it's where most of the privates want to get stationed. Lots of, ah, "night life".

Jae Onasi
06-12-2009, 11:09 PM
Well, a good friend of mine almost got knifed to death in the DMZ by a North Korean, so the 'night life' he saw wasn't the warm cozy kind. ;)

CommanderQ
06-12-2009, 11:15 PM
The lightest ruck I've ever seen was 50 pounds. Usually they're more than that. So yeah, weight is a factor. And if it can't hold up to the heat, it's pretty much useless for the soldiers running around out there in Iraq. There's not enough action going on in places like Korea to justify getting special armor just for them. I've heard from my buddies that depending on where you are over their the hardest job you have is baby sitting the border. Which incidentally , hehe, is why it's where most of the privates want to get stationed. Lots of, ah, "night life".

I wouldn't exactly say that there isn't enough going on in places like Korea....recent events have been pretty tense, especially with the Nuclear Tests, and Kim Jong-Il declaring that NK no longer acknowledged the Peace Treaty that ended the major part of the Korean war.

If war should erupt against North Korea, our troops would need everything we can give them, US forces would be greatly outnumbered {having only a some ought 25,000 to the entire army of North Korea, which is pretty big} , technology would be one of our few advantages, if not one of the only ones.


Well, a good friend of mine almost got knifed to death in the DMZ by a North Korean, so the 'night life' he saw wasn't the warm cozy kind. ;)

Weren't there a few other events similar that happened in the past 20 years or so? I heard about a few border skirmishes and knifings...

JediAthos
06-12-2009, 11:52 PM
One of the common sayings in the military is: "Remember, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder."

That aside, this link is from the ArmyTimes website. I found it with a quick google search.

http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/dragon_skin_release_000121may07.pdf

EnderWiggin
06-12-2009, 11:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37tB1Jy6pLM&feature=related

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 12:04 AM
^^^

What does that have to do with anything?

DS is the best of the best, but the only technical issues are heat tolerance and weight. Beyond that, it's perfect.

And the Army banned it for political, not technical reasons. I don't know about you, but I would want the ones responsible for the ban to face the consequences for what they've done.

EnderWiggin
06-13-2009, 12:10 AM
What does that have to do with anything?


I'll explain it to you when you're older.

_EW_

Achilles
06-13-2009, 12:27 AM
DS is the best of the best, but the only technical issues are heat tolerance and weight. Beyond that, it's perfect.Could you please provide us with your expert qualifications? I don't believe that one need be an expert to speak intelligently on a subject, but since you insist that we accept your opinion as though you were an authority on the subject, I really must insist.

And the Army banned it for political, not technical reasons.This is opinion.

I don't know about you, but I would want the ones responsible for the ban to face the consequences for what they've done.Were you think tea and cake or death?

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 01:08 AM
Right I'm no expert, so my opinion is moot.

I'm not presenting an argument for debate, so I don't expect anyone to take my opinion to heart. Watch the youtube videos on DS from Mail call and future weapons and that would speak for itself. As for the politics, the fact that it was banned before the ballistic tests were done shows that is wasn't because the armour didn't meet the specifications the Army wanted.

Tommycat
06-13-2009, 01:52 AM
^^^

What does that have to do with anything?

DS is the best of the best, but the only technical issues are heat tolerance and weight. Beyond that, it's perfect.

And the Army banned it for political, not technical reasons. I don't know about you, but I would want the ones responsible for the ban to face the consequences for what they've done.

Wait, You have proof that the army banned it for political and not technical reasons?

35 lbs doesn't sound like much when you are ONLY carrying that 35 lbs. Carry a full pack, an M60, and ammo. 120+ extra lbs starts to make you tire out rather quickly. Many troops would just not wear the armor.

Cost: 5,000,000 for 1000 units. THAT'S A LOT. Cutting it down to 1,000,000 per 1000 is a savings of 4 million per 1000 units.

Reliability: The military doesn't like things that break down on them. If it breaks down in hot weather, that would be a bad thing. Our military operates in a variety of climates. Hot climates are one of them.

Army test results (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/files/dragon_skin_release_000121may07.pdf) (Please note 2006 date)
excerpt:
Pinnacle SOV 3000 level IV Dragon Skin suffered catastrophic failure of
the ceramic disc containment grid adhesive at -60º F, 120º F and 160º F.
• SOV 3000 design is sensitive to extreme temperatures and failed to
maintain ballistic integrity at temperatures below summer ambient in OIF.
• This failure mode caused discs to delaminate and accumulate in the lower
portion of the armor panel, thus resulting in exposing the spine, vital
organs, and critical blood vessels to lesser ballistic threats.

