# Cadpat Overboard?



## Synthos (27 Nov 2005)

I recently heard about the new cadpat boots that they're working on, as well as a cadpat blanket and other such things. It got me wondering whether the cadpatting might be going a little far. At what point do we need to stop trying to cadpat things? It seems like the Canadian Forces is really proud of their Cadpat and wants to find a good reason to put it on all the gear that they can. Would you rather the CF save the money from cadpatting for other things? What do you think?


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Nov 2005)

well, it would seem to make sense that if everything you own is cam pattern, it would all blend together, and break up the silhouette, no?  Pretty pointless to have everything cadpat, and shiny BLACK (an unnatural colour, by the way) boots.


----------



## Synthos (27 Nov 2005)

couldn't you say the same for your weapon? where's my cadpat C7?
How clean are people's boots in the field? Muddy and dusty black boots might be just as good cam as cadpat boots. Especially since your boots are the lowest thing to the ground and likely not paticularly visible anyways.
as for silhouette... the human shape won't change, it's just the enemy might have a hard time telling you're hands from your pants.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Nov 2005)

No, the shape won't change.  The ability of the human eye to register a defined shape is hindered by a disruptive pattern.  And, you're correct, CADPAT furniture on the weapon makes sense, so I guess we haven't gone overboard yet, have we?


----------



## KevinB (27 Nov 2005)

Paint... changes the rifle's colour and texture.

 Boots -- mud and dust (they aint black long)

A great deal of CTS is a huge boondoogling waste of the taxpayers money, that strips operationally required items from the CF due to waste


----------



## ab22vp (27 Nov 2005)

As for weapons, the new C7 is already two colors, namely green and black. As for me, I don't think there is such a thing as too much cadpat. No it won't stop bullets but ,IN THE FIELD, every litle things count. Now if they can figure out how to apply it on vehicles...


----------



## McG (27 Nov 2005)

Synthos said:
			
		

> I recently heard about the new cadpat boots that they're working on, as well as a cadpat blanket and other such things. It got me wondering whether the cadpatting might be going a little far. At what point do we need to stop trying to cadpat things?


Much discussion has gone on WRT the boots and new sleeping bag/poncho liner in other threads.  So I won't say more about these specific items except that the blanket is already out there and I believe the CADPAT boot idea is dead (if not, it should be).

However, generally when old kit is being replaced by newer kit, it only makes sense that the new kit incorporate our current disruptive pattern.  There are other less talked about items of "old" kit which are issued new in CADPAT (the Bivy Bag, the wet weather gloves) but in being exactly the same as the items they replace (less the colour), I have yet to see any exchange program to replace the olive items that most soldiers have.


----------



## Guy. E (28 Nov 2005)

how would you polish or keep up your cadpat boots? like a tube of tooth paste with 3 different colours?

seriousley now: if they relay wanted cadpat boots, they would make cadpat garters (sp) to wrap around em and wash as necessary when dirty.


----------



## Pte_Martin (28 Nov 2005)

Guy. E said:
			
		

> how would you polish or keep up your cadpat boots? like a tube of tooth paste with 3 different colours?
> 
> seriousley now: if they relay wanted cadpat boots, they would make cadpat garters (sp) to wrap around em and wash as necessary when dirty.



The polish would have been like the wet weather boot (gortex) polish


----------



## soldiers301 (28 Nov 2005)

Everything was green before we get CADPAT, so why not get it all in CADPAT ? 

CADPAT Weapon was on plan a couple of months ago, but the colour faded out every 2 days, so the green plastic furniture of the C7A2 won.


----------



## D-n-A (28 Nov 2005)

For the weapons, one of the main things needed is a kill flash for the C79(and any other optics) IMO.


----------



## KevinB (28 Nov 2005)

MikeL said:
			
		

> For the weapons, one of the main things needed is a kill flash for the C79(and any other optics) IMO.



Highly over rated -- the honeycomb decrease light transmision - to a point you use a lot of available light in the dusk/dawn periods.

 The C79 and C79A2 being a POS that it is - we'd be better off instead of wasting money on a killflash getting a new optic.


----------



## Synthos (30 Nov 2005)

ab22vp said:
			
		

> As for weapons, the new C7 is already two colors, namely green and black. As for me, I don't think there is such a thing as too much cadpat. No it won't stop bullets but ,IN THE FIELD, every litle things count. Now if they can figure out how to apply it on vehicles...



http://www.gizmag.com/go/4813/1/

Something "like" this might be an option for vehicles... Or just stencils and spray paint.


----------



## davidk (30 Nov 2005)

Synthos said:
			
		

> http://www.gizmag.com/go/4813/1/
> 
> Something "like" this might be an option for vehicles... Or just stencils and spray paint.



It's an interesting idea, but I don't think a fleet of leopard-print LAV-IIIs will cut it...

In all seriousness, though, I think the CF's priority is getting individual soldiers' cam up to grade, not vehicles.


----------



## D-n-A (30 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Highly over rated -- the honeycomb decrease light transmision - to a point you use a lot of available light in the dusk/dawn periods.
> 
> The C79 and C79A2 being a POS that it is - we'd be better off instead of wasting money on a killflash getting a new optic.



Yea, a better optic than the C79/C79A2 would be great, but I highly doubt there gonna replace them anytime soon, especially now that they've bought XX amount of C79A2s.



As for the CADPAT vehicles, I dunno how practical they would be. The current OD an woodland style paint patterns are good enough IMO. You could have the best CADPAT camo pattern on a Leopard,LAV,  ML, etc but, gonna be pretty easy to spot once it starts moving, plus all the noise. When your in a hide, the Cam Nets, etc work good enough IMO.


