# Small Pack Issue



## BKells (5 Oct 2005)

CHofO, 33 BDE in Ottawa, are getting issued the small pack, ballistic eyewear + cadpat leather gloves en masse tomorrow night.


----------



## kyleg (5 Oct 2005)

I've already got all 3 (small pack was most recent, about a week and a half ago) and I must say that I am pleased with all of it. The small pack is a little large for it's intended use, but is comfortable as all get out, and with the extra pouches and the valise strapped on the top (it works, I've tried) it could easily be used as a ruck for a weekend ex (unfortunately our unit will not allow us to do this). I've already given a short review of the gloves in the Cadpat Leather Gloves thread on this board. And the ballistic eyewear gets its job done, nuff said.

Cheers,
Pinky

(edited for grammar)


----------



## dutchie (5 Oct 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> I've already got all 3 (small pack was most recent, about a week and a half ago) and I must say that I am pleased with all of it. The small pack is a little large for it's intended use, but is comfortable as all get out, and with the extra pouches and the valise strapped on the top (it works, I've tried) it could easily be used as a ruck for a weekend ex (unfortunately our unit will not allow us to do this). I've already given a short review of the gloves in the Cadpat Leather Gloves thread on this board. And the ballistic eyewear does gets its job done, nuff said.
> 
> Cheers,
> Pinky



Out here on the left coast, we'll be lucky to see the small pack by 2010.

I'll wager a bet right here: the wogs in Ottawa will be replacing worn out small packs (due to all that camping ya know   ) before a single west coast infantry unit get's it's original issue.

But nice going Pinky. Glad to hear you like it.

EDIT: I realize you are NOT a wog from Ottawa, Pinky.


----------



## kyleg (5 Oct 2005)

> I realize you are NOT a wog from Ottawa, Pinky.



Lol *shudders at thought*
It's too bad you guys won't be seeing them soon. On the other hand there are better commercially available assault/patrol packs out there. Plus, due to its size and weight I foresee some problems humping it attached to the ruck. But I'll find out soon enough  :-[

Cheers,
Pinky

P.S. Does anyone else this this looks like Hitler?  :-X


----------



## D-n-A (5 Oct 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Out here on the left coast, we'll be lucky to see the small pack by 2010.
> 
> I'll wager a bet right here: the wogs in Ottawa will be replacing worn out small packs (due to all that camping ya know   ) before a single west coast infantry unit get's it's original issue.
> 
> ...



I bet the first unit in 39 CBG to get them will the band... I know they got tac vests before some of the other units...


----------



## dutchie (5 Oct 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Whats wrong with being a wog from Ottawa?
> 
> I'm from Ottawa.
> 
> I'm a wog (well, little wog in training).


Nothing, but you shouldn't get issued a small pack before an infantry soldier from BC is all.

BTW, I was referring more to the wogs who work at the puzzle palace than troops who happen to reside in the Land of Confusion.


----------



## kyleg (5 Oct 2005)

What's the difference between Puzzle Palace and the Land of Confusion?


----------



## dutchie (5 Oct 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> What's the difference between Puzzle Palace and the Land of Confusion?



The Puzzle Palace is located within the Land of Confusion. There are other enchanted buildings there too, where the creatures inhabiting the LoC go to 'work'.


----------



## kyleg (5 Oct 2005)

Lol, ok, I think I get it. What do others that have the small pack think about it? And how do you carry it with your ruck? It's pretty big to strap on the back...

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## Bomber (6 Oct 2005)

Ditch your ruck, small pack holds as much as the 82 Pattern, in about 3 years, you won;t have a choice, better get used to the small pack now.


----------



## COBRA-6 (6 Oct 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> CHofO, 33 BDE in Ottawa, are getting issued the small pack, ballistic eyewear  + cadpat leather gloves en masse tomorrow night.



I like these quite a bit! While not as stylish as some would like, they have a great field of vision and the nose piece relay keeps it in place when you're sweating. Haven't tested the ballistic performance yet, thankfully, but it's nice to know it offers real protection. The clear lens will also be great to have when bush-bashing back in Canada, especially at night...


----------



## dutchie (6 Oct 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Ditch your ruck, small pack holds as much as the 82 Pattern, in about 3 years, you won;t have a choice, better get used to the small pack now.



Are they canning the ruck? I thought the new ruck was years away?


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2005)

I think you are talking 2 totally seperate items here. There is the Small Pack System (SPS) and a new rucksack (which comes in 7 or 8 sizes can't remember right now just got back from Clothing Conference in the LoC!! - seriously.) The SPS is meant for carriage during short term (24hrs) field ops while the new Ruck is intended for longer stints in the field. We issued the SPS en masse here in Gagetown last fall. The new rucksack should begin being seen around certain field Units this spring. As it stands right now, because the SPS carries the same load capacity as our current rucksack, the plan is to do the initial issue of the new Rucksack to 1st line Reg F field Units first. They will carry one or the other into the field with them depending upon the duration of their ex. Only the accessory pouches from the SPS get mounted onto (or can be mounted onto) the new rucksack not the entire SPS. Those RegF Units who have not seen the SPS yet, and there are a few, should see it this fall. Nice piece of 'modular' kit but it doesn't want to cram into those lockers at the gym....so beware once your initial issue is done and the order comes down that it is now the only authorized daypack to wear in uniform....it's a little   (lot) bulkier than the day-glo orange and other multi-coloured backpacks currently seen wandering around people's backs. The new rucksack seems quite comfortable too (I only had it on for 10 minutes) but time will tell on that I guess.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/27_e.asp


----------



## Bomber (6 Oct 2005)

Perfect, so as advised, ditch the 82 pattern and get used to wearing the small pack.  At the cost and rates of production, expect to be explaining to your troops when you are a Sgt in a few years when the new ruck will be issued.  The contract has yet to be signed, the ruck is still on the Merx, ending on 7 October I think.  From there, figure about 2 years before the first unit sees one, other than prototypes, pre production samples, or trial items.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2005)

So Bomber,

Are they still only going to issue the ruck to the 1st line dismounted troops as per the PIP? I heard they were thinking about amending that. Hate to see it pushed out to the Unit QMs as a CFFET item too, not because I want one, but because the QMs are getting saddled with alot of the CTS kit now but not getting the staff they require to help with the increased workload. Oh yeah...I'm already a Sgt and your comment about providing explanations to the troops is bang-on, but not just with the rucksack. A good 50% of my day is spent answering query after query about everything CTS is putting out and trying to justify why they can't just expend the funds all at once to get enough to kit all the troops and get it over with. Something which the Air Force seems to have been able to better acomplish with the initial issue of their CEMS merged Cadpat/Cadpat Gortex and raingear right off the bat. Sucks to be Army and waiting in line these days.  :'(


----------



## kyleg (6 Oct 2005)

> Perfect, so as advised, ditch the 82 pattern and get used to wearing the small pack.



Our CSM for this training year has decreed that the small pack may NOT be used as a ruck, and that we are to bring both on ex.


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Oct 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> Our CSM for this training year has decreed that the small pack may NOT be used as a ruck, and that we are to bring both on ex.



Just how much crap does he (and others like him) plan on bringing out to a reserve field ex? I think its a little asinine to tell troops they have to bring both, when it is the troop who has to carry them.


----------



## dutchie (6 Oct 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Just how much crap does he (and others like him) plan on bringing out to reserve field ex?



Well, some people want to see the troops hump a ruck around for the weekend. In the Res, we don't get any exs longer than 2.5 days, other than the Bde ex (Cougar Salvo in 39 Bde). So if you aren't bringing your ruck on a weekend ex, and you avoid the 10 day Bde ex, you can avoid humping a ruck altogether. That means it's hurt locker time if that troop decides to try for a tour. 

You might even lose the ability to do the Humpin' The Ruck Plodding Step, as chronicled by paracowboy.


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Oct 2005)

> Well, some people want to see the troops hump a ruck around for the weekend. In the Res, we don't get any exs longer than 2.5 days, other than the Bde ex (Cougar Salvo in 39 Bde). So if you aren't bringing your ruck on a weekend ex, and you avoid the 10 day Bde ex, you can avoid humping a ruck altogether. That means it's hurt locker time if that troop decides to try for a tour.
> 
> You might even lose the ability to do the Humpin' The Ruck Plodding Step, as chronicled by paracowboy.  Smiley



Meh, call me crazy but I don't like being forced to carry useless crap. best thing to do is to let the troops pack their own stuff, and encourage them to pack as light as possible. Showing up at the beginning of an ex with a full ruck is a pretty good way to end up in the "hurt locker" once they issue the radios, batteries, MG ammo, and water gerries. Train as you fight, anyone?