Pinnacle SOV 3000 level IV Dragon Skin vests suffered 13 first or second
shot complete penetrations, failing 4 of 8 initial subtests with ESAPI
threat baseline 7.62 x 63mm APM2 Armor Piercing (AP) ammunition.

I think the US Army had some PRETTY DANG GOOD reasons not to keep Dragon Skin

mimartin
06-13-2009, 08:28 AM
Dragon Skin sounds and looks for like very good body armor in a control environment.

We should just figure out a way to fight all wars in a control environment to make it viable. :twocents:

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 08:54 AM
Wait, You have proof that the army banned it for political and not technical reasons?

Cost: 5,000,000 for 1000 units. THAT'S A LOT. Cutting it down to 1,000,000 per 1000 is a savings of 4 million per 1000 units.


Here's some proof right there that the Army will sacrifice the safety of its troops to save money.

mimartin
06-13-2009, 09:29 AM
That all depends on how you choice to look at it, that same statement could also prove that the Army cares more about the safety of its troops by wanting to provide some protection to more troops by purchasing the less expensive, lighter weight and more easily repairable armor that holds up in extreme environments (aka desert warfare).

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 09:56 AM
They didn't have to ban DS altogether. If they made the case that Interceptor was good enough that they don't reasonably need to have level 5 ballistic protection, then I wouldn't disagree with that.

The F-22 is the world's best fighter, but that doesn't mean that I would support it over the F-15 and F-16. It does make sense not to build many F-22's because five F-15's can do much more than one ultimate fighter. Because the F-15 still is 92/0 in combat, you don't really need a fighter that can outperform it for four times the cost.

Same thing could be argued with DS.

JediAthos
06-13-2009, 10:05 AM
@DY did you not see the test results that Tommy as well as myself linked to? The Dragon Skin broke down at extreme temperatures which does the Army absolutely zero good in the conditions they're fighting in now.

EnderWiggin
06-13-2009, 10:05 AM
http://fc03.deviantart.com/fs6/i/2005/113/5/8/Dragonite_by_AlexSchram.jpg

I wouldn't want to wear that in the desert either.

_EW_

JediAthos
06-13-2009, 10:07 AM
lol

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 11:15 AM
Saw the site. If those ballistic tests would have needed that the vest go through that kind of punishment as part of the requirement, then I would admit that DS wouldn't pass.

That still doesn't change how DS was banned before these tests were conducted. Even if DS were a lemon, it was banned before that was confirmed as such.

Under normal conditions, DS outperforms Interceptor; but if the Army required that all vests pass those conditions as well, then I will admit that Interceptor wins that contest.

Achilles
06-13-2009, 11:42 AM
I'm not one to easily change my opinion, but only because I make one based on a solid foundation of proof.

Right I'm no expert, so my opinion is moot. I'm not presenting an argument for debate, so I don't expect anyone to take my opinion to heart.
You form your opinions "based on a solid foundation of proof", however when it's pointed out to you that you're not an expert and when you're asked to provide evidence for your accusations, you simply repeat yourself.

Which might make it difficult for some of us to accept it when you say things such as:

When I don't have that much proof to go on, my opinion is very flexible to change, and I don't put much value in that belief.

If you want to believe that DS is superior (which seems not to be the case in many areas), then that is your business, but I don't know what you seek to gain by continuing to argue with people who clearly see the evidence differently than you. Especially since (repeat):
I'm not presenting an argument for debate, so I don't expect anyone to take my opinion to heart.(Emphasis added)

Hint: Your accusatory/conspiratorial tone doesn't strike me as very being very "dispassionate observer" either. FYI.

Final thought: I must admit that I haven't read that many of your posts. However what little I have read leads me to believe that you are a person who makes an effort to examine arguments critically. Kudos. The world needs more people like this.

Based on what I've seen in this thread, I don't get the impression that you've adopted the practice of turning those critical thinking skills on your own arguments (although I do get the impression that you've convinced yourself that you do, per an earlier quote). Doing so does a couple of things, most importantly a) it allows you to find the flaws in your arguments before someone else does (which may or may not be embarrassing) and b) allows you to make better arguments (if a. didn't cause you to abandon them altogether) because you can anticipate potential counter-arguments.

