Altered Uniforms

[Tonio_pr04]

Was wondering if the BDU/DCU tops with the pockets on the sleeves and velcro nametapes were altered that way or are they a brand? I'm currently deployed and I have seen several variations, some with the pockets on the front slanted and some without. Just wondering :D

[Lycurgus]

supply sends the regular cammies to somewhere and they come back "fielded out"

[Trident2010]

I'm only curious, does the Navy allow you to field personal items that you have purchased? Like dragon skin, muti-cam.

[crod2487]

dragon skin cost upwards of 10K bro. plus it doesnt work in high temp envirements. AK-47 rounds wont go thru Kevlar so I dont see what the point is unless your jumping on a grenade in room temperature.

[kklingman]

dragon skin cost upwards of 10K bro. plus it doesnt work in high temp envirements. AK-47 rounds wont go thru Kevlar so I dont see what the point is unless your jumping on a grenade in room temperature.

why doesn't it work in high temps?

[mcnary21]

It's a debatable topic. I watched a special on 60 Minutes in which they compared Dragonskin with another type of body armor. They tested each at extreme cold, room temp, and extreme heat. Dragonskin did better that the other body armor at all three temps. Even the manufacturer of the other body armor said he would wear Dragonskin before his own kind.

[kklingman]

It's a debatable topic. I watched a special on 60 Minutes in which they compared Dragonskin with another type of body armor. They tested each at extreme cold, room temp, and extreme heat. Dragonskin did better that the other body armor at all three temps. Even the manufacturer of the other body armor said he would wear Dragonskin before his own kind.

haha well it's good to know dragonskin is so reliable. but 10k?! geez.

[crod2487]

Yeah i hear claims of it being "fine" in all conditions but i hear others where the ceramic (Dragon Skin is ceramic body armor and not Kevlar) actuallys becoms mallable.

[kklingman]

Yeah i hear claims of it being "fine" in all conditions but i hear others where the ceramic (Dragon Skin is ceramic body armor and not Kevlar) actuallys becoms mallable.

where are these claims coming from?

[crod2487]

Army Refutes Dragon Skin Claims
Military.com | By Christian Lowe | May 21, 2007
The war between Pinnacle Armor and the Army went nuclear this week as NBC News claimed that Pinnacle's innovative "Dragon Skin" armor is far superior to the vest the Army currently issues to Soldiers.

The report shows test conducted by NBC that seem to prove the vest - as its proponents have claimed over the last several years - can take many more rifle shots than the Army's Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts.

But Army officials disclosed to Military.com that in a series of tests conducted by the service in May of last year, the Dragon Skin vest failed to stop bullets as well as the current Army armor. In fact, test results showed that bullets slipped through the vest as early as the second shot.

"The bottom line is that Dragon Skin by Pinnacle catastrophically failed to meet the requirement," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the head of the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based Program Executive Office Soldier, in a May 17 interview.

Pinnacle's president Murray Neal told Military.com the tests were flawed and that Army testers were unsure how to adequately evaluate his technology - which uses a series of small ceramic disk "scales" to cover the entire torso.

He called Army claims that his vests failed "a bold-faced lie" and said the service is embarrassed to admit its current armor isn't the best out there.

The Army's ESAPI is a rigid ceramic plate about 12-inches high and six inches wide. Soldiers wear front and back plates and two smaller side plates, all of which are designed to stop armor piercing AK-47 rounds found in the war zone.

The controversy went public last March when the Army issued a so-called "Safety of Use Message" that banned all store-bought armor, and specifically stated that Dragon Skin did not meet the service's requirement for ballistic protection.

At the urging of Capitol Hill, the Army bought 30 Dragon Skin vests in May of 2006 and put them through a standard "first article" test to see if the armor could hold up to the same ballistic conditions its current-issued ESAPIs must endure during certification.

According to Karl Masters, one of the Army's top ballistics experts, the Dragon Skin failed to stop a 7.62 x 63mm APM2 round on the second shot of the test.

"We ran this vest through the exact same test protocol that every ESAPI supplier goes through," Masters said. "Can you meet the ESAPI requirement or not? That's the question."

Neal argued in a release after last year's tests that Masters and another Army ballistics expert were dumbfounded by the "flexible armor system" and weren't sure where to place the shots for the test.

"Deviation from the ESAPI test protocols and procedures tool place by the selection of shot placements of APM2 rounds around the ceramics in non-rifle defeating areas," Neal said in a written statement.

But Army officials said the shots were aimed at the same areas for ESPI testing and that the first penetration would typically have been the end of the "sudden death" test.

Engineers agreed to continue with the evaluation, however, subjecting separate Dragon Skin vests to submersion in oil, salt water, extreme cold and extreme heat.

Army data shows 13 complete penetrations or unacceptable back-face deformations - where the bullet doesn't go all the way through but causes enough of a dent that it would result in serious trauma - on four failed vests.

The tests were held in mid-May at H.P. White labs, a respected ballistics testing facility in Street, Md. H.P. White is the same test lab where the Army evaluates all its armor components, preferring not to use the Army-run Aberdeen Proving Ground ranges to fend off accusations of bias.

More troubling to Army testers was the near complete delamination of the disks from the Kevlar backing within the Dragon Skin on several of the environmental tests.

After being subjected to 160-degree heat for six hours, the Dragon Skin vest failed on the first shot. X-ray photos of the vest show the disks slipped off their backing, exposing portions of the chest area without any ceramic protection.

"Certain areas of the adhesive hardened and become brittle and when that happened, they all dropped down," Brown said.

Further tests in minus-60-degree cold, immersion in oil and diesel fuel showed similar delaminations and shot failures.

Neal said the Army manipulated the x-ray photos, but admitted one vest had an adhesive "anomaly."

Perhaps the biggest Army concern is Dragon Skin's weight. An extra large vest is nearly 20 pounds heavier than the Army's current armor, though Masters admitted it did have more rifle protective coverage than issued vests.

"The Army continues to look at these types of armor," Masters admitted. "If we can ever eliminate this weight penalty, we may have an opportunity to go to gapless coverage."

The Army declined to provide details of the test failures when the controversy erupted last year, claiming operational security concerns.

But the NBC News investigation prompted officials to rethink their strategy in an effort to keep Army families from purchasing Dragon Skin vests for their loved ones in the combat zone.

"Soldiers must have confidence in their equipment when they go down range," Brown said. "They've got to know that they're wearing the best and their families have got to know that they're wearing the best."

For more information, including Army documents and Pinnacle's rebuttal, see Defense Tech.

[kklingman]

Army Refutes Dragon Skin Claims
Military.com | By Christian Lowe | May 21, 2007
The war between Pinnacle Armor and the Army went nuclear this week as NBC News claimed that Pinnacle's innovative "Dragon Skin" armor is far superior to the vest the Army currently issues to Soldiers.

The report shows test conducted by NBC that seem to prove the vest - as its proponents have claimed over the last several years - can take many more rifle shots than the Army's Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts.

But Army officials disclosed to Military.com that in a series of tests conducted by the service in May of last year, the Dragon Skin vest failed to stop bullets as well as the current Army armor. In fact, test results showed that bullets slipped through the vest as early as the second shot.

"The bottom line is that Dragon Skin by Pinnacle catastrophically failed to meet the requirement," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the head of the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based Program Executive Office Soldier, in a May 17 interview.

Pinnacle's president Murray Neal told Military.com the tests were flawed and that Army testers were unsure how to adequately evaluate his technology - which uses a series of small ceramic disk "scales" to cover the entire torso.

He called Army claims that his vests failed "a bold-faced lie" and said the service is embarrassed to admit its current armor isn't the best out there.

The Army's ESAPI is a rigid ceramic plate about 12-inches high and six inches wide. Soldiers wear front and back plates and two smaller side plates, all of which are designed to stop armor piercing AK-47 rounds found in the war zone.

The controversy went public last March when the Army issued a so-called "Safety of Use Message" that banned all store-bought armor, and specifically stated that Dragon Skin did not meet the service's requirement for ballistic protection.

At the urging of Capitol Hill, the Army bought 30 Dragon Skin vests in May of 2006 and put them through a standard "first article" test to see if the armor could hold up to the same ballistic conditions its current-issued ESAPIs must endure during certification.

According to Karl Masters, one of the Army's top ballistics experts, the Dragon Skin failed to stop a 7.62 x 63mm APM2 round on the second shot of the test.

"We ran this vest through the exact same test protocol that every ESAPI supplier goes through," Masters said. "Can you meet the ESAPI requirement or not? That's the question."

Neal argued in a release after last year's tests that Masters and another Army ballistics expert were dumbfounded by the "flexible armor system" and weren't sure where to place the shots for the test.

"Deviation from the ESAPI test protocols and procedures tool place by the selection of shot placements of APM2 rounds around the ceramics in non-rifle defeating areas," Neal said in a written statement.

But Army officials said the shots were aimed at the same areas for ESPI testing and that the first penetration would typically have been the end of the "sudden death" test.

Engineers agreed to continue with the evaluation, however, subjecting separate Dragon Skin vests to submersion in oil, salt water, extreme cold and extreme heat.

Army data shows 13 complete penetrations or unacceptable back-face deformations - where the bullet doesn't go all the way through but causes enough of a dent that it would result in serious trauma - on four failed vests.

The tests were held in mid-May at H.P. White labs, a respected ballistics testing facility in Street, Md. H.P. White is the same test lab where the Army evaluates all its armor components, preferring not to use the Army-run Aberdeen Proving Ground ranges to fend off accusations of bias.

More troubling to Army testers was the near complete delamination of the disks from the Kevlar backing within the Dragon Skin on several of the environmental tests.

After being subjected to 160-degree heat for six hours, the Dragon Skin vest failed on the first shot. X-ray photos of the vest show the disks slipped off their backing, exposing portions of the chest area without any ceramic protection.

"Certain areas of the adhesive hardened and become brittle and when that happened, they all dropped down," Brown said.

Further tests in minus-60-degree cold, immersion in oil and diesel fuel showed similar delaminations and shot failures.

Neal said the Army manipulated the x-ray photos, but admitted one vest had an adhesive "anomaly."

Perhaps the biggest Army concern is Dragon Skin's weight. An extra large vest is nearly 20 pounds heavier than the Army's current armor, though Masters admitted it did have more rifle protective coverage than issued vests.

"The Army continues to look at these types of armor," Masters admitted. "If we can ever eliminate this weight penalty, we may have an opportunity to go to gapless coverage."

The Army declined to provide details of the test failures when the controversy erupted last year, claiming operational security concerns.

But the NBC News investigation prompted officials to rethink their strategy in an effort to keep Army families from purchasing Dragon Skin vests for their loved ones in the combat zone.

"Soldiers must have confidence in their equipment when they go down range," Brown said. "They've got to know that they're wearing the best and their families have got to know that they're wearing the best."

For more information, including Army documents and Pinnacle's rebuttal, see Defense Tech.


have the Marines banned dragonskin as well?

[Nihilo]

When they had Dragon Skin on "future weapons" it seem to be passing all the test they threw at it..even surviving the full force of a grenade and not piercing the other side.

[kklingman]

When they had Dragon Skin on "future weapons" it seem to be passing all the test they threw at it..even surviving the full force of a grenade and not piercing the other side.

yup. they should have submersed it in oil though and all that other crap that the Army supposedly did. Then we would know for sure if it works in any condition.

[TheProfessor]

I'm only curious, does the Navy allow you to field personal items that you have purchased? Like dragon skin, muti-cam.

I read this thread with some interest and wonder if the entire thread is moot due to the fact that I have first hand information that certain commands are forbidding their people from wearing personal body armor.

There are several police organizations here stateside that are sending used body armor over to the troops for supplemental use, up armoring, etc. Today, I have learned via telephone from Kuwait that troops are being forbidden to wear personal body armor under their BDU's in Kuwait.

The sailor was tasked to travel 90 minutes plus outside the wire to an area within 10 miles of the Iraqi border and was ordered to be under arms. A Sr. Chief noted his personal body armor under his BDU and told him, "take it off because you look stupid."

Is this what the Navy has come to?

By the way, the sailor was a member of BUD/s class #259 but DOR'ed during Hell Week.

Does anyone know Navy Regs on this subject? It sounds like chicken $h!t to me.

Regards,
BT

[Courtenay]

So, he is a sailor/corpsman with a Marine Corps unit I take it?

He would be under an entirely different set of "rules" if that were the case.

[TheProfessor]

Coutenay,

Actually not.

He is an IT3 with an NMCB detachment. (I won't identify which one on this list.)

BT

[pittguy]

Wow, that is a disturbing story Professor. I've heard from my buddies coming back that there were guys who actually took their armor plates out because they said they didn't want to carry it, but I've never heard of someone actually being told to take it off. "Take it off because you look stupid" is probably the worst reason I've ever heard. Sounds like something jr high girls would say to each other.

[Courtenay]

I have a couple of guys who I email with, and send packages to etc. (Not SEALs) both are allowed to use personal stuff....no problems from their bosses. One is Army, one is Navy. They said the Marines are pretty anal about only using military issue stuff but that everyone else seems pretty cool. (both said almost the exact same thing in their emails, stationed miles apart, and don't know each other, pretty funny). Anyway, sounds like your friend is working for a Chief who is anal. Too bad.

[snow85]

anyone know what the MC reg is on armor stopping repeated shots to the same area? after one, the energy from the round is dispersed and can compromise the effectiveness of the plate, but does anyone have the specs?

[snow85]

court, i saw your post. i didn't ask for the name and the manufacturer's specs. i asked for the mil specs and i asked for a reason.

[SeaSpectre]

The mil specs would be classified. We wouldn't to give the baddies anything to chew on.

[snow85]

ah, okay, thanks sea. for some reason i thought they were public info and i just couldn't find much about them.