----------



## Synthos (30 Nov 2005)

In terms of cadpatting vehicles I see more of an advantage if it is providing cover for infantry. At a certain distance a soldier in cadpat would be indistinguishable from a cadpatted vehicle.


----------



## davidk (30 Nov 2005)

Synthos said:
			
		

> At a certain distance a soldier in cadpat would be indistinguishable from a cadpatted vehicle.



That's true, but once you get closer it becomes easier to distinguish a flat surface (like the side of a vehicle) from a textured surface (like a soldier). Cam netting works better from all distances.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (2 Dec 2005)

Synthos said:
			
		

> In terms of cadpatting vehicles I see more of an advantage if it is providing cover for infantry. At a certain distance a soldier in cadpat would be indistinguishable from a cadpatted vehicle.



Interesting idea synthos, but would it really do much good since the guys would be _in_ the vehicle anyway? 

BTW, I think what you're talking about is _concealment_, versus cover. Someone with a combat arms/signals background can probably speak more authortatively on this, but I would think that in terms of concealment of vehicles a cam net would be more effective than a CADPAT paint job any day. (urban ops notwithstanding)


----------



## Synthos (2 Dec 2005)

yeah but a can a cam net be used in combat? I think it's mostly for stationary vehicles right?


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Dec 2005)

Synthos said:
			
		

> couldn't you say the same for your weapon? where's my cadpat C7?
> How clean are people's boots in the field? Muddy and dusty black boots might be just as good cam as cadpat boots. Especially since your boots are the lowest thing to the ground and likely not paticularly visible anyways.
> as for silhouette... the human shape won't change, it's just the enemy might have a hard time telling you're hands from your pants.



Welcome to the cam-pattern world. Here everything is AUSCAM, and they are even trialing AUSCAM'd weapons. We have t-shirts, poncho liners, hats, webbing, shelter halves, FMP covers, sleeping bags, and even cooking aprons. You name it (even watch bands and wallets).

As per the UK's DPM, USA's MARPAT, Woodland, and ACU. Thats just the tip of the cam-ptrn iceberg.

Canada's CADPAT is new, so get used to it, because there is the ARID stuff too, which repeats the cycle again, just like the AUSCAM desert DPDU. 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Arctic Acorn (2 Dec 2005)

Synthos said:
			
		

> yeah but a can a cam net be used in combat? I think it's mostly for stationary vehicles right?



Yup...I hear they did trials in Valcartier on the use of cam nets on mobile vehicles, but they had issues with the poles & cam spreaders staying in place.


----------



## Bomber (3 Dec 2005)

GM Covers makes a kit that was displayed at CANSEC last year, and will probably be there this year.  All the cam is in panels and is buttoned and fixed onto the vehicle.  It was a co-op effort with the pers cam net people, and looked amazing.  I know the Cam guys at the office were looking into it.  It is really friggin effective, cause it is vehicle specific, but breaks up the shap incredibly.

http://www.gmacover.com/

The only picture I see online is the hummer on thier main page.


----------



## chrisf (3 Dec 2005)

The idea behind camnets is to break up your sillhouette as well as provide cover from observation... from a far enough distance, and assuming it's well placed, it'll hide the vehicle, but under direct observation, the advantage of camnets is that it hides what's under the net... in theory, you could hide the nature of what's being hidden, such that your enemy doesn't know if it's say, a tank, a radio truck, or a dummy posistion (An empty space with a cam net over it).

I can't see a cam net that hugs the body of the vehicle serving any real purpose, except to break up texture, I can really see it being a hinderance more then an asset on a vehicle that's moving/loading and off-loading troops (Ever get caught in a cam net? Then you know what I mean).

That being said, purpose built cam nets/fixing points for windows would be lovely, but hessian is reasonably quick, and having a stock of hessian on hand is useful, because it's mulit-purpose.


----------



## McG (4 Dec 2005)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I can't see a cam net that hugs the body of the vehicle serving any real purpose, except to break up texture,


Texture is one of the reasons that things are seen.  I've seen photo's of Australian Leopards in this type of cam-net.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Dec 2005)

I have to agree with MCG.  In the early Eighties, we bolted Cam Nets to our Lynx's, and cut out the hatch openings, for a Recce Competition and you would be surprised at how different the veh looked.  It really did a lot to change the Recognition Features and helped it blend in to its surroundings while on patrol.


----------



## chrisf (4 Dec 2005)

Not saying it's a bad idea, just pointing out a few drawbacks (Or maybe just reliving one too many incidents caught like a fish in my own cam net), though really the only major one I can see is getting caught in it...

Given that the newer cam nets are designed around absorbing heat to reduce the thermal signature, there are other excellent reasons...


----------



## George Wallace (4 Dec 2005)

Wasn't as much chance of getting caught in it when it was bolted down


----------



## herbie021 (4 Dec 2005)

Ive seen the boot at NDHQ and even the soles are CADPAT.


----------



## Synthos (4 Dec 2005)

one thing that someone else mentioned (this is related to cadpatting vehicles, not so much the net subtopic) is that if you were to cadpat a vehicle it would complicate matters if you wanted to paint vehicles white for winter (and from winter to temperate).


----------



## chrisf (4 Dec 2005)

How so? Our trucks are green now... we don't paint them white for winter now either...

(Though back to the subject of camnets, bolt on cam nets would provide an easy option to change to a winter or desert cam scheme...)


----------



## buzgo (7 Dec 2005)

herbie021 said:
			
		

> Ive seen the boot at NDHQ and even the soles are CADPAT.



I've seen the boot too, and it looked like the sole was green only.


----------



## Goober (7 Dec 2005)

The sole of the boot is green, not CADPAT.


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Dec 2005)

It just seems like they're wasting time going CADPAT crazy, instead of getting us kit we need.

CADPAT leather gloves? WTF for? How much more do these cost vs solid black or brown? Why do they have time to waste on these when we still don't have a decent Goretex rainjacket?? Priority of work people!


----------



## buzgo (8 Dec 2005)

I think the real question is how much did it cost CTS to develop this stuff? Why didn't they buy off the shelf stuff and adapt it? Why can't I have a CADPAT Arcteryx jacket?


----------



## Arctic Acorn (8 Dec 2005)

Someone from CTS could have gone to Arctery'x or MEC (both Canadian companies) and just said, "I'll take 40,000 sets of that jacket/rucksack. Make it CADPAT, add two pockets here and there, and I'll see you in 6 months." Civilian companies specialising in outdoor equipment, while not product testing for combat, test their kit under some pretty harsh conditions.   I think that it would NOT be a big deal to piggyback onto that. If someone else is willing to put the R&D time into a product, why reinvent the wheel?

Done and dusted.   

Don't we have some CTS folks who read this site? Was this COA ever considered?


----------



## buzgo (8 Dec 2005)

Arcteryx is already making 'military' clothing through their LEAF programme. All they need to do is get the license to use CADPAT and they are good to go.

Maybe thats what could happen, the CF licenses CADPAT to lots of 3rd party manufacturers and then we get to pick and choose... talk about CADPAT overload!


----------



## Synthos (8 Dec 2005)

That's an excellent idea. Giving soldiers an option to choose between different makes of the same equipment by different companies. It would create competition for the companies, and ultimately better equipment for the soldiers.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (8 Dec 2005)

Synthos said:
			
		

> It would create competition for the companies, and ultimately better equipment for the soldiers.



Not only would it mean better equipment but it would be cheaper too, and then there would be more accesability to it, insted of waiting for the next order which could take a while.  
Chris


----------



## Synthos (8 Dec 2005)

yeah good point.

So what's stopping them from doing this?? Other than scrapping the "Clothe the Soldier" program which they start just a couple (? how long?) years ago.


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2005)

Would it really be more accessible to soldiers in the field & on deployed ops?   There is no MEC in Wainwright or Afghanistan when wire shreds the waterproof membranes in your clothing.


----------



## buzgo (8 Dec 2005)

Didn't armyvern mention that there was only one person in the whole CF who can fix the stuff anyway? I know I had to gun-tape my jacket in theatre.

I think that having CADPAT everything makes sense, but I wish that CTS would put as much thought into the design gear as they do into coming up with new ways to use CADPAT.


----------



## Synthos (8 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Would it really be more accessible to soldiers in the field & on deployed ops?  There is no MEC in Wainwright or Afghanistan when wire shreds the waterproof membranes in your clothing.



The idea is that the CF licenses companies to make the gear for them. Soldiers get to choose based on the gear's previous performance and other soldiers reviews. It would operate the same as the current system. Only you'd have a choice (provided all the items are properly supplied) when you got outfitted. Consider it the modularization of the clothing system.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (9 Dec 2005)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I think that having CADPAT everything makes sense, but I wish that CTS would put as much thought into the design gear as they do into coming up with new ways to use CADPAT.



Yeah, it seems the new guys get the newer better stuff while the older more experianced guys are stuck waiting around for theirs to come in. When I first got in I got the CADPAT gloves and the ballistic eyewear, and the whole nine yards but then my Sgts, are still using olive drap gloves, no eye wear, or any other of the new guchie kit.


----------



## buzgo (9 Dec 2005)

MacKenzie1NSH said:
			
		

> Yeah, it seems the new guys get the newer better stuff while the older more experianced guys are stuck waiting around for theirs to come in. When I first got in I got the CADPAT gloves and the ballistic eyewear, and the whole nine yards but then my Sgts, are still using olive drap gloves, no eye wear, or any other of the new guchie kit.



You are in the militia though, things are different in Regular field units.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (9 Dec 2005)

true enough, but is it easier or more difficult in the reg force to attain the new stuff?


----------



## buzgo (9 Dec 2005)

When 2 CMBG deployed to OP Athena in 2003, we went as a group and turned in our IECS (green goretex and fleece) and webbing and were issued ICE and tac vests.

I'm pretty sure that the guys all have their small packs and gloves now too. It usually gets issued pretty quickly.


----------



## McG (9 Dec 2005)

Synthos said:
			
		

> The idea is that the CF licenses companies to make the gear for them. Soldiers get to choose based on the gear's previous performance and other soldiers reviews. It would operate the same as the current system. Only you'd have a choice (provided all the items are properly supplied) when you got outfitted. Consider it the modularization of the clothing system.


But, how does the supply system manage all of this in a non-garrison setting?  Would you expect them to now carry the entire selection in all sizes to the field?  You get your initial issue in garrison, but damage & loss happens in the field and the supply system must be able to make replacements in a timely fashion.


----------



## Daidalous (9 Dec 2005)

I would not be surprised to see almost everything we have in CadPAt, or till the money dries up.   I have seen pictures of CadPat gasmasks and cadpat NVG's



Supply does carry alot of the sizes of clothing although in limited amounts, and equipment overseas.,  why do you thing there are so many seacans.  Although we tend to carry very limited supplies of sizes for peaole who and very small and skinny and very tall and large, as most bases do.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (9 Dec 2005)

Well what else do they have to turn into CADPAT? They have the rucks, gloves, jackets, boots, everything, I wonder if they are going to run out of ideas..


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (9 Dec 2005)

MacKenzie1NSH said:
			
		

> Well what else do they have to turn into CADPAT? They have the rucks, gloves, jackets, boots, everything, I wonder if they are going to run out of ideas..



As long as there is uncammed kit left to cam, there will be camming of kit.


----------



## NL_engineer (21 Dec 2005)

The only problem with DND letting companies use cad pat to make gear is that the troops on the ground will not be allowed to wear it. If DND allowed us to wear it I bet that these companies would would make it, and it would be the troops own discression to buy or use the issued gear; similar model of the American forces in the field they can use the issued or buy there own from one of the many companies.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2005)

The problem with your US comment is that they have to buy all their gear.  We have ours issued and can exchange it when it is worn out.


----------



## NL_engineer (21 Dec 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The problem with your US comment is that they have to buy all their gear.   We have ours issued and can exchange it when it is worn out.



I thought they were issued gear (there packs, webbing, etc.), but most choose to buy because they feel the issued stuff is substandard. There are some US Army units that have to use there issued kit for courses etc (if I recall correctly, I'm not 100% shore though [Matt Fisher you probably know better and maybe you can give your 2 cents on it])


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2005)

They get an initial issue and then  have to buy their stuff after that.  We don't work on the same system.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (22 Dec 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They get an initial issue and then   have to buy their stuff after that.   We don't work on the same system.



so even if there equipment wears out, due to work related stress, they have to buy the new gear plus give back the old? if so that is a rip off


----------



## D-n-A (22 Dec 2005)

MacKenzie CS said:
			
		

> so even if there equipment wears out, due to work related stress, they have to buy the new gear plus give back the old? if so that is a rip off



Yea, worn out uniforms, webbing etc, gotta goto Clothing Stores to buy new stuff.  

If you ever goto a US base, check it out, they got everything there for sale, BDUs, Webbing, PT Gear, Class As, medals, etc


I think they get an allowance for replacement kit, but I'm not sure on that.


----------



## 48Highlander (22 Dec 2005)

they get a uniform replacement allowance.

actually I'm a big fan of that system.  give everyone, say, an extra $150 a month, and have a list of items which are authorized for wear.  this way, hopefuly, people would be able to buy the LBV or ruck that's best suited for their role, instead of getting issued crap that suits everyone poorly, but nobody especialy poorly


----------



## NL_engineer (22 Dec 2005)

I like our system when it works properly. It would be nice to be able to buy gear that would help do your job better. What I would like to see is DND come out with a list of Canadian companies, and let them make authorised equipment for us to buy (eather from the company, or from DND ie. clothing stores or the canex.)


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (24 Dec 2005)

I like that idea of an extra 150$ per month because it would make it so much easier to obtain new uniforms, cause they are picky as crap when it comes to exchanging those things, you get a hole, you have to sew it, I don't know, I think it would be alot easier. Also it would make it better to buy what workes for your occupasion rather than deal with the bad stuff.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Dec 2005)

$150 a month sounds great.  What happens when you return home from 6-12 months of crawling on your belly like a reptile in Outer Elbownia with three kit bags, a ruck, and barrack box full of trashed kit?  The second mortgage companies would be dancing for joy, low interest "basic kit issue replacement" loans.....

Kat


----------



## 48Highlander (24 Dec 2005)

well after 6-12 months you should have saved $900-$1800 assuming you didn't buy any new kit.  if that isn't enough to replace your kit, I'm sure the allowance could be increased for deployments to $200 or $250.  or you could dip into some of that tax-free tour money to cover the difference


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (24 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> well after 6-12 months you should have saved $900-$1800 assuming you didn't buy any new kit.  if that isn't enough to replace your kit, I'm sure the allowance could be increased for deployments to $200 or $250.  or you could dip into some of that tax-free tour money to cover the difference



true, plus not every thing would be trashed, and could probly last long enough to your next pay


----------



## brihard (25 Dec 2005)

Here's my prediction. The little squeeze-tubes of cam paint we have will be scrapped for ones with little square and rectangle applicator sponges. You frantically poke it all over your face, varying colours, until your face resembles CADPAT. Then you get jacked up on course because the squares aren't all parallel and aligned properly.  ;D

Or should I stop giving them ideas?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Dec 2005)

Tooo late.  It has already been done.


----------



## brihard (25 Dec 2005)

I'm sorry. Please don't beat me?  :crybaby:


----------



## NL_engineer (25 Dec 2005)

I think we will be moving away from cam paint in the next few years with the new doctrine.


----------



## Lerch (26 Dec 2005)

Move away from campaint?  Noooo! How will the new kids get confidence?!


----------



## COBRA-6 (26 Dec 2005)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> I think we will be moving away from cam paint in the next few years with the new doctrine.



Why would this be? Please elaborate.


----------



## Pte_Martin (26 Dec 2005)

I THINK that he means that since we are going to do more Urban Ops that we won't use cam paint. I'm sure it still will be around and used when needed but we don't use it doing urban ops? could someone confirm that?


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (26 Dec 2005)

that makes alot of scense.. Why would you get all camedd up then walk down the middle of a street on a presense patrol? but they will keep it around, we just won't hardly ever use it


----------



## NL_engineer (26 Dec 2005)

All I am saying on is what I was told on ARCON. When dealing with the general public at home or over seas you can intimidate them by wearing cam. Also what I have been told is that you do not cam up for desert opps. I do not think cam paint will be gone forever, but I think that we will be using it less and less seeing we are no longer waiting for the "Russian Tank Charge".


----------



## D-n-A (26 Dec 2005)

If we are training in the woods or operating in a woodland'ish/jungle area chances are cam paint will still be used.  But yea, cam paint in  a city is pretty useless. Some guys in Iraq did it, but that was more for sh*ts 'n giggles an/or too look intimidating.


The reason why you don't see troops who are on peacekeeping missions all cam'd up is because... thay are supposed to be seen, an not look to imtimidating, etc.



Lerch, please stay out of the "grown up" threads if you have nothing relevent to add.


----------



## RossF (26 Dec 2005)

Here is your CADPAT C7...


----------



## armyvern (26 Dec 2005)

Aww, and look guys...a nice new ruck as well!


----------



## McG (27 Dec 2005)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> I think we will be moving away from cam paint in the next few years with the new doctrine.





			
				NL_engineer said:
			
		

> All I am saying on is what I was told on ARCON. When dealing with the general public at home or over seas you can intimidate them by wearing cam. Also what I have been told is that you do not cam up for desert opps. I do not think cam paint will be gone forever, but I think that we will be using it less and less seeing we are no longer waiting for the "Russian Tank Charge".


There is not "new doctrine" that makes campaint irrelevant, and we have new enemies that will kill you if given the chance (and not being seen is one way to deny them that chance).  Maybe the three standard colours we have are not suited to all enviroments, but should that mean that we abandon the campaint or should we get colours fit for where we are fighting?  There should probably be a tan/sand colour for pers with darker skin.



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> A CADPAT dingy?


No.  A recce boat with a CADPAT pers camnet on the front.  That photo has been posted to these boards a few times.


----------



## loyalist (18 Jan 2006)

Lerch said:
			
		

> Move away from campaint?  Noooo! How will the new kids get confidence?!



Listen buddy, I'm sorry to say this, but you are a new kid.

As for the cam paint issue, I still see it as a part of our equipment in the near future, as, ultimately, we are expected to defend Canada. Canada is largely woods (south of the treeline, anyhow). No matter how urbanized we are, woodland combat is going to play a role in our national defence.

It would be great if they found some permanent and viable replacement for the old cam sticks, though, the tubes get used up fast and are another logisitical burden.


----------



## Synthos (18 Jan 2006)

I guess if you really wanted to replace cam sticks one option might be a balaclava made of a light, breathable material (so you wouldn't overheat). Hey, you could even make it cadpat (what's stopping you really). Only thing is it would make the lot of us look like criminals/terrorists


----------



## Daidalous (18 Jan 2006)

Well thank god they gave up the idea of a cadpat barret.  The way I see it.   If you have it issued.  And it's green.  It just might end up Cadpat.


----------



## boehm (18 Jan 2006)

I'm still waiting for my CADPAT underwear.


----------



## Synthos (18 Jan 2006)

yeah what if we go to take a crap and they are able to pick me out from our plain green undies! The horror!


----------



## McInnes (19 Jan 2006)

We already have issued balaclavas, and those nifty neck gaiters. The neck gator with the mesh for your mouth with your bushcap pulled low pretty much reduces the need to cam your face. Although I doubt that would work very well for anything in the interior due to the heat during the summer.


----------



## Synthos (19 Jan 2006)

Aquilus said:
			
		

> We already have issued balaclavas, and those nifty neck gaiters. The neck gator with the mesh for your mouth with your bushcap pulled low pretty much reduces the need to cam your face. Although I doubt that would work very well for anything in the interior due to the heat during the summer.



Yeah I'm just talking thin thin fabric not insulated.


----------



## loyalist (19 Jan 2006)

I was thkning of something like a cam system - some sort of paint, that didn't run out so quickly leave a load of dirty, bulky useless tubes around to carry.


----------



## Synthos (20 Jan 2006)

what if you had some sort of different coloured chalk sticks that you could just paint yourself/buddies with? It obviously couldn't be just any chalk or maybe not even a form of chalk at all. Just some sort of stick you can rub into your skin with.


----------



## Thompson_JM (20 Jan 2006)

Synthos said:
			
		

> what if you had some sort of different coloured chalk sticks that you could just paint yourself/buddies with? It obviously couldn't be just any chalk or maybe not even a form of chalk at all. Just some sort of stick you can rub into your skin with.




we could call it something simple.... like CAM stick, short for Camoflage!

or we can keep using the Hunters Cream... about a million times better then the old stick, and if you have baby wipes, Suprisingly easy to remove.

*edit*

Would CADPAT Socks be going overboard?  :


----------



## darmil (20 Jan 2006)

We will use whatever it takes to blend in if needed. Campaint, balaclava or even a plain face depending on the mission.Campaint is here to stay ladies


----------



## grayman (21 Jan 2006)

I think there is too much Pissin and moaning on what should be CADPAT or not and you should be happy with the fact that you are getting issued new kit albeit slowly but new kit none the less.  As for CADPAT underwear we do have CADPAT fleece so you never know the next step, although I do remember pers from my unit trialing CADPAT T-shirts at one point in time.  Its about time we as a military start looking like a professional force and not a third world army, with the aquisition of shiney new kit we do look more presentable in the worlds eye, this being my opinon of course, but I would hope there are others that agree with me, and I know for a fact if the CF recalled everything CADPAT and reissued that old green crap there would be a mutiny of epic porportions, at least with the combat arms guys, Infantry for sure. Be happy with what you got, its already better than what you used to have. Condider yourself lucky that your not still wearing 100% wool Battle Dress.
SOLDIER ON!!