----------



## dutchie (6 Oct 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Meh, call me crazy but I don't like being forced to carry useless crap. best thing to do is to let the troops pack their own stuff, and encourage them to pack as light as possible. Showing up at the beginning of an ex with a full ruck is a pretty good way to end up in the "hurt locker" once they issue the radios, batteries, MG ammo, and water gerries. Train as you fight, anyone?



Totally agree. I guess I can across wrong, or you misread what I was saying. I'm not saying I'm not looking forward to the small pack (quite the opposite), or that troops should pack heavy just to make it difficult. But that's how some people think. 

I say pack what you need, leave what you don't. Kit lists are for retards and newbies.

So it really has the same capacity as the ruck? You can fit as much food, ammo, water, etc in it? How much lighter is the pack itself over the ruck?


----------



## kyleg (6 Oct 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Just how much crap does he (and others like him) plan on bringing out to a reserve field ex? I think its a little asinine to tell troops they have to bring both, when it is the troop who has to carry them.



Well we actually got a kit list to go along with the decree, part of which is follow up kit in a duffel to be kept in the CQ. Now, I'm all for being able to hump a ruck, but I believe it is up to the soldier to figure out what is necessary to bring and what isn't. How can a soldier be trusted to do his job if he doesn't know what is necessary to get the job done? If I can survive for 2.5 days with just a small pack and remain serviceable (sp?) that should be my own perogative (emphasis on the "serviceable"). That's what training is for, so we know what's useful and what isn't if/when we have to go into real battle so we don't slow ourselves down trying to hump un-needed kit.

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## D-n-A (6 Oct 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> So it really has the same capacity as the ruck? You can fit as much food, ammo, water, etc in it? How much lighter is the pack itself over the ruck?



I think the '82 pack an the small pack can hold about the same amount of kit, the small pack might be able to hold more though, when you start to add all the pouches to the outside. Its really light compared to the ruck aswell.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> So it really has the same capacity as the ruck? You can fit as much food, ammo, water, etc in it? How much lighter is the pack itself over the ruck?



OK...see this link, scroll down to load carriage, click Small pack system PIP:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/3/3_e.asp


----------



## kyleg (6 Oct 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> So it really has the same capacity as the ruck? You can fit as much food, ammo, water, etc in it? How much lighter is the pack itself over the ruck?



I carried more in it than I usually fit in my ruck, and more comfortably at that. The CTS website claims it's 1.5 kg (about 3 lbs) but I'd say it's closer to 5 or 6 lbs. Still a good weight. Once you attach the 4 pouches and the valise on top you can carry a ton. I had 1 large pocket on the front, one on the bottom, and the 2 small pockets on the sides, with the valise on top, and I had a lot of room to spare for ammo, batteries, and all that other necessary stuff.

EDIT: What I like is that you can carry your long-term survival stuff in the pouches and valise and normal assault pack stuff in the maine bag, then just disconnect everything and take only the main bag with you on patrol, keeping whatever pockets you think are necessary, if any.

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## dutchie (6 Oct 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> I carried more in it than I usually fit in my ruck, and more comfortably at that. The CTS website claims it's 1.5 kg (about 3 lbs) but I'd say it's closer to 5 or 6. Still a good weight. Once you attach the 4 pouches and the valise on top you can carry a ton. I had 1 large pocket on the front, one on the bottom, and the 2 small pockets on the sides, with the valise on top, and I had a lot of room to spare for ammo, batteries, and all that other necessary stuff.
> 
> EDIT: What I like is that you can carry your long-term survival stuff in the pouches and valise and normal assault pack stuff in the maine bag, then just disconnect everything and take only the main bag with you on patrol.
> 
> ...




Sounds ok to me! I've got a buddy with a brit bergen, and he loves the weight-carrying capacity ratio. 

So you can attach a valise properly? The pics I've seen don't really tell the story.


----------



## kyleg (6 Oct 2005)

It comes with long attachment straps (to be used with the waterproof compression sack) that hold the valise nicely to the webbing stitched on the lid. I saw some people attach it the the bottom but I feel that it balances better on top (and doesn't hit you in the a** as you walk).

Cheers,
Pinky

P.S. I'd love a bergen, I'm working on getting one off ebay  ;D


----------



## dutchie (6 Oct 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> It comes with long attachment straps (to be used with the waterproof compression sack) that hold the valise nicely to the webbing stitched on the lid. I saw some people attach it the the bottom but I feel that it balances better on top (and doesn't hit you in the a** as you walk).
> 
> Cheers,
> Pinky
> ...



Valise on top is always better. Too much weight low down is hard on the back (well, for me anyway). Nice to know it fits up top.

eBay is where he got his. They're pricey though. Make sure your CSM let's you use it before you buy it.


----------



## kyleg (6 Oct 2005)

With our current CSM I'd be very surprised if I were allowed to to use anything but an issued ruck. BUT, and I know many will read this a scream "GET A CIVY PACK!!!" I'd still use it for hiking/camping. I can't explain it, but I prefer using army kit to civy kit, probably because I know that it's designed to handle much more adverse circumstances than a rainy night at a campsite. Being able to use one on ex would be an added bonus.

Now, back to the small pack. CTS could have learned a lot from the bergen, i.e. the detachable daypack idea. I personally feel that the small pack and ruck should not be separate, but rather the small pack should be a removable extension to the ruck. Just my $.02

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## Bomber (6 Oct 2005)

Army Vern, I have spent many a lunch asking the same question, and what might surprise everyone is that fault doesn't actually lie with CTS, the officers and NCO's that make up that group put in long hours and work extremely hard to get items into service.  Unfortunately, it is the same old problems, not enough staff, not enough money at the right time, Canadian government procurement rules, PWGSC, and a bunch of other things.  As far as stuff taking a long time, it just does, nothing anyone but maybe MND, CDS, PM, and a couple of other people can do about it.  

Pinky, you are going to look like a trained killer when you walk down the road wearing a ruck on your back, a small pack over top of your TV and BA, and a duffle bag.  This is sort of reinforcing a theory that we are starting to over load the modern infantry man.  Can you publish what the CSM expects you to carry in your small pack, on top of what you already have spread out over the rest of your Load Carriage Items?  My 82 pattern was dis-assembled, and now sits in a large rubber maid marked "Legacy kit, return to Stores"  

On the plus side, I did manage to complete my super sleep system, got two new bags from Integral Design.  Oh man, the winter is about to rock.  Anyone that is looking for a lighter smaller bag, go to the website and check out their light weight bag, it is the same as the Snugpack one, but made in Alberta.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2005)

Bomber,

I know the fault doesn't lie with the pers working in the CTS project cell. I deal with them often (and know that I contribute to their overtime...remember me and the IECS this winter???  ;D). I know it's about the money (or rather the lack thereof) ergo my comment about having to answer the queries as to why they can expend the monies to buy it all at once (it isn't there). Agreed the procurment "process" sucks in a big way (I'm a binrat and therefore educated in the ways of PWGSC.). Discussion of that 'process' managed to work it's way into our Ops Clothing working group this week in Ottawa. Seems that not alot of pers believe the current way is the best way, but hey, I guess when the money is provided by the taxpayer via the Feds we get to go with their rules and PWGSC... Although you gotta sometimes wonder, given the rate of inquiries lately, as to whether we're the only ones that follow it. ???


----------



## kyleg (7 Oct 2005)

Ok, This is the list we got:

*Head Dress* (as ordered):
CADPAT wide brimmed field hat
Green issued tuc
Helmet with cam and retaining band - white cover when called for or placed in TV or kit bag depending on orders

*Uniform:*
CADPAT shirt w/ rank
CADPAT pants with belt/suspenders
T-shirt, khaki
undershorts
socks
combat boots / CWWB
Jacket - when not worn to be carried in valise
combat gloves, in jacket
Personal weapon and sling (w/ EIS)
ID Discs - to be worn around neck
ID Card & 404's
message pad and pencil
gerber
white top and bottom when ordered or placed in TV or rucksack or kit bag and used when ordered

*Tac Vest*
EIS (mags, 'nades, etc. in their proper pouches)
1 qt canteen w/ canteen cup on right or left (in proper place)
Flashlight, pocket, right side of bayonet
C9 pouch on opposite side (for C9 gunners a box of ammo takes priority, for everyone else this can be used for whatever you want)
Gas mask carrier to be attached to left of tac vest, with strap in back pouch

*Left Utility Pocket:*
2 x Field dressings
2 x pair of surgical gloves (in waterproof bag)
1 x foot powder (in waterproof bag)

*Right utility pocket:*
Bug juice
Sunscreen
Lip balm
Cam paint
Ear plugs
BFA (if ordered)

*Small Pack*
Rain suit (top AND bottom)
Combat Gloves (when not worn)
Boonie hat (when not worn)
Weapon cleaning kit
Boot laces
2 qt canteen
Field dressing
1 x pair of socks
KFS
Foot powder
Rank slip

*Rucksack*
1 x pair of boots/mukluks as per orders/weather
2 x pair of socks
1 x combat shirt
1 x combat pants
3 x underwear tops (long or short, depending on season)
3 x underwear bottoms (same as above)
1 x Fleece, if not worn
1 x boot maintenance kit (if I get captured I might as well make a good impression with shiny boots : )
Plate, melmac
Cup, melmac

*Internal pocket (I assume this is the zippered one under the lid)*
1 x field dressing
Foot powder
Para cord / Bungee cords
(I keep cheap, light metal tent pegs from Crappy Tire as well, great for securing the hootch sides)

*Outer pockets to be left empty for ammo/POL/rats

*This actually leaves quite a bit of space in the main compartment, I transferred the towels and jacket from below to here (main ruck compartment) in order to balance the load better

*Valise*
Sleeping bag (inner)
Sleeping bag liner
Bivy bag
Thermarest
"Utility sheet" (i.e. ground sheet)
Hygiene kit
Face cloth, khaki
small towel, khaki
Bug net
combat jacket

*Follow up kit in duffle (locked)* - to be kept in the CQ and deployed if needed
1 x Combat shirt
1 x Combat pants
2 x underwear tops (long or short, depending on season)
2 x underwear bottoms (same as above)
2 x pair of socks
1 x pair of boot laces
laundry bag
Bath towel, khaki
hand towel, khaki
lock (key or combination)
Bug net
ALL winter kit (outer sleeping bag included)

Some side notes that are not on the list, but were passed on by word of mouth:
NO "big" knives. If it can bee seen hanging below your combat shirt, it's not allowed.
The small pack MAY NOT be used as a ruck.

Needless to say this does not include all the platoon/company stores we have to carry, plus all the other kit we need/want that isn't on this list (like balaclava and neck tube, or the ranger blanket, for example)

That's it, our kit list for this training year.

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## The_Falcon (7 Oct 2005)

All I can say is wow, I guess when you got off you QL3/BIQ and you got your regimental insignia for your headdress, they were actually just messing with you, your course never ended.  That or your CSM has way way to much friggen time on his hands.  Our CQ (were I happen to be employed at the moment) would accept follow on kit in the stores, and we definetly would not be taking it with us/storing it for the troopies for bloody *WEEKEND* exs.  Someone needs to find the the switch labelled "Course Mode", on your CSM and switch it to OFF!


----------



## Bomber (9 Oct 2005)

That is certainly an intense kit list, a bit excessive, but hey, if you have everything, then you should need nothing.  I don't see how you will carry your small packs though, and why everything in the small pack would only fill one of the larger external pockets on it.  I don;t know man, seems like a sketchy kit list.  Follow it, but bug nets are not of any real value soon (fall/winter), and there are certainly a bunch of other things that can be removed as weather changes.  Seems you guys were just issued your clothing docs and told where to put absolutely everything.  Boot polish is a good touch though.  Just for giggles, try and load your small pack with a bunch of practical things, and then see if you can drop it into the main pouch on the ruck, I know it works this way on the new ruck, but maybe it will work on the old one as well.  Remove the pouches on it first though and cinch it down nice and tight.


----------



## kyleg (9 Oct 2005)

Not a bad idea... I didn't know the new CTS ruck accomodated that, seems they actually got something right ;D I'm gonna go try that right now.

