# Canada has better kit



## Spc_Cameron (5 Sep 2004)

yep... believe it or not.. i can show you pictures of what I was issued versus what I went to war with

i spent no less than 1200.00 US in kit before I deployed..
for you a leatherman is standard kit for us its a luxury item..
your LBV's are better.. your uniform is better.. what the hell is going on???
i was issued an IBA ( body armour ) half of which I can';t wear cus it gets in the way

add to that vietnam issue ammo pouches... screw it bought a rack fro Tactical tailor
got knee pads that were meant for a skateboarder
my kevlar is so damn heavy, an i used the steel pots back in 92 so no comments from the peanut gallery, its a wonder i can keep my head up..
DCU's?.. what ever deployed with 2 pair... both ruined after 6 weeks.. no laundry

wore bdus for the majority of the time over there

nice to see at least canada has its soldiers best intrest at heart when it comes to personal gear


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Sep 2004)

Yep, our personal gear is pretty good, though in limited supply.

Now, the larger items, like helicopters and such, are where the US gains a whole lot of ground.


----------



## canuck101 (5 Sep 2004)

Yeah and the government is giving peace keepers in Sudan 250,000 dollars worth of helmets and vests to them.  We don't have enough for ourselves.  But i guess we should be happy that they are not sending any troops since we don't have any to go.  Soon the only overseas mission of any size will be in Afghanistan. Bosnia is will be down to 80 personnel soon.  

Now we just need to hear from the government of the new search and rescue planes and maybe i can wish for some new c-130 j's.


----------



## pbi (5 Sep 2004)

Spc Cameron: I have observed the same thing here in Afgh. Our Canadian personal equipment appears to be superior to what US forces are generally issued. I know that my IBA and my tac vest are much newer and much better than what the US guys around me have (and these are Regular guys not Reserve or Guard) The USMC has adopted our desert camo (with a slight variation of the grey tones). Of course, it took us a very long time to get where we are. When I joined (and I'm sure it was the same for you) the kit was utter crap. We are light years ahead now, and getting better. Going on all these ops in the last ten years has helped. Cheers.


----------



## KevinB (5 Sep 2004)

The TACVEST is a POS.

 Yanks have camelbacks  - we got three (yes 3) for our Platoon...
The IBA is rated higher ballistically than our Gen III vests.

We have a limited # of weapon lights, and IR Laser Pointer/Illuminators (only for operations)  The US Army has M4 carbines where we have a few C8's, C8A1's, and C8SFW's - the C7A2 is too large to enter/egrees vehicles quickly and do house clearing drills.  

The US Army regs (Infantry) are equipped to a higher state than us - we have better kit than some guard units.  The PRR is step above US indiv comms.

Our uniform is a flamable nigthmare - yeah the camo may be cool but the nylon fabric is a burn victim disaster in waiting.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (5 Sep 2004)

About your note on Camelbaks... are our boys overseas not issued Camelbaks? I know that CBs arn't standard issue US kit...


----------



## Da_man (5 Sep 2004)

My tactical vest is starting to rip apart after 1 week in the field  :-\


----------



## George Wallace (5 Sep 2004)

AlphaCharlie said:
			
		

> About your note on Camelbaks... are our boys overseas not issued Camelbaks? I know that CBs arn't standard issue US kit...



Camelbacks are not standard issue.  When we sent our Recce Sqn to Afghan, our RQ ordered Camelbacks through the US to issue to all the guys.  That came from the operational funding that he had for items such as that.  Therefore, the problem of Camelbacks would appear to be a "Unit" problem.

GW


----------



## BDTyre (5 Sep 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Our uniform is a flamable nigthmare - yeah the camo may be cool but the nylon fabric is a burn victim disaster in waiting.



If I remember correctly, the U.S. uniform -both the new MARPAT ones and the old woodland and three-color desert ones are also a Nylon-Cotton blend.


----------



## Inch (5 Sep 2004)

Speaking of the flamable uniforms.   We are finally getting Nomex flight suits, they're a little more comfortable than the wool/cotton blue ones, but as far as fire protection goes, unless you're wearing double layers, even Nomex won't prevent you from getting burned. We can only wear cotton or wool against the skin, you guys love your polyprop stuff, in a fire polyprop and synthetics will melt and stick to the skin. You've really got to ask what your priorities are, comfort and usefulness everyday and the chance that you'll catch on fire, or double layers under Nomex sweating your arse off everyday for the slim chance you'll catch on fire.   Polyprop is too good in the winter and I don't think forced marching with double layers in the summer would be a wise idea.

Just my $0.02

Cheers


----------



## Matt_Fisher (5 Sep 2004)

Spc_Cameron,

I wouldn't say that Canadian kit is hands down better than US.

In certain areas each nation has equipment that is better than the other.

What you've got to realize is that as a Canadian soldier, unless you're going overseas on an op. you probably will have to wait a long time before you see any of the "high-speed" Clothe The Soldier kit.  Some of which is not particularly high-speed at all...ie. Canadian Tac-Vest which lacks modularity and has a limited mag. capacity of 4 magazines.

When were you deployed overseas?  I know now that the US Army has instituted a "Rapid Fielding Initiative" program that's getting stuff like upgraded desert boots, MICH helmets, camelbaks, IBA, Wiley ballistic goggles, gerber multi-tools, etc. to every troop headed over to Iraq or Afghanistan.

When we conducted our AOR hand-over to the 82nd Airborne in late August these guys had issue kit that made us Marines with our M-16A2s, ALICE gear and old school k-pots look like we were in the dark-ages.  These guys all had M4s with ACOGS, M-249s with 100 round soft-ready pouches, thermal sights for their .50 cals and Mk-19s, MICH helmets, kneepads.  

I'll speak from my experience as a US Marine.

As far as the IBA goes, what parts in particular are you having problems with?  The only real problem I had with my IBA was that the velcro on the opening flap would often work loose.  I think that if they added a couple 1" fastex buckles to help secure the vest the system would work better in this regard.  It's a pretty easy fix to do on your own actually using some 1" webbing, a couple nylon tri-glides and a set of Fastex repair buckles.

As far as Load-Bearing Gear...our unit is probably one of the very few that has not obtained the MOLLE system which most of the Marine Corps is using.  Camelbaks are part of the MOLLE package.  We were sent us over with the old ALICE LBVs, medium rucks and "old" kevlar helmets.  

However, our leadership realized that since they didn't have the money at the time to procure decent pers. kit for us they were extremely liberal in what we were allowed to use/wear.  Personal rigs and rucks were pretty much the norm, such as the Tactical Tailor MAV, Blackhawk Chest-rigs, Eagle 3-day assault packs, etc.

What kneepads are you using?  I've used Hatch's in the past and they weren't that great, but currently I'm using a set of Altas which work fairly well.

As far as Kevlars being too heavy?  Yeah, there are lighter helmets out there now, but I've never had a serious problem keeping my head up with the k-pot on.  If you're having alot of problems with the kevlar, I'd suggest you either do the low-cost foam dougnut upgrade, or spend a bit more money and go with the Oregon Aero Ballistic Upgrade.  The Oregon Aero kit will make you feel like you've got a brand-new helmet on.

As for your DCUs...I survived 7 months with only two sets of Marpat Desert uniforms and a set of nomex CVC coveralls.  Alot of our guys that were wearing the tri-color DCU had their uniforms fall apart.  The Marpat uniform seems to be constructed far better than the DCUs.

However I don't understand your "no laundry" comment.  Until we got stationed at Camp Babylon in September, we were hand-washing all our clothes in wash buckets or ammo. cans (25mm ammo can works great!  ;D) You can't tell me that you're angry because a uniform you wore for 6 weeks without laundering fell apart on you?

KevinB, after wearing both the Canadian combat-cloth uniform and the 50/50 nyco twill that the Marine uniforms are constructed from and the god-awful 50/50 nyco ripstop, I'd go with Canadian fabric anyday.  That stuff breathes and dries far better than the US stuff.  As far as flamability, they're both about the same.  The main downside to combat-cloth is the "combat lingerie" factor that you get from a uniform that's a few years old, however our stuff rarely lasts that long without ripping heinously or wearing through and having to be discarded.


----------



## Spc_Cameron (6 Sep 2004)

The TACVEST is a POS.
can't be any owrse than the ALICE system or the MOLLE

 Yanks have camelbacks  - we got three (yes 3) for our Platoon...
The IBA is rated higher ballistically than our Gen III vests.

sure camelbacks are standard issue now.. but to tell you the truth are utter crap in Combat OPS...  I've actaully contacted Camel BAcks in regards to thier "ruggedness" ( is that a word?.

Ballistacally?.. I though you guys had the same plates as us... I was refering to the over all vest i... no range of motion going prone is a nightmare... I'd rather have a vest that covered vitals alone, D- boys had some highspeed ones that out Scout snipers adopted. only problem was coverage on the sides around rib and chest area.

We have a limited # of weapon lights, and IR Laser Pointer/Illuminators (only for operations)  The US Army has M4 carbines where we have a few C8's, C8A1's, and C8SFW's - the C7A2 is too large to enter/egrees vehicles quickly and do house clearing drills.

I feel you there.. you're under the impression that all units are equiped the same.. not so.. I quote LTC Russel during a sensing session with EM's " I've never seen so many damn kentucky long rifles in my life, and you SAW gunners how the hell you manage I'll never know "  yep m-16 A4' they may be but not everyone in out unit has an M-4.. Squad leaders only. as far as IR illuminators go... PAQ-4a s waht you get unless your a 240 gunner, squad leader, or SAW gunner.  our weapons were broke down when we deplyed they're even more broke down now that we're back..not due to improper PCI a PCC but just general wear and tear. according to our TO&E all 240 gunner are to be equipped with a M-9 Barretta.. not so we have one per company.   

The US Army regs (Infantry) are equipped to a higher state than us - we have better kit than some guard units.  The PRR is step above US indiv comms.

well Light Units might fair better than we do, as for Gaurd.. allot of Gaurd and Reserve units are better equipped than us trust me I've seen it, a 203 gunner with an IR range finder for his 203?... that was high speeed and the only one I've ever seen does away with the leaf and Quadra site. MICH helmets with 3 point chin harness.. had to buy my own chin harness ( 50.00 plus shipping to APO address. )

Our uniform is a flamable nigthmare - yeah the camo may be cool but the nylon fabric is a burn victim disaster in waiting.

wasn't aware of the material that your CANPATS were made of... I assumed that they were the same material as our DCUS... ( after thought wonder what material the new ACU's are going to be. )

guess Im just saying .. don't  think all Units are the same or have the same budget.... in MECH units most of our budget goes to Vehicle s. individual equipment is second.


