# Canada's top general asked about getting equipment fitted especially for women



## dimsum (18 Feb 2017)

This is a better fit* than the News forum.  For comedic value, watch the video for Gen Vance's answer - and "don't get him started on boots".   :nod:

*See what I did there?   



> Canada's diminutive top soldier told a compact female cadet that he can relate to womens' complaints about oversized body armour and other kit designed for larger men.
> 
> "Listen, I hear you sister. I'm like five seven, I've been chaffing against this stuff my whole career too," he told Officer Cadet Melissa Sanfacon at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute 2017 Ottawa conference.
> 
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-conference-question-sanfacon-1.3989588


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Feb 2017)

Well Paul Wynnyk is an Engineer, so maybe.....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Feb 2017)

With the final comment on boots ... is he intimating that the problem with the Army boots is caused by the Army, not the supply (and I mean the materiel acquisition type here) system?

(and PS: I am asking because quite frankly, the Army boot problem baffles me. In my 24 years of active service in the Navy, I have never been issued with a pair of sea-boots that didn't do the job, and frankly have hardly ever heard any people complaining about them).


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Feb 2017)

If the Army's boots are so bad, why not purchase off the shelf from the US or are their boots sub quality also? Yes I know jobs for Canada (or for Oldgateboatdriver, jobs for Quebec  :rofl


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Feb 2017)

While they are at it, uniforms that aren't sized for a command gut would be nice, at least for DEUs.


----------



## Loachman (18 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If the Army's boots are so bad, why not purchase off the shelf from the US or are their boots sub quality also?



Treasury Board will not permit that.

The aftermarket boot (and other kit) markets are thriving in the US. It's highly competitive, which inspires companies (large and small) to produce innovative, high-quality, reasonably-priced items to paying customers.

In Canada, companies who have neither background nor interest in military footwear get large contracts to produce failure after failure with no penalty, and, therefore, no incentive to do better.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Feb 2017)

Perhaps Canadian Forces members (and tax payers) deserve a bit of a better answer about our boot fiasco.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If the Army's boots are so bad, why not purchase off the shelf from the US or are their boots sub quality also? Yes I know jobs for Canada (or for Oldgateboatdriver, jobs for Quebec  :rofl



Heretic!! Blasphemer!!!! What will Canadian footwear companies do?


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Feb 2017)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Heretic!! Blasphemer!!!! What will Canadian footwear companies do?



Stick to making crappy hiking boots and sneakers?


----------



## George Wallace (18 Feb 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Stick to making crappy hiking boots and sneakers?



Once upon a time, Greb made good boots.

Kind of sounds like a Fairy Tale now.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Feb 2017)

Well, she does have a valid point.  And that includes footwear too.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Feb 2017)

And those of us with small willies.  How am I supposed to fill that gigantic pouch in the issue underwear?  Unless that is a form of Russian Maskirovka, thinking that any enemies who find our underwear on the battlefield must assume they are up against Canadian Übermensch.   :nod:


----------



## George Wallace (18 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And those of us with small willies.  How am I supposed to fill that gigantic pouch in the issue underwear?  Unless that is a form of Russian Maskirovka, thinking that any enemies who find our underwear on the battlefield must assume they are up against Canadian Übermensch.   :nod:



As they are "one size type fits ALL", you had better remember the Canadian Übermenschen.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Feb 2017)

Looking forward to the sponsored thesis on the 'Devil Dwarfs' and the resulting Army lessons learned primer...  ;D

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bantam-battalions-how-britains-devil-dwarfs-helped-allies-win-world-war-one-1458322


----------



## sailorprivateer (18 Feb 2017)

Hmmm... I'm 5'1" and 5'2" on a good day, so how screwed-up am I?


----------



## ballz (18 Feb 2017)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Well, she does have a valid point.  And that includes footwear too.



She does, it's a sad state of affairs when even the CDS laughs off the idea that he might have enough influence/authority to fix this issue.


----------



## Ryan_T (20 Feb 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> This is a better fit* than the News forum.  For comedic value, watch the video for Gen Vance's answer - and "don't get him started on boots".   :nod:
> 
> *See what I did there?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-conference-question-sanfacon-1.3989588


I remember when i 1st got in to the CF. Non of my gear fit. They were all to small.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> With the final comment on boots ... is he intimating that the problem with the Army boots is caused by the Army, not the supply (and I mean the materiel acquisition type here) system?
> 
> (and PS: I am asking because quite frankly, the Army boot problem baffles me. In my 24 years of active service in the Navy, I have never been issued with a pair of sea-boots that didn't do the job, and frankly have hardly ever heard any people complaining about them).