I would ask you to consider that perhaps you do not have access to all the facts and rationales that went into this decision. That perhaps DS was not the best product (at the best price). I'm wondering if your arguments (which you are presenting, whether you care to own them or not) would sound different if you simply considered these two possibilities.

Thanks for reading.

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 12:15 PM
Final thought: I must admit that I haven't read that many of your posts. However what little I have read leads me to believe that you are a person who makes an effort to examine arguments critically. Kudos. The world needs more people like this.

Thank-you. I was starting to think that I've essentially presented so much conflicting material that no one would believe anything I ever say again. I try to understand how the other side comes to their conclusion, but I end up assuming everyone knows why I came to my own conclusion and don't present what lead me to a different conclusion in the first place. This isn't Kavar's, so I didn't make an effort to present conclusive proof or to treat this as a debate.

I am by no means an expert on the subject of body armour. I have read many texts about it and spoke to various individuals, but I haven't exactly compiled a list that I would include with a term paper. I do take into consideration many aspects outside of what I've stated, but assume not to go to the effort of including it until the matter and sources are asked for.

I saw most videos on Youtube that show the tests done on DS, including Mail Call, CSNBC, and future weapons. Some included Jim Mcgee, the designer of Interceptor, advocating for DS.

Here is a site that brings to question the reliability of the tests done on DS:

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csnews.cgi/csNews.cgi?command=viewone&id=18&database=Unlisted%202008.db

From this, witnesses who've filmed the tests, check-in records, and extraordinary conditions were found that suggest that the Army manipulated records against DS. If you have a level 4 round fired at a level III vest, that is not regarded as a failure by DS, but is recorded as such.

Some witnesses say that the actual video presented publicly wasn't how the tests actually happened. When you remove the ballistic plates from a vest, a penetration isn't considered a failure.

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

This site has various links to other sites for readers to look for themselves.

Here is an independent video on DS:

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D861L7Ly-gR4

Jae Onasi
06-13-2009, 03:47 PM
Here's some proof right there that the Army will sacrifice the safety of its troops to save money.
Tommycat's second part of his post quotes a source saying the thing falls apart when the temprature hits 120 degrees. There's proof right there that they weren't willing to sacrifice troop safety on something that doesn't work. It gets up to and over 120 degrees in the summer in Iraq and other deserts. As the wife of a soldier who is on active duty and could end up in Iraq any time the Army wanted, I'm very glad that some general looked at the reliability data and decided that it would not be intelligent to buy something that would have a critical and potentially life-threatening failure in conditions that we fight in on a regular basis right now. So the scales fall down in the bottom of the vest at 120 degrees? Great. We'll have excellent beltline protection from bullets while other little things like the heart, lungs, liver, and spleen are without any protection except cloth.

It would be a completely irresponsible use of our money and soldiers to put them in substandard armor. It is not perfect, as DY claims, if it falls apart in the middle of battle on a hot summer day. If they solve the delamination problem, then it can be re-assessed, but we shouldn't buy and use the DS armor before the problem is fixed.

CommanderQ
06-13-2009, 04:07 PM
Well, that's unfortunate that the armor breaks down at high temperatures...that would only allow it to be given to troops stationed elsewhere, like Europe, South Korea, and some palces in the US. I agree though, giving our troops this armor in hot areas like Afghanistan or Iraq would be irresponisible and idiotic....

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 04:44 PM
Tommycat's second part of his post quotes a source saying the thing falls apart when the temprature hits 120 degrees. There's proof right there that they weren't willing to sacrifice troop safety on something that doesn't work.

So they did give Dragon Skin to all the armed forces? I remember that it was banned before it was even confirmed that it was prone to failure in hot conditions. Third party sources had tested the vests and brought serious question to the Army's tests, even under optimal conditions. If the Army manipulated tests under optimal conditions, then how can we be sure they didn't alter DS under unfavorable conditions?

So the scales fall down in the bottom of the vest at 120 degrees? Great. We'll have excellent beltline protection from bullets while other little things like the heart, lungs, liver, and spleen are without any protection except cloth.

Yeah, while those wearing Interceptor will always leave some of their vital organs exposed under any circumstances. Yeah, DS fails in extreme heat, but it's not like it completely breaks down... did you notice that virtually all those penetrations of which the Army claims landed only on the areas where a disc was missing? Of course, if you know where to fire, then that might make it easier to penetrate the vest. If you aimed only at where the Interceptor plates don't cover the torso, it would fail every time.

