Phase one, secure the troops, phase two, secure the people
Can't have 2nd without a 1st
Ideas that might help secure our troops?
- Thread starter itwillsting
- Start date
Can't have 2nd without a 1st
All the armour in the world is'ent going to keep your troops safe, the problem with technology driven solutions to counter insurgency warfare is it concerns it self with treating symtoms and not the causes.
Force projection is a case in point, better armour, traveling at high speeds, robust rules of engagement, and up armoured humvees may have saved American lives but have lead to increased civilian causlites, which at the end of the day have feed the insurgent ranks.
Gen Petraus is at least moving in the right direction with the bagdad plan and enlisting the sunni tribes in anbar to fight Al Quada.
As he has said many times this plan will lead to higher caustiles, but it might have a chance for success, focusing on avioding insurgent attacks will not win you this war. You cant fight a counter insurgency campain by remote control. You have too get your feet dirty.
Force projection is a case in point, better armour, traveling at high speeds, robust rules of engagement, and up armoured humvees may have saved American lives but have lead to increased civilian causlites, which at the end of the day have feed the insurgent ranks.
Gen Petraus is at least moving in the right direction with the bagdad plan and enlisting the sunni tribes in anbar to fight Al Quada.
As he has said many times this plan will lead to higher caustiles, but it might have a chance for success, focusing on avioding insurgent attacks will not win you this war. You cant fight a counter insurgency campain by remote control. You have too get your feet dirty.
I have noted that the Canadians in acquiring new mine protected vehicles have gone the "Casper" look alike route which they call the Buffalo. Heavier and with more wheels, but the configuration essentially Casper as manufactured by Reumech South Africa. My congratulations guys, obviously there is some strategic thinking involved. To those who wish to negotiate IED's with Humvees all the best of luck. I'd rather walk...
Merocaine; I like your comment about getting your feet dirty. It also helps if you deploy highly ranked officers in the area to give feedback at the correct operational level. I don't think Rommel ever had to learn about true operational issues from a think tank, did he now? What also helps is that operational are shown wrecks of their own vehicles in tough introspective debriefing sessions. It certainly saved lives in trans border excursions by the SADF in Angola. Ever heard about the Rhodesian troopy who fired a 60mm Patmore through Allouete chopper blades in a moment of acute stress whilst under fire. Lucky for him the bomb only arms itself after travelling a few metres. The casevac still went home. The chopper pilot still has the tail end of the mortar bomb on his mantle piece. It just wasn’t his day. Train hard , fight easy!!
sorry I got all excited, but for me its a chicken and an egg scenario, well protected troops in vehicles suck at fighting insurgents, if your not out fighting them there laying bombs. So IMO the best way to protect your troops is to be patrolling on foot! You might suffer more casualties at first, but in the long run you will see the benefits.
An insurgency that was sucessfully combated by the French was in Algeria in the 1950's and 60's. It bears certain similarites to the war in Iraq. Large sweeps by dismounted troops were common, often taking the form of long night marches in company sized detachments and lasting for days.
By the time French pulled out the Fell were a beaten force, worn down by constant French patroling and huge search and destroy missions. The Fell were no push overs, a tough well equiped foe, containing a large number of veterans from the Algerian units who were well versed in contemperay French tactics.
Those kind of tactics ment it was hard for the Fell (insurgents) to relax, road bound troops mean its easier for the insurgents to mine routes and detect the approach of the soldiers.
Iraq is a much more urban enviroment, which obviously makes a big difference, but still for me more boots on the ground is key to both winning and protecting the troops in country. There are signs that this approach has pushed insurgents out of Bagadad and into neighbouring provances, with road side bombings declining in bagdad, but increasing in Dialyia provance. A half result...
By the time French pulled out the Fell were a beaten force, worn down by constant French patroling and huge search and destroy missions. The Fell were no push overs, a tough well equiped foe, containing a large number of veterans from the Algerian units who were well versed in contemperay French tactics.
Those kind of tactics ment it was hard for the Fell (insurgents) to relax, road bound troops mean its easier for the insurgents to mine routes and detect the approach of the soldiers.
Iraq is a much more urban enviroment, which obviously makes a big difference, but still for me more boots on the ground is key to both winning and protecting the troops in country. There are signs that this approach has pushed insurgents out of Bagadad and into neighbouring provances, with road side bombings declining in bagdad, but increasing in Dialyia provance. A half result...
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Merocaine i have to say i agree with everything you have posted in this thread. There is simply no technalogical or tactical soloution for this war, and simply equiping the CF's with better armour is not going to solve the problem one bit. Thre real lesson that should have been learned here is the corect application of force, simply killing your enemy no matter how efficently will not lead you to victory in this sort of conflict. This is not total war. Military force should only be used in order to achieve a clear political goal and in conjunction with a large political/diplomatic/economic campaign. However the somewhat tactical mineset of the US army, DoD and executive seems to prevent the US from putting together a comprehensive strategy that goes beyond killing the enemy within the battlespace. It was this exact mindset that led to the drawn out nature of the Vietnam war and its the same in Iraq.
In short the best way to protect our troops is to win the war, get the situation to an acceptable level and pull out so victory can be claimed, or just pull out now. And given the mirriad of reasons why "victory" by our definition is unatainable, IMO the longer we stay there the more young men will come home in boxes, and the only justification will be preventing a "defeat" that has been a foregone conclusion for the past 3 years.
Having said that. The people who have to fight this war should have the best protection they can get. The men on the ground now do need better armourd vehicals. But what they really need is more boots, lots more boots and extensive patrolling. The reliance on roads make CF's easy targets for IED's and since they are not out on the groud stoping insergants from planting the damn things, better armour will not solve the problem.
In short the best way to protect our troops is to win the war, get the situation to an acceptable level and pull out so victory can be claimed, or just pull out now. And given the mirriad of reasons why "victory" by our definition is unatainable, IMO the longer we stay there the more young men will come home in boxes, and the only justification will be preventing a "defeat" that has been a foregone conclusion for the past 3 years.
Having said that. The people who have to fight this war should have the best protection they can get. The men on the ground now do need better armourd vehicals. But what they really need is more boots, lots more boots and extensive patrolling. The reliance on roads make CF's easy targets for IED's and since they are not out on the groud stoping insergants from planting the damn things, better armour will not solve the problem.
Well put.
We were fighting a "war on terror," something that needs to be confronted. The "war on terror," didn't define victory or set the lines for our defeat. However, when we just shifted to the "Gulf War 2," "War on Iraq," not only were we defining victory (setting up defeat), we went from "fighting terrorits," on our terms, to an "Occupation Army" that bound itself to fight on "their terms."
We cannot fight an asymmetric "enemy" head-on. They know our rules inside and out. On the other hand, we only know they have no rules, and often we don't even know who "they" are.
I'm not sure how the Higher-Ups didn't see this was going to be a disasstor?
felixdrake
New Member
Logistical issues with Iraq
There were some mistakes made from the beginning of the Iraq war.
1)The war was started under conditions of controversy. There was no international consensus (nor even majority view) that this war should be started at this time. The Canadian position prior to the Iraq war attempted to create this unification, but was rejected outright. This is not important because it is needed for an occupation, but because you have defacto made yourself a hostile occupying force in the eyes of a greater part of the nation you are occupying, no matter how vile the previous leader was.
How you are perceived DEFINES the size of the resistance you face, not for the initial occupation and removal of the existing official government, but the long rebuilding and peacekeeping process that follows.
Correcting this:At this point, this issue can not entirely be corrected, though your average soldier needs to be aware of it, as each and every soldier is now an AMBASSADOR to the people of Iraq. The more rapport they can build with the populous, the more people they can let see that they are good people trying to help, and not what local insurgent propaganda may paint them as, the less IEDs and attacks the troops will have to deal with.
Insurgent support levels = supply chains and reinforcements.
2)There WAS a clear goal set for Iraq. There was just no clear plan to get to that goal. The goal was to depose Saddam, hold an election, and ensure the government elected had the means to maintain power. This goal did not have included the concept of winning over the people as it was assumed the populous would welcome them with open arms and the insurgents would mostly show up for the big battles and die in the initial invasion.
The military plan extended as far as taking over the country and securing (as I understand), the strategic oil reserves. Weapons stockpiles were not quickly and effectively secured, and the security around the oil again gave the populous the impression that the military was there for the oil and not the infrastructure and people.
Correcting this:I believe, after the initial mistakes, a lot has been done to overcome this, and I applaud many of the troops' efforts to bridge these gaps, but to some degree, the genie is already out of the lamp.
