| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits |
| 2006-01-17 |
| 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. |
| Posted by:Yosemite Sam |
| #19 Americans who have been conned into supporting the nation-building sham in the Iraq and Afghan pig pens, would do well to check out the attached link: http://www.fomi.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1627&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Nation-destruction please. |
| Posted by: CaziFarkus 2006-01-17 22:08 |
| #18 http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/dragon-skin-survivors.php |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-01-17 21:02 |
| #17 They probably made his Mom stay home too. |
| Posted by: junkirony 2006-01-17 16:09 |
| #16 Not necessarily, USN ret. There are functional and performance requirements in the RFP as well as a cost section..... ;-) Been there, won a few without being the lowest bidder, albeit not for mass delivery of standard items. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-01-17 14:57 |
| #15 Didn't have much need for body armor on the carriers, but you can bet that if I did and the commercial stuff looked better than the gov't issue, I'd be there. Remember, the winning supplier is / was the LOW bidder...... |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2006-01-17 14:31 |
| #14 Paul Chopra is a great guy, fellow Nightstalker, and a friend, but this does no help since he is now a "Company Spoksman" selling a product. First, The crap about Generals wearing different body armor. This is a fact of life and does not always mean they wear better. The armor they wear is usually lower grade that RBA. They wear thinner stuff because they are usually in a political mode outside the wire, IE visiting heads of state. Ambassadors also wear thin armor, when they wear it. It is no where near as protective as what our troop wear, just helful from some guy with a pistol and no help from a sniper. Which leads to the second point. If a soldier believes his store bought equipment will outperform his issued then he will leave his issued stuff in the tent, regardless of the truth. Then there are hundreds of issues about durability of the stuff when it gets soaked, damaged, and if it is easilly removed when the soldier gets hit etc... This is just plane old second guessing the command and stirring doubt as to the effectiveness on the gear they currently wear. This artice does not say they were going without body armor. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-01-17 14:22 |
| #13 Er, do I have to answer that? |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-01-17 13:39 |
| #12 Great. Seafarious, you gonna buy it now? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-01-17 13:37 |
| #11 Like something you'd see in a Texaco men's room vending machine. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-17 13:23 |
| #10 I'm buyin' it just for the name... Dragonskin. It has a nice ring to it. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-01-17 13:22 |
| #9 IIUC it is going the other way, tw. After a recent unusual period in which people were allowed to supplement equipment in all kinds of ways, the standard Army discipline is kicking in and commanders are demanding that only issued equipment be used. I won't debate the overal good/bad on this, but will note that a lot of training and tactical doctrine assumes the members of a unit are outfitted the same way. OTOH, from the story this unit appears to be SOCOM and those guys usually have a lot more leeway on equipment. But not, perhaps, at the level of an individual junior soldier. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-01-17 13:11 |
| #8 It could simply be that the commander (is that an actual thingy, like Sergeant or General, or is that a descriptor?) was incorrect in his/her understanding of the rules. If so, the sound and fury will cause that to be fixed. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-01-17 13:07 |
| #7 If they raise enough stink they'll manage to get Dragonskin for every person in the military today. And _then_ we might find out whether or not all the sales brochures are right. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-01-17 12:58 |
| #6 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. Yea, right....Chopra said he did not know the names of the general officers wearing the Dragon Skin. Another, do as I say not as I do command. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-17 11:59 |
| #5 The rules are 'Line of Duty'. When they stop paying out bennies because the servicemember died in an vehicle accident and DUI, then I'd be concerned, but the law is the law. They pay. They will continue to pay. Someone is going to get his nickers in a tight wad when they try to pull this stunt. Talk about "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces" Art. 134, UCMJ. You have guys chucking parts of body armor already because of weight. Going stop bennies for them too? You know every now and then the command chain needs an attitude adjustment applied. |
| Posted by: Slavilet Sleamp2798 2006-01-17 11:49 |
| #4 Anon I have to disagree and if it was my butt (or one of my kids) I would buy the best I could get my hands on before I deployed. The CO is loony if he is going to deny SLGI or any other death benefits of a soldier who wasn't wearing issue gear. Hell if that was the case half the people deployed would be denied benefits. Also it would be a REALLY bad PR move for the Armed Services. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-01-17 11:47 |
| #3 ...My advice to the kid would be to wear the armor and the Army be damned. If he does go down to a wound anywhere that WASN'T under the body armor, they still have to pay up. If he takes a hit through the body armor and dies anyways, imagine the stink the MSM will raise - "this poor boy had to buy his own body armor and now the evil Bushitler won't pay his life insurance." His family will get the money after a news cycle or two of that. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-01-17 11:43 |
| #2 ...My advice to the kid would be to wear the armor and the Army be damned. If he does go down to a wound anywhere that WASN'T under the body armor, they still have to pay up. If he takes a hit through the body armor and dies anyways, imagine the stink the MSM will raise - "this poor boy had to buy his own body armor and now the evil Bushitler won't pay his life insurance." His family will get the money after a news cycle or two of that. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-01-17 11:40 |
| #1 After the initial reaction, the rationale for this prohibition came to mind. That is, if a soldier gets a piece of commercial equipment that helps him do his job better, fine. But if it is defensive equipment, that helps him alone, there is a problem. It is bad for unit morale. You don't want your soldiers pondering all of the questions inherent in "he has better protection than I do". And there are lots of questions they would be asking. This could even have an impact on the whole unit. Granted, this is my guess as to why they are banning this stuff, but they may have a very good point. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-17 11:26 |