Criminally Negligent Homicide. That’s what you get charged with in the civilian world if you intentionally fail to do your job properly and someone dies as a result. Last year a study, discussed here and here , found that better body armor could have saved a lot of the troops killed in Iraq. If better armor was available and someone(s) intentionally failed to provide that armor, then maybe it’s time to start discussing this topic as criminally negligent homicide.

My staff and I have put together some research on this topic and we have invited Roger Charles, President of Soldiers for the Truth and a prolific researcher on this topic. We recommend what you will find at the SFTT.org page on body armor . We also consulted with Nathaniel R. "Nat" Helms, former editor of DefenseWatch at SFTT.org (see list of articles by him here ) and the author of My Men Are My Heroes: The Brad Kasal Story , who is also a long time researcher on this topic. Four of his pieces on the subject are must-reads: Is America's Best Getting America's Best Part I ; Is America's Best Getting America's Best Part II ; Is America's Best Getting America's Best.... In Conclusion ; and Army Scientists Allegedly Skewing Ballistic Data to Justify Using Magnesium In Body Armor .

Part I: The Superiorities of Dragon Skin

1. Superior Coverage of Vulnerable Areas

Back to that criminal negligence mentioned above, the first thing about Dragon Skin that you need to know is that it covers more area than the Interceptor armor. Here is what DefenseReview editor David Crane wrote about it:

"Understand, again, that we're talking about a unique and superior version of level IV body armor/ballistic protection, not your conventional, run-of-the-mill NIJ [National Institute of Justice] level IV SAPI protection. Pinnacle Armor's unique Level IV "+" flexible ceramic hard armor will successfully take many more hits than conventional/standard NIJ Level IV SAPI plates, and provides coverage over a much greater surface area. In other words, it provides for more complete torso coverage, all the way up to total coverage."

As Nat Helms has written, "In the simplest terms it means the wearer's entire upper torso, including the neck area, can be protected by body armor superior to any Level III and Level IV body armor made in the world." This seems directly related to the above discussion of how better armor might have saved some of our troops. Coverage of vulnerable areas is a critical capability.

This was also mentioned in the NBC report, in an interview of the inventor of the Interceptor armor currently used by the army (link ):

MYERS: And you say Dragon Skin is better?
MAGEE: Yes. And I think anybody in my industry would say the same thing were they to be perfectly honest about it.
Why? He says more stopping power and more coverage.
According to Magee, the Army’s Interceptor uses four rigid plates to stop the most lethal bullets, leaving some vital organs unprotected. Dragon Skin — with discs that interconnect like Medieval chainmail — can wrap most of a soldier’s torso, providing a greater area of maximum protection.

It is interesting to note that this particular aspect of comparison was avoided in the Army’s response to the NBC report here . The spokesperson implied that Interceptor armor gives more coverage but you will notice that there is no direct comparison with Dragon Skin:

IBA, the newest generation of multiple-threat body protection, features a modular design with pieces that work together to provide a personal shield against bullets and fragments, including those from improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Protective inserts can withstand multiple small-arms hits. Throat and groin protectors can be attached, and recent upgrades add protection to the upper arm and underarm areas. The overall design greatly reduces the number and severity of wounds.

2. Superior Mobility

The second thing you need to know about Dragon Skin is that it allows for superior mobility. I will just quote from Mr. Helms here :

An Army captain currently serving in Ramadi, Iraq told DefenseWatch that his Interceptor OTV body armor was not only a bad design, but dangerous to the wearer for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with ballistic integrity.

"The body armor we have now weighs us down like turtles. It is difficult to run fast enough if you need to catch anyone on foot. If anyone falls into water over his head, he better be a very strong swimmer or he may be as good as dead. Getting out of a cramped up-armored Humvee is bad enough; it is rarely done quickly anymore. One simply does not have the flexibility.
I am over six feet tall. And to get out of a Humvee I need to bow my head down to get past the threshold. You can't bend forward with the armor and you need to unsnap the throat protector.
Many missions I have been on lately have been night operations so I have night vision goggles attached to the front of my helmet, which increases the need to duck when I get out of the Humvee.
When I was first issued the IBA [Interceptor Body Armor], I semi-joked that this had better stop enemy rounds because it significantly reduced my mobility.
The current fiasco [Nathaniel R.] Helms describes reminds me of the book (and movie of the same name) - The Pentagon Wars.
Flexible, reusable body armor is what the troops need, not the current system. I look forward to seeing Dragon Skin (or something similar) fielded to the troops in the very near future."