If you have a gap in the mesh that exposes the heart, there is still a LOT of the vest that still works properly. Notice in the X-rays that the test shots were made at the locations where the discs left the body exposed? I don't believe our enemies had X-ray vision to know where to shoot. If you fired at it with an Ak, I wouldn't put it past there being a few hits at the exposed areas, but the majority of the shots would still have been stopped in the areas that hadn't been compromised. Pepper an Interceptor vest and the same thing would happen. Fire at an uncompromised DS vest, and it would outperform Interceptor in every way.

It would be a completely irresponsible use of our money and soldiers to put them in substandard armor.

Then why are there instances when the Army does equip special forces with this substandard vest? Why would they classify so much about their tests if DS doesn't stand a chance against Interceptor? Why would they distort statistics and deliberately modify statements of witnesses to something completely different than they recalled? How could so many third-party sources come to such different conclusions about the same tests?

I would assume there's more to this than the Army wants to admit. I call it irresponsible and depraved indifference to human life if they have distorted tests in order to keep a contract with Point-blank for an inferior product. Pinnacle has come up with a brilliant design in body armour and if they haven't been given a fair trial, then that's not irresponsible; that's a criminal act against life.

Jae Onasi
06-13-2009, 08:10 PM
So they did give Dragon Skin to all the armed forces? I remember that it was banned before it was even confirmed that it was prone to failure in hot conditions. Did I say they gave the armor to all armed forces? No. I did not, nor did I imply anything remotely like that.

Pinnacle got in trouble because they classified their armor as having Class V protection when they had not received written certification.

Third party sources had tested the vests and brought serious question to the Army's tests, even under optimal conditions. If the Army manipulated tests under optimal conditions, then how can we be sure they didn't alter DS under unfavorable conditions?The one third party source that did testing from what I can see was NBC, and it appears they did so with the vest laid flat. This isn't normal conditions for usage, unless you plan on equipping Flat Stanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Stanley) with it. It appears to me from reading all these links you've provided that Pinnacle's owner is alleging the Army manipulated tests, but he hasn't shown any proof. In fact, the Army has suggested an independent third party do testing, and Pinnacle hasn't taken them up on the offer.

Please present proof of this alleged manipulation from a legitimate, unbiased source. "Soldiers for Truth" is obviously biased--"Military Procurement Mafia"? Am I supposed to take a site like that seriously? It sounds about as unbiased as Little Green Footballs.


Yeah, while those wearing Interceptor will always leave some of their vital organs exposed under any circumstances. Yeah, DS fails in extreme heat, but it's not like it completely breaks down... did you notice that virtually all those penetrations of which the Army claims landed only on the areas where a disc was missing? Of course, if you know where to fire, then that might make it easier to penetrate the vest. If you aimed only at where the Interceptor plates don't cover the torso, it would fail every time.
One shot failure is one shot too many. M16 A1's can empty a clip of 30 rounds in 2.8 seconds. Try taking 30 shots and the entire vest is going to get hit.

If you have a gap in the mesh that exposes the heart, there is still a LOT of the vest that still works properly. Good. You take the vest with the gap over the heart. I'm sure not going to. No gap is acceptable.

Notice in the X-rays that the test shots were made at the locations where the discs left the body exposed? I don't believe our enemies had X-ray vision to know where to shoot. If you fired at it with an Ak, I wouldn't put it past there being a few hits at the exposed areas, but the majority of the shots would still have been stopped in the areas that hadn't been compromised.Notice in the x-rays that the vests were compromised before the firing even started? Can you guarantee me that the enemy is going to miss the compromised areas 100% of the time just because they can't see them? Do you consider it acceptable to get hit even one time by an AK or M16 bullet? I don't.

Pepper an Interceptor vest and the same thing would happen. Fire at an uncompromised DS vest, and it would outperform Interceptor in every way.If it's UNCOMPROMISED, sure. You could have bullet proof plastic encasing someone, but if there were gaps, it's no good.

Then why are there instances when the Army does equip special forces with this substandard vest? If the Army has banned it, how do you know it's being used by Special Forces?

Why would they classify so much about their tests if DS doesn't stand a chance against Interceptor?They said it was to keep from giving the enemy unneeded information.

Why would they distort statistics and deliberately modify statements of witnesses to something completely different than they recalled?Please prove these distortions. I saw nothing in any of your sources that indicated that, other than Pinnacle's owner making that unfounded/unproven accusation.

