Dragon skin body armor what do you think?

[dejawolf]

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,78927,00.html

[GH_Lieste]

One thing I notice, for all the 'tests' is the extremely short ranges used. This is likely to suggest higher protection than is actually offered, as most small arms, and indeed larger calibre weapons do not demonstrate maximum penetration at the muzzle.

7.62mm AP rounds perform best at a relatively long range of 200-600m depending on source, with noticeably poorer penetration at urban ranges. (<50m)

When reading the test notes I seem to remember thinking that Dragon-skin's tests were for very short ranges, and the thought did occur that at a longer range it may not be quite so impressive.

[outontheop]

I'm still not seeing anything quantitative in that article, just a bunch of hyperbole and propaganda. Not to mention it is clearly written by a biased source that takes every opportunity to throw negative connotation on opponents to Dragon Skin. When an article mentions "Interceptor armor is primarily produced by two giant companies, Armor Holdings Corporation, the current darling of the Defense Department that has more government contracts than a junk yard dog has fleas", they are adding needless hyperbole designed to influence the attitude of the reader, regardless of facts. Is the fact the company has lots of contracts really a bad thing? Maybe they have lots of contracts because they make good products. What makes them the 'darling of the Defense Department'? The opinion of the reporter? That is such an subjective argument it's laughable.

When a report describes M80 ball as "steel-jacketed rounds at 2850-2900 fps" when M80 ball are in fact gilding metal (copper alloy) jacketed, with a lead antimony slug, the report looses a lot of credibility. They then go on to claim the Dragon Skin can defeat M2 AP (which perhaps it can, perhaps it cannot), and further state flatly that IBA cannot defeat M2 AP- which, in fact, it can. The article states that "The basic Interceptor... wearer receives far less protection, ballistics information provided by both the manufacturers and the U.S. Army showed". Which is entirely not true. Whether Dragon Skin does or does not provide better protection, the stated results of the Army tests were that it did NOT offer superior protection. "Conspiracy theories" aside, the Army did NOT say Dragon Scale was better. Why is the article lying about what the Army said? Three erroneous facts in less than a paragraph. Credibility= 0

"The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. An operator working for a private security contractor dressed in Dragon Skin survived a firefight he claims he would have died in wearing any other armor." Proof in the pudding? How is one person's subjective opinion proof of anything? How does he know he would have died in another armor? One security contractor's opinion is not the same as a qualitative fact. He may well have honestly BELIEVED what he said, but that's not the same as scientific testing backing it up. More hyperbole. He claims that he was saved because he was hit in an area that normal plates don't cover- which I find difficult to believe, as, according to the NIJ and Army reports I've read, Dragon skin (at the same overall weight and protection level) covers the same 10x12 inch area as IBA ESAPI: NIJ test results indicated the weight of 2 10x12 inch level III Dragon Skin panels was 11 lbs. 2 10x12 inch Level IV ESAPI weigh 10.9 pounds. Maybe the Dragon Skin armor this guy was wearing had "better coverage", but if so, it also must've weighed commensurately more, and the last thing we need is heavier armor.

The article then attempts again to deflect the point with yet more hyperbole about how much money and how many contracts Point Blank and DHB has. What does that have to do with the quality of the product? It's just a play on the mass opinion of big business=bad.

I see no objective proof anywhere in that article that support's Dragon Skin's superiority. Only a whole lot of hyperbole, insistence, and attempts to baffle the readers with subjective anecdotes like "well, 9 Generals and Secret Service wear it, so it must be better". Maybe 9 Generals and Secret Service wear it because they want something more comfortable, rather than more effective. Maybe because (particularly in USSS case) they want something concealable under clothes. Are the USSS agents wearing the tactical stuff in a battlefield situation, or are they wearing concealed class II or III armor? Just because it's "Dragon Skin" doesn't mean it's the same armor, used for the same purpose, as the military wants. And even if they are wearing it, doesn't make it better. Once again, just because someone BELIEVES it is better, does not mean it is. An opinion is not proof, and opinion-based statements are all that this article presents.

