View Single Post
Old 06-20-2009, 04:27 AM   #66
Tommycat
>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
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.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 06-20-2009 at 06:23 AM.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,