How could so many third-party sources come to such different conclusions about the same tests? How many 3rd party sources were there, exactly?

I would assume there's more to this than the Army wants to admit.There may be, but I doubt we the public would know about it.

I call it irresponsible and depraved indifference to human life if they have distorted tests in order to keep a contract with Point-blank for an inferior product. That's quite an emotional opinion.

Pinnacle has come up with a brilliant design in body armour and if they haven't been given a fair trial, then that's not irresponsible; that's a criminal act against life.Why hasn't Pinnacle agreed to testing by an independent third party agreeable to both them and the Army, then? That would solve a lot of this dispute, don't you think?

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 09:38 PM
I'm sorry, but there was so much I didn't understand just there. Could you please explain it again?

I do see you criticizing dragon skin for some faults that interceptor has, but I don't seem to know which ones you mean.

Why not watch youtube and tell me how many of those DS videos show the armour failing... actually failing. Some cameramen claim that their footage was altered to something completely different. If I test were done where DS was subjected to punishment it was not designed for, it would not be regarded as a failure of the vest, yet many are stated as such.

Jae Onasi
06-13-2009, 09:44 PM
I'm sorry, but there was so much I didn't understand just there. Could you please explain it again?

I do see you criticizing dragon skin for some faults that interceptor has, but I don't seem to know which ones you mean.
Could you specify what you find confusing, please?

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 09:57 PM
The parts that neglect to take into account Interceptor's weak points.

Remember that DS provides full torso protection. So if shots were taken at Interceptor armour's exposed points near the shoulders and under the armpits, they would fail all ballistic tests as well. If you are suggesting that DS fails because it exposes critical organs, then Interceptor should be cast down as well.

Jeff
06-13-2009, 09:59 PM
Think this is a Kavar's topic.

EnderWiggin
06-14-2009, 12:12 AM
If you have a gap in the mesh that exposes the heart, there is still a LOT of the vest that still works properly. Notice in the X-rays that the test shots were made at the locations where the discs left the body exposed? I don't believe our enemies had X-ray vision to know where to shoot. If you fired at it with an Ak, I wouldn't put it past there being a few hits at the exposed areas, but the majority of the shots would still have been stopped in the areas that hadn't been compromised.


It does only take one bullet to kill you, you know. If you don't "put it past there being a few hits at the exposed areas" then you should know that you're probably dead if you're in this scenario.


_EW_

Jae Onasi
06-14-2009, 12:13 AM
The parts that neglect to take into account Interceptor's weak points.

Remember that DS provides full torso protection. So if shots were taken at Interceptor armour's exposed points near the shoulders and under the armpits, they would fail all ballistic tests as well. If you are suggesting that DS fails because it exposes critical organs, then Interceptor should be cast down as well.

DS doesn't protect under the armpits or near the shoulders, either, from what I saw on the pro-DS video of the guy shooting the DS armor--it looked like any other vest to me when the guy took it off the dummy. No armor protects the armpit or near the shoulders, except maybe a chainmail shirt (which isn't bullet proof anyway), because you have to be able to move your arms freely. Neither scale nor plate armor allows the necessary mobility, so I expect to see those exposure points in any bullet-resistant vest. The military is trained to aim for center-mass (center of the chest or back), not the shoulder or armpit, and if you have your arm up so that your armpit is exposed, you're doing something wrong. In addition, failure at the shoulder at most exposes the subclavian artery in terms of critical structures. It does not expose the heart, lungs, spleen, liver, spine, or GI tract.

EnderWiggin
06-14-2009, 12:18 AM
It does not expose the heart, lungs, spleen, liver, spine, or GI tract.
@D_Y

Hint: The DS does expose these things in the heat.

_EW_

Q
06-14-2009, 04:22 PM
After what happened in 1993 (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/10/us/nbc-settles-truck-crash-lawsuit-saying-test-was-inappropriate.html?pagewanted=all), I wouldn't trust NBC to test the Ronco® Turnip Twaddler™, let alone a bulletproof vest. :p

JediAthos
06-14-2009, 09:05 PM
prone to failure at high temperatures exposes things at high temperatures...so I'm not sure what distinction you're making DY.

The Army's test results were clear and the armor clearly did not do what they expected it to. Any opinions regarding test tampering would have to have some proof behind them to indicate the Army's testing was anything but valid and truthful. Otherwise it boils down to one "expert" opinion against another and one test against another, and having served in the military I can tell you what test they'll go with every time regardless of what weapon, vehicle, product, etc... is being tested.