[dejawolf]

here's some more:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003509.html

[dejawolf]

here's a forum thread cutting dragonskin to pieces.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=112258

with a link to this less biased source:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18790506/

[outontheop]

Army PM Soldier Powerpoint debrief on the Dragon Skin testing: http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/dragon_skin.pdf

Video of Dragon Skin catastrophically failing ballistic testing:

...now, ASSUMING that Dragon Skin DID perform as advertised (by Pinnacle, that is), you're getting comparable protection (after all, if it stops .30-06 AP M2 it stops anything short of .50 cal, so minor differences above AP M2 are purely academic), over 3% more surface area, in exchange for 70% more weight and 40% more bulk. Not exactly a good trade.

Edit: Just noticed that the Dragon Skin failures were NOT just on the extreme temperature tests; it failed the very first test cycle, which was ambient temperature (by US Army standards 67-70F)

Edited January 11, 2009 by outontheop

[outontheop]

Not sure I trust the reporter himself (edit: that's a silly comment, I don't trust ANY reporters), but there's some good info straight from PEO Soldier on some of the errors with the NBC test and the "claims" they make:

http://www.livevideo.com/video/AlreadyKnownAs/A1E67287BE3F48DBB795038D6F58EC46/emotional-terrorism.aspx

[dejawolf]

ok. have you found any videos showing the "additional angles" ?

i guess i agree that paying 5 times what you do for interceptor for marginally better coverage, and similar protection is probably a bit.. stupid.

[outontheop]

The additional shot angles, or additional camera angles? Haven't found much of either, to be honest.

... there IS a failure in the US Army system pointed out by the whole rigamarole- they're not very good at getting their side of the story out.

I suspect I WON'T find them, though. I imagine the test results for both the ESAPI and Dragon Skin were originally classified. I think the Army finally released what videos it did because it got to the point where the only way to effectively combat all the hype around Dragon Skin was to release the test results. Pinnacle armor made a bunch of flashy videos showing their armor getting hosed with light-caliber fire. Most of the videos didn't show the behind-armor effects, just the impacts themself. For all we know, Pinnacle had to make 3 videos before they got the ONE they wanted to show. That's marketing. But, truth is, John Q Public sees a flashy video of a vest taking hits, accompanied by a narrator proclaiming "it's better than the Army standard!", and poor Johny Q doesn't think about the fact that he's watching a new-production vest with no wear-and-tear or environmental condition testing taking 9mm MP5 rounds that the IBA will stop WITHOUT the plate inserts. Johny Q just cares that it looks cool, and accepts the narrator's insistence at face value.

It's like why so many people think the 7.62x39mm of the AK47 is more lethal than the 5.56x45mm of NATO. Testing shows it's not true. Raw physical data shows that the 5.56mm delivers more joules to the target, AND delivers a higher percentage of that INTO the target instead of downrange, beyond the target. But Hollywood movies and urban myths propagate the fallacy. How many Johny Qs honestly believe that a 12 gauge shotgun is more lethal on the battlefield than an M16 because of all the action movies they've seen? It's complete bollocks, of course, but people will believe it.

[ChuikovChambered]

Posted by outonthetop

It's like why so many people think the 7.62x39mm of the AK47 is more lethal than the 5.56x45mm of NATO. Testing shows it's not true. Raw physical data shows that the 5.56mm delivers more joules to the target, AND delivers a higher percentage of that INTO the target instead of downrange, beyond the target.

At what distance? IIRC, 7.62x39 starts losing velocity at 400 meters. Keep in mind that the 7.62x39 was not meant for ranges much beyond 300 meters, and that it's designed to tumble in the body to produce a much larger wound cavity. There's more than just KE at work when a bullet hits someone.

Posted by outonthetop

How many Johny Qs honestly believe that a 12 gauge shotgun is more lethal on the battlefield than an M16 because of all the action movies they've seen? It's complete bollocks, of course, but people will believe it.

I don't think so:

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/VG1.html

Read about the shotguns, and pay close attention to the fact that the less powerful 20 gauge has the rough kinetic force of 2 .44 Magnum bullets. With a typical .44 Magnum KE at 2,032 Joules, a typical 5.56 round at 1,796 Joules, and considering that combat in Iraq is likely to be CQB, you can draw your own conclusions. This will change and you'd be right when and if the battle became a longer range fight. And outonthetop, I've learned a lot from this thread. I've learned that there's much more to a bullet resistant vest than just its protection level. There's also its toughness, resistance to wear, weathering, and so many other factors. (How to say this without pissing everyone off:decu:) So please don't ruin it for me and others by running your mouth.

[Ssnake]

Guys, there are so many places on the interweb where people discuss small arms and ballistic jelly and wound cavities (and Dragonskin too!) that I just don't see the point of having another one of these rather pointless debates over here.

[12Alfa]

WTF!!!:confused: We use it for ranges greater than that either mounted (co-ax) and ground mounted. It is a effective wpn beyond the 300 m range, check your data !! Maybe you should ask the people using the ammo/wpn and not taking the internet as the facts

So please don't ruin it for me and others by running your mouth.

Not bad advice, you should follow as well as give i think:cul:

[ChuikovChambered]

Not bad advice, you should follow as well as give i think:cul:

Uh, in the first comment in your quote of me, are you talking about 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 NATO? Also, the 300 meter range was in reference to the 7.62x39 being fired from the AK-47.

Maybe I should stop running my mouth, but there always seems to be times when it's necessary, and when I do, I'm the only one who catches flak for it, while others (see if you can find others running their mouths in this thread other than me) get away with it.

[12Alfa]

Uh, in the first comment in your quote of me, are you talking about 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 NATO? Also, the 300 meter range was in reference to the 7.62x39 being fired from the AK-47.

it does not matter what .X. The round will carry it's mass further than 300m.

It will still penetrate a body beyond the 300m +, that's my point.

I myself would not be within 2000m of any 7.62 round pointed towards me, even then I still would wet myself:shocked:.

If your talking about penetration power, then range will matter, but for people it's a mute point I think.

[GH_Lieste]

And as mentioned 'somewhere' recently...

Just because a vest protects at 10m, doesn't mean that it will stop the same round fired from the same weapon at 200m, or 500m.

Many rounds are highly unstable near the muzzle, and don't settle for many 100s of meters. I get a distinct impression that a lot of the hype uses the assumption that closer = more dangerous to inflate the protection values of their products beyond what is reasonable.

As to whether that is ok-ish... well most body armour used by police/special forces is intended for close range/room clearance work, where the actual performance is more or less as claimed. While much of the fighting in Iraq is short range ambushes or urban operations this is still reasonably true, but I wonder how 'poorly' the armour will perform if it is asked to protect against these same weapons in open field at 300+m

[Ssnake]

Clearly, army procurement needs to take into account many more variables than those that may eventually have been demonstrated by Pinnacle to show the superiority of their product, if we're taking their words at face value.

I doubt that this thread will yield newsworthy conclusions beyond this point; somehow I suspected this earlier already.

[outontheop]

As to shotgun rounds being powerful... yes, but only for about 30 meters. And they're almost universally unjacketed lead slugs with a very large surface area, so even level II armor will usually absorb them. That said, I wouldn't want to be hit with one at spitting distance, but for combat use you need something effective further than 30-50 meters.

7.62x39 loosing velocity? Well, like any round, it loses velocity as soon as it comes out the barrel (actually, that's not true, it's still accellerating for a foot or so BEYOND the barrel, as the gasses exiting the muzzle behind it under high pressure are actually flowing past it faster than the bullet is traveling, but that's pretty much academic. Not much acceleration there). Anyhow, the 7.62x39mm is truly only effective out to 200-300 meters. Unfortunately, 7.62x39mm bullets have a short, stubby design, which means that they have an AWFUL ballistic coefficient (BC is a measurement of how aerodynamic the bullet is). They loose velocity much more rapidly than 7.62x51 or 5.56x45, which have narrower, longer, more aerodynamic bullets. The shorter, stubbier bullet means they also destabilize faster- the bullet begins gyrating, no longer traveling with the nose pointing directly into the direction of travel. Usually this becomes REALLY apparent when a bullet transitions through transonic flight (going from supersonic to subsonic), which in the 7.62x39 is around 400 meters, but the short bullet design makes it happen sooner and worse than most bullets. Since 7.62x39 is so ballistically inefficient, the 5.56x45 actually retains more energy beyond 100 meters (in nominal conditions, it passes 7.62x39 somewhere around 95-97 meters out). Of course, 7.62x39 only starts out with some 8-9% better energy at the muzzle anyhow...

As to range vs penetration, yes, the wobble has a little to do with it, but the off-axis angle out the muzzle is only going to be a few degrees. It does contribute to the "better penetration at longer ranges" phenomenon, but much of it is due to bullet fragmentation and is primarily seen in high-velocity bullets like 5.56x45 fired at thick, low density targets- like tree trunks, dirt, or sandbags. Against a thin, hard target like a steel sheet or armor panel, it's much less pronounced. Essentially, at very close distances, the shot hits with such high velocity that the bullet shatters even in soft materials, rapidly dissipating it's kinetic energy into the material. That same bullet will do the same thing in flesh at impact velocities of 2700+ feet per second, making 5.56x45mm actually MORE lethal than 7.62x51mm against unarmored targets at ranges from muzzle-200 meters, depending on rifle used. M16A4 and other long-barrel rifles have higher muzzle velocity, and attendent increased lethality, compared to the new sexy carbines like M4 or G36C. (Incidentally, at 2500-2700 FPS impact velocity, 5.56x45 tends to break into two main pieces). Now, at longer ranges, the bullet is traveling slower, and won't break up on impact, so it maintains its mass (and energy), allowing it to travel further through the target. ...I wish I could find the Army-published table I had seen years ago that showed how many inches 5.56 and 7.62 would penetrate of various substances (I know sand, dirt, steel, and wood were listed) at different ranges. With wood in particular, it was quite dramatically shorter at close ranges. I'll see if I can find the table

7.62x39, as I mentioned, has a short, stubby round, travelling much slower, so when it hits and tumbles in the target, it has a lot less lateral force acting on the bullet, and almost never comes apart. If I recall correctly, most Warsaw Pact bullets were an iron or steel core instead of lead, and are therefore less resistant to breaking up, as well. Soviet 5.45x39 is a much longer, narrower projectile than 7.62x39, and has exterior (flight) ballistics similar to the 5.56x45, but terminal effects like the 7.62x39- it does not fragment like 5.56x45 (again, I believe it is steel core, not lead core, and therefore resists fragmentation).

[12Alfa]

Very interesting, the fact that one can not stand in front of the 7.62 at ranges over 300m is still true.

I have fired 7.62 (NATO) at ranges of 500-600m at targets held up with 2x4's and if struck will pass through the wood. Therefor I will assume that it would pass through a person with ease, except for those thick headed individuals:cul:.

[outontheop]

yes, but I was talking about 7.62x39 at 300 meters, not 7.62x51. The 7.62x51 stays supersonic (depending on bullet type) out to 800-1000 meters. For competition long range shooting I use a 174 gr bullet good to 1000, 800 meters or less I tend to a 168gr HPBT. The military ball load is good to 700 or so, but looses accuracy pretty bad after that. Still maintains a good deal of energy, though. With any of them, a hit on a 6-inch target at 600 meters is not difficult (unless it's windy!)

Interestingly, the 5.56x45 actually penetrates those (relatively) thin, hard targets like helmets and body armor further than the 7.62x51mm does. 5.56 penetrates the old steel pot helmets at 1350 meters, 7.62x51 does out to 800 meters (performance from shot to shot differs, of course- that's averages). The big difference is against those thick, low density targets like wood, cinderblock, sand... against them, the heavier, slower 7.62 maintains mass and inertia better, so it penetrates better.

But you're right, I wouldn't want to be shot at with either one.

....but then, I wouldn't want to be shot at with a .22 LR, either!

[andym]

And that is WHY we british invented the TANK!:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin: