<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for Dragon Skin body armor, not the panacea claimed?</title>
        <description>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</description>
        <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod_rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:35:56 Z</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Movable Type 4.12</generator>
        <language>en</language>
        <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>

        <item>
            <title>Dragon Skin body armor, not the panacea claimed?</title>
            <description>It would appear so. I know I&apos;m late to this. I&apos;ve been busy at work and the Castle Gnomes went on strike and I&apos;m having to get estimates from Normals about maintenance to the gutters that keep the battlements free from standing water (which protects the ballistae from rot, donchaknow), and then there is the worrisome sapping that *someone* is doing that is causing cracking in the Castle batter. Sigh. Anyway... Army Defends Body Armor Quality By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, May 21, 2007 – U.S. troops operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have the best...</description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 06:34:43 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Cassandra on 2007-05-24</title>
            <description>
                Not having read all your links, the weight thing is a killer.

And the temperature thing. That is just almost impossible to overcome, unless there&apos;s something in those links, which I don&apos;t have time to read.  

Gear has to be able to withstand extremes in temperature. It just has to.

Period. End of discussion.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60364</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60364</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 16:45:32 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2007-05-23</title>
            <description>
                It may have been covered in the extremely technical comment at DT, but just looking at the DS armor, especially when on a curved torso, wouldn&apos;t the point of greatest weakness actually be if a round were fired UPWARD into the armor, like if the firer were laying on his back on the ground?  It looks like, with an impact angle like that, the bullet could actually be channeled between the scales straight to kevlar.

Oh, and I just saw the DS on a History channel show about the history of body armor.  They were testing it against flat clay again.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60322</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60322</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 21:33:50 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from BloodSpite on 2007-05-23</title>
            <description>
                I sent a clarification E-mail to John before I dropped dead this morning. One of things I mentioned was a torso or cylindrical test of the Dragon Scale versus the flat testing.

I think the biggest blunder I saw was sending a general to a newscast regarding a subject mattter he obviously didn&apos;t know much about. How do you not know when the Military Bans something *Before* you test it?

Big faux pas.

Otherwise I would love to see a side by side test of the stuff on torso based targets in full conditions. 

That being said Hbl gets points because the stuff is still frickin heavy :)
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60319</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60319</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 20:22:19 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Chuck Simmins on 2007-05-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Sorry, John. Grabbed the link from the Word Press preview pane and it's not a valid link until published. Here's the link I meant:

<a href="http://www.dvidshub.net/index.php?script=news/news_show.php&id=10486" rel="nofollow">http://www.dvidshub.net/index.php?script=news/news_show.php&id=10486</a>
]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60314</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60314</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 17:54:31 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-05-23</title>
            <description>
                Umm, Gee, Chuck - at least till that thing publishes, it just takes me to your login page.

Oh, and, with love, Bite Me.

8^ )

Pickin&apos; on a disabled vet.  Oh the humanity!
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60310</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60310</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 14:24:02 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Chuck Simmins on 2007-05-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[John, XXXL? Just have them slap on a set of tracks, dude. You don't need armor.

<a href="http://northshorejournal.org/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=4236" rel="nofollow">http://northshorejournal.org/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=4236</a>

Excalibur fired in combat for first time]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60306</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60306</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 14:12:36 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2007-05-23</title>
            <description>
                Christian at DT also ponts out what looks like a serious flaw in the NBC lab&apos;s testing-that the DS armor section was placed in front of a FLAT clay target, which maximizes the scale overlap.

How many flat people do you know?

The Army&apos;s tests apparently used the same curved mock-torso they used for the ESAPI.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60295</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60295</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 11:25:17 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2007-05-23</title>
            <description>
                Did anyone else read the weigh figures besides me? 47 freaking pounds?!!  And that&apos;s before you add ammo, water, grenades, first aid kit, etc.  And not including weapon and helmet.

Then trying going on a foot patrol in 120+ heat wearing that.

For a weight difference of 15-20 pounds, the protection would have to be an order of magnitude better.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60292</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60292</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 11:05:50 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from BloodSpite on 2007-05-23</title>
            <description>
                Hey SOMEBODY had to stir the flames on this one :)

We haven&apos;t had a good Military Acquisition/Equipment Recommendation debate here in at least....ohh...2 or 3 days :)
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60287</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60287</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 08:56:39 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from ry on 2007-05-23</title>
            <description>
                I&apos;m going with what Patton said about the Ronson, erm, Sherman.  Who cares if it really is the best.  The people have to believe in it in a time of war.  Or words to that effect.  

This would be different if it were 1995 and we weren&apos;t actually in a serious dust up.  As it is nobody is giving Big Army a chance to quietly retreat on the issue if they are wrong---which means they&apos;ll never make a switch if they are wrong.  
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60286</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60286</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 08:37:05 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from BloodSpite on 2007-05-23</title>
            <description>
                Have you seen the News Test done on it?

It looks like the Army may have dropped the ball big time on this
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60284</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/dragon_skin_bod.html#comment-60284</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 06:48:29 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>