Principally, yes for general use clothing.  DLR essentially is responsible for Army and general purpose (CAF) boots. DAR still sets the specification for aircrew-specific footwear and DMR the same for sea-duty specific footwear.  Once procured, DSSPM (Directorate of Soldier Systems Program Management) oversees the life-cycle management of all footwear.  DSSPM is a Directorate within DGLEPM (Directorate General of Land Engineering and Program Management), which although an organization subordinate to ADM(MAT), responds to CCA (through COS(Land Strat)).  So yes, the Army's fingerprints are pretty heavily imprinted on boots, and rucksacks, and camouflage clothing, used by the general CAF population.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## TCM621 (20 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> (and PS: I am asking because quite frankly, the Army boot problem baffles me. In my 24 years of active service in the Navy, I have never been issued with a pair of sea-boots that didn't do the job, and frankly have hardly ever heard any people complaining about them).



Part of the reason is that you don't put the kind of miles on your feet in the navy as you do the army. When you are putting in the kind if miles even support staff have to put in just to do their AFT,  going the one style works for all method the army keeps trying to implement is not feasible. To top it off,  supply is handcudfed by policies that don't allow them to offer solutions. For example,  I have hyperhydrosis (aka really sweaty feet)  and by the end of the day my feet are sliding around the mk4s I tied hockey skate tight at the beginning of the day. The solution is breathable footwear. We have them in the system but I can't get issued desert boots unless I deploy or seaboots unless I'm Navy. Our ninmagen team even had issues getting cut boots to March in because their airforce and are only entitled to steel toed boots.  Then there is the dress Nazis,  who assume because I am wearing magnums,  I am less effective than if I was wearing issued boots. I miss the Gypsy military to a certain extent,  things were more flexible in those days,  even if I did have to buy my own kit 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Feb 2017)

Something of a non-sequitor, I was wearing a step counter for a while on ship and was averaging between 20-25k steps each day and doing about 40 flights of stairs.  My stride is just under a meter so you can do the math, although most of the extra weight I was carrying was the 10 yards of additional fabric built into all NCDs so that they don't fit anyone properly.

I always thought people got around the boot issues with a med chits from doctors/physio.

Funny story though, when I was in ADM(Mat) years ago I was asked to be involved in a survey for the new sea boots.  I went up to a room, saw a bunch of boots on the table, and was asked to rate them on appearance.  ???

I asked a few questions about their funcitonality and was told it didn't matter for the survey, but did weight the ones with zippers and mesh sides heavily for completely unrelated reasons.  They wanted to know what I thought about the leather grain, colour, etc, so it was kind of bizarre.  (The new boots suck for wet weather, but fantastic to have kicking around for pulling on quickly during bong bongs).

Anyway, unless the requirements types put in something about that to make the dress committee happy, that would have come from the project.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Feb 2017)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Something of a non-sequitor, I was wearing a step counter for a while on ship and was averaging between 20-25k steps each day and doing about 40 flights of stairs.  My stride is just under a meter so you can do the math, although most of the extra weight I was carrying was the 10 yards of additional fabric built into all NCDs so that they don't fit anyone properly.
> 
> I always thought people got around the boot issues with a med chits from doctors/physio.
> 
> ...



That's a great example of Navy fitness, BZ! I know a few guys who are retired Navy types and they all have knee and lower limb issues from, apparently, stomping around on solid steel decks for most of their careers. I wonder how a boot can address that issue, if at all?


----------



## Underway (20 Feb 2017)

It seems simple really to solve the "boot issue".  And this woman who asked about kit really gave me the idea (I'm sure its not new).  Women get a allowance to buy bra's.  SOF get a clothing allowance as well.  Why doesn't the army just give everyone a boot stipend with a list of approved boots.  Like they did with Tac vests once upon a time.

Every time I work with the army in the field, 3/4's of the people have bought a pile of their own kit anyways.  Tac vests, boots, flashlights, sunglasses, underwear, kneepads, gloves, knives, multitools, camping gear, compasses, bino's, helmet padding, etc, etc...  I feel like I'm in a MEC commercial.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Feb 2017)

SOF do not receive a clothing allowance.  There are SOF allowances that are more or less the equivalent of SDA or LDA or AIRCRA.

There is Civilian Dress Assistance Allowance, but it's not SOF specific.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Feb 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> It seems simple really to solve the "boot issue".  And this woman who asked about kit really gave me the idea (I'm sure its not new).  Women get a allowance to buy bra's.  SOF get a clothing allowance as well.  Why doesn't the army just give everyone a boot stipend with a list of approved boots.  Like they did with Tac vests once upon a time.
> 
> Every time I work with the army in the field, 3/4's of the people have bought a pile of their own kit anyways.  Tac vests, boots, flashlights, sunglasses, underwear, kneepads, gloves, knives, multitools, camping gear, compasses, bino's, helmet padding, etc, etc...  I feel like I'm in a MEC commercial.



The British Army solved that problem by paying everyone very poorly


----------



## dimsum (20 Feb 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> It seems simple really to solve the "boot issue".  And this woman who asked about kit really gave me the idea (I'm sure its not new).  Women get a allowance to buy bra's.  SOF get a clothing allowance as well.  Why doesn't the army just give everyone a boot stipend with a list of approved boots.  Like they did with Tac vests once upon a time.
> 
> Every time I work with the army in the field, 3/4's of the people have bought a pile of their own kit anyways.  Tac vests, boots, flashlights, sunglasses, underwear, kneepads, gloves, knives, multitools, camping gear, compasses, bino's, helmet padding, etc, etc...  I feel like I'm in a MEC commercial.



Maybe all of this is a cunning plan to boost MEC's profits  >

More likely that the Canadian boot company companies will realize that most of us either scour surplus stores for Mk 3s or buy other brands, and may actually have to improve their quality.  I have never quite figured out why all RCAF members, including office-bound types, are required to have safety-toed boots.  If possibility of things landing on your toes is the reasoning, then issue special safety-toed boots to those trades (Loadie, Tfc Tech, Supply).


----------



## armyvern (22 Feb 2017)

Seems a thread on the requirement for women's kit has turned into the 10 thousandth Army Boot Thread where boot allowances etc have already been discussed, debated, answered many times before.  Suggest those posts get cut over to one of those available threads. 

The need to actually consider real women when coming up with kit is not limited short or compact ones nor just to the add-on kit.

Back in the day the tunic I was issued actually WAS a woman's tunic. Cut, styled and sized for women.  

Somewhere along the way some man (who no doubt assumed he was doing us wee-women a favor and acting in our best interests) decided that we women had to have pockets and all the extra material they entail added onto the chests of our female CAF tunics ... so we would look like the men (word up: we are NOT).

We now have combat pants that are straight cut at the hips (ie: men's cut) with zero allowance for any _real curves_.

We have combat shirts and rain jackets with no allowances for curves and/or hips, so females like me who nature has cursed with hips, butt, boobs  instead of the normal inverted triangle measurements of the male have to wear shirts huge on the top/long on the sleeves so they actually accommodate our butts  and/or hips.  Or walk around with the zippers on the bottom sides of the ran jacket undone to accommodate our ass but not be swimming up top.

We get to always have a belt on so that we can bunch up that extra and unneeded 6 7 or 8 inches of material at our waists so that we could accommodate our ass or hips. THAT'S some comfortable all day I tell you.

And, on the DEU front because of the pockets, some of us women now get to decide every parade whether we line our medals up with the pocket top like they should be only to have the medals then jut out from our chests and hang at an awkward angle so guys can say, "your medals are on crooked." or put the medals on so that they hang straight (my personal option) and still look unprofessional because the pocket now looks crooked sewn onto my tunic because the medals are hung on an angle not in line with the pocket top.

I have no issues with the DEU pants ... because it's the ONE piece of kit that still actually has a female version (altough I hate the pleats - they serve only to add extra material ensuring all women wearing them also look fatter than they actually are).  Women who are less naturally curves have the option of ordering male DEU pants and there's nothing wrong with that either..

And I saw a message recently that allGOs And CWO in SA are now going to wear the forge cap (a nan's head-dress) regardless of sex.  

Want to attract women? Remember that we ARE women and acknowledge the fact that it's OK for our tunic to look different from the man's because we aren't shaped like men! Get rid of the upper pockets. Get rid of the fattening pleats in the pants,  but keep the female adjustable cut and for crying out loud keep the seamed pleat down the back of our DEU pants so that us women who are not fat, yet have curves measurements to fit into our clothing!


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Feb 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Seems a thread on the requirement for women's kit has turned into the 10 thousandth Army Boot Thread where boot allowances etc have already been discussed, debated, answered many times before.  Suggest those posts get cut over to one of those available threads.
> 
> The need to actually consider real women when coming up with kit is not limited short or compact ones nor just to the add-on kit.
> 
> ...



A good example of the way that uniforms were fitted differently in the 'good old days'. 

Danjanou should recognize a couple of the 'Old Contemptibles' in this 1974 photo


----------