It takes very few dissenters to maintain an insurgency if there are a lot of people who are 'undecided'. It does not take the majority, or even a significant minority. What it does take is at very least a significant minority not seeing those radicals as objectionable and tacitly allowing them to operate. We have learned some hard lessons in Iraq, and I believe at this point, we are doing most of what we can to win over hearts and minds.
Logistically...
1)Dragon Skin put the troops in it, armor the trucks with it, get it out there.
2)Look into weight vs. protection value on leggings. Lives are saved by vests. Limbs are saved by frag IEDs hitting armor, and they are generally at foot level.
3)RETHINK THE STANDARD PACK!!!
There are a lot of pounds used up making the average soldier prepared for a variety of eventualities. These come at the cost of things like leg protection. For example, if each pack had half the weight of spare batteries for the radio. This would mean designing a battery with half the lifespan and half the weight, but as it is only meant as a backup, it is worth it (or if there are 2 batteries in a radio, 1, not 2 per pack). This means 1 soldier gets more limited extra time from the battery, but the radio WILL work for that situation. If there are 2 soldiers and one has his radio go dead, they share the batteries and replace both. At present, there are many soldiers who a)will look for ways to lighten their own pack and b)will opt to not use body armor because of it's additional weight. This means our forces are prepared for just about anything EXCEPT what's most likely to injure of kill them, a bullet or IED.
The current combat pack is just that, a generic combat pack, designed for the point in a war before G.W. first announced victory. A war with moving advancing and retreating fronts, concerns about cut off supply lines and getting stranded.
Now, we are in what is at it's core, a very nasty peacekeeping anti-geurilla war. The supplies needed for this are completely different. Long term survivability (beyond ensuring you have water supplies) should not be an issue for at least 80% of the troops. Having something like Dragon Skin for not only a vest, but leggings and perhaps protection for the back of the shoulders, so if you turn away from a blast, your entire profile is protected from shrapnel (just keep your arms in). At present, production of non-vest, non-helmet body protection is extremely limited due to weight and mobility issues, some of which are complicated by general pack weight.
I understand that the basic pack has ALREADY been optimized for general use. I am proposing it be re-optimized for 'peacekeeping' applications to allow for greater upper and lower body protection.
There were some mistakes made from the beginning of the Iraq war.
1)The war was started under conditions of controversy. There was no international consensus (nor even majority view) that this war should be started at this time. The Canadian position prior to the Iraq war attempted to create this unification, but was rejected outright. This is not important because it is needed for an occupation, but because you have defacto made yourself a hostile occupying force in the eyes of a greater part of the nation you are occupying, no matter how vile the previous leader was.
How you are perceived DEFINES the size of the resistance you face, not for the initial occupation and removal of the existing official government, but the long rebuilding and peacekeeping process that follows.
Correcting this:At this point, this issue can not entirely be corrected, though your average soldier needs to be aware of it, as each and every soldier is now an AMBASSADOR to the people of Iraq. The more rapport they can build with the populous, the more people they can let see that they are good people trying to help, and not what local insurgent propaganda may paint them as, the less IEDs and attacks the troops will have to deal with.
Insurgent support levels = supply chains and reinforcements.
2)There WAS a clear goal set for Iraq. There was just no clear plan to get to that goal. The goal was to depose Saddam, hold an election, and ensure the government elected had the means to maintain power. This goal did not have included the concept of winning over the people as it was assumed the populous would welcome them with open arms and the insurgents would mostly show up for the big battles and die in the initial invasion.
The military plan extended as far as taking over the country and securing (as I understand), the strategic oil reserves. Weapons stockpiles were not quickly and effectively secured, and the security around the oil again gave the populous the impression that the military was there for the oil and not the infrastructure and people.
Correcting this:I believe, after the initial mistakes, a lot has been done to overcome this, and I applaud many of the troops' efforts to bridge these gaps, but to some degree, the genie is already out of the lamp.
It takes very few dissenters to maintain an insurgency if there are a lot of people who are 'undecided'. It does not take the majority, or even a significant minority. What it does take is at very least a significant minority not seeing those radicals as objectionable and tacitly allowing them to operate. We have learned some hard lessons in Iraq, and I believe at this point, we are doing most of what we can to win over hearts and minds.
Logistically...
1)Dragon Skin put the troops in it, armor the trucks with it, get it out there.
2)Look into weight vs. protection value on leggings. Lives are saved by vests. Limbs are saved by frag IEDs hitting armor, and they are generally at foot level.
