By David Crane defrev at gmail dot com February 5, 2009 On January 29, 2009, the Washington Times reported that the U.S. Army is recalling "more than 16,000 sets of ceramic body armor plates that the Pentagon’s inspector general believes were not properly tested and could jeopardize the lives of U.S. service personnel." This came just one day after the …

by David Crane david at defensereview.com For the last few months, DefenseReview has been writing about the Pinnacle Armor SOV/Dragon Skin vs. Interceptor Body Armor fight. We consider this situation to be one of the most important developing news stories in the country, as it directly impacts the lives/survivability of our infantry warfighters. As the situtation has progressed, DefenseReview (DefRev) …

by David Crane david at defensereview.com   Defense Review has confirmed it.  Just as we expected, Pinnacle Armor SOV-2000 (Level III/III+) and SOV-3000 (Level IV) Dragon Skin body armor appears to be significantly superior in every combat-relavant way to U.S. Army PEO Soldier’s and U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center (NSC)/Soldier Systems Center’s Interceptor Body Armor, which is comprised of the following components: …

by David Crane defrev at gmail.com On April 5, 2006, DefenseReview published the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense news transcript (Unclassified) of Major General Jeffrey Sorenson’s News Briefing on Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin body Armor and the Safety of Use Message (SOUM) relating to it. In his news briefing Mr. Sorenson made a …

by David Crane defrev@gmail.com Everyone who’s been following the U.S. Army’s body armor drama involving Interceptor body armor program vs. SOV/Dragon Skin body armor is probably already aware that U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center (Natick)/Natick Soldier Center and PEO Soldier (Program Executive Office Soldier) have essentially declared war on Pinnacle Armor. According to Major General Jefferey A. Sorenson, Deputy for …

by David Crane defrev@gmail.com The following article contains links to video clips of Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin/SOV body armor being live-fire tested against 7.62x39mm military ball ammo (FMJ) and 9mm military ball ammo (9x19mm FMJ) at short distances. As our readers know, DefenseReview has been reporting on the Pinnacle Armor SOV/Dragon Skin body armor vs. Interceptor Body Armor for a …

by David Crane david@defensereview.com DefenseReview has confirmed a report that Pinnacle Armor met with General James R. Moran, Commanding General, U.S. Army Natick Soldier Systems Center and Program Executive Officer Soldier (PEO Soldier), on January 17, 2006 in order to give him the opportunity to see the official DoD/military protocol test data on Pinnacle’s SOV/Dragon Skin body armor. Upon viewing …

by David Crane david@defensereview.com On January 11th (2006), DefenseWatch/Soldiers For The Truth (SFTT) published an article by DW/SFTT editor Nat Helms about a critical/damaging U.S. Marine Corps forensic study on Interceptor OTV body armor, titled Interceptor OTV Body Armor Costs Lives, An Internal USMC Report Shows.Two days later, on January 13th (2006), DefenseReview reported on the current Pinnacle Armor Dragon …