----------



## loyalist (21 Jan 2006)

grayman said:
			
		

> I think there is too much Pissin and moaning on what should be CADPAT or not and you should be happy with the fact that you are getting issued new kit albeit slowly but new kit none the less.  As for CADPAT underwear we do have CADPAT fleece so you never know the next step, although I do remember pers from my unit trialing CADPAT T-shirts at one point in time.  Its about time we as a military start looking like a professional force and not a third world army, with the aquisition of shiney new kit we do look more presentable in the worlds eye, this being my opinon of course, but I would hope there are others that agree with me, and I know for a fact if the CF recalled everything CADPAT and reissued that old green crap there would be a mutiny of epic porportions, at least with the combat arms guys, Infantry for sure. Be happy with what you got, its already better than what you used to have. Condider yourself lucky that your not still wearing 100% wool Battle Dress.
> SOLDIER ON!!



Well said.


----------



## chrisf (21 Jan 2006)

grayman said:
			
		

> As for CADPAT underwear we do have CADPAT fleece so you never know the next step, although I do remember pers from my unit trialing CADPAT T-shirts at one point in time.



Given that the official party line on the fleece is that it's an under-garment, I'm surprised that it's printed in cadpat, as it should be covered with a combat shirt or combat jacket... that being said, there are epaullettes on it, and it's regularly worn (Sensibly so) as an outer garment... so the cadpat makes sense.

The thought of cadpat underwear is just ridiculous though... you know how horribly new combats breathe? Could you imagine cadpat printed underwear?


----------



## Mortar guy (21 Jan 2006)

I was just issued my CADPAT Goretex bath towel a couple of weeks ago, so it looks like this trend is out of control....


MG


----------



## Arctic Acorn (22 Jan 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Given that the official party line on the fleece is that it's an under-garment, I'm surprised that it's printed in cadpat, as it should be covered with a combat shirt or combat jacket... that being said, there are epaullettes on it, and it's regularly worn (Sensibly so) as an outer garment... so the cadpat makes sense.
> 
> The thought of cadpat underwear is just ridiculous though... you know how horribly new combats breathe? Could you imagine cadpat printed underwear?



For me, the thought of having that 'smell' (you all know how brand new CADPAT combats smells) next to my meat and two veg would not be a fun experience...

I remember seeing the CADPAT T-shirts when they had all the RSMs trialling the 'new' uniforms. I know the Dutch do that, but I don't really think its all that important. A nice, moisture wicking shirt (a la UnderArmour) would be fantastic though...


----------



## Rory (22 Jan 2006)

Reading through this I cannot help but laugh at a few people. I understand you apparently don't enjoy wearing things which could mean the difference between your face being pegged from 200 metres or a tree. You may also understand that a homogenous glob of a soldier wearing nothing but CADPAT in most instances is very intimidating as
 A) Country dishes out head to toe in terms of gear and its quality.
 B) Your showing this off while in the field, whats more intimidating wearing some cargo jeans and a marine camo t-shirt while holding a IMI Desert Eagle or a _Soldier_ uniformly dressed and armed for the occasion. While he may not seem as edgy or bad ass as the guy running in a circle with a desert eagle you know he is well trained and will dispatch a threat as needed. (the question you need to ask yourself is. Were you the kid who couldn't colour code himself? AKA the one kid who kept wearing two different coloured socks to school and looking the fool. Uniforms that are of the same camo look much more intimidating then the mis-matched sock troops that are out there.)

I am not saying you are all wrong but I am sensing a few people just don't appreciate a bit of cloth covering their arse which does a job on par with say a few extra 12 pound plates strapped to parts of the body.


----------



## chrisf (22 Jan 2006)

0tto Destruct said:
			
		

> For me, the thought of having that 'smell' (you all know how brand new CADPAT combats smells) next to my meat and two veg would not be a fun experience...



Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the desert combats have the same stink? Mine apparently didn't, and I was under the impression the shirts at least were unused...


----------



## Daidalous (22 Jan 2006)

It's almost as bad as the New Ground Sheet smell.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jan 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the desert combats have the same stink? Mine apparently didn't, and I was under the impression the shirts at least were unused...


There's nothing wrong with the smell of a new set of Arid Region cadpat. And no, not everyone is issued new AR cadpat for deployments. New t-shirts yes. AR Cadpat no.

I suspect that some of the problems with the smell of the used AR Cadpat may have to do with the fact that it has previously been treated with permetherin. Once we get it back from the returning troops, we send it back to 25CFSD Montreal where it undergoes numerous cycles through the dry-cleaner prior to being returned into stock.

Regarding the fleece, it is considered an undergarment but it is not considered "next to skin," therefore it is not retained by personnel upon release but rather is again sent off to the dry cleaners and placed back into circulation.


----------



## chrisf (22 Jan 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with the smell of a new set of Arid Region cadpat. And no, not everyone is issued new AR cadpat for deployments. New t-shirts yes. AR Cadpat no.



Reference the smell, myself and (I assume) the other poster were referring to the "fish" like smell of the TW CadPat when brand new...

With regards to the AR Cadpat, I'm well aware it's reused, my pants were clearly used, but the shirts seemed new, no fading what-so-ever,but also no "fish" smell.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jan 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Reference the smell, myself and (I assume) the other poster were referring to the "fish" like smell of the TW CadPat when brand new...


I work in Clothing Stores. I haven't noticed the smell of which you speak. Tomorrow I shall go sniff a new one.   Maybe I just don't notice a smell because I've worked there too long.


			
				Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> With regards to the AR Cadpat, I'm well aware it's reused, my pants were clearly used, but the shirts seemed new, no fading what-so-ever,but also no "fish" smell.


Lucky you. They obviously had no used on the shelf then in the size you wear. What you are issued with will depend on what they have in stock when you get it issued.


----------



## chrisf (22 Jan 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> I work in Clothing Stores. I haven't noticed the smell of which you speak. Tomorrow I shall go sniff a new one.   Maybe I just don't notice a smell because I've worked there too long.



Enjoy 



> Lucky you. They obviously had no used on the shelf then in the size you wear. What you are issued with will depend on what they have in stock when you get it issued.



Actually I washed them a few times as soon as I got them to get them to fade a little, can't stand brand new cadpat... doesn't breathe.


----------



## ouyin2000 (28 Jan 2006)

I received this in an email from my friend.



> Heh heh, too funny.
> 
> Sup techs will love this.
> 
> ...



There's even pictures!

[Moderator edit - photos removed at the request of the originator]


----------



## loyalist (28 Jan 2006)

Too bad those berets look impossible to form.


----------



## Thompson_JM (29 Jan 2006)

thats as funny as it is scary...

imagine if the wrong person took that and Ran with it?

and we accually got it issued?

yikes!

though i wil admit those pics made my night

cheers
   Josh


----------



## andpro (29 Jan 2006)

Does anyone know if there are plans to make AR CADPAT tac vests? When I see a picture of a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan I find it funny that their tac vest totally underminds the perpose of their AR CADPAT.


----------



## loyalist (29 Jan 2006)

I'm sure I saw a soldier wering a CADPAT(AR) vest in a recent issue of _The Maple Leaf_


----------



## MPSHIELD (29 Jan 2006)

andpro-To answer your question, yes there is. Below is a picture of the vest. It is also mentioned on the Clothe the soldier Website. I heard they are pushing out the CADPAT AR ones at a fast pace.

http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Vehicles/Equipment/A490.jpg

On a side note, don't confuse the AR TV with the AR LBV. There were AR Vests out there that from what i have been told were were "quick fix" using the design of the mid 90's era LBV in CADPAT AR. I do not know if they still use these. As you can see in the photo below, these LBV's are in CADPAT AR but are not  TV.

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=7623&site=combatcamera&catalog=photos&aspect&width=430

Cheers


----------



## andpro (29 Jan 2006)

Thanks a lot. That looks a lot better than the regular CADPAT tac vests on AR CADPAT.


----------



## Rory (30 Jan 2006)

Great from those pics of the CADPAT tie and beret. Three soldiers came into Tim Hortons on saturday in North Battleford. What did I look for? The CADPAT tie n beret.  : I am kind of glad I didn't see em though. My co worker laughed at the fact that our camo is pixalated though.


----------



## mover1 (30 Jan 2006)

Rory said:
			
		

> Great from those pics of the CADPAT tie and beret. Three soldiers came into Tim Hortons on saturday in North Battleford. What did I look for? The CADPAT tie n beret.  : I am kind of glad I didn't see em though. My co worker laughed at the fact that our camo is pixalated though.



I kinda laughed that your co worker has 3 teeth and is fat!! :'(
JK...... everyone is going pixilated. Just look at the sprinkles on the donut your eating and youll see what I mean.


----------



## NL_engineer (30 Jan 2006)

I bet you will be able to but the Cadpat tie, at CPGear in a few months.


----------



## NATO Boy (31 Jan 2006)

MPSHIELD said:
			
		

> andpro-To answer your question, yes there is. Below is a picture of the vest. It is also mentioned on the Clothe the soldier Website. I heard they are pushing out the CADPAT AR ones at a fast pace.
> 
> http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Vehicles/Equipment/A490.jpg
> 
> ...



I talked to some of the guys from my unit that came back from the SandBox. Saw photos of others in letters that have a month or so left on-tour. Some wore the CADPAT AR "Jean-Jacket" vest; some wore the TW TV. As for the LBV, I read in another thread that these were created in a large quantity to fill the void until the AR TV is issued. Kind of a moot point, don't ya think; I mean why waste the material building AR vests based on an old design instead of making the AR TV is the first place?


----------



## geo (31 Jan 2006)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> I bet you will be able to but the Cadpat tie, at CPGear in a few months.


Beware what you wish fopr:
Cadpat neck tie & Beret do exist..... something cobbled together as a lark but.... they do exist.


----------



## soldiers301 (31 Jan 2006)

> I talked to some of the guys from my unit that came back from the SandBox. Saw photos of others in letters that have a month or so left on-tour. Some wore the CADPAT AR "Jean-Jacket" vest; some wore the TW TV. As for the LBV, I read in another thread that these were created in a large quantity to fill the void until the AR TV is issued. Kind of a moot point, don't ya think; I mean why waste the material building AR vests based on an old design instead of making the AR TV is the first place?



They only wants to make a better version of the TV based on operational feedback with the TW one. After the making of the AR one, the TW will have some upgrade in the next order. So until the trial is finished, the AR LBV will be issued.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jan 2006)

Mickey said:
			
		

> ....... As for the LBV, I read in another thread that these were created in a large quantity to fill the void until the AR TV is issued. Kind of a moot point, don't ya think; I mean why waste the material building AR vests based on an old design instead of making the AR TV is the first place?


Well......You can put Ballistic plates in a LBV.  You can't with the TV.  Make any sense now?


----------



## chrisf (31 Jan 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> I work in Clothing Stores. I haven't noticed the smell of which you speak. Tomorrow I shall go sniff a new one.   Maybe I just don't notice a smell because I've worked there too long.Lucky you. They obviously had no used on the shelf then in the size you wear. What you are issued with will depend on what they have in stock when you get it issued.



So did you notice the smell after or are we all crazy?


----------



## armyvern (31 Jan 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> So did you notice the smell after or are we all crazy?


Actually we were discussing this in the chat-room last night. I was asking if anyone had ever noticed....no I smelt and I still didn't notice.


----------



## MPSHIELD (1 Feb 2006)

Mickey said:
			
		

> I talked to some of the guys from my unit that came back from the SandBox. Saw photos of others in letters that have a month or so left on-tour. Some wore the CADPAT AR "Jean-Jacket" vest; some wore the TW TV. As for the LBV, I read in another thread that these were created in a large quantity to fill the void until the AR TV is issued. Kind of a moot point, don't ya think; I mean why waste the material building AR vests based on an old design instead of making the AR TV is the first place?



Mickey-Do you know if is a choice that soldier have one versus the other or do certain units get them over others? Only those on "special operations? Dismounted only?" Does anyone know? Just curious.


----------



## NATO Boy (1 Feb 2006)

MPSHIELD said:
			
		

> Mickey-Do you know if is a choice that soldier have one versus the other or do certain units get them over others? Only those on "special operations? Dismounted only?" Does anyone know? Just curious.



They didn't mention having a choice; just got whatever was available at the time I guess.......



			
				soldiers301 said:
			
		

> They only wants to make a better version of the TV based on operational feedback with the TW one. After the making of the AR one, the TW will have some upgrade in the next order. So until the trial is finished, the AR LBV will be issued.



That explains more to me...



			
				George Wallace  said:
			
		

> Well......You can put Ballistic plates in a LBV.  You can't with the TV.  Make any sense now?



Yeah, that does make sense; what doesn't make sense is they wore the LBV overtop a protective vest (don't those carry plates??? or are they just frag vests?)

cheers,

Mickey


----------



## NL_engineer (1 Feb 2006)

soldiers301 said:
			
		

> They only wants to make a better version of the TV based on operational feedback with the TW one. After the making of the AR one, the TW will have some upgrade in the next order. So until the trial is finished, the AR LBV will be issued.



What kind of changes are expected to be made??? I would like to see adjustable pouches and maybe a better gas mask Carrier.


----------



## soldiers301 (1 Feb 2006)

I dont know for what is being changed, but Ill try to get information on this.


----------



## Troopasaurus (2 Feb 2006)

Please be a MOLLE version of the vest.... we can still dream right?


----------



## NATO Boy (2 Feb 2006)

Don't jinx it...for the love of god don't JINX IT!


----------



## Synthos (2 Feb 2006)

*knocks on wood*


----------



## soldiers301 (2 Feb 2006)

> Please be a MOLLE version of the vest.... we can still dream right?



No. MOLLE is not compatible with CF Policy that every soldiers must be "uniformed". With the MOLLE you can create your own vest, wich would not be the same for everyone.


----------



## NATO Boy (3 Feb 2006)

Goddamnit he jinxed it....ARGH!

Oh well....any more info yet on what it'll incorporate?


----------



## rifleman (3 Feb 2006)

soldiers301 said:
			
		

> No. MOLLE is not compatible with CF Policy that every soldiers must be "uniformed". With the MOLLE you can create your own vest, wich would not be the same for everyone.



Where did you get this 'CF Policy' from?


----------



## NATO Boy (3 Feb 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Where did you get this 'CF Policy' from?


[rant]
Well, I don't know 'bout any "Policy;" however, the rumour mill keeps churning out tall tales like "The Tac Vest was designed to be 'uniformic' for use in parades." ? ? ? ? ? ? ? WTF? ??? Who comes up with this sh!t? Now, the other comment I keep hearing..."The Tac Vest was built around the RCR Battleschool load standard"...seems more feasible...but I still wonder if that's really the case.

If there really is a policy like this, why bother making the C9 and Canteen pockets swappable? Wouldn't the policy negate that purpose?
[/rant]

That said, I too would like to see this policy in writing...  'til then, grunts will continue to chant "WE WANT MOLLE!"


----------



## rifleman (3 Feb 2006)

Although there is some reason for uniformity, the 'policy' I believe is 'Old School'. If there was actual uniformity issue then the Vest would be in the Dress Manual.


----------



## MikeL (3 Feb 2006)

On the parade square, yea uniformity is good. But in the field... 

Either way, if uniformity is a big thing, MOLLE still works. For garrison/inspections/course  have a standard set up for the vest; than in the field set it up to your preferance. Easy enough to do.


----------



## Synthos (3 Feb 2006)

From my understanding uniformity in the field meant that you could find what you needed quickly if you had to get something from another person's vest/ruck/coat whatever.


----------



## chrisf (3 Feb 2006)

All well and good (No, really, it makes sense) when everyone carries the same equipment/weapons... but they don't.


----------



## LWSAR (8 May 2006)

I didn't read through the whole post but Cad Pat vehicles are a go check out the Jordainians new F16 on global security web site looks pretty slick to me


----------