3)RETHINK THE STANDARD PACK!!!
There are a lot of pounds used up making the average soldier prepared for a variety of eventualities. These come at the cost of things like leg protection. For example, if each pack had half the weight of spare batteries for the radio. This would mean designing a battery with half the lifespan and half the weight, but as it is only meant as a backup, it is worth it (or if there are 2 batteries in a radio, 1, not 2 per pack). This means 1 soldier gets more limited extra time from the battery, but the radio WILL work for that situation. If there are 2 soldiers and one has his radio go dead, they share the batteries and replace both. At present, there are many soldiers who a)will look for ways to lighten their own pack and b)will opt to not use body armor because of it's additional weight. This means our forces are prepared for just about anything EXCEPT what's most likely to injure of kill them, a bullet or IED.
The current combat pack is just that, a generic combat pack, designed for the point in a war before G.W. first announced victory. A war with moving advancing and retreating fronts, concerns about cut off supply lines and getting stranded.
Now, we are in what is at it's core, a very nasty peacekeeping anti-geurilla war. The supplies needed for this are completely different. Long term survivability (beyond ensuring you have water supplies) should not be an issue for at least 80% of the troops. Having something like Dragon Skin for not only a vest, but leggings and perhaps protection for the back of the shoulders, so if you turn away from a blast, your entire profile is protected from shrapnel (just keep your arms in). At present, production of non-vest, non-helmet body protection is extremely limited due to weight and mobility issues, some of which are complicated by general pack weight.
I understand that the basic pack has ALREADY been optimized for general use. I am proposing it be re-optimized for 'peacekeeping' applications to allow for greater upper and lower body protection.
felixdrake
New Member
Dragon Skin vs. interceptor.
Putting things into perspective... the interceptor system is armor of protection and stopping power that is night and day better than what is out there for most armies (which is generally flak jackets, such as US military had before or kevlar) and still a good step up from your basic spectra vest. Both systems are primarily designed to stop an AP assault rifle round from penetrating your torso and do so quite well. Both systems perform within the parameters likely given to those doing the military purchasing in question, and neither has the protection (nor the instant transformation into the michelin man and loss of mobility) of the suits used for bomb disarming.
As for being 'user-friendly', it doesn't get much easier. Dragon skin, you put it on, fasten it as you would for pretty much any vest (I think it's velcro or something similar). No fuss, no muss, no inserts. You DO need to fasten around the neck because there is actual protection there, not just cloth to make you feel covered.
There ARE some issues that may need Addressing, however.
1)As a newer technology, it performs better, but has had less time in the field to be tested in the long term. They keep their stopping power through more hits, but perhaps not more years. Stress tests are alright, but not a substitute for years of use in a military situation.
2)They are at present made on a smaller scale, and as such are significantly (but not prohibitively) more expensive. This price gap would likely be significantly reduced, but not entirely eliminated with a large contract (the armor is notably more complex in construction)
3)Ceramic plate based armors can be 'fixed' with a sewing kit and a new set of plates. Dragon skin, you need to either replace the whole vest (or area of the vest), or get it sent back to a facility. Think chain mail or scale mail armor. It is likely this will also be addressed when there sees a decent chance of a military contract.
4)The armor is made by a small business. As such, they have no significant lobby group and are not (and are not likely soon to be) making any significant campaign contributions to any political party.
In short, Dragon Skin is newer, higher tech, more expensive, and more effective, both vest for vest and pound for pound, but perhaps not dollar for dollar. Also, as a newer tech, the military may be concerned that with time, stress, and the elements (not including bullets and shrapnel) may have unforseen negative affects.
Also, the interceptor system is meant to stop LETHAL bullets. It's coverage area is (slightly) less, but the missing coverage is more likely to cause (permanent and debilitating) injury than death. Unless someone is hit by multiple large bursts (in which case the Dragon Skin still bounces it, generally), Interceptor prevents death (but not injury) about as well as Dragon Skin, which is the stated objective.
If I were in the line of fire, I would put my life in the hands of Dragon Skin every time over interceptor.:soldier Even so, there ARE reasons the (US) military should choose interceptor that are quite legitimate (though some of them may not be popular).
a)both systems 'do the job' (where the previous flak jackets just didn't). As such, going for Dragon Skin may be seen as a waste of funds. Money saved can go into things like better armor for vehicles and/or more armored vehicles.
b)The company that produces Dragon Skin does not make any other military hardware and is unlikely to do so. Buying interceptor armor may be investing in other military tech.
c)It is likely that it would have taken more time to roll out Dragon Skin to all the troops than Interceptor, simply because of company size and manufacturing scale.
The issue is that a series of lies, misinformation, a refusal to test the suits side by side in all but one of the testing labs (that one lab being well known for biasing it's results towards the company that makes interceptor). Basically, the military had their reasons to choose interceptor. Some are 'valid', some may or may not have more to do with campaign supporters and such. That said, the reasons the PUBLIC WERE GIVEN appear to be outright lies and deception for which no apologies nor admission of error were given. Much like the Iraq war itself, reasons were given, they didn't hold water, so new reasons were added to distract from the old reasons. Also, soldiers that HAVE Dragon Skin and LIKE their Dragon Skin are being forced to switch to interceptor. It feels an AWFUL lot like Microsoft trying to force people to switch to Vista (even though most people who know their tech hate it). Anyway, not my fight I suppose. Up here in Canada, we have an abundance of outdated gear, and when we buy second best, we tend to say outright, "hey, we got ALMOST the best, and what a DEAL!" (though I still like the C7 line as M16 models go).:ar15 Anyway, [ /rant ]
:lamWeight is slightly heavier, with significantly better coverage area:knight, but as the manufacturers by default (something that could likely be changed with such a large contract) integrate more effective coverage area and superior protection in the areas covered, more weight is something of a given. While any weight is a factor, it was not, to my knowledge, the stated reason for not going with Dragon Skin over interceptor (though it is a reason some of the troops would rather not wear armor at all). The Dragon Skin armor is also more flexible and the weight is better distributed so the weight is easier to carry. This means that while the mass carried is greater (slightly), it will still tire a soldier less to be wearing it (and their packs and gear) than the interceptor system. The current system also provides less coverage than it appears to, as the 'soft' parts provide about as much coverage as a few layers of leather.
Putting things into perspective... the interceptor system is armor of protection and stopping power that is night and day better than what is out there for most armies (which is generally flak jackets, such as US military had before or kevlar) and still a good step up from your basic spectra vest. Both systems are primarily designed to stop an AP assault rifle round from penetrating your torso and do so quite well. Both systems perform within the parameters likely given to those doing the military purchasing in question, and neither has the protection (nor the instant transformation into the michelin man and loss of mobility) of the suits used for bomb disarming.
As for being 'user-friendly', it doesn't get much easier. Dragon skin, you put it on, fasten it as you would for pretty much any vest (I think it's velcro or something similar). No fuss, no muss, no inserts. You DO need to fasten around the neck because there is actual protection there, not just cloth to make you feel covered.
There ARE some issues that may need Addressing, however.
1)As a newer technology, it performs better, but has had less time in the field to be tested in the long term. They keep their stopping power through more hits, but perhaps not more years. Stress tests are alright, but not a substitute for years of use in a military situation.
2)They are at present made on a smaller scale, and as such are significantly (but not prohibitively) more expensive. This price gap would likely be significantly reduced, but not entirely eliminated with a large contract (the armor is notably more complex in construction)
3)Ceramic plate based armors can be 'fixed' with a sewing kit and a new set of plates. Dragon skin, you need to either replace the whole vest (or area of the vest), or get it sent back to a facility. Think chain mail or scale mail armor. It is likely this will also be addressed when there sees a decent chance of a military contract.
4)The armor is made by a small business. As such, they have no significant lobby group and are not (and are not likely soon to be) making any significant campaign contributions to any political party.
In short, Dragon Skin is newer, higher tech, more expensive, and more effective, both vest for vest and pound for pound, but perhaps not dollar for dollar. Also, as a newer tech, the military may be concerned that with time, stress, and the elements (not including bullets and shrapnel) may have unforseen negative affects.
Also, the interceptor system is meant to stop LETHAL bullets. It's coverage area is (slightly) less, but the missing coverage is more likely to cause (permanent and debilitating) injury than death. Unless someone is hit by multiple large bursts (in which case the Dragon Skin still bounces it, generally), Interceptor prevents death (but not injury) about as well as Dragon Skin, which is the stated objective.
