NBC Fans Flames of Body Armor Debate (Updated and Expanded)

NBC's take on the Army's body armor debate aired this weekend. As should come as little surprise to those who follow this heated debate, NBC came down on the side of Dragon Skin, citing its independent testing. You can get idea of the NBC approach in the clip below, though you should look here, for the testing results.

In the days leading up to the NBC news report, the Army went into full spin, providing embargoed briefings to select news organizations in the hopes, which were largely fulfilled, that the NBC report would be met this week with at least a few articles that would highlight the service's rebuttal. The Army's response to the Dragon Skin debate, focused on its ballistic testing, which demonstrated failures in the Dragon Skin armor (failures which are disputed by Dragon Skin supporters).

As Army Times reports on the Army's position:

The Army tests on Dragon Skin, conducted May 16-19, 2006, at H.P. White labs near Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., subjected Pinnacle’s unique armor design against the same test protocols the Army uses to test its Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts and Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts, Karl Masters, PEO Soldier’s chief engineer for body armor, said.

The vests were exposed to temperatures ranging from minus 60 degrees to 160 degrees Fahrenheit, and were immersed in diesel fuel, oil and salt water for extended periods of time. After each of these exposures, testers shot the vests with armor-piercing ammunition, the most lethal small arms threat on the battlefield.

Four out the eight vests tested failed after suffering 13 first or second shot complete penetrations with 7.62mm x 63mm APM2 Armor Piercing ammunition, Masters said.

At issue for both NBC and the Army is how the tests were performed, and whether the tests were really fair tests of the armor. NBC has reason to find fault with the Army; after all, if Dragon Skin failed in testing, they'd have no story. The Army, however, has a history of biasing tests in favor of its preferred system.

It's all a good argument for independent testing and evaluation.