Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Privately Owned Dragon Skin Body Armor

DefenseWatch ^ | 01-14-06 | Nathaniel R. Helms

[coloradan]

The soldier reiterated Friday's reports that any soldier who refused to comply with the order and was subsequently killed in action "could" be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy as well as face disciplinary action.

Give that dead man 30 days in the cooler!!

[MineralMan]

There's something about this that doesn't sound right. Unless I see the orders, I'm not going to accept this as fact. It's all hearsay and second or third hand.

I will consider this a non-story until the orders are produced, in writing.

[Armedanddangerous]

I wouldnt give a damn what the troops are wearing. As long as they were safer.

[vrwc0915]

ping

[raynearhood]

"Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. Chopra, a retired Army chief warrant officer and 20+-year pilot in the famed 160th "Nightstalkers" Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), said his company was merely told the generals wanted to "evaluate" the body armor in a combat environment. Chopra said he did not know the names of the general officers wearing the Dragon Skin. "

I dunno...that sounds pretty believable to me. (sarcasm)

[coloradan]

Maybe the officer's attitude is that those vests don't make them safer. (I don't have any opinion one way or the other.) It does seem kind of boorish on the part of the brass, however.

[Radix]

I do not believe this story.

What officer would ever issue an order that states an insurance policy would not be paid? That is crazy.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Mom should be calling anyone in the MSM who will listen.

This piece is from Hackworth's outfit and I don't know if it is for real, but if it is, it stinks.

[diogenes ghost]

I'm not going to accept this as fact." So....you would not want your son wearing non-issue armor if DOD said their gear (by definition older and cheaper, from lowest bidder) was as good, or almost as good, maybe; but no matter, orders is orders?

[MineralMan]

Yeah. Nobody's identified. Nobody knows who said what, when. If orders were issued, let's see them.

After all, Hillary's saying about the same thing. I don't believe her, either.

[DoughtyOne]

If this new effort to limit alternative body armour is real, it would seem as if the main contractor had promise of exclusivity in the business agreement with the Army.

Tell you what Army leadership, if someone is going to fight for me over there, you give him first choice in body armour. If the guy is willing to put his money out to protect himself, then STFU and let him do his job.

Just damn! The guys are putting their lives on the line and the Army wants them to wear what they consider to be inferior armour.

That's just bull-s--t, if true.

If not true, I wish the Army would corner the idiot that started this rumour and kick their arse.

[Ma3lst0rm]

This is so much like the government. Dear God sometimes I wish a rock from heaven would just come and squash them all. They are bugs disguised as human beings. Can't do anything without government approval because everyone knows how fn competent the government is. We so deserve to be destroyed and oppressed for our acceptance of such crap.

[Servant of the 9]

I do not believe this story.

What officer would ever issue an order that states an insurance policy would not be paid? That is crazy.

Some REMF who has spent his whole career in procurement in the Pentagon and has his future tied up in slelcting the current armor.

So9

[shooter223]

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/sov.php

[MineralMan]

"I'm not going to accept this as fact." So....you would not want your son wearing non-issue armor if DOD said their gear (by definition older and cheaper, from lowest bidder) was as good, or almost as good, maybe; but no matter, orders is orders?"

Look. You're not paying attention. I'm saying that I don't believe any such orders not to wear the other armor were ever issued. I don't believe that crap about generals wearing this better armor, either.

This sounds like a crapola story to me. Hackworth's stuff is often bullwhack. Show me the orders that prohibit the wearing of this armor. Show me where it says that the insurance won't pay off.

The story smells.

[Candor7]

I would love to see the results of a law suit brought by a soldiers estate on such a ruling. Pinnacles body armor is superior.The Army has not kept up with development:

See: defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=490

[ARCADIA]

If true; and that is a big "if", I would like to see the hide ripped off the idiot who issued the order.

[raynearhood]

"Several months ago DefenseWatch began receiving anecdotal reports from individual soldiers that they were being forced to remove all non-issue gear while in theater"

This is a matter of individual commanders, not the Army as a whole. I was in Iraq until July of last year. My Brigade fell under the control of two divisions. Both division commanders, although insisting on all soldiers wearing the Army issued Body Armor (with additions--and we all had the Body Armor, at least, everyone that came into contact with while in theater), they were lax, even encouraging, on the issue of additional, "unauthorized" non-issue items. We had a heyday on Ranger Joe's .com getting more comfortable, easier to use ammo pouches, weapons slings, gloves, and ballistic eye wear (shock resistant sunglasses-oakleys among the most popular.) My Company commander was probably the poster boy for wearing store bought "tactical" items.

[eastforker]

I think this boils down to the same thing in civilian life when an employer threatens to hold a paycheck from a worker untill they comply or payroll deduct damages that an employee accidently makes. They can threaten it but they can not enforce it.