Q
06-14-2009, 10:01 PM
prone to failure at high temperatures exposes things at high temperatures...so I'm not sure what distinction you're making DY.
Semantics determine the truth, you know. ;)

Jae Onasi
06-14-2009, 11:33 PM
Some of the recent posts were more suited for PMs and so were deleted/edited. Carry on.

Darth_Yuthura, we gave you fair warning that if the topic stayed serious it would get moved. The moderating staff talked it over and Jeff made the decision to move it to Kavar's. To clarify my position--as super-moderator promoted from Star Wars Knights moderator, I can, when needed, moderate anywhere, including Ahto. It doesn't matter to me if we don't agree on a subject. As long as people follow the rules and mod instructions, we'll never have a problem.

EnderWiggin
06-14-2009, 11:35 PM
Darth_Yuthura, we gave you fair warning that if the topic stayed serious it would get moved. The moderating staff talked it over and Jeff made the decision to move it to Kavar's.

I even tried to keep it light-hearted by posting Pete's Dragon and Dragonite :p

_EW_

Jae Onasi
06-14-2009, 11:49 PM
I even tried to keep it light-hearted by posting Pete's Dragon and Dragonite :p

_EW_

I know--and I got a chuckle out of them, too. :lol:

Tommycat
06-20-2009, 03:27 AM
Well with my drummer coming from the Army, he told me of the test of his body armor that they did. They got a vest and fired quite a number of rounds of 7.62mm from an M16 and only one round punctured the armor. One wise guy said, "Well that's all well and good but the enemy is using AK-47's." The First Seargeant then proceeded to fire rounds from an AK-47 and it made it through in significantly less, but with the grouping the First seargent was using(less than 1 inch), it is pretty impressive. I would rather wear that 28lb vest that I could trust with a 3 round burst from just about any small arms fire than a 50% chance that within 2 rounds it goes through a 47 lb vest. That's 19 lbs more ammo I could carry.

Lets look at the facts.
5 times the cost.
extreme temperature failure.
Inadequate protection.
More weight.

Gee can't imagine why the Army wouldn't be jumping at the chance to have Dragon Skin.

note: I would have been more specific with the numbers of rounds, but I wouldn't want to let the whole world know just how many rounds they need to make it through our body armor. But I will say that it was significantly more than triple the failure numbers of Dragon Skin.

Another note: The Army banned Dragon Skin in 2006. It was tested in May 2004. Don't know why you keep saying it was banned before it was tested.

Here's a far better description
http://op-for.com/2007/05/dragon_skin_redux.html

And because people like vidya
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003510.html
Neal inspecting the hole where DS failed and Interceptor wouldn't have.

Darth_Yuthura
06-22-2009, 09:27 AM
Okay, it's clear that Interceptor has the clear advantage of being able to stand up to the elements much better than Dragon Skin. I cannot deny that is its strength in terms of ability to take non-projectile punishment where you have a more complex structure with dragon skin.

If Pinnacle were to come up with something other than using an adhesive to hold the disks in place, Dragon skin will not be as reliable. If they were to interweave the discs with kevlar, or some other mechanical fastener, then that would change, but even with what they have, it's by far better at stopping projectiles than Interceptor. But given as they have to take abuse from other elements, then I would admit that Interceptor wins that battle.

And here are some counter facts to those that were posted above:

-It actually has gone down in price and now is 1.5 times the price of Interceptor
-Greater torso protection than Interceptor
-Flexible
-Covers more of the torso than Interceptor

+It's heavier, can't deny that
+vulnerable to other elements encountered on the battlefield

Whatever else it may have the edge on, that vulnerability to the elements makes Dragon Skin is a severe problem that Pinnacle needs to deal with before it would be accepted by the Military.

Jae Onasi
06-22-2009, 10:16 AM
If they can solve the delamination problem and lower the weight, I think it would be a terrific product. I hope they solve those problems.

CommanderQ
06-22-2009, 11:13 AM
^^Me too:) It would definatley be the perfect armor if they could solve those problems. Our troops will need that type of armor if it is improved, times are definately more tense then before, the troops will need the best we can give them...

JediAthos
06-22-2009, 07:22 PM
couldn't agree more, especially with the tension on the Korean Peninsula right now. I'd also love to see them improve the design of the Hummer that the troops are using, but that's another discussion entirely :)