Please tell me this isn't true, Pat! The source is questionable but I wouldn't put this past our military for one second.

http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionI...30&htmlId=4514

Now i'm not sure if there have been formal tests done on the differences between dragon skin and IBA, but according to some friends I have in SOF/SOC units it's a ton better than IBA, it even provides side protection. Most of them have tested it themselves with their own barrage of hardware.

 

Having never heard of this issue nor of Dragonskin, my opinion is that the situation seems legit.

On the one hand, as a commander I'd tell my guys (especially if I were getting pressure from higher) that they may be sacrificing their life insurance.

Has the Army had a chance to test that particular body armor? Have the soldiers been given any reasoning behind the Army's reluctance? It's not too dissimilar to modifying our cars. If you replace the factory brakes with pads that are race pads, it's common knowledge that it takes them a long time to heat up and may not be safe for normal city driving. Yet, I know for a fact that there are many folks who've replaced their pads with racing pads. Should the insurance have to pay if the pads are at fault in a collision?

On the other hand, the body armor may in fact be safer and not restrict mobility. The soldiers may have a valid claim that this Dragonskin will in fact increase their safety without limiting combat effectiveness. Unfortunately you and I know that the Army is a beauracracy (slow to move) and the Acquisition Corps' inability to test EVERY piece of revolutionary new equipment has been the cause for the soldiers in the field to not be as well equipped as they could be.

Rock = tired old regulations.
Hard place = stark reality and public opinion.

 

I will say that I'm confident that this will most likely be rectified quickly, though.

If their commanders are convinced that the Dragonskin is better, they'll get approval to use it. Shouldn't take anything more than a morning out on the shooting range.

 

Assuming this is all true, what I don't understand are the scare tactics regarding the loss of SGLI benefits.

I don't ever remember being presented with any riders or information when I signed up for SGLI. All that I was ever asked was who do you I want to name as beneficiaries. Have things changed?

Not once was I ever informed on what constitutes a violation of the policy and negates their liability to pay.

I know the military can pull orders and nonsense out of their asses like a magician, but can they pull policy out of their asses and enforce it legally?

 

here's a read on the Dragon skin. Pretty impressive.
http://www.defensereview.com/article490.html

 

All I know is that SGLI is like any insurance. If the insured does something negligent, either simple or gross, the insurer isn't liable to cover damages.

I'm basing that off of an instance where we had a couple of NCOs who were killed in an auto accident while driving from Ft Campbell to Benning to attend BNCOC. It was determined by the local PD that they weren't wearing their seatbelts, which as you know, is Army policy.

Those soldiers' command are probably just warning them, at this point, until further data surfaces as to the efficacy of Dragonskin.

 

In light of the link you posted, this certainly confuses me.

http://www.military.com/features/0,1...ml?ESRC=dod.nl

 

Who knows anymore?

 

Sounds like BS to me...

I've been through CACO training (Casuality Assistance Calls Officer) and the myth about losing the SGLI benefits for not having your seat belt on are just that.

They tell you that not wearing your seat belt and getting killed in an accident in order to "scare" you into conforming.

Alot of the other myths about SGLI are BS...and the Department of the Army does not regulate the SGLI. SGLI actually is a private insurance (think it's prudential)

The problem is most likely a pending lawsuit against the army from the company of Dragonskin....(my thoughts on it) for members using this armor without a government contract.

Contracts rule all. It might also be a problem with the company that provides the current body armor, having now read the article....it's got to be a contract violation issue.

The armor our boys are provided by the armor is typical goverment contracted crap. They deserve better protection, and if they are not getting it and are willing to purchase their own then I say screw the Army's order to not use what comes out to being better equipment.

Makes me wonder which "elected official" has ties to the company that makes the current body armor....I'd bet he's the one responsilbe for this order.

Wonder if Halyburton has anything to do with this????