Pinnacle Armor Company, the makers of Dragon Skin body armor, claims their product is so flexible it can be wrapped around a basketball. Soldiers for the Truth Foundation (SFTT) president Roger Charles wore the 26.5-pound full coverage large size Dragon Skin vest for more than four hours during a recent test with only minimal discomfort. This reporter has worn the OTV system for approximately the same length of time and found it uncomfortable, bulky, and restrictive.

NBC also mentioned this in passing but did not highlight it (link ):

An active duty soldier, who asked us to conceal his identity, told NBC he wore Dragon Skin on certain missions, with the full knowledge of his commanders.
"I wore it and I saw other people wearing it... It conforms to your body, it gives you more mobility," he said.

President Bush keeps talking about listening to the soldiers on the ground. Well there you have it. And the connection between superior mobility and staying alive in combat is obvious enough that I shouldn’t have to elaborate here.

I will note that the army response to the NBC report alluded to the importance of mobility but only discussed it in terms of overall weight, which we address below (link ):

Dragon Skin is also operationally unsuitable because of its greater weight and bulk and compared with the Army's body armor. Depending on size, Pinnacle is 46% to 70% heavier than the current IBA. "We are trying to make the armor lighter, not heavier," Brown said.

3. Out-performed Interceptor Armor in Classified Tests
That’s all well and good, but what all those failures the army keeps talking about? Here is what the army claims about May 2006 test results it released in response to the NBC report:

Driving the decision to release May 2006 test data is an assertion by Pinnacle Armor Inc. of unfair treatment. Pinnacle, based in Fresno, Calif., is the manufacturer of Dragon Skin SOV3000 body armor, which Brown said failed "catastrophically" when it was tested by HB White Labs in Street, Md., one of two labs in the nation certified by the National Institute of Justice.

"It failed to stop 13 of 48 [first- or second-round] test shots," Brown said of the testing at H.P. White. "The CEO and vice president of Pinnacle witnessed it. One bullet penetration is cause for failure to meet the Army's standard."

Pinnacle's Dragon Skin SOV3000 body armor was subject to the same fair and independent testing, in a variety of environmental conditions, as products from the six producers of the Army's current body armor. All six of the current producers passed every test with zero failures, which is the standard.

Contrary to the claims about the May 2006 tests, there are older tests which show just the opposite. Mr. Helms, as well as Mr. Charles, has seen and written about classified documents that show that Dragon Skin Body Armor did not fail any tests, as the army has suggested, but actually passed a number of tests that the army isn’t admitting to. Murray Neal, CEO of Pinnacle Armor, maker of Dragon Skin, mentioned this here in a response posted at SFTT.org:

The Army has test data, including ballistic data it has classified "SECRET," and non-classified ballistic data that proves Dragon Skin is in fact superior in every way to Interceptor.

As Mr. Helms noted here , in part of the tests that have been classified, Dragon Skin performed all the way up to NIJ Level V standards, far beyond the current armor given to our troops:

U.S. Army - Level V
7.62 x 54R mm 187 GR, steel case, armor piercing incendiary BS40 Classified
7.62 x 51 mm GR, M948 Classified
7.62 x 51 mm 126.5 GR, M993 Classified
5.56 x 45 mm 52.5 GR, M995 Classified

If you’re not familiar with this ammo, find yourself someone who is and have them explain this to you. This is incredibly powerful weaponry that the current body armor being supplied to our troops doesn’t come close to stopping. But Dragon Skin does. Yet more info for that criminally negligent homicide charge.

Part II: Supposed Deficiencies of Dragon Skin?
1. Failed May 2006 Ballistic Testing?
This is the alleged failure that the Army is metaphorically hanging its hat on while it hides the classified tests mentioned above. The details of the supposed failures can be found in the rebuttal by Murray Neal here . In the Army response to the NBC report, this is what the current Army spokesperson, Brig. Gen. R. Mark Brown, who was not present at the May 2006 tests, said about Dragon Skin (link ):

"It failed to stop 13 of 48 [first- or second-round] test shots," Brown said of the testing at H.P. White. "The CEO and vice president of Pinnacle witnessed it. One bullet penetration is cause for failure to meet the Army's standard."

Murray Neal, the above-mentioned CEO who was indeed present at the testing, explains why each of the supposed 13 failures is not a failure according the Army’s own testing standards here , in the same document where he mentions the classified tests.

In summary, the only actual first shot penetration of the armor was the first round fired. And Karl Masters, who was the test director, actually found it not to be a valid penetration according to the standards used. Four other second shot penetrations fell within the parameters for retesting but were not considered valid penetrations without that retesting, which was never done. Eight other alleged penetrations were not of the actual armor but of the vest used to hold the armor.
Furthermore, in the same document Mr. Neal explains that army official Col. John Norwood, who now works for the company that makes Interceptor Armor, told him after the May 2006 tests that it was not the ballistics portion of the test that Dragon Skin had failed but rather the rigidity and weight requirements (link ):

We were given some additional insight by Col. John Norwood just before we were to depart the testing facility. He said that we did not fail the ballistic test just the specifications. When asked which ones we were told the weight and rigid requirements. That rigid requirement of a plate vs. a flexible panel system.

So, according to Col. Norwood, Dragon Skin basically failed not because it wasn’t better armor but because it isn’t the same as Interceptor.
It is worth noting here that on March 2006, an Army representative claimed that Dragon Skin had also failed to pass Air Force testing and had thus been recalled. The truth of that attempt at deception, and how the mainstream press took the bait, can be found here .
2. Failed Heat Tests?
After the NBC piece, it became patently obvious to anyone paying attention that under normal conditions Dragon Skin Armor is indeed superior to Interceptor Armor. That left many of us wondering if Dragon Skin might have failed a heat test. In the Army response to the NBC piece there was mention of testing "in a variety of environmental conditions." There has been only one failure of any kind in all the tests. ONE. And here it is from a summary by SFTT.org president Roger Charles:

One Dragon Skin vest did experience an anomaly during one temperature test. At +160-degrees Fahrenheit the adhesive that holds the protective disks in place did not function properly and did allow 1 and 3/4 inches movement of disks. Examination of this anomaly determined that the adhesive provided to Pinnacle Armor by a sub-contractor did not meet specifications, and thus was considered an aberrant event. (Subsequently, Pinnacle Armor upgraded the adhesives, and had vests using this upgraded adhesive shot at +160 and +180-degrees Fahrenheit to demonstrate the enhanced level of performance of Dragon Skin, a level above that required by the requirements of ESAPI FAT protocols and procedures.)
But, the Army slime teams' brazen and bold misrepresentations are demonstrated again by data that was withheld from the congressional briefings: Another Dragon Skin vest was temperature tested at H.P. White during the same testing period. This vest was tested at +250-degrees Fahrenheit according to the ESAPI FAT protocols, and did not fail. The adhesive performed as designed.

Mr. Neal also discusses the supposed heat test failures here . There was only one vest that did fail and that failure was not because of the failure of the armor but because of inadequate adhesive from a sub-contractor. Another vest withstood 250 degrees Fahrenheit. This is why, as Mr. Neal noted here , "test director Karl Masters called it (the one failure) an anomaly as the other temperature tests at -60 degrees (F), +120 degrees (F) and at +250 degrees (F) did not fail."

3. Too Heavy?

We have already mentioned that Dragon Skin Armor provides superior mobility, a fact the Army discussions (link ) after the NBC piece have intentionally ignored while they implied it was so much heavier that it limited mobility in comparison to Interceptor Armor:

Dragon Skin is also operationally unsuitable because of its greater weight and bulk and compared with the Army's body armor. Depending on size, Pinnacle is 46% to 70% heavier than the current IBA. "We are trying to make the armor lighter, not heavier," Brown said.

This claim by the Army is not new. SFTT Foundation President Roger Charles previously eviscerated that claim here :

One almost laughable claim involved an especially cheesy attempt to compare the weight of a Pinnacle Armor SOV 3000 vest to an Interceptor Body Armor vest.
The congressional staff was told that a Dragon Skin SOV 3000 weighs 47.5 pounds. True. For a size Extra-Large (full-torso wrap) vest.
The congressional staff was told that an Interceptor Body Armor vest weights 28 pounds. Not true. For a Medium size vest, the weight is 31.1 pounds.
If you look at the IBA web site under PE-SOLDIER, you'll see the Medium components -- the OTV, ESAPI for front and rear, and side plates -- total 25.7 pounds.
The more credible figure is the 31.1 pounds, based on data presented at an Army Industry Day briefing on 7 March 2006, and based on similar data from Marine Corps Systems Command provided to Pinnacle Armor.
If you compare a size Medium SOV 3000, weighing 34.2 pounds, the weight advantage is to Interceptor Body Armor by 3.1 pounds.
But, what protective advantage does Dragon Skin SOV 3000 provide for this extra weight? How about 182 square inches of additional ballistic protection against Level IV rounds!

To put it succinctly, Dragon Skin is a little heavier but not as much as the Army claims. And you get a lot of extra coverage for the extra weight.

4. False Claims of NIJ Standards?
Here is what one current army spokesperson, tester Karl Masters, previously said in comments about Dragon Skin in a "professional soldier" forum here :

I recommend that you do some more research on the product you advocate. I invite your attention to the Federal Trade Commision website. A search on body armor will illustrate that the FTC has taken a rather dim view of body armor manufacturers that misrepresent the National Institute of Justice compliance status of their products.

The sun is about to shine on the Army's rationale for issuing the body armor Safety of Use Message. Get your suncreen ready.

I'll be watching to see if you set the record straight, or if I will have to do it for you. Welcome aboard.

Karl

I know it's hard to believe, but there are body armor manufacturers that make performance claims that can't be backed up on the range. They sometimes even mark their products as NIJ level 3 certified when they are not, or distort facts relating to fielded systems to make thier own product look more attractive.

Both quotes seem to refer to the NIJ certification of Dragon Skin at Level 3. It did take a long time to get official certification, but it wasn’t because of the inferiority of dragon skin as a product, as Mr. Masters implied. Since Mr. Masters made his ironic claim about the sun shining soon, Dragon Skin has been officially certified by NIJ. A detailed explanation of the length of the certification process is here . Perhaps the sun will shine instead on the refusal of certain persons to tell the truth about Dragon Skin?

5. Cost

One important aspect of Dragon Skin vs Interceptor is the price. Dragon skin currently costs about three times as much. I believe our soldiers deserve better even if it costs more. But, as Pinnacle Armor president Murray Neal explained to Mr. Helms in a conversation relayed to us, he believes that if he could ramp up production on a much larger scale than the one his current level of business permits, he could get his price per unit down close to that of the Interceptor Armor. I believe he should have a chance to do just that.

Part III: Who Lied about Dragon Skin and Why

It is not my goal today to make a list of persons who might be charged with criminally negligent homicide in the deaths of many of our troops who would probably not have died if they had been wearing Dragon Skin. SFTT.org has named four of those they believe responsible here and another here . NBC quoted former Army expert on Dragon Skin, Nevin Rupert, who says he was fired for supporting Dragon Skin and that because Dragon Skin was not developed by the Army, some officials considered it a threat to funding of Interceptor and other Army programs.. He believes Army officials at the lower levels are responsible (link ):

Nevin Rupert, a mechanical engineer and ballistics expert, was for seven years the Army’s leading authority on Dragon Skin. Now a whistleblower, he says the Army’s timing wasn’t coincidental.
RUPERT: I believe there are some Army officials at the lower levels that deliberately tried to sabotage it.
MYERS: What possible motive would Army officials have for blocking a technology that could save lives?
RUPERT: Their loyalty is to their organization and maintaining funds.

RUPERT: It wasn’t their program. It threatened their program and mission funding.

This brings us to the discussion of motives. The suggested motive here is to protect program and mission funding. Money is a likely prime motivator. Another important piece of the puzzle is a statement made to Pinnacle Armor CEO Murray Neal by James Zheng, and witnessed by others who later confirmed the statement to Defense Watch (link ), that Dragon Skin would never be fielded unless the technology and intellectual property were signed over to Natick Soldier Systems Center:

Witnessed statements were later made the same year to Pinnacle president Murray Neal - the inventor of Dragon Skin armor and its patent holder - by Natick Soldier Systems Center's program scientist Dr. James Zheng, who reportedly said, "The SOV Dragon Skin system will never be fielded unless the technology and intellectual property are turned over to Natick Soldier Systems Center," according to sources who spoke with DW upon assurances of anonymity.

It is also worth noting that the order to cease use of Dragon Skin (March 2006 ) was 2 months before the test the Army says that order was based on, as Lisa Myers pointed out to the ignorant Army spokesperson here . This suggests that the Army might have been using the Cease Use order to force Pinnacle Armor to sign over property rights.

I am going to close this section with a quote from a piece by Nat Helms (link ):

Another of the many veterans of the procurement wars who talked to DefenseWatch on assurances of anonymity shrugged off the grubby realities and disappointments of selling body armor as part of the program – much like death in war, he said. The formula for success in the body armor game, he explained, is short enough to recite in one breath. Successful players stay in the background, throw the retiring brass a gold-plated bone to gnaw on, keep a few lobbyists around to put their names in the ring, and make big campaign contributions to the influence peddlers. Payback comes from selling the Pentagon a product relatively easy to produce that earns a high rate of return and is good enough to cheaply get the job done. The Interceptor OTV body armor developed by the US Army is a text book example, he claimed.

For more info on who is getting donations from the maker of the current inferior body armor, we recommend this diary and this one from occams hatchet .

The Air Force Maneuver

While we were researching this topic, it came to light that Air Force officials were looking to ban Pinnacle Armor from future sales pending an investigation that it falsely claimed to sell them NIJ level three certified body armor. (link ) Since the armor has now been officially been certified as level III, this seems an odd claim to make. But the timing is not coincidental. The army has just extended a proposal for better body armor that is flexible. The original closing date for the solicitation was June 27; that has been extended 30 days. (link ) The kicker is that, by bringing this charge against Pinnacle Armor now, Pinnacle has been listed on http://www.epls.gov , the Excluded Parties List System’s Web site, after Air Force Materiel Command recommended June 8 that the Air Force bar Pinnacle from signing new contracts with the U.S. government. So this little maneuver effectively prevents them from being considered. If this smells suspicious to you, you are not alone. And just for the record, as was pointed out by Defense Review Editor David Crane last year (link ), Dragon Skin didn’t fail any Air Force tests either. Here is a quote from Mr. Crane:

Getting back to the hard armor ballistic test data we viewed with our own eyes, the data proves that Dragon Skin's anti-ballistic performance far exceeds the performance levels required to pass NIJ Level III and NIJ Level IV standards. The NIJ standard is a civilian standard that is significantly below the military standard (Secretary of Defense standards), due to bullet type limitations such as API.

Defense Review can't provide the V50 and V0 velocities or information on the number of impacts the armor can handle to the public. Disclosure of this information would violate OPSEC (operational security) for the military and PSC/PMC operators currently wearing Pinnacle Armor SOV/Dragon skin in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Defense Review also viewed a letter from ATC containing information that proves that SOV/Dragon Skin did NOT fail any U.S. Air Force test or requirement, as has been stated by certain parties in the U.S. Army. We viewed the relevant information ourselves.

Conclusion
We have not covered all there is to say about body armor, including many weaknesses of the current body armor being given to our troops. My goal this time is simply to show that Dragon Skin is so superior to Interceptor that to keep our soldiers from having it is criminally negligent. I believe we have made that point.