Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Privately Owned Dragon Skin Body Armor
DefenseWatch ^ | 01-14-06 | Nathaniel R. Helms

Posted on 01/15/2006 9:33:25 AM PST by Bobibutu

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 last
To: Annie5622; All
Actually this story is probably accurate.

1. The military doesn't want to be embarassed by reports that the items they just spent millions procuring are being discarded in favor of privately purchsed items;

2. Wearing of OTHER items might negatively affect troop morale - what are the soldiers who are not getting the 'private stuff' supposed to think?

3. Some JAG rocket scientist might well have warned his commanders that, if a soldier is killed while wearing something OTHER than Army-issued armor, there could be disciplinary/bad PR repercussions for the commanders who allowed them to wear the OTHER stuff (not to mention the possibility of law suits)....

This is so typically a bureaucratic story, but if you're within the bureaucracy, justifying it is very, very easy and a predictable response to the realization that they did not buy their troops the 'best stuff. After all, if you can't compare stats between those hit while wearing the private vs public stuff, they have 'deniability' of their screw-up;

Oh, and about the generals wearing the privtae stuff to 'evaluate it' - this is such a CLASSIC Orwellian military phrase that I almost spit out my drink - someone ought to ask: "But sir, doesn't it make more sense to allow the troops who are actually going into the areas where the shooting is to evaluate it instead of a bunch of (already) over-protected generals who don't go 'on patrol'?

51 posted on 01/15/2006 10:45:11 AM PST by Al Simmons ('A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user' - Theodore Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY

I would never minimize the amount of C.S. enlisted types have to put up with in the military. I've seen my share of it, firsthand.

However, I still say this story sounds bogus, or at least incorrect in many details.

This "publication" has no reason to follow standard journalistic practices like getting confirmation, naming source, etc. It's not a news organization, in the first place, but a political activism group. Nothing wrong with that, but this is not a news story. It's an unsubstantiated rumor. There's not a single fact in it that is backed up reliably.

I never liked Hackworth. I don't like the publication as it now stands, either.

Again, I want to see the orders, or directive, or policy paper. Failing that, I mark the story as bogus.


52 posted on 01/15/2006 10:45:29 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Bobibutu
The idea that their commander has the authority to say what body armor they do or don't wear is plausible.

His having the authority to revoke their death benefits is not very plausible to me.

53 posted on 01/15/2006 10:46:02 AM PST by TigersEye (All Americans should be armed and dangerous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobibutu

If this is true, it's absolutely wrong.


54 posted on 01/15/2006 10:46:45 AM PST by T. Buzzard Trueblood (left unchecked, Saddam Hussein...will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

However, I still say this story sounds bogus, or at least incorrect in many details.

Agreed. After reading more from those more knowledgeable about these "articles", it does sound like an Ad.


55 posted on 01/15/2006 10:51:56 AM PST by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY (( Terrorism is a symptom, ISLAM IS THE DISEASE!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
"There's something about this that doesn't sound right."

I agree ... especially the neat tie in with a piece of marketing from the manufacturer of Dragon Skin, stating that several generals are wearing it. If the action against soldiers using Dragon Skin is not as stated, and can be qualified with other context, then this is a coordinated piece of "push-pull" marketing.
56 posted on 01/15/2006 11:45:10 AM PST by One_who_hopes_to_know
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

good catch. it does read like pinnacle paid for this to be run.


57 posted on 01/15/2006 12:18:05 PM PST by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Calvin Locke

I remember reading a book about helicopter operations in Vietnam called "Chickenhawk". One of the pilots was killed by a bullet through the chest, he did not have a plate, neither did anyone else in the unit despite repeated requests for them. Later the author was transferred to another unit, they all had the insert plates and plenty extra lying around in boxes unused.


58 posted on 01/15/2006 12:32:44 PM PST by protest1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

What do you know about this stuff?


59 posted on 01/15/2006 1:06:23 PM PST by NoCmpromiz (Don't take life too seriously... it's not permanent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Radix

Evening Radix,
The numbers just do not add up in this case.

If nine Generals are wearing the dragon armor, then all soldiers should be allowed to wear the same.

I would like to see the names of the alleged nine Generals.

I think this may be more liberal propaganda in the making.

What party or affliation does this info-warrant officer belong to covertly?

The liberal democrats are just another form of terrorists we as Americans face.

I question also why any officer or commander would make such a statement without a regulation or directive to support why (sgli) would be denied. Maybe (AR Make It Up As We Go-100-DNC)

We will see soon that this witch's tale is just another sheehan-kennedy-kerry-durbin-klinton fear mongering intended to disrupt our soldiers morale.

RA All The Way,
NSNR-THM


60 posted on 01/15/2006 1:24:56 PM PST by No Surrender No Retreat (Xin Loi My Boy!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: No Surrender No Retreat

My son just returned from Iraq last week.

Among his baggage were some items unfamiliar to me. Turned out to be armor. I'll have to inquire about that protective gear that he had in his stuff. I was looking at it and it was quite light and sturdy. Nothing was said about shortages and I think that this is simply more BS that the media is using in order to disrupt the cause.


61 posted on 01/15/2006 1:46:19 PM PST by Radix (Welcome home 3 ID!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Bobibutu; All
Breaking News: Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin vs. Interceptor Body Armor--Fight's On

"..Hmm. So, according to Lt. Col. Maginnis (Ret.), Pinnacle Armor's SOV Flexible Body Armor/Dragon Skin isn't proven enough through science and, according to "Army Scientists", one needs to "be careful" with Dragon Skin because, again, according to "Army Scientists", "it's good for a knife fight, but we don't want to take it to Iraq because of the ballistic issues." Really. Folks, this one's about to get REALLY interesting. We're interested to see if Lt. Col. Maginnis and his "Army Scientists" can actually back up his statement. Defense Review is particularly interested in seeing their data regarding the "ballistic issues" Lt. Col. Maginnis (Ret.) mentioned.

Lt. Col. Maginnis' (Ret.) statements were challenged by Lt. Col. Roger Charles (Ret.) (Pinnacle Armor SOV/Dragon Skin flexible body armor proponent), who said "[on Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin body armor] This will not only will take that hit but will take multiple hits and the ceramic plate used in interceptor, one of the complaints from the troops in the field was that too often after one round impact, then you had a bunch of gravel basically inside the pouch.". Lt. Col. Charles (Ret.) went on to say, "[on Dragon Skin] There was an unsolicited letter from an American contractor over there who was shot eight times in the back wearing one of these that he purchased for his own use. And he did not know he had been shot until he got back and took it off and saw the bullet perforations in the canvas cover. There was no soft tissue damage so it's proven in the field that it can take multiple hits and still provide protection."

It's Lt. Col. Charles' (Ret.) opinion that the reason the U.S. Army has chosen to outfit U.S. troops with Interceptor body armor over Pinnacle Armor SOV flexible body armor/Dragon Skin is that the U.S. Army suffers from "not invented here" syndrome. "The basic reason, as hard as this may be for your audience to understand, is not invented here: Bureaucratic turf protection because the Army people that were charged with providing this ten, fifteen years ago had a program -- it produced something beginning in 1998 I believe, 1999. But it wasn't this - and they didn't want to use this because they did not claim invention of it." Lt. Col. Charles (Ret.) continues, "We were told by several independent consultants who work for the Pentagon that cannot be named because of fear of losing their jobs that this was probably the best available body armor. It's what they would take to Baghdad. They do not have any financial ties with Pinnacle Armor. We're not saying it's the best. We're saying it ought to get a fair test." .."

62 posted on 01/15/2006 3:21:09 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Radix

Evening Radis,
Congrats on your son's safe return home for Iraq.
I am glad those young men and women have the body armor for their use.

We had the old flak jackets back in my time.
I am sure this is some dem operative(s) working to undermine our great military.

I read on the FR the other day where Ted"Jabba The Gut" kennedy, once signed up four years in the US Army.

Papa joe pulled some stings and got the contract reduced to two years. Somehow "Fatboy-OldsMoSub Pilot" only served sixteen months of his enlistment.

I would like to see his 180 form a long with "peanut butter&jelly sandwich skerry's" and "code-pink murtha" as well.

Glad you son made it home safely and thanks for his service to our great country "America The Beautiful."

Sincerely,
NSNR-THM


63 posted on 01/15/2006 3:31:26 PM PST by No Surrender No Retreat (Xin Loi My Boy!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
I really hope that was just a journalistic mistake, as I don't want anyone that dumb with a gun.
64 posted on 01/15/2006 3:32:06 PM PST by DarkSavant ("Life is hilariously cruel" - Bender)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bobibutu
This story is fake and forged, but accurate.

LOL!

65 posted on 01/15/2006 7:17:24 PM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

"This story is fake and forged, but accurate."

I report - you decide! ":^)


66 posted on 01/15/2006 9:06:19 PM PST by Bobibutu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Radix

"What officer would ever issue an order that states an insurance policy would not be paid?"

One who does not know what he is talking about. I have attended briefings were officers repeated stories of soldiers being denied SGLI benefits because they were not wearing helmets or other noncompliance with SOPs at the time of death or were involved in a DUI death. It did not sound correct to me. I reviewed the statute which authorizes the SGLI program and learned that just about the only way that you can be disqualified for SGLI payments is if you are executed for a criminal offense, unrelated to your military duties, by a lawfully constituted domestic or foreign court.


67 posted on 01/17/2006 1:59:56 PM PST by Airborne1986 (Well, you can do what you want to us. But we're not going to sit here while you badmouth the U.S.A.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bobibutu
This article has more detail.
68 posted on 03/31/2006 6:20:49 PM PST by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson