Posted on 01/19/2006 7:05:05 AM PST by Jason_b
Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.
The soldiers asked for anonymity because they are concerned they will face retaliation for going public with the Army's apparently new directive. At the sources' requests DefenseWatch has also agreed not to reveal the unit at which the incident occured for operational security reasons.
On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that "all" commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.
"We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) is heavy, but it is made so we have mobility and the best ballistic protection out there. This is crazy. And they are threatening us with our benefits if we don't comply." he said.
The soldier reiterated Friday's reports that any soldier who refused to comply with the order and was subsequently killed in action "could" be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy as well as face disciplinary action.
As of this report Saturday morning the Army has not yet responded to a DefenseWatch inquiry.
Recently Dragon Skin became an item of contention between proponents of the Interceptor OTV body armor generally issued to all service members deploying in combat theaters and its growing legion of critics. Critics of the Interceptor OTV system say it is ineffective and inferior to Dragon Skin, as well as several other commercially available body armor systems on the market. Last week DefenseWatch released a secret Marine Corps report that determined 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 more effective. The Army has declined to comment on the report because doing so could aid the enemy, an Army spokesman has repeatedly said.
A U.S. Army spokesman was not available for comment at the time DW's original report (Friday - 1700 CST) was published. DefenseWatch continues to seek a response from the Army and will post one as soon as it becomes available. Yesterday the DoD released a news story through the Armed Forces News Service that quoted Maj. Gen. Steven Speaks, the Army's director of force development, who countered critical media reports by denying that the U.S. military is behind the curve in providing appropriate force protection gear for troops deployed to Iraq and elsewhere in the global war against terrorism. The New York Tiimes and Washington Post led the bandwagon of mainstream media that capitalized on DefenseWatch's release of the Marine Corps study. Both newspapers released the forensic information the Army and Marines are unwilling to discuss.
"Those headlines entirely miss the point," Speaks said.
The effort to improve body armor "has been a programmatic effort in the case of the Army that has gone on with great intensity for the last five months," he noted.
Speaks' assessment contradicts earlier Army, Marine and DoD statements that indicated as late as last week that 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."
One of the soldiers who lost his coveted Dragon Skin is a veteran operator. He reported that his commander expressed deep regret upon issuing his orders directing him to leave his Dragon Skin body armor behind. The commander reportedly told his subordinates that he "had no choice because the orders came from very high up" and had to be enforced, the soldier said. Another soldier's story was corroborated by his mother, who helped defray the $6,000 cost of buying the Dragon Skin, she said.
The mother of the soldier, who hails from the Providence, Rhode Island area, said she helped pay for the Dragon Skin as a Christmas present because her son told her it was "so much better" than the Interceptor OTV they expected to be issued when arriving in country for a combat tour.
"He didn't want to use that other stuff," she said. "He told me that if anything happened to him I am supposed to raise hell."
At the time the orders were issued the two soldiers had already loaded their Dragon Skin body armor onto the pallets being used to air freight their gear into the operational theater, the soldiers said. They subsequently removed it pursuant to their orders.
Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. Chopra, a retired Army chief warrant officer and 20+-year pilot in the famed 160th "Nightstalkers" Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), said his company was merely told the generals wanted to "evaluate" the body armor in a combat environment. Chopra said he did not know the names of the general officers wearing the Dragon Skin.
Pinnacle claims more than 3,000 soldiers and civilians stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing Dragon Skin body armor, Chopra said. Several months ago DefenseWatch began receiving anecdotal reports from individual soldiers that they were being forced to remove all non-issue gear while in theater, including Dragon Skin body armor, boots, and various kinds of non-issue ancillary equipment.
Last year the DoD, under severe pressure from Congress, authorized a one-time $1,000 reimbursement to soldiers who had purchased civilian equipment to supplement either inadequate or unavailable equipment they needed for combat operations. At the time there was no restriction on what the soldiers could buy as long as it was specifically intended to offer personal protection or further their mission capabilities while in theater.
If this article is true, then it is outrageous to ask soldiers to go where they can be shot, and forbid them to use the better body armor that they can buy with their own money. I do hope this is exposed later to be an hoax.
But if this is no hoax, then to threaten them with possible forefeiture of their death benefits if they are killed while wearing the better body armor is crazy talk. What possible motive can there be to prevent a soldier from equiping himself with protection that might save his life, that the government won't supply, which might make a death benefit payment unnecessary? Something deeply immoral is going on here. It's like saying we will only pay your benefit if you don't try harder to avoid getting killed. Senseless, unless they have some yet undiscovered perverse incentive to both have more soldiers die and pay more death benefits!
I wonder how enlistments will proceed now when the candidates find out that that their death benefits will be held hostage to extort them to accept needless greater risks with their lives. It was supposed to be better to be in the military with President Bush in office, because he was former military himself. Help is on the way, and all that. Well, who does this help? Our enemies who want to kill more of us. Thank you.
"Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. Chopra, a retired Army chief warrant officer and 20+-year pilot in the famed 160th "Nightstalkers" Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), said his company was merely told the generals wanted to "evaluate" the body armor in a combat environment."
What kind of combat environment do the generals ever see? Do they need to know if a little red wine is spilled on the body armor, if it leaves a stain? Please don't insult us. The troops already know what the better armor is. They should be left alone to use it as they please. Did the generals buy these vests with their own money or did the taxpayers furnish them?
It's the Army way. We were told, way back, that there's a right way to do things and the Army way, and that we would do things the Army way.
The Marine Corps is now reembursing the cost for Marines who buy their own equipment from civillian companies, to include body armor.
I have a friend who is in special forces. He told me they purchase lots of their own gear.
I wonder if this story is true.
What would the family be told? Yes, he was killed in combat, but you don't get his death benefit because he was not wearing the correct body armor?
There would have to be a paper trail for thiese orders if benefits are denied for such a silly thing, and the families would litigate fiercely.
I suspect that this is a hoax, there are many elements that do not make sense, and it includes too many factors that block verification or even investigation.
That policy applies for the entire DOD, as well.
The Army has been reimbursing soldiers for gear and armor, but they seem to have a problem with this particular armor.
Defense Review article on 'Dragon Skin' armor:
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=490
Website for 'Dragon Skin' armor:
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/sov.php
I'm not buying it.
I suspect as much, too. "Soldiers for the Truth"????
Probably in parts. But it has the typical "breathless outrage" tone that makes me think somebody's trying to score political points with it.
Been there. Done that. Sad, but true.
I hear ya. :-)
Sounds like a CYA, in case some troops buy inferior armor and it fails.
<< Inspired by the outspoken idealism of retired Colonel David Hackworth >>
given how many times 'pinnacle' and 'dragon skin' are mentioned in the article, it reads like an infomercial, along with the 19 anonymous generals using the product.
Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Privately Owned Dragon Skin Body Armor
So from this I extrapolate that if a soldier succumbs to the enemy while wearing tighty whities instead of reg boxers, the family won't get his death benefit?
Ridiculous.
Soldiers For The Truth carries on the campaign of our founder, Col. David H. Hackworth (Ret.) - one of America's greatest heroes - to educate our country's citizens on the need to give a voice to our serving sons and daughters and to demand that they receive:
- Equipment superior to the best an enemy can employ against them;
- Training that fully prepares them to succeed in all assigned missions;
- Leadership dedicated to selfless service and the timeless values of
From the group's website comments page:
First, I have a question for you. Are you or the two Soldiers you talk about in the first paragraph of your [piece] alleging they are members of a special operations unit? I assume the third Soldier you mention in paragraph three alleges [he is] in a SOF unit because he talks about a message that allegedly came from USSOCOM headquarters last week. I just need a little clarification. Thanks.
I have not found any directive that went out of USSOCOM headquarters last week that addressed the subject of body armor, much less prohibited the use of commercial body armor. Neither can I find where there was any statement made about service members losing their SGLI death benefits if they are wearing commercial body armor at the time of their death.
Additionally, for your information, Special Operations Forces do not use the Interceptor OTV body armor that you discussed in the DefenseWatch piece. Special Operations Forces use the Body Armor Load Carriage System (BALCS).
Respectfully,
Ken McGraw
Deputy Public Affairs Officer
US Special Operations Command
Would it not be that 100% would have been saved if the body armor was more effective?
"I wonder if this story is true."
Doubt it.
It has been circulating for at least 5 days now, and if there were even a shred of truth in it, every Democrat you see on teevee would be trumpeting it.
A possible rationale for such a restriction might relate to the contract the military has with its supplier.
I work for another government agency and we are restricted to buying inferior products at above market prices because of contracts with specified suppliers.
The reasons why we should have such contracts are never adequately explained.
Thanks all for the replies. Looks like I got excited over nothing. Glad I covered my "a" with "if this article is true" before I released it. I did have my doubts too.
If you are KIA, how much will it bother you to then face disiplinary action?
If this is true than there should be some perfumed princes hanging from yardarms most rickey tic.
imo
Where did you get that? I didn't see a forbid....I saw a choose your own armor, lose our death bene.....soldier's choice.
This whole thing sounds like a way to gin up indignation (read bu$ine$$) for Dragon Skin©
notice how they have that "©" everywhere in the "article."
OK. This is a hoax. Time to put it to rest and not post any more of these stories. Anything associated with Hackworth and his toadies should be taken as bogus.
Which is prima facie evidence for a hoax as any responsible source would forgo publication without SOME means of corroboration.
If I was a medic in that unit I would sure make sure to take out my heavy shears and cut any unauthorized armor off my guys before I sent them home..
Real leaders find a way around the Army's B.S. and do the right thing for their guys...
Same as any industry. Special lower pricing for guaranteed volume. Very simple, and not a conspiracy.
The study found that 20% were either head shots or catastrophic injuries (from IEDs for example) that would probably have been fatal regardless of the type or configuration of body armor.
Body armor can't save you if a bomb goes off 10 feet away from you.
I suspect this is a hoax.
Maybe if you were to offer a vest to the first US Soldier to respond, you would find out whether or not it is true?
That would be a no-lose situation. If you get a hit, you get to help a soldier. If they come back saying they can't use them, you confirm the story.
That was my thought. Pure promotion.
"(2) Description. Brassieres and underpants may be of a commercial design, in white, black, or other neutral colors that are not readily apparent when worn under the uniform. The category of brassieres also includes sports bras."
I remember when Hi-Tech boots came out and loads of leg-infantry bought 'em and got busted for violating AR670-1, even though the boots were more comfortable and one could walk for longer distances......and they closely resembled the jungle-boots we were issued. They were not issued, end of story.
AND, the problem with body armor in Iraq is ballistic IED deaths and this armor does nothing to better protect against that (though something is in the works). Even the older kevlar vest we wore could stop an AK round. This armor claims and shows they can stop multiple rounds, but that's not what's killing our boys over there.
" but that's not what's killing our boys over there."
I suppose you mean "bombs." No question about protective material stopping that!
Actually, the part you quoted about underwear didn't look at all specific to me. I just know my veteran hubster said he dislikes boxers ever since having to wear them in the Navy. I imagine there are many very good reasons for troops to be outfitted in 'Army issue.' I wasn't arguing that point.
The larger problem here is the fraccas Hillary will make of it. There was just a piece out about her flapping her gums over the 'lack of protective gear' being a disgrace.
Funny thing is, I know troops who don't wear it because it's too heavy!
BTTT - to watch and learn
I know the guy in charge of Socom. He is the most soldier concerned, family oriented, nation loving commander I ever had the pleasure to deal with.
If he says the outside armor is a bad idea, then it is a bad idea. He has more battle ribbons and experience than MacDonald's has hamburgers.
I'm telling you all...do not 2nd guess him.
I read a very informative article the other day about soldiers REJECTING more body armor in Iraq for specific reasons: (1) The extra weight (2) the loss of mobility (3) the loss of peripheral awareness (4) lack of under and side protection in IED type attacks. (5) the extreme heat with additional weight (6) the weight/ammo tradeoff
The sum of these troops was that battlefield armor in medieval Europe had its day, and its uses, but that TOO MUCH of it was found to be a bad idea.
It sounds like some minor CPT or LT got jealous because the troops were wearing the best on the market and he didn't have it.
(2) Description. Brassieres and underpants may be of a commercial design, in white, black, or other neutral colors that are not readily apparent when worn under the uniform. The category of brassieres also includes sports bras."
You go bying chartreuse or magenta underwear and Sarge is gonna put a boot in your arse. Commercial underwear (not issued) is OK...even spandex shorts...so long as they are neutral in color and cannot be seen. I don't remember ANYONE wearing the issued brown underwear, but we had to have 6 pairs for inspections.
This Dragon Skin does no better against the #1 killer of our boys (IEDs) than what they already have. Maybe their level IV armor will be better in this aspect and they can get a fat DoD contract for it.
It sounds like I'm one of the few reg-following vets out there...
Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor
That'll be the day..........why wear the stuff in a $100,00+ up armored Suburban.
During WW-II, Wehrmacht Generals had higher fatality rates than privates. During Vietnam, only one U.S. General officer (a Navy Admiral, iirc) was killed by hostile action.
Gonna be hard to discipline the dead guy.
"You go bying chartreuse or magenta underwear and Sarge is gonna put a boot in your arse."
I thought the policy for that is "don't ask, don't tell."
;o)
Well put. As much as I like the idea of military persons having some latitude in their equipment, I agree with your sentiments. At some point, having too many variants of unsupported equipment can have a deleterious effect on unit readiness.
Imagine letting Infantrymen use whatever gun they wished, even if they wanted to use a WWII era MG42 from Germany. Great weapon, but...what if it breaks or runs out of it's unique ammo in a critical situation. I know it is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.
Nobody ever asked me about my flaming day-glo yellow spandex shorts I wore under my field uniform during 25+ mile roadmarches.....and I never had to tell 'em (to avoid reg-violations, I actually wore white, roommate wore day-glo yellow and never got caught...and I have a pic of a guy in the field with purple on)....ANYTHING to avoid the "rot".
The biggest problem I have with troops taking it upon themselves to buy non-issued personal outerwear is that, other than the reg-violation, it makes you an individual...something to be frowned upon.
For the record, when there was still question in my mind that this could be a legit piece, the thought that occurred to me on this point was that the $400,000 death benefit would be denied the surviving families/beneficiaries. So, with each grunt knowing he's in harms way, he has to consider how his action to wear the better vest might deprive his widow/parents of his benefit. Now that we know this isn't the case, oh well.
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.