Cheers,
Pinky

P.S. As an aside, though a kit list may be somewhat unusual for reserve exes, please don't take it out on the CSM. I don't know him well, but I DO know there is a lot I can learn from him. At the very least having to carry all this kit well bring everyone to the same level (more or less) in terms of strength and endurance on ruck marches.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (12 Oct 2005)

If you look here you can kinda see what people are talking about on how to secure the Valise.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/pdf/SPS-UserGuide_e.pdf


----------



## armyvern (13 Oct 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> Not a bad idea... I didn't know the new CTS ruck accomodated that, seems they actually got something right ;D I'm gonna go try that right now.



Hey!! Guess what it isn't even the new ruck. It's the small pack system. Totally different item. Aren't you lucky?     ;D

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/27_e.asp


----------



## brihard (13 Oct 2005)

Aw man, I love my Small Pack. As the original poster mentioned, we got issued them at the Camerons this past thursday. I went out for a 10k ruck march with it along the Ottawa river a few days later to see how it feels on a hump a bit longer than the walk to and from the bus stop. I wlaked baout 8800 meters, then jogged the last 1200m to see how it feels when moving fast and bouncing around. (In combat boots. Oops)

Aside from being a nice walk, I figured out just how damned comfortable it can be. Rigging the valise on top was a minor pain i the ***, but I figured the best way is to put my air mattress underneath the main flag, helping to prop it up perfectly horizontal if the bag isn't arleady full. The valise straps go through both sets of modular daisy chains, and then the carry handle behind the head. It holds the valise night and tight on top. It's wonderfully balanced this way, but still leaves room for wearing helmet, etc.

As for my general kit laodout, (which is always evolving towards mroe efficieny), it's something like this.

*TacVest*
-Both C9 pouches atached
-3 Mag pouches hold mags. Fourth mag pouch left open for energy bars, etc. Fourth mag in rifle, fifth held in a mag pouch on rifle butt (yeah, I bought one of those. Easier for fast mag swaps)
-Left C9 pouch: Generally my message pad, plus other misc small items Field dressing in smoke grenade pouch if there's no smoke grenade
-Right C9 pouch: 2qt canteen if I'm not using a camelback. If I am, generally the .9l insulated thermos canteed full of whatever hot brew I've mixed up lately. Nothing like a hot swig of awful coffee when you're kicked awake at 0300 for patrol. Better coffee is an incredible luxury. Right smoke grenade pouch generally holds a squished roll of camo duct tape. I don't think I've ever been on an Ex and not needed duct tape for something
-Grenade pouches: If no grenades, then random bits of Misc. Earplugs, etc. One grenade pouch also holds a little headband red LED/ Blue LED / white light that I managed to rig to my helmet. I just set this up; haven't used it yet. Trying to figure out if I'll actually find it useful; maybe for nighttime map reading?
-Utility pouches: Left one holds cam paint/mirror, foot powder, sunscreen, lighter. On reflection, I'll put my earplugs here too. Right one usually holds my cadpat field hat and fifty feet of para cord. When I wear the hat, of course, it frees up an almost empty pouch for whatever. Vector bars, etc.

*Small pack*
- Main pouch: spare change of combats. Spare socks, tshirt, adn underwear. Goretex socks (aka my second pair of boots). Tower. Shave kit. CADPAT nuke bag for going out on patrol. I expect that with the new large pouches from the small pack this nuke bag will fall away from being used. I generally used it for snivvel kit like my jacket when not worn, or for carrying C6 cans. I think a C6 can will fit in the new large pouches. I'll keep the nuke bac just in case thogh; it takes up very little space, and you never know when you might need a nuke bag. Oh, there's generally a bag of campinos in my bag somewhere as well.
-Small side pouches: One of them holds my canteen cup and stand, which inside it holds hexamine tabs, MRE heaters, matches, plus whatever quantity of instant coffee, sugar, and powdered whitener I can get my hands on. On top of this in the pouch I have an old 82 webbing C9 pouch stuffed with 1st aid kit- 2 field dressings, second skin, elastoplast, burn ointment, bandaids, medical tape, etc. The fact that I can shove all of this into one of the side pouches make me happy. The other side pouch is currently empty. Empty pouches are good; bits'o'misc tend to fill them up as you get given minor bits of gear or whatnot to carry.
-Big (fanny pack) pouches: Both currently empty. I figure I'll hold onