I hate to pop any bubbles, but the truth is Dragonskin has
several dangerous defects that make it currently unsuitable for
guntwork.
The extra weight of the vest aside, the problem is that while
Dragonskin works at advertised as new vest, the protection of the
vest starts to degrade under conditions like heat, moisture, and
extended wear which are exactly the conditions you find in grunt
work. This is because the scale-layout renders the materials it
more vulnerable then the traditional plate design to being degraded
by external factors.
So while the armour might provide better protection at first, over
time it because quite unreliable... which was one of the main
reasons why it was rejected.
Not that the concept is unsound, but it needs working on before we
push grunts into the field with armour that is not only heavier,
but less reliable.
The recent controversy over Dragon Skin body armor has raised
far more questions than answers. In one sense, it shows that the
Army is serious about getting its troops the best armor available.
In another sense, it shows how the media can royally get things
wrong and in getting it wrong can get troops killed. How? Because
they can create the impression that something is effective, when it
really isn't.
The Dragon Skin armor was intended to provide better all-around
protection against incoming fire. One problem with most protective
vests is that there are places where the protective ceramic plates
for the Interceptor armor currently in service don't extend. This
has caused the deaths of policemen in the U.S. and military
personnel overseas. Dragon Skin was intended to provide better
protection through the use of many smaller ceramic, tiles that
overlapped, providing a flexible armor.
One American TV network broadcast material that seemed to indicate
that Dragon Skin performed better than the current Interceptor.
However, the Army has now released the results of other tests, done
by an independent lab in 2006, which showed that Dragon
Skin armor failed in a number of areas, including those concerning
high temperatures, often after one or two shots. This is not a good
thing in combat. Furthermore, the ceramic tiles have proven to be
fragile far more so than the Interceptor's ceramic
plates.
The other problem for Dragon Skin is weight: It is about 20 pounds
heavier than the 28 pound Interceptor Armor. This is not a minor
detail for the poor grunts it's a major problem. The troops also
have to carry a loaded M16 or M4 rifle, plus a number of spare
clips for that weapon (usually six, but sometimes more). If their
M16 or M4 has the M203 grenade launcher, they are carrying the
grenades for that. They also tend to carry a loaded M9 pistol, and
a couple of spare clips for that as well. Not to mention a
first-aid kit, Camelbak or canteens full of water, knife, hand
grenades (usually three or four), MRE, cans of silly string (to
find trip wires), radio, and other gear (to include notebooks,
pens, and a helmet). This could mean a soldier gets tired sooner
when wearing Dragon Skin, and more prone to heat related injuries
in hot climates. If a soldier wearing Dragon Skin is wounded, the
Dragon Skin means that there is 20 pounds more for a medic to drag
to cover.
The Army has prohibited the use of Dragon Skin by soldiers
largely due to these problems. The problem the Army now faces is
the fact that Dragon Skin has a lot of Congressional support. The
manufacturer of Dragon Skin has claimed that the Army is lying in
essence claiming the Army rigged the tests. In fact, the Army did
the tests last year at the insistence of Congress who wanted the
armor to be given a chance. Now that the armor has failed, the
manufacturer is going to the court of public opinion to overturn
the verdict of the Army, based on its tests. Now, the Army is
caught in a battle to not only save the lives of its troops, but
the reputation of those who test equipment for the troops.