If I were in the line of fire, I would put my life in the hands of Dragon Skin every time over interceptor.:soldier Even so, there ARE reasons the (US) military should choose interceptor that are quite legitimate (though some of them may not be popular).
a)both systems 'do the job' (where the previous flak jackets just didn't). As such, going for Dragon Skin may be seen as a waste of funds. Money saved can go into things like better armor for vehicles and/or more armored vehicles.
b)The company that produces Dragon Skin does not make any other military hardware and is unlikely to do so. Buying interceptor armor may be investing in other military tech.
c)It is likely that it would have taken more time to roll out Dragon Skin to all the troops than Interceptor, simply because of company size and manufacturing scale.
The issue is that a series of lies, misinformation, a refusal to test the suits side by side in all but one of the testing labs (that one lab being well known for biasing it's results towards the company that makes interceptor). Basically, the military had their reasons to choose interceptor. Some are 'valid', some may or may not have more to do with campaign supporters and such. That said, the reasons the PUBLIC WERE GIVEN appear to be outright lies and deception for which no apologies nor admission of error were given. Much like the Iraq war itself, reasons were given, they didn't hold water, so new reasons were added to distract from the old reasons. Also, soldiers that HAVE Dragon Skin and LIKE their Dragon Skin are being forced to switch to interceptor. It feels an AWFUL lot like Microsoft trying to force people to switch to Vista (even though most people who know their tech hate it). Anyway, not my fight I suppose. Up here in Canada, we have an abundance of outdated gear, and when we buy second best, we tend to say outright, "hey, we got ALMOST the best, and what a DEAL!" (though I still like the C7 line as M16 models go).:ar15 Anyway, [ /rant ]
felixdrake.
I'm not military, never have been. However I do work in operations for a reasonable sized emergency service. (NSWRFS, ~70,000 pers) Every so often, we have a person or firm attempt to sell us a system or item of equipment. When I say "us", I mean the media, and the politicians who sign the cheques. One of the clearest warning bells available is when a seller attempts to bypass the normal processes that are used to determine whether the equipment is appropriate for the people who must use it and depend upon it. The manufacturers of Dragonskin, Pinnacle, are ringing just such alarms.
When a manufacturer objects to the testing procedure and argues that his own tests (which, naturally, the equipment passes) are less biased, I become sceptical.
When the manuf claims that failures are due to quality control issues (which are his responsibility in the first place) but does not simply fix the problem and resubmit his product to the same process that current equipment has passed, I am still sceptical.
When the manufacturer claims that his product is lighter, but is comparing Level3 protection with a current-issue Level4 (in a size larger), I am even more sceptical.
Let alone when that same manuf is pinged for claiming that his product is certified by the national civilian authority, months before that certification is issued, and subsequently has certification for another item withdrawn through failure to provide adequate supporting evidence.
Pinnacle has claimed that the military testers lied about the performance of their product under testing, but appear to have produced no significant evidence to support the claim.
Plus I see that the people who are listed as wearing the product in Iraq are not the infantry who have to carry full combat loads in combat, but those who spend the majority of their time in static or vehicle-borne roles.
As I said, I am not military and I've had to do a lot of reading to sort the wheat from the chaff, as much as I can. There are, however, some people on this forum who have some serious experience of military procurement programs. We might both do well to sit back and listen to them.
It's easy to opine that someone lied, on a forum such as this, but the question really is, what do you KNOW?
Regards.......... Peter
I'm not military, never have been. However I do work in operations for a reasonable sized emergency service. (NSWRFS, ~70,000 pers) Every so often, we have a person or firm attempt to sell us a system or item of equipment. When I say "us", I mean the media, and the politicians who sign the cheques. One of the clearest warning bells available is when a seller attempts to bypass the normal processes that are used to determine whether the equipment is appropriate for the people who must use it and depend upon it. The manufacturers of Dragonskin, Pinnacle, are ringing just such alarms.
When a manufacturer objects to the testing procedure and argues that his own tests (which, naturally, the equipment passes) are less biased, I become sceptical.
When the manuf claims that failures are due to quality control issues (which are his responsibility in the first place) but does not simply fix the problem and resubmit his product to the same process that current equipment has passed, I am still sceptical.
When the manufacturer claims that his product is lighter, but is comparing Level3 protection with a current-issue Level4 (in a size larger), I am even more sceptical.
Let alone when that same manuf is pinged for claiming that his product is certified by the national civilian authority, months before that certification is issued, and subsequently has certification for another item withdrawn through failure to provide adequate supporting evidence.
Pinnacle has claimed that the military testers lied about the performance of their product under testing, but appear to have produced no significant evidence to support the claim.
Plus I see that the people who are listed as wearing the product in Iraq are not the infantry who have to carry full combat loads in combat, but those who spend the majority of their time in static or vehicle-borne roles.
As I said, I am not military and I've had to do a lot of reading to sort the wheat from the chaff, as much as I can. There are, however, some people on this forum who have some serious experience of military procurement programs. We might both do well to sit back and listen to them.
It's easy to opine that someone lied, on a forum such as this, but the question really is, what do you KNOW?
Regards.......... Peter
felixdrake
New Member
As I understand, these tests WERE completed by the government, and we are not privy to the results (nor are we privy to the results of the testing of the interceptor system) because ANY body armor that meets level IV protection has testing information, production information, and all other information classified.
As I would be. There are at least 20 government sanctioned labs used to compare such things. Of these labs, the military is only willing to use one of them to test it, and previous info from that lab has been known to have just such a bias. I would think it unlikely that there is a conspiracy of 19+ testing labs which are all trying to bias results in favour of interceptor.
I have not at present heard such a thing. The concerns of long term sustainability that I raised were purely because the tech is new. If such problems have been evident, I would like to know about it, however, as it is a significant concern.
Actually IIRC about 4 pounds heavier, with more of the body protected for it. The advantages are that the load is more evenly distributed and the suit is more flexible.
I would DEFINITELY like to know more about this issue. The media I have seen (admittedly somewhat late in things) is that the level III was certified, the level IV was being tested but was not yet certified, they did not state that it WAS certified, but stated based on their tests it would be able to comfortably meet the guidelines and so they were confident it would. If they outright claimed that it already had, I would similarly be concerned, and I would like to know what happened with the withdrawn certification of that other product.[/quote]
That evidence is classified, so we don't get to see it one way or the other, HOWEVER, there are regulations, one of them is that armor that provides level IV protection is automatically classified and not to be made available to civilians. They have, as a company, been put by the military between a rock and a hard place. The military has apparently told THEM that it is military equipment that they can not sell to a civilian market due to it being level IV protection. The military, to my knowledge has neither confirmed nor denied the reasons for classification (which would be the regs if it met level IV in their testing). At the same time, with their testing classified, they are criticized for not producing more official results. I would submit that if the military does not find Dragon Skin body armor meets the test, perhaps the results and even the armor tech itself should be declassified and available to civilians.
When that decision was made, it was flak, nothing, or spend money on (heavier) either Interceptor or Dragon Skin. It is likely the list of people who bought their own body armor of ANY type favor static or vehicle-borne roles. Many troops with full combat load have been known to skip potentially life saving ceramic plates for weight issues. I would find it more interesting to see who had Dragon Skin and switched to interceptor, or comparisons of who bought what types of armor prior to interceptor being issued.
Superb point. I have also done some fairly extensive reading, but there is a lot of chaff and very little wheat to be had in this discussion. This is the way of things when the real deciding info is mostly classified. If there is anyone who has experience or significant information regarding both armors, particularly Dragon Skin (as it is the more unknown quantity), and can tell us more, it would be greatly appreciated.
To some degree, without more direct exposure, everything here is speculation and best guess, and as you can see, the same body of information is producing significantly different best guesses.
Unfortunately, very little that gets to the core of things. We are both collecting eggshells and trying to figure out whether humpty dumpty was fun to have at a party from it. There's a lot of subjective info and biased tests on one side, and a lot of classified info and a 'trust us what you do not see demonstrates our point' on the other. There was someone who had said something about there being a possible issue involving sustained use at high temperatures. Perhaps it passed the lab tests (and was thus classified) but some such fatal flaw was found in the system, so it was not used. Thank you, peter, for your insight. Let's see if we can get other insight and some direct experience.
We do not need more troops:we fight guerrillas and need to be smaller and hand over responsibilities to the Iraqis.We also need better intelligence: The Status of forces agreement signed with the Iraqi government makes US troops (and their allies) dhimmies (protected allies of an Islamic state).Killing dhimmies,according to Prophet Muhammad himself, makes one his (Muhammad"s) enemy.I do not believe that terrorists know about Islam more than its Prophet
and there is a shortage of water...
Xeon_Laura
New Member
most of these IEDs use cellphones to trigger them.so every patrol convoy can have cellphone jammers and each day randomly give call to every mobile in a base tower randomly to blow off any hot wired IED.