This Dragon Skin armor has been knocking about since 2007, but now that
piezoelectrics and intelligence have been thrown into the mix we couldn't stop ourselves from taking a peek at it. The armor's strength is derived from a reptilian arrangement of overlapping ceramic and titanium composite discs, which simultaneously block incoming rounds and dissipate the impact to a wider area. What's interesting about the new design is the two piezoelectric sensors attached to each end -- one of them transfers a low voltage of power through the armor in the form of vibration, which the other picks up, and the reported energy loss is interpreted as armor degradation. Gnarlier still is the ability of these sensors to generate electricity from bullet impacts, which can then themselves give you an indication of what sort of bullet hit you. Capable of being applied to soldiers and vehicles alike, this could make the real act of soldiering a whole lot more like a video game (minus the whole "infinite respawn" thing), with HUDs showing you how much "shield" you have left. You can see an old(ish) video of the original armor after the break.
posted November 25th 2009 9:42AM
Wow even the adhesives? Surely that's not necessary?
Perhaps you can spray it with silicon spray to make it last :)
This tech is awesome, like chain mail for our age; but what's up with the host of this video whispering? You got a secret or something? :)
Now the real question is, does it protect against zombie bites?
this stuff is awsome! on the discovery channel they laid it on a grenade and it didnt puncture the vest!!
Nothing new under the sun. High tech scale mail.
Dragon Skin has some real problem stopping bullets.
"Army: Dragon Skin armor failed battery of tests"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18790506/
@PPGMD It is my understanding with that said that when Senators and delegations travel to warzones this is what they where AND what their bodyguards/security detail wear so that should tell you something. The real reason is cost, this armor cost significantly more and the army doesn't want to put up the money.
@(Unverified)
Strange I know a lot of PMCs, most purchased their own kits, buying the best that they can get. None own Dragonskin.
But even PMCs can buy into hype, buying stuff based on marketing, because if they didn't you wouldn't see as much advertising in "Tactical" magazines.
But price is a concern, the SOV-3000 is significantly more expensive then Interceptor, or the IOTV. Weight is another concern, the SOV-3000 is significantly heavier then the current armor systems. And then there is the Elephant in the room, durability, I've already detailed that several times, there are serious concerns with the durability of the Dragonskin system. Serious enough that the USAF OSI recalled over half of the SOV-2000 vests that they bought.
@PPGMD Honestly I'm no expert, but I know that the dragon skin at 9lbs v.s the 5.5 lbs SOV-2000 won't break you at the security detail for the delegates and senators, the CIA, special forces and generals all have used dragon skin. It seams to me those are high value targets and if the system as in fact inferior they probably wouldn't use it. According to military.com the dragon skin at $5000 is about 5 times the price of the Interceptor OTV. As for the weight of the sov-3000 vs. the interceptor, there is a bit of fudging of numbers and debate. One people fail to mention that they weighted an extra large sov-3000 and a large interceptor, they also fail to mention that the sov, is significantly thicker, sov 1.9 in interceptor less than 1.3( not measured by the army)which in my opinion is good I want the round to go through as much as it can before hitting me. Lastly the SOV cover more surface area 743 in squared to 730, again I appreciate more protection. It seems like from the research only the army had a problem with it, every other test done by the government and academics said it was just good if not better than any other armor. Like i said I'm no expert but whats good for the CIA and its black budget, generals, presidents, senators, SWAT teams (ie Fresno) special forces is good for me.
@(Unverified)
Hmm... have you actually touched Dragonskin, ever put it on? How about Interceptor, ITOV, and any of the major armor systems on the market? Or are you just quoting Wikipedia? I'm betting it's the latter. There is no controversy, the SOV-3000 is heavier, noticeably so. I believe the Army's numbers, it felt like about the same weight as 45lb plate (you know for weight lifting). Now you can argue cubic inches, and thickness, but you can't argue the weight.
Now as far as what people are using, particularly the client, remember that everyone with an unlimited budget tend to follow trends. Particularly the SOV-2000 it's a fantastic vest if they fix the glue flaw, the only concealable level III armor I know of. I am sure a lot of PMCs bought the SOV-2000 for their principles in the early days, because it doesn't make good PR photos when you Senator is in a plate carrier (see Dukakis) so many likely won't wear a non-concealable vest. Whether they are using it now, I don't know.
But two things to consider, first the principles often follow trends too, and make requests that are unusual, or stupid (sometimes both). So they might also request the Dragonskin vest, or may not even know if the vest is Dragonskin, and just assume that it is (ignorance is bliss after all).
Basically I am saying, don't believe the hype, and don't believe Wikipedia, there is a lot of agenda pushing on these websites. Instead take a look at what PMCs and SOCOM units are talking about and using. It tends to be better plate carriers for the traditional armor setup (ie plates with soft armor backings). These people have the budget to order anything that they want (and tend to have the authority), and yet they don't chose Dragonskin, that is telling.
@PPGMD With all due respect that logic sounds crazy. First SOCOM and other special forces do use Dragonskin to my understanding. Second ,somehow you believe wikipedia who has no vested interest in whether Dragonskin is best or worst is somehow bias toward Dragoskin but the US military who has over a million interests ( one for each soldier they are equipping) in the outcome is not bias. Like as in the public outcry if people knew that the solider wee not getting the best armor, ie the Humvee armor outcry from a few years back. Third, you believe that the CIA and all of these VIP would trust not something replaceable but their lives to a trend. Do you honestly think the Secret Service would trust the lives of their VIPs to a system they have not tested properly? So what will they say if one of the VIPs is shot and the armor fails and that person dies? "Oh sorry we were following the latest trend." If that's what you believe more power to you but as I said I want what they put on the President not on the grunt who they clearly from previous actions see as discardable. Have I gone to battle and had to use either system no, have I touched and see both in person yes. And not my research is not from Wikipedia, its from the US military's presentation., those are the number's from their powerpoint. And its from military.com and from Janes and other reliable sources. With that said, when they send the general out in the field in one armor and then say oh the reason why we don't give it to everyone is because yours is better so we only give these VIP who were in a HOT warzone at the time that sounds fishy. The issue clearly is about politics, kickbacks from the manufacturer and costs and that's fine its the American way but don't try to tell me that we give to out VIPs in warzone bad not properly tested equipment that puts their lives in danger because of a trend but we give to the basic enlisted man better equipment because its more important to protect the life of Private ABC than Lt. General ZXY. And worse that the Army in their one study that poured diesel, oil, sand, water and all kinds of grim, then froze reheated froze then burn a piece of armor to prove that ha it may let 5/32 7.62 FMJ rounds through when another test by independent academics say the same vest stop .308 rounds from a sniper rifle. With all due respect I'm just not buying it.
@(Unverified)
Wiki has no vest interest, but the editors have bias, and there is a lot of agenda pushing on Wiki.
Second which units under SOCOM are using Dragonskin? Name them. The Navy recalled all vests, the US Army banned them, and the USAF has also banned them after the OSI recall. I know guys from 3rd, 5th, 20th Group, the Rangers, SEALs, Blackwater (now Xe), Dyncorp, et al none of them use Dragonskin and no one they know uses it (as of about a year ago when this was last discussed), hell depending on the mission they might not be wearing armor at all. Kind of hard to run after Taliban/AQ in Afghanistan when you are burdened down by 20+ lbs of armor, in addition to your gear.
Now I am sure at one point all those units/companies may have bought vests, or received Dragonskin vests. They would be crazy if they didn't at least try out the newest stuff. But that is where they confuse people like you, and the editors of Wikipedia. Just because a unit has purchased doesn't mean that they are fielding it, or it has seen wide spread use. But the companies still advertise that it's being used by those units, like the Mk 23 SOCOM (boat anchor), talk to real deal SEALs yeah they still have a few in inventory, particularly with the SDVs, but the boat anchors rarely even leave the arms room. But if you read Janes or other sources you get the impression that most every SEAL has traded in their Sigs for the Hk.
And I am sure that there are few SOV-2000s floating around, because it's the only concealable level III vest on the market, it's bad press for the Lt Gen (or other VIPs) to be walking around the Green Zone (the protected zone in Baghdad) in full vest setup, but they don't see hard use. So they take the chance, and probably inspect them (assuming that they are still using them after the rating has been pulled). But average Joe Private isn't going to be wearing a level III vest, he would be wearing a level IV vest.
As far as the testing, they do that because that is what the vest is going to be exposed to on the battlefield. Ever since the Bradley, Congress has required the Army to do realistic testing of items that they buy. The APG test of Dragonskin is a realistic test. And they didn't do all those tests to a single vest, they have vest groups, some were exposed to heat, some to cold, some to oil/fuel, some to sand. Only a few were exposed to a combination. Many of the vests failed, IIRC only the sand group had no ring failures.
Does it automatically inject morphine?
too bad the U.S. army banned dragon skin saying it couldnt pass tests, when everyone knows damn right it beat the interceptor body armour by.... well, every bullet after the first 3
@PPGMD Again you are the expert, all I'm saying is if its good enough for the CIA, VIPs and SWAT its good enough to me. I mean the facts are the fats, there is a report in defense watch, that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was as effective as the dragonskin, while the Army was certain there was nothing wrong with Interceptor OTV body armor and that it was and remains the "best body armor in the world." There is something wrong there to me, The Army threaten soldiers who purchased it to use that their death benefits would be removed if they were KIA and they may face disciplinary hearing. That's why those units don't use them. Again its body armor, that the generals used for themselves, which suggests to me they don't want the kid with dragonskin to survive while one with a similar hit from an interceptor die and they get all the flak for it. I mean NINE of the generals stationed in Afghanistan wear/wore Dragon skins but its not good enough for PFC whoever? Who is more important (in army terms) a random PFC or a general. Whose life do you think they value more? But they would let the general put on shorty body armor and give random PFC the good stuff. take a look at this article alone. I don't know where you are getting your information but from what I read and from people I know in the defense community any number of PMCs and special forces uses use dragonskin, they are the only one the army gives it to. I would ask you this, what is the casualty rate for those operators who use dragonskin vs the interceptor. I would bet the dragonskin one a scaled one for one basis does better. Take a look at this article alone And th point remains you don't need a level 3 vest the SOV2000 level 3 is 16.5 lbs if you want to wear something lighter then downgrade but when your life is on the life an extra 5-20lbs not a big deal. It just confuses me that you would think they would risk the lives of the 9 generals and the VIPs and the CIA officers all of whom have greater strategic value with inferior armor but would draw the lime on some enlisted man. I mean if the interceptor was so great when the Sen. or delegation get off the plane if they don't have any available they could take the interceptor off the back of any of the men out there and put in on the VIP but they don't hey go out there way to find a the dragon skin and put that on them? Why? Because they want to show the world they put inferior armor on VIPS so the Taliabn know they VIPs are easy marks? Not because its more effective. I mean honest it makes not difference to me, I would just like to see our guys get the best they can but fact is I don't own stock in Pinnicle, I have no vested interest and if you think you are right that is what it is but I will say the same thing again, give me what they put on the VIPs the Generals and the CIA. I could be wrong but I still believe the issue is cost, politics and kickbacks. Gen. Moran is gone now isn't he and why? Pinnicle is still in business so somebody is buying their stuff right. So who won that? Like I first said every independent test done says the dragonskin is better except, Pinncle left an open invitation to publically test them side by side he army won't why? If they are right they have nothing to loose, but they won't and the haven't, they just buy a few pieces and put them aside for those special folks. And finally if the army is so concerned about testing and quality why do they still use M16s and variants? You know the gun that jams a lot, has a hard time in the and and the wet and every place else, why not use the AK, one of the most durable guns in the world? Because its not about quality its about politics, influence and kickbacks. I mean the thing that bothers me is they are p!ssing on people's head and saying its raining. I rather they just be honest the Dragonskin cost more and the M16 is the army's choice because of sweetheart deals.
@(Unverified)
Paragraphs are your friend.
Anyways you really don't understand anything.
You read articles... yeah, whatever dude. The usage rate of Dragonskin is much lower then the tactical media claims, ie it's closer to virtual nil. The Tactical Media writes for the sake of writing, if acknowledged that Interceptor works well, they wouldn't have anything to write about.
AK vs AR, that shows your ignorance.
@PPGMD Ok so you say I know nothing, right because you clearly know everything. I give you coherent articles with fact based realities and you come back with what some so called buddy of your told you. Right you sound very credible.
The fact remains the same, 1. the AK 47 is a MUCH more reliable gu than the M16 series and they are cheaper. Now There are other reasons such as range and accuracy to use the M16 but the fact is most soldiers are good enough to hit something outside of 200 yards so what the point. Obviously since its the most used gun in the world, in deserts, swaps, jungles and everythng else the AK is dong something right. if the M16 was such a better gun why don't more countries use it? Oh I know its because what your 3rd cousin's best friend told you right that it was the best gun on the market and for the record before you start with that yes I have fired both extensively stripped them cleaned then on 3 continents in the winter in the dessert in a jungle and in a swamp, the AK- is a more reliable gun hands down. Now if you don't know that they you clearly know nothing.
Second. When someone give you peer rated journal articles to prove their point you don't counter that with oh well my buddies are the ones who told me so I'm right. Who are your buddies that you know? Give your source of your information if they exist. Considering I have given you or referred to at least 3 different defense journals in reference to my point I think that's the least you can do. But you can't I know top secret right. And you think your unprovable facts trump mine that are in black and white. Please show me one peer reviewed study other than than the army's BS study at the one facility that everyone knows is rigged that shows that the Dragon skin is inferior. Just one please one you have the vast knowledge of al your buddies in all kinds of special units please show me one study that proves your point.
Third you still can't explain why the CIA, VIPS the NINE generals in Afghanistan which is more dangerous than the Greenzone or Iraq n general wear Dragon skin if its so dangerous. If it doesn't work and they have access to what ever hey want why would they wear it? Why put the lives of top me in danger. You brush over that fact as if it doesn't exist why? Please just explain what you would put top people's lives in danger but protect those at the bottom. Next you keep saying you buddies don't have it an I explained why, because if they use it they loose their death benefits and can be disciplined. that simple. Bottom line not because its inferior.
Again one just one study not from the army that shows its inferior. Or is it that the whole world is somehow in the bed with Pinnicle and against the army? They want our soldiers to die. If the interceptor works so well what do you tell the 4000+ families of dead soldiers, how many of them died with Dragon skin again you never answered that.
And finally why would they all of these authors have nothing to write about if the interceptor was better? Is there really nothing else then this, did they take on the army over the XM 307? or the XM8? they just desired for some reason this is the thing. Ad oh the point remains Pinncle still in business still selling their stuff Gen. Moran forced to retire, go figure. Oh andby the way one of my best friend works with weapons systems at the DODI checked with them and they confirmed the isue was more about cost. If you knew much of anything you would know that its cheaper (In army think) to destroy weapon than transport them back home so often weapons are destroyed in country not shipped back. If that's possible then why do you care about whether these things will last 5.7 or 6 years?
And one more thing, if the Dragon skin was so bad, and the army had specific problem areas that needed to be address and it wasn't pretext to reject the system, why not tell Pinnicle and ask them to fix it. The clear point is the Intercetor is not working and people are dying, so why not fix it? Whether is Dragon skin, an upgraded, or they next product fix it make it lighter make it strong the system is outdated. Don't believe it this is from Wiki, On May 4, 2005 the United States Marine Corps recalled 5,277 Interceptor combat vests made by DHB's Point Blank unit after news reports about the vests' inability to stop 9 mm round and "as many as 42% of the Marine casualties who died from isolated torso injuries could have been prevented with improved protection in the areas surrounding the plated areas of the vest." 9MM not a big round a 9mm, why? is that more safe? I have never seen a 9mm penetrate Dragon skin. At very least if the army cared why not use the MTV the Marines use? And th IOTV weighs 36lbs which is just about up there with the dragon skin btw. And the main different the Dragon skin can take multiple hits with out shattering and becoming inoperable. If they system was broken its a better starting point why not just fix it why use something that's less effective? All questions that go unanswered but it seems good enough for those at the top.
One last this finally if the dragon skin is so bad, why can't civilians buy it? It is very hard if possible at all to buy and yes you can buy other body armor so long as you are not a felon.
That is all I have to say.
@(Unverified)
Wow, you are seriously uninformed about the differences between the two systems. The AR platform is a MUCH better fighting platform then the AK.
Anyways it was fun, show me a picture of someone using Dragonskin in Afghanistan or Iraq in the year or so, then maybe I would consider your position. Because we can tell the new guys to the armor game, because they are the few bringing up Dragonskin.
@PPGMD The AR is a better system seriously, how many special forces units use ARs? How many guys in Afghanistan use AK? How many armies around the world use Aks vs. the ARs? I mean there is no doubt about it that the AK is a better gun, if you don't know that you are ill informed. How many jams do AKs have vs. Ars? How about cleaning? How about just general maintenance? What exactly makes the Ars system much better? I will say the accuracy is better on the AR and the the range is better but in urban combat you don't need that.
I can't say if anyone will be using the Dragon skin in a year especially since the Army blackballed them but in the same way the Army does not have the best Humvees or a lot of other equipment. But who knows, like I said I just like to see our guys get the best and keep them safe. Anyway Happy Thanksgiving, enjoy.
@(Unverified)
LOL you're a riot. Get up from behind the keyboard and get a little experience with what you are proposing. Once you spend a little time with the AR, and the AK, you quickly realize that the AR is better in one regard, the AK is more tolerant to lack of MX. But even they malfunction.
Blackballed, that is what every company claims after the military rejects their weapon. "It's not our fault, your testing isn't realistic." The SOV-3000 failed the APG testing, and was recalled by the USAF after the OSI vests were tested to be defective.
Get out there and get a little experience with the weapon systems at the very least. You will be surprised what is considered common knowledge, is completely wrong, or is blown out of proportion by the Tactical Press.
@PPGMD I don't See your point at all. So because I do not have personal experience I am disqualified but those who are professionals in the industry are also disqualified because you don't like their opinion. And what experience do you have may I ask? Because you seem to be sitting behind a keyboard too.
The fact is the AK have a significantly lower fail rate, they are the most popular gun in the world. They are used all over even by our special forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. I rather a gun that will shoot after a sandstorm then one that will jam and put my life in danger. I hate to break it to you but the world of the US Army is not that of God, they are wrong ALOT and they have an agenda. You seem to blindly support anything the army says without critically thinking. Still you can not produce 1 study to prove anything you say, just some good soldiers who do what they are told. I'm a little smarter than that, I take the information given an make a decision, not let someone tell me. if 10 studies say the Dragon skin is better but 1 study done in a facility that is not even up to civilian specs, done by a general who was forced to retire due to bias. I mean honest, its an interesting debate but a mute point whatever we say here won't change the world but personally I trust the independent studies and the report Gen Moran held that said that the Dragon skin did meet specs but buried than the one he put out as a precursor. In fact I'll give you a great example of the Army messing up, remember the airbus/ boeing contract for the refusing tankers, what happened there? The official report said one thing and the army swore by it same as this, but then after an official complaint, and independent investigation it turns out that Boeing was right and the army tried to screw them out of the contract with a false report. Go figure the army lied and was not providing the best equipment. Sounds like another story.
@(Unverified)
APG doesn't do NIJ testing, no Army in the military is tested to NIJ standards. Instead they specify their own standards. For example the test for soft armor has always been 9mm. For rifle plates it's the 7.62x51 R LSP. The NIJ test is slightly tougher because they fire 30.06 produces about 100mps higher velocity. But they don't do the multi-hit test, just a single shot. While the milspec test requires the plate to be shot three times.
The Tanker contract is for the USAF, not the Army. And both aircraft meet the specs, it's just that the USAF made the specs so broad that they aren't being specific of exactly what they want. Airbus proposed a KC-10 sized aircraft, while Boeing proposed a KC-135 sized aircraft (the aircraft that is being replaced). Boeing complained that if they wanted a larger aircraft they would have proposed a larger aircraft, the specs called for a minimums without giving their ideal configuration.
Anyways if you believe that the Special Forces is using Aks in Afghanistan I got a rude awakening for you. They aren't, they may have a few for special purposes, or if they are blending in with locals, but for the most part they are using issued ARs.
Anyways you are going based on what the Tactical Press writes, personal experience would show you that 90% of what the Tactical Press writes is absolute crap. But go ahead and believe what you want, lets not believe people that have actual experience with the weapons you are talking about. The AR is much more durable then you are being led to believe, I've personally shot over 2,000 rounds through my ARs with no cleaning and no added lubrication. To give you an idea how much ammo that is, the average combat load out is less then 300 rounds.
@PPGMD If you shot 2000 round without cleaning your AR either one you were not in any adverse conditions, ie a swamp or desert because is a known fact the AR do not form a tight seal and lots of dirt and grime get in or two you were not properly maintaining your weapon but got lucky. I have the field manual for the m16 and m16A1 right i front of me and in the forepages and warning it say "If there’s water in the barrel, don’t fire the rifle, It could explode" I would also direct your attention to page 2-12 "Clean and Iubricate rifle after firing approximately 200 rounds of ammunition (p 3-28)." So how you fire 10 times that amount without mishap is as i said poor maintenance and lucky. You can tel me about how that's a book and not reality and whatever else but when I was taught to shoot at Ft. Lewis I was told similar by a drill instructor. Its again a known fact that the M16 has a problem with rust and jamming due to exposure and being out in the field in water or sand which the Ak does not. If you deny that I honesty need to question your knowledge. The AK is also cheaper, has a greater rate of fire, is more reliable and requires less maintenance. Further the m16 has a heavier barrel which throws off the balance of the weapon; its only benefits is its slightly lighter and is more acrate to a further distance which in reality most solider can't aim out of and even if they could in urban combat its has no purpose. At every few occasions is someone shooting more than 300 yards at anyone and if you are you have sharpshooter for that because the average shooter may not be able to make the shot. They are fighting in cities, villages caves and deserts not great distances like WW1 and 2. And the point is if you are ambushed the AK has a better rate of figure and you can put down more cover to get yourself out of a jam.
Now that's not to say that either is perfect but when we sink billions into military spending I would think the army would look and say hey these AKs best our system in so many ways why not take them modify them a bit or design a better weapon based on them. Why you ask because they don't care.
Again I don't see how 90% of the tactical press, generally the ones who apparently think freely and not up the COC are just lying. Their has to be some proof or they wouldn't have readers and they would b out of business. These are big publications not little blogs, defense review military times Janes etc.
And you can give whatever reason you want for the special forces to use Aks but they do. And two things 1. again they would not put themselves in danger with a faulty weapons system for the sake of blending and 2. let me tell you if you are close enough to see the guys gun you are close enough to know the guy is some kind of American, white, black or whatever is between and not one of you, esp. when the guy's accent and dialect is not perfect so I don't buy that. The point is you use what they use because what they use works.
As for testing the point remains if the military cared why set testing standards for our guys who are in imminent danger of rifles rounds shrapnel fragmentation explosions and all kinds of other hazard lower than that which is used for the civilian world where the real danger is most likely a less powerful hand gun? Does that sound like a military that cares to you? To the original point Dragon skin passed the the multi hit test and NIJ testing which you just said was tougher. And still the point remains CIA uses it for its special operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and how many CIA officers have been killed? I can tell you in total all time is around 76 ( I can't think if the top of my head but its less than 100, there is a star of the wall for each one killed). So if it kept those guys safe in the dessert under special ops conditions why not the avg private who is not going through as much?
Finally when I said army I mean military in general yes the tanker was the USAF and not the army but the politics, COC and bureaucracy and point remains the same, the DOD had to supersede the military when it came to light and was apparently clear the military was not providing the best equipment for our airmen in this situation. Same with the lack of armor of the hummers that got so many people killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in Operation Gothic Serpent and the Battle of Mogadishu. The point is the military does not have a good record. They are conservative and don't like change and the world changes around them, in fact there is push back from the use of remote operated shooters to clear dangerous areas go figure, they rather send some 18 year old to get shot loose his legs or life than allow robots which would save our soldiers limbs and lives.
@(Unverified)
I shoot 2,000 rounds through my carbines before cleaning more times then I can count in a variety conditions rain, swampy mud, blowing sand, et al. The M-16 manual was written by armorers based on how they want the weapon turned into the arms room. A friend of mine (who works for a major gun manufacturer now) after his united T&E'd the M-4 (when it was brand new) suggested an updated cleaning and MX section based on his field experience with the M-4 and M-16, but was overruled by the armorers, they didn't want the heavily lubed guns to be dirtying up their arms room. Two decades later it took an APG test replicating a sand storm to find that he was right all along.
As far as the water comment, any weapon will burst if the barrel is obstructed with anything (water included). For water operations they use specially modified weapons that speed up the water drainage to help prevent barrels asploding.
Anyways that is all I can write my flight is boarding...
@PPGMD Now the armorers are in on the cabal against the army. I don't know what else there is then. Well have a good flight
@(Unverified)
No the armorers are not combat troops, they are bean counters with guns, most heavy work is done by civilians, they don't want heavy lubricated guns dirtying up their armory.
Now about milspec armor vs NIJ level IV. Neither one is better then the other, they are just different. NIJ levels are based on what our LEOs are likely to encounter, 44Mag is not uncommon in the US so NIJ feels the need to test for it, the US military does not because 44mag is almost completely unheard of outside the United States so our troops are unlikely to encounter it.
Same with 30.06 vs 7.62x54. 30.06 is very uncommon outside the US, but OTOH 7.62x54 is very common, it's used in the PKM, and other Warsaw block weapons. Now while 30.06 used in the NIJ is slightly more powerful, the NIJ test only calls for a single show against an example of armor, while the milspec SAPI test requires the same plate to be shot three times.
Now you've said that I don't question the Army. Yes I do, I question a lot of it's practices, it's just that body armor, and small arms isn't one of them. Few people I know have been killed or injured by small arms, or have gotten into any huge gun fights in the last couple of years. They've all been blown up (exception being two heart attacks, WTF mate). You can't put enough body armor to protect a person from being blown by the warheads used in IEDs.
In fact if I was magically put in charge of the Army today, I would only make one major change regarding small arms, and that is make the Magpul Pmag the official Army issue mag.
@PPGMD Again I just let to see our guys get the best stuff. But I would point out that the Military Channel ran down the top ten combat rifles, guess which was number 1, the AK 47, the M16 is number 2 which suggests that its not just my opinion but that of many expects. As for the IMD killing people as I said the Marine report said that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was ineffective and had it been effective it would have saved their lives. The AK74 made it even better. It seems like even the military channel states that everything about the guy is excellent except accuracy as I said but given its fire rate I'm pretty sure that is ok. So again there you go its not just me.
@(Unverified)
Best stuff for what? The best stuff for maneuver warfare, may not be the best weapon for a static defensive position. There is no single best item, you have to pick what is best for the broadest range of conditions you are likely to encounter. As far as the Military Channel, it's good for entertainment, but it's not a scientific study.
As far as USMC report, you are twisting the results. First the number is 42%, second in the cases studied not a single result was the Interceptor penetrated by enemy fire, instead they were hit in areas that Interceptor didn't cover. Since then the Army and the Marines have field side plates, bicep, neck, and groin protection. Dragonskin would not have prevented those deaths either, unless the purchasers specifies those to be added to the package, and to uses the larger Dragonskin insert.
But again you have to balance coverage and weight the changes that added coverage dramatically increased it weight, and in dismounted operations like Afghanistan (and even in Iraq) the soldiers are complaining that it hampers their ability to chase after enemy forces.
The dummy looks like Jean-Luc Picard!!!