----------



## Spc_Cameron (6 Sep 2004)

Hi Matt,

was going to quote your post but it would have been a lil to much text so I'll address some of you're questions and points.

you asked when I was overseas.
left Fort hood on April 3rd 2003 returned march 10th 2004. as we were leaving we saw all these guys with new Dec's mostly 2ID Stryker Brigade. 
1st ID replaced us... for a MECH DIV they were still better equipped than us.. M-4 CQC kits on their M249 ( everytime I saw the LTC I asked him about Class 9 parts for conversion...still do to this day... he's gone from answering my question to rolling his eyes saluting with a goodmorning SPC.

IBA and velcro.. yep had the same problem most of us cannibalized old camel backs from supply for the fastex and hadji rigged buckles.w/ 550 chord ( thats Parachute chord for our Canadian friends ). wonder how the ACU's will fair with velcro pockets.

Kneepads.. ?... same ones you guys have... most have traded theirs in for the lighter version that you mentioned. ( just an after thought... most consider kneepads to be a wussy piece of kit... not for these 34 year old knees. )


_However I don't understand your "no laundry" comment.  Until we got stationed at Camp Babylon in September, we were hand-washing all our clothes in wash buckets or ammo. cans (25mm ammo can works great!  Grin) You can't tell me that you're angry because a uniform you wore for 6 weeks without laundering fell apart on you?_

y'all had laundry soap?... lol... I was lucky to get a bar of soap... sorry had to get that in there.. you know the whole when I was your age all we had was one pair of boots thing

anyway... 

sorta off topic... but I just thought I would mention this.

next week we have a kit layout.. we were ordered... but the LTC  that under no circumstances were we to DX , buy, fix, beg borrow steal kit for this layout... if it was f'ed up lay it out....apparently the CG is coming through and the LTC wants him to see just how jacked up our kit is. ( love this guy )


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Sep 2004)

We call it 550 cord as well.


----------



## pbi (7 Sep 2004)

Matt Fisher: since you are on this thread, here is a totally unrelated question for you as a Marine.

In 1997-98, I attended USMC Command and Staff College at Quantico. One thing that struck me was what I perceived to be a very high level of pride and esprit amongst the young enlisted Marines at Quantico. They seemed to be very proud to be Marines, and were always well turned out. I could not imagine a Marine appearing in public in the fat, sloppy, unkempt look that I see in some of my fellow Canadians in uniform.

In your opinion, having experienced both systems, how does the Corps instill this pride and bearing? How is it kept up after MCRD is over? At one time the Canadian Army was known for its very high standards of dress and deportment but I am not certain that this is universally the case anymore. I would be very interested to hear what you think. Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Sep 2004)

My take on it.  We used to work hard and play hard.  Now it seems like a 9-5 job, esp for the non combat arms.


----------



## pbi (7 Sep 2004)

CFL: Yes, I've heard that a few times before. But, I could counter by saying that we are "operating" alot "harder" than we ever did. I can recall when going to Cyprus was a Big Operational Thing (LOL). The last ten years have put that in the dust, and considering all the obstacles we face, we've managed to cut ourselves a pretty fair reputation as soldiers. So, why isn't that rubbing off more? Or is it just my impression?   Or is the USMC thing just an exterior? Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Sep 2004)

While not being a Marine I would say that pride is ingrained from the get go and never allowed to erode at any level.  Physical fitness and dress and deportment go hand in hand with that.  I can't remember the last time I did hand to hand combat.  Although I think dress and deportment in the Inf is not so much of a problem do to the diligence of the RSM and QMSI.  The Marine way of life seems to me as to be a sort of culture regardless of what trade you end up doing.  If your a Marine your a Marine first and cook second.  Here (CF) you won't see certain trades do the basic of PT unless they are highly motivated or attached to a field unit.  Part of that from what I here though is that in certain trades PT is not organized and the members are busy with their specific trade (see 9-5 job).  The cmbt arms are different to an extent.  We don't go on mandatory coffee breaks (whether the work is done or not) until the job at hand is done normally.  We expect that we may have to work nights and weekends.  Its part of the job but I have seen some outside of the combat arms complain when they have to stay 5 min past their regular quitting time.  I hope that it is a generalization and that I'm way off but as of yet I haven't seen anything to the contrary.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Sep 2004)

My take on it is that right from birth (BMQ to us) the Marine is taught strictly by his her own. They have a sense of esprit de corps formed from the very beginning. Everyone starts out as a Marine first, tradesman second. I also doubt there is much place for the over the top, let's be careful how we treat mama's boy stuff that our CF is becoming so infamous for. Teamwork is instilled at the basic level that carries them through their career. I think they can spot a career orientated , vice Corp orientated supervisor from a mile away and don't put up with it. If we are to fix what we deem critical in our military, we have to move back to each respective unit being in charge of their own from the day they hit Depot, otherwise we're pissing in the wind. A Regimental family is just that, not growing up as cousin who moves around to different families like a cast off foster child. Just my 00.02.


----------



## pbi (7 Sep 2004)

CFL and recceguy:

I think you both may be on to something (although I am waiting to hear from our Marine friend...). Personally (and this is just my own take) I regard Unification as a hideous disaster that did more institutional damage than we can begin to imagine. One of the most brutal and stupid things it did was to teach support people that they were "specialists" first and soldiers second (or...third.. or,welll....whatever).

It is worth remembering the historical perspective of the advent of Unification. The Glassco Report, which led to it, was written at a time in the 1960's when the nuclear threat had raised serious doubts about the actual value of ground troops at all. This misguided line of thinking had already led, among other things, to a disaster in our Army Reserve which was subjected to an attempted conversion to a civil defence force, since the theory of the day held that nuclear war would render mobilization pointless. Instead Reserve soldies were to be trained as psuedo-fire/rescue people, but with utterly inadequate kit (ie: zero IPE) This was the infamous "Snakes and Ladders" period, during which Reservists, many of them still with WWII or Korea experience, quit in droves. It was also, IMHO, the opening salvo in the nasty little war that has raged between the two parts of our Army until very recently.

Concurrent with the nuclear fixation was the obsession with technology and "systems" as the solution to everything. This was, in my opinion, the beginning of a period that has lasted until probably about the last decade or so, in which the human aspects of soldiering were neglected or minimized. The US went down that road but IMHO they have learned a few lessons, especially here in OEF and in OIF. Unification brought with it an approach that service in the military was really just another job, and that the real purpose of military service was to learn a saleable skill of some sort. The result of this fixation was an elevation of the technician above the warrior.

We have lived with this institutional atrocity for well over 30 years now, and I believe that it is only just now, as a result of our recent operational expreiences (as well as those of our Allies) that we may be realizing that the "purple tradesman" is an outdated luxury who can actually be a liability on the battlefield. The US has learned in no uncertain terms that supporters must be able to fight, and that their Army needs more Infantry. In fact, I had a conversation in my office today with two US Air Defense Artillery officers who were complaining about how their units were being disbanded to create more Infantry. This is apparently happening in the Field Arty too.

Now, let me pause to say that I have had the great privelige to command the Administration Company of a mech battalion. And I do mean privelige: I was very proud of almost every one of those support people. Overall, they worked harder and longer than the guys in the rifle coys did, both in garrison and in the field. It sure as hell wasn't Admin Coy knocking off at 1430, and lots of times we didn't take part in sports on Fridays because we had to get the bn ready for a deployment, or an ATI, or whatever. The folks I detatched out to the rifle coys, like the MRTs, the amb teams and the cooks busted their asses, and in most cases they enjoyed a close relationship with their companies. But, again in my opinion, these people were good in spite of the purple CF system, not because of it.

I believe that we must pursue an Army model very similar to that of the USMC: everyone a soldier first, with a total Army orientation instead of bouncing our support folk from one environment to the next. As well, I believe we might want to look very seriously at the issue of how we instill confidence, pride and toughness. Not in a BS way, and not in a stupid way that beats everybody to a snot, but in a way that strenghtens us all. How do we do that? What do you guys think? Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Sep 2004)

Maybe you can pass that along to some of your General friends.


----------



## pbi (7 Sep 2004)

Good idea, although I don't have any "General Friends" just at the moment. But, I have put some of these thoughts down in the last issue of _Army Journal_, and hopefully in the next issue (if I get published). I suppose some Generals will read that. But, do you have any answers? Cheers.


----------



## Highland Laddie (7 Sep 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> Good idea, although I don't have any "General Friends" just at the moment. But, I have put some of these thoughts down in the last issue of _Army Journal_, and hopefully in the next issue (if I get published). I suppose some Generals will read that. But, do you have any answers? Cheers.



PBJ, if you are who you think you are (38 CBG COS?), thanks for the Gettysburg PD trip, and your on-line PD section on the German Army in the 1920's. I look forward to your article in the Army Journal.


----------



## Spc_Cameron (7 Sep 2004)

gee what a novel idea... a soldier actually allowed to express an opinion with regards to present military conditions and structure , in print no less, without getting burned at the stake for it..


sorry 

as you were.. this is turning into quite the thread...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (7 Sep 2004)

pbi,

Glad to hear you enjoyed your stay at Quantico.   My unit is based out of Camp Upshur at MCB Quantico, which is in the far back bowels of the base and was used as the OCS and TBS facility from the 1950's through the late 1970s.   For anyone who can remember the old Wainwright with it's quonset huts, it's not too different from what Camp Upshur looks like today.

As far as your question regarding dress, deportment and overall appearance of Marines vs. CF members.

In the Marine Corps, high standards of appearance are expected.   Constant vigiliance by your leaders, peers and self ensure that most Marines are well turned out.   I would say that Recruit Training does alot to instill a sense of manners/respect in most Marines and that our service is far more tradition driven than our colleagues in the other branches of the US Armed Services, which tends to ensure that that standard of dress and deportment are carried out in the Fleet.

Some of it can extend to an absurd level though, with Marines sending their camouflage uniforms to the dry cleaners to be cleaned, starched and pressed, but that is more present with the admin/REMF types.   Yes, even in the Marines we have our share of pogues.   It's just that our pogues tend to be more motivated about physical fitness, appearance, unarmed combat and marksmanship than their CF counterparts who seem to be more motivated by Tim Hortons and the canteen truck.   Does that make our infantry more elite than the RCRs/PPCLI/R223eme?   Not necessarily.   It just means that we've been able to create/maintain more of a ethos that every Marine is a rifleman whereas I think that spirit is not so present in the CFs.   

It really wasn't until after the First World War that the Marine Corps began to really develop specific trades/MOS' other than every Marine functioning as a rifleman.   Prior to that an average Marine may find that he be assigned aboard a naval vessel and been a gunner's mate in a gun crew role (the crew would be all-Marine though).   Then he may be posted to one of the Marine Barracks ashore and might find himself tasked with constructing a new rifle range in a pioneer type role.   Then he might have been shipped down to Nicaragua and functioned as a rifleman fighting insurgent guerillas. After being in Nicaragua he may have received orders to go to China and might have served in a horse-mounted unit.   Marines have always prided themselves on their flexibility and ability to learn new tasks.   It wasn't until the nature of warfare got very technical during the 1930's and into the Second World War that a formal MOS system developed within the Marines.   Even though with the development of specific trades for Marines, it's always been instilled that first and foremost you are a rifleman.   

Where I'd say is that most non-infantry types in the CFs don't put enough emphasis on physical fitness and warfighting training to their non-infantry forces.   In addition to that, with the exception of the "Warrior"/Individual Battle Task Standards program (do they even still do that?) alot of combat arms types have lost touch that they're in a profession of arms rather than a Government of Canada job that require them to wear a pickle relish pattern uniform and follow a more rigid workplace hierarchy than their compatriots at Canada Post.   The workday begins at 8:00 followed by a 30 minute coffee break at 10, followed by lunch from 11:30-1:00 followed by another coffee break at 2:30 and the office closes at 4 or 4:30.   Is unarmed combat even taught to non-infantry types?      

Now because a CF member who's a bit pudgy in their combats, does it mean that they're lazy and incompetent in their job?   Not necessarily.   They may be great at doing their primary MOC as a vehicle tech/clerk/crewman, etc.   However, their physical condition may prevent them from operating effectively in a hostile environment when it's 110 degrees farenheit in downtown Kabul they're kitted up in a frag vest, helmet, LBV and have to have to fireman carry wounded buddy a few hundred yards because their vehicle just got hit with an IED and the rest of the convoy cleared the ambush zone and is stopped down the road 700 meters regrouping.   Fat chance (quite literally) that Cpl. Pieman, whose command has let him degenerate into a state of physical unfitness, will be able to do this.

What can the CFs do to change this?   Probably for one change recruit training program to stress physical fitness and basic soldier skills such as marksmanship and emphasis on a soldier first/tradesman second mentality.   Then have the PT and marksmanship skillset continued on in the units.   PT is something that should be done more seriously also.   When I was attached to the MTSC in Wainwright during the Fall and Winter of 1996 we rucked about 7-8 km pretty much every workday as our PT program.   Nothing too serious by reg. force infantry standards, but enough to keep our feet hard and prevent us from getting too fat from the beer we drank.   We had an old PPCLI/ex-CAR WO (I can't remember his name) and that's what he did was ruck...thefore we rucked.   However my colleagues in the Transport Company of the PPCLI Battle School had no formal PT program whatsoever save the weekly collective school ruck march which was pretty much a joke and while some of them were motivated to PT after-hours, alot of them got pretty out of shape.   

As far as Soldier First, Tradesmen second mentality:   Perhaps a "Force Protection NCM (Sgt./WO)" position should be added to the non-combat arms units at least at the battalion and preferably at the company level to firm up their soldier skills through a small arms and crew-served weapons combat-marksmanship, counter-ambush drills, defensive area ops., etc. as well as an emphasis on a battle-ready PT program as part of the unit's capabilities.

Should this position be staffed by Infantry NCMs posted to CSS units?   I would say no.   Reason being is that while an infantry SNCO would be extremely knowledgeable in this area, it would could cause resentment by the CSS types as being roped into some hokey "warrior" program that is being shoved down their necks.   By keeping the business of combat soldiering within the fold of the CSS pers. they would realize that "Hey, as part of my job, I have to fire this C7 as well as repair it."   Adding this Force Protection Specialist position as an additional MOSID would be part of career progression for CSS pers at the 6A/B level.   Ideally this position would be trained in a formal course (with this one taught by infantry) and graduates would be sent out to the various units to apply and spread their knowledge base.   

Here's an example of how our non-infantry support types are in the Marine Corps:
During our unit's OIF tour, as part of each platoon's makeup, 2 LAV Tech's (CF EME veh. tech equivalent), 2 Navy Corpsmen (CF CFMS medic equivalent) and 1 Field Radio Operator (CF Signal "Jimmy" operator) were attached and when we'd go out on operations they'd function primarily as Scouts/Riflemen in the back of the LAV.  When their specific skillset was required then they'd do that job, otherwise they functioned as just another member of the fireteam.

Now in this whole rant I don't mean to say that the Marine Corps is perfect while the CFs are completely faulted.   We've got plenty of problems regarding MOS professional development in the Marine Corps.   Here's an example:   in the infantry it is possible to get promoted to the rank of Staff Sergeant and function in the billet of Platoon Sergeant (equivalent to a Canadian Platoon WO) without ever having attended Infantry Squad Leader's Course (equivalent to the Canadian ISCC) or Infantry Platoon Sergeant's Course (equivalent to the Canadian Infantry WO qual. course).   I think that a Marine version of the Canadian formalized career progression path for our MOS' (QL 5, 6A, 6B, etc.) would work wonders at professional development here in the Corps.   Professional development does exist through the Marine Corporal, Sergeants Courses and Staff NCO Academy, but it tends to focus primarily on the dress, drill and regulations side of things rather than the tactical/warfighting side of the house.


----------



## Highland Laddie (7 Sep 2004)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> For anyone who can remember the old Wainwright with it's quonset huts, it's not too different from what Camp Upshur looks like today.



'Old Wainwright'? I'm afraid the quonset huts were still there when I was there just over a week ago! Sorry, couldn't resist poking fun at the sad state of that base, or our lack of properly funding it. At lease the new shacks are no longer condemed. :-[

As for your thoughts on 'soldier first, tradesmen second' - bang on my friend. The incoming rounds and those that fired them don't care what your MOC is.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Sep 2004)

Excellent Post Matt.   



> As far as Soldier First, Tradesmen second mentality:   Perhaps a "Force Protection NCM (Sgt./WO)" position should be added to the non-combat arms units at least at the battalion and preferably at the company level to firm up their soldier skills through a small arms and crew-served weapons combat-marksmanship, counter-ambush drills, defensive area ops., etc. as well as an emphasis on a battle-ready PT program as part of the unit's capabilities.
> 
> Should this position be staffed by Infantry NCMs posted to CSS units?   I would say no.   Reason being is that while an infantry SNCO would be extremely knowledgeable in this area, it would could cause resentment by the CSS types as being roped into some hokey "warrior" program that is being shoved down their necks.   By keeping the business of combat soldiering within the fold of the CSS pers. they would realize that "Hey, as part of my job, I have to fire this C7 as well as repair it."   Adding this Force Protection Specialist position as an additional MOSID would be part of career progression for CSS pers at the 6A/B level.   Ideally this position would be trained in a formal course (with this one taught by infantry) and graduates would be sent out to the various units to apply and spread their knowledge base.



I like this idea.   I remember reading about how Marine Infantry Companies have a unique position for their Gunnery Sergeants, something like the company "musketry" officer?   Is this true?


As for instilling the "Soldier First" mentality; I think it needs to be done right from the beginning.   I've long advocated something similar to the concept employed by the Royal Marines.   All potential Marines attend a 32 week Recruit Course that culminates in the Commando Course at the end (I guess the USMC uses the same idea with the Crucible).   The highlight of the Commando Course is the "30 miler" through the difficult terrain of Dartmoor that all Recruits must finish in under 8 hours (Potential Officers in 7).   The goal is to take a recruit, regardless of what he will do in the RM, and turn him into a fighting professional.

I feel a basic course for ALL Army soldiers following the same concept should be used here.   The course should be a progressive buildup that starts by tearing the individual down and building him up as a member of his team, a team that exists to fight.   A progressive, modularized system allows for a buildup of both physical and mental toughness to allow the recruits to work towards the end goal, completion of the "Warfighting Phase", which consists of Platoon operations in a variety of exercises that represent missions along the spectrum of conflict.   The training cannot focus specifically on high-intensity fighting in the plains of Wainwright; we must also introduce low to mid-intensity Ops, from Kosovo to the current situation in Iraq, to prepare soldiers for the realities they'll face.   However, the underlying idea throughout the Warfighting Phase is that soldiers must be prepared to fight, and will be trained so in Platoon live and blank fire exercises.

For a point of reference, here is how the RM organizes their Recruit Course as a launching point for devising a way to train Canadian Army recruits:

-   Module 1 - Foundation (Weeks 1-3): Moving from Civilian to Soldier.   
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2740.html

-   Module 2 - Individual Skills Training (Weeks 4-10): Now that the recruit is starting to look like a soldier, the next step is to teach him fieldcraft and Army small arms, the "meat-and-potatoes" of operating as a fighting soldier.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2741.html

-   Module 3 - Advanced Skills Training (Weeks 11-15):   All the Individual Skills are brought together and the recruits go to the field to complete exercises that challenge them to utilize what they have learned to accomplish basic field missions with members of a small unit (section).
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2742.html

-   Module 4 - Operations of War (Weeks 16-23):   Now that the recruit is showing himself to be a competent soldier, section and platoon tactics are taught so as to teach the soldier all aspects of Warfighting as a small unit; Sections and Platoons do defensive and offensives ops, patrolling, etc, etc.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2743.html

-   Module 5 - The Commando Course and King's Squad (24-32):   This is the culmination of the Basic Training.   All the individual and team skills the recruits have been taught are put to the test in a series of gruelling tests that seek to best replicate the conditions of war.   Following successful completion, the recruits have their Parade and are now given the title of Marine.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2744.html


If we had a system like this, the need for a BMQ and an SQ would be eliminated.   Soldiers graduating would go onto their trades course and then be given their first posting.   Often in the RM, recruits serve their first "draft" as a General Duties Rifleman; I would argue that all CF soldiers should do a two year posting in a Combat Arms unit before moving onto a trade, but that is another topic.

This type of course would require the Army to move away from the CF Recruit School to a Army Recruit Depot that had access to a large training area and ranges.   Moving away from St Jean would help to move away from conducting Basic in a large institutional-like building.   A course like this would be spent mostly in the field after the foundation module was complete, with the recruits returning to simple barracks when in the Recruit Depot for classroom learning.

I would also advocate that on top of required staff for the course, an additional PTI instructor be attached to every course.   Perhaps this instructor could be something along the lines of Matt's proposed "Force-Protection NCO".   This PTI would be qualified as a Physical Trainer; since we've abandoned this field and given it to CFPSA civilians, we'd probably have to send our NCO's to a British or Australian course in order to rebuild corporate knowledge.   The PTI instructor would lead the recruits in PT and work with anyone who is falling behind by giving them remedial PT.   Again, going with Matt's proposal, perhaps this NCO will also be charged with unarmed combat and pugil-stick fighting in order to ensure that a health dose of aggression and toughness is instilled on the recruits.   At some point in the course, a rigorous PT Test will be administered (not the pathetic entry standards) which ALL recruits are required to pass in order to carry on with the training.   The overall goal of the adding the PTI is to supervise recruits a physical training buildup that works towards producing soldiers who are fit to fight; the type of exercises administered to soldiers must be relevent to the types of tasks soldiers will be expected to carry out (ie: Turning recruits into mammoth, supplement filled gym bunnies is about as useful as giving them no physical training at all....).

Overall, the goal of the course is to enforce the idea that professional soldiers will be required to be first and formost tough and disciplined fighters (I do not use the term "warriors", we are building disciplined professionals here, not grunting cavemen).   The skills they are taught on this course, up to small unit, live fire fighting, will be essential for any Army unit, regardless of trade, to survive on the modern battlefield, especially where front lines are non-existent and the enemy is tough, cunning, remorseless, and has been fighting for decades.   We can give a recruit all the fancy technical skills we want; but until we orient his professional ethos and his mindset to building the requisite physical and mental characteristics to survive on the battlefield, he is merely a casualty waiting to happen.


----------



## Poppa (7 Sep 2004)

Interesting how you you bring up Force Protection Matt, especially within the CS/CSS elements.
With how things are going it's a good reminder to all that force protection is everyones responsibilty and how it's being put into place by what we are calling "Sheild" for now (I think).

Now in order for us to tie into the current thread here have you come across many MPs in theater and what exactly were they doing? with what and how? Please don't say drinking coffee and eating douhnuts..I'm part of the new army and apt to have my feelings hurt.

Cheers


----------



## Matt_Fisher (7 Sep 2004)

Infanteer,

To answer your question, in most Marine units there is what as known as the "Company Gunnery Sergeant" and the role is either filled by a Staff Sergeant (CF Sgt./WO equivalent), Gunnery Sergeant (WO equivalent) {most commonly}, or Master Sergeant (MWO equivalent).   This role is roughly a cross between a Canadian company Ops. WO and CQMS.   The Company Gunny is in charge of getting company level training and operational resources locked on (ranges, training areas, transport, etc.) as well as the stores needed to support the company (ammo, fuel, chow, etc.) and is involved in developing the company's training and operations plan.

I would love to see the US Marine Recruit training model follow more closely that of the Royal Marines.   We do a pretty good job in the infantry at developing the rifleman, but more could still be done.   All in all our Recruit Training is 13 weeks long with 3 weeks spent at the rifle range, one week doing rudimentary fieldcraft and NBC drills and another week on the final FTX the Crucible.   The rest of the time (save the one week of combat swimming qualification) is pretty much General Service Knowledge and Drill filler with alot of PT thrown in all the time.   After Recruit Training non-infantry Marines attend another 3 weeks of field/weapons training through the Marine Combat Training Program whereas the Infantry Marines attend the 8 week long School of Infantry for basic rifleman qualification, or longer for other more technical MOS' such as LAV Crewman, TOW gunner, Mortarman, etc.

Poppa, 

as far as working with Marine MPs, yes, our company did do quite abit of work with a Marine MP platoon that was part of TF Scorpion from July through August.   We did several raids with them and alot of Iraqi Police Liason missions as my LAV section invariably almost always ended up drawing escort duty for the TF Iraqi Police Liason Officer (a US Marine Major) who worked quite closely with the MP platoon. 

As far as how the Marine MPs functioned, they were pretty much like an infantry platoon mounted in HMMWVs equipped with .50 cals and M240s, with more emphasis put on TCPs and escort duties as well as training and developing the local area Iraqi Police units.   Their platoon commander got the unenviable job of editing and forwarding to headquarters the Iraqi police investigation reports.   At that point the Iraqis were very much so the Keystone Cops and some of their antics and reports were hilarious to listen to.

Marine MP Officer:   "So you went to Mahmoud's house?"   
Iraqi Police:   "No, Mahmoud took us to his house."
MP:   "So you were at Mahmoud's house"
IP:   "Yes"
MP:   "And why did you go there"
IP:"   "Mahmoud is bad man...he sells RPG."
MP:   "So Mahmoud was turning himself in?   Is that why he took you to his house?"
IP:   "Mahmoud's brother Hasan, he sells RPG.   Mahmoud took us there."
MP:   "Ok, so Hasan sells RPGs and Mahmoud wants you to arrest his brother?"
IP:   "Yes, Hasan took us to arrest Mahmoud for selling RPGs"
and so on and so forth...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Sep 2004)

Matt_Fisher after reading how its done in the Corp I believe even more so thats the way to go.  Big problem we have to overcome though is money.  To put it in its most basic concept I will be lucky to see the range twice a year (not including work up training).


----------



## Infanteer (7 Sep 2004)

Maybe we could just swap NDHQ, the Bloc Quebecois and Nunavet for the USMC in a wholesale trade?


----------



## pbi (7 Sep 2004)

Wow! Some great stuff posted here! I always look forward to coming in early in the AM to read what has posted by the rest of the crew while I was racking.

Matt Fisher: Thanks for the excellent answers. While I agree with you that we Canadians are not a complete loss, and have many strengths, I do think that the USMC offers a very good model for us. I was very proud of my brief time spent alongside the Corps and I will always keep a light on for them._ Semper Fi._

Highland Laddie:
_PBJ, if you are who you think you are (38 CBG COS?), thanks for the Gettysburg PD trip, and your on-line PD section on the German Army in the 1920's. I look forward to your article in the Army Journal._

Well, Highland Laddie, I _am_ who I think I am (I think) and it looks like I am who you think I am, too. Roger so far? You are very welcome for your kind words, but I cannot take fulll credit for either of those things. A number of good people worked to make GBurg the great success that it was. BTW, our guide, a USMC LCol (Retd) told me that the 38 CBG group was by far one of the most professional groups he had ever seen, including USMC C&SC, West Point, War College, Brits, etc. I share his opinion: the calibre of presentations done by the young officers (both Res and Reg) was easily as good as anything I saw during my GBurg trip with USMC C&SC. You folks should be proud of yourselves.

As for "REICHSHEER-Learning From History" that was a joint effort too, with the officer who was my predecessor and is now DComd 38 CBG. He has a Masters in MilHist. Putting that study program together was a real joy: I learned alot. Unfortunately, despite our attempts to advertise it, we have never had more than a handful of applicants. As a result, the last two units are still not written. Glad you liked it. Tell your friends! Cheers.


----------



## Highland Laddie (8 Sep 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> Well, Highland Laddie, I _am_ who I think I am (I think) and it looks like I am who you think I am, too. Roger so far? You are very welcome for your kind words, but I cannot take full credit for either of those things. A number of good people worked to make GBurg the great success that it was. BTW, our guide, a USMC LCol (Retd) told me that the 38 CBG group was by far one of the most professional groups he had ever seen, including USMC C&SC, West Point, War College, Brits, etc. I share his opinion: the calibre of presentations done by the young officers (both Res and Reg) was easily as good as anything I saw during my GBurg trip with USMC C&SC. You folks should be proud of yourselves.
> 
> As for "REICHSHEER-Learning From History" that was a joint effort too, with the officer who was my predecessor and is now DComd 38 CBG. He has a Masters in MilHist. Putting that study program together was a real joy: I learned alot. Unfortunately, despite our attempts to advertise it, we have never had more than a handful of applicants. As a result, the last two units are still not written. Glad you liked it. Tell your friends! Cheers.



ACK PBI! Sorry to be somewhat cryptic, but I didn't want to 'name names' on the forum 

In regards to the Gettysburg trip, the guide definitely made the difference. I would not hesitate to nominate him to anyone wanting a guide with a thorough military background for a battlefield tour. I also certainly have a much more thorough understanding of 'selection and maintenance of the aim', " commander's intent", and the "mission orders" concepts after that PD exercise. Being assigned the "Little Round Top" portion of the battle was a challenge though!

I regret to hear that the "REICHSHEER-Learning From History" modules were not finished. Fascinating reading. We were toying with the idea of using these modules and the Gettysburg readings / assignments as an excellent PD tool for our Junior O's. Both of these exercises brought a new perspective in terms how I think of how we do things, leadership, etc.

To others - sorry if this strayed a bit of of the thread topic, but not enough 'thanks' are expressed these days for a job well done.


----------



## Spc_Cameron (8 Sep 2004)

Matt great posts.. the usual insight I get from the marines is from Ex-marines who have since joined the army. that usually entails  the whole ' why the Army sucks and the amrines are better " you provide a great structual analysis... I can see now where my officer leadership is taking us.., if you looked at our training schedule right now there isn't a day that goes by without something going on... javelin training, live fire ranges, BFV M2/A3 NET training, Gunnery,  ( hell the BFV course is 9 weeks alone. ) a vast difference than before we deployed when we pretty much didn't do anything. 

once again great posts all... good  " intelligent "  discussion... not the norm on allota military forums I read.


----------



## pappy (29 Sep 2004)

I agree with the others commenting on Matt's post, his posts are outstanding.  And I'm not saying that just cause I'm a former Marine.
My comments on the "quality" of Marines vs (fill in your choice of branch or country of origin military unit), as based mainly on my experience while I served, which was a while back to say the least... 1977-83 time frame.  We had our share of "shitbirds" but less so then other branches of the US Military, but the peer pressure from the traditions of the Corps made it less of a problem,  we had a joke, that I think was based on some truths, "you can join the army, but you become a Marine", but that becoming a "Marine" was not so much a outcome of MCRD, but an attitude brought there from values and commitment that the recruit brought with him / her.  I rarely if every met some Marine that didn't wanna be there, granted he may have bitched about "being there", but in his heart he WANTED to be there.  When I was in we had pure shit for gear, most hand-me-downs from the US Army, it was a rare day we got something new.  When I was in Korea the US Air Force airmen had better cold weather gear they used walking from one heated building to another heated building then we Marines had and we slept outside in sleeping bags and unheated tents when we where lucky.  Cold weather gear? we looked like Marines from the Korean War, as the gear we had was the same crap our farthers used then.  Thanks god things have improved, is it perfect, not yet. But we where working alongside the ROK Marines (Republic of Korea Marine Corps) and our gear made us feel pretty good, it's all perspective I guess.  I'll have to say those ROK Marines where some tough tough Marines.  Those guys didn't bother stuffing their hard earned gear inside their rucks for PT, but used Rocks instead, yes good old fashion rocks.  And Everyone of them WANTED to be there too even with those hardships.  I think that is true for any small elite unit, be they US, Canadian or British.  But even the large percentage of the normal regular US Army (or Canadian) was and is  full of good highly motivated people, its just in the less "elite" units the percentage of screwups is higher.  High tech gear is great, but more important is the man / woman inside it.

But I agree Matt, I too would like to see the US Marine Corps turn to training techniques more in line with the Royal Marines, I think it would make even better Marines.  I met a few Royals that came out of Lumpstone and have to say they are an impressive bunch.

Military personal have bitched and complained about the quality of their training, food and gear since someone picked up a spear. 

The ROK Marines/ Royal Marines thought we where crazy trading our C-rats for their field rations and we thought them crazy too for the same trade, perspective...
Trading food was simple, trading kit, that took a bit more effort and alcohol...  I'm sure Mr. Muddy got grief for wearing my Camies as much as I did wearing his arctic windproof the next morning in formation / roll call  hahaha.

Just a hint Matt, the Royals get issued rum and the ROKs sujo, so watch you kit when you meet them   ;D

Matt, seems like the US Marines got two good imports from Canada, the LAV and you, Semper Fi Bro.


----------



## Spc_Cameron (1 Oct 2004)

pappy ... you are a .. true /.....proffesional


----------

