Posted on 01/19/2006 7:05:05 AM PST by Jason_b
Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.
The soldiers asked for anonymity because they are concerned they will face retaliation for going public with the Army's apparently new directive. At the sources' requests DefenseWatch has also agreed not to reveal the unit at which the incident occured for operational security reasons.
On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that "all" commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.
"We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) is heavy, but it is made so we have mobility and the best ballistic protection out there. This is crazy. And they are threatening us with our benefits if we don't comply." he said.
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.
As of this report Saturday morning the Army has not yet responded to a DefenseWatch inquiry.
Recently Dragon Skin became an item of contention between proponents of the Interceptor OTV body armor generally issued to all service members deploying in combat theaters and its growing legion of critics. Critics of the Interceptor OTV system say it is ineffective and inferior to Dragon Skin, as well as several other commercially available body armor systems on the market. Last week DefenseWatch released a secret Marine Corps report that determined that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was more effective. The Army has declined to comment on the report because doing so could aid the enemy, an Army spokesman has repeatedly said.
A U.S. Army spokesman was not available for comment at the time DW's original report (Friday - 1700 CST) was published. DefenseWatch continues to seek a response from the Army and will post one as soon as it becomes available. Yesterday the DoD released a news story through the Armed Forces News Service that quoted Maj. Gen. Steven Speaks, the Army's director of force development, who countered critical media reports by denying that the U.S. military is behind the curve in providing appropriate force protection gear for troops deployed to Iraq and elsewhere in the global war against terrorism. The New York Tiimes and Washington Post led the bandwagon of mainstream media that capitalized on DefenseWatch's release of the Marine Corps study. Both newspapers released the forensic information the Army and Marines are unwilling to discuss.
"Those headlines entirely miss the point," Speaks said.
The effort to improve body armor "has been a programmatic effort in the case of the Army that has gone on with great intensity for the last five months," he noted.
Speaks' assessment contradicts earlier Army, Marine and DoD statements that indicated as late as last week that the Army was certain there was nothing wrong with Interceptor OTV body armor and that it was and remains the "best body armor in the world."
One of the soldiers who lost his coveted Dragon Skin is a veteran operator. He reported that his commander expressed deep regret upon issuing his orders directing him to leave his Dragon Skin body armor behind. The commander reportedly told his subordinates that he "had no choice because the orders came from very high up" and had to be enforced, the soldier said. Another soldier's story was corroborated by his mother, who helped defray the $6,000 cost of buying the Dragon Skin, she said.
The mother of the soldier, who hails from the Providence, Rhode Island area, said she helped pay for the Dragon Skin as a Christmas present because her son told her it was "so much better" than the Interceptor OTV they expected to be issued when arriving in country for a combat tour.
"He didn't want to use that other stuff," she said. "He told me that if anything happened to him I am supposed to raise hell."
At the time the orders were issued the two soldiers had already loaded their Dragon Skin body armor onto the pallets being used to air freight their gear into the operational theater, the soldiers said. They subsequently removed it pursuant to their orders.
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.
Pinnacle claims more than 3,000 soldiers and civilians stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing Dragon Skin body armor, Chopra said. 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, including Dragon Skin body armor, boots, and various kinds of non-issue ancillary equipment.
Last year the DoD, under severe pressure from Congress, authorized a one-time $1,000 reimbursement to soldiers who had purchased civilian equipment to supplement either inadequate or unavailable equipment they needed for combat operations. At the time there was no restriction on what the soldiers could buy as long as it was specifically intended to offer personal protection or further their mission capabilities while in theater.
If this article is true, then it is outrageous to ask soldiers to go where they can be shot, and forbid them to use the better body armor that they can buy with their own money. I do hope this is exposed later to be an hoax.
But if this is no hoax, then to threaten them with possible forefeiture of their death benefits if they are killed while wearing the better body armor is crazy talk. What possible motive can there be to prevent a soldier from equiping himself with protection that might save his life, that the government won't supply, which might make a death benefit payment unnecessary? Something deeply immoral is going on here. It's like saying we will only pay your benefit if you don't try harder to avoid getting killed. Senseless, unless they have some yet undiscovered perverse incentive to both have more soldiers die and pay more death benefits!
I wonder how enlistments will proceed now when the candidates find out that that their death benefits will be held hostage to extort them to accept needless greater risks with their lives. It was supposed to be better to be in the military with President Bush in office, because he was former military himself. Help is on the way, and all that. Well, who does this help? Our enemies who want to kill more of us. Thank you.
"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."
What kind of combat environment do the generals ever see? Do they need to know if a little red wine is spilled on the body armor, if it leaves a stain? Please don't insult us. The troops already know what the better armor is. They should be left alone to use it as they please. Did the generals buy these vests with their own money or did the taxpayers furnish them?
It's the Army way. We were told, way back, that there's a right way to do things and the Army way, and that we would do things the Army way.
The Marine Corps is now reembursing the cost for Marines who buy their own equipment from civillian companies, to include body armor.
I have a friend who is in special forces. He told me they purchase lots of their own gear.
I wonder if this story is true.
What would the family be told? Yes, he was killed in combat, but you don't get his death benefit because he was not wearing the correct body armor?
There would have to be a paper trail for thiese orders if benefits are denied for such a silly thing, and the families would litigate fiercely.
I suspect that this is a hoax, there are many elements that do not make sense, and it includes too many factors that block verification or even investigation.
That policy applies for the entire DOD, as well.
The Army has been reimbursing soldiers for gear and armor, but they seem to have a problem with this particular armor.
Defense Review article on 'Dragon Skin' armor:
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=490
Website for 'Dragon Skin' armor:
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/sov.php
I'm not buying it.
I suspect as much, too. "Soldiers for the Truth"????
Probably in parts. But it has the typical "breathless outrage" tone that makes me think somebody's trying to score political points with it.
Been there. Done that. Sad, but true.
I hear ya. :-)
Sounds like a CYA, in case some troops buy inferior armor and it fails.
<< Inspired by the outspoken idealism of retired Colonel David Hackworth >>
given how many times 'pinnacle' and 'dragon skin' are mentioned in the article, it reads like an infomercial, along with the 19 anonymous generals using the product.
Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Privately Owned Dragon Skin Body Armor
So from this I extrapolate that if a soldier succumbs to the enemy while wearing tighty whities instead of reg boxers, the family won't get his death benefit?
Ridiculous.
Soldiers For The Truth carries on the campaign of our founder, Col. David H. Hackworth (Ret.) - one of America's greatest heroes - to educate our country's citizens on the need to give a voice to our serving sons and daughters and to demand that they receive:
- Equipment superior to the best an enemy can employ against them;
- Training that fully prepares them to succeed in all assigned missions;
- Leadership dedicated to selfless service and the timeless values of
From the group's website comments page:
First, I have a question for you. Are you or the two Soldiers you talk about in the first paragraph of your [piece] alleging they are members of a special operations unit? I assume the third Soldier you mention in paragraph three alleges [he is] in a SOF unit because he talks about a message that allegedly came from USSOCOM headquarters last week. I just need a little clarification. Thanks.
I have not found any directive that went out of USSOCOM headquarters last week that addressed the subject of body armor, much less prohibited the use of commercial body armor. Neither can I find where there was any statement made about service members losing their SGLI death benefits if they are wearing commercial body armor at the time of their death.
Additionally, for your information, Special Operations Forces do not use the Interceptor OTV body armor that you discussed in the DefenseWatch piece. Special Operations Forces use the Body Armor Load Carriage System (BALCS).
Respectfully,
Ken McGraw
Deputy Public Affairs Officer
US Special Operations Command
Would it not be that 100% would have been saved if the body armor was more effective?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.