Skip to main content

View Diary: Body armor about to hit the fan - Part I (Updated w/NBC info) (209 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks, CI - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lamzdotes

    I had heard about the M16 replacement (about 40 years overdue, from everything I've heard), but I'm not nearly as familiar with it.

    Re: Dragon Skin. Simple question, Occam's Razor-style: If Pinnacle knows Dragon Skin will fail testing, why would it be pushing for public exposure of the failure of its product? And, conversely, if the Pentagon is so sure its Interceptor is superior, why the adamant refusal to test the two systems side-by-side?

    My feeble mind can only come up with one answer that adequately addresses both of those questions.

    And no, I will not be "giddy" if it turns out that malfeasance was involved in a tragic scandal that might well have cost the lives of our soldiers. But given what is already known and what continues to be revealed on literally a daily basis about the avarice, malfeasance, mendacity and pure, flat evil of so many people involved with the current administration and its henchmen and cronies, seeing any of them held to account for their wrongdoing will be a great pleasure and relief. I make no apologies for that.

    And thank you for your service, and for your firsthand feedback about the performance of the Interceptor SAPI and ESAPI plates.

    Do you have a link to the issue of Dragon Skin disc migration?

    As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas

    by occams hatchet on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:14:25 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the reply... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      occams hatchet

      Re: Dragon Skin. Simple question, Occam's Razor-style: If Pinnacle knows Dragon Skin will fail testing, why would it be pushing for public exposure of the failure of its product?

      I think this has something to do with exactly HOW they were tested.  Pinnacle did one thing... it passed, then the Army tested it (maybe from a different angle) and it failed.  Once that happens, why bother?  They already have a fully functional vest.  Do I know the details... no.  See there is a huge issue with exposing the results/methods of armor testing.  They, and so do I, want the exact strengths and weaknesses to be a secret from our enemies. (though they are pretty well figuring it out).  I read about this a lot my last trip... I'll try to look for the sources where I got the info.  I know some of it was a military/LEO only forum.  

      You have a good point though.  The problem I have is when asked for more vests to test, pinnacle said NO, waiving their test results as proof of their superiority.  Then they wanted a whole list of conditions on how they would be tested.  That makes me suspicious.  I know the IBA works.

      And, conversely, if the Pentagon is so sure its Interceptor is superior, why the adamant refusal to test the two systems side-by-side?

       Like I said, they did, dragon skin failed.  Pinnacle screamed foul, the Army asked for more vests, Pinnacle said no and/or wanted to dictate exactly how they would be tested.  It doesn't work that way.

      As a last point, sometimes better is not always "better".  When your talking about managing equipment for hundreds of thousands of soldiers, you look at what works the best, most of the time, is the simplest, is easy to maintain, and most resistent to bad weather, dirty conditions and poor maintainence by tired/worn out soldiers.  Most soldiers have confidence in the IBA/E-SAPPI.  I can see whey the USMC would get bent out of shape if a marine was doing a national media drive to raise funds to buy armor.  That gives the "regular" guy/gal citizen on the street the idea that the military is not equiping their soldiers with adequate body armor.  That is simply not true.

      let me go work on finding some of that info for you.

      "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."- Vegetius

      by Captain Infidel on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:55:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Correction (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        occams hatchet, lamzdotes

        Like I said, they did, dragon skin failed.  Pinnacle screamed foul, the Army asked for more vests, Pinnacle said no and/or wanted to dictate exactly how they would be tested.  

        All of the above happened at one time or another... I am confusing the order and retract these statements (in this or any other post in this thread) in the interest of being fair and honest.  Like I said earlier, I stopped reading about this almost a year ago.  the more I reread the more I realize the order of events were wrong.  I apologize.

        I wish the DOD would just retest the dang vests.  It doesn't mean they have to immediately spend billions to replace all IBA/E-SAPPI plates (which DO work)...

        "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."- Vegetius

        by Captain Infidel on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:12:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for your thoughtful input, CI. (0+ / 0-)

        Respectfully, you wrote:

        As a last point, sometimes better is not always "better".  When your talking about managing equipment for hundreds of thousands of soldiers, you look at what works the best, most of the time, is the simplest, is easy to maintain, and most resistent to bad weather, dirty conditions and poor maintainence by tired/worn out soldiers

        I would like to believe those criteria were ALWAYS what the Pentagon went by when making procurement decisions. But, as we all know, they're not: M16, V-22 Osprey, B-1, etc., etc. (The next installment deals with this question.) My point is, what are the true criteria for body armor testing, and why? I mean, the best Allied fighter of WWII, the P-51, had (like other single-engine fighters of its day) a nasty tendency to torque the shit out of itself on takeoff or landing and flip over. Was that reason to scrap it in favor of the twin-engine P-38? Hell, no; you just learned to deal with it.

        If, in fact, it turns out that Dragon Skin experiences failure under extreme conditions but otherwise vastly outperforms Interceptor, then what? Can we say, look, don't put your Dragon Skin in a fire? Can we compensate somehow for somewhat reduced reliability in extreme conditions? I don't know. I hope we shall have an opportunity to answer those questions if the need arises.

        As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas

        by occams hatchet on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:21:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  True... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          occams hatchet

          I think that a lot of the time, they stick with what is comfortable for them.  They go with something that is proven, that they know works (like the IBA or M-4) instead of trying something new like the Dragon Skin, M-8 or H&K 416.

          I also think that it is reasonable to just allow people to use Dragon Skin it if they choose.

          There are lots of dumb rules.  How come I can buy a switchblade (with military/LEO ID) in like 48 states, but when I come back from a deployment with the same knife I bought legally in MD, customs takes it?  I just shake my head...

          "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."- Vegetius

          by Captain Infidel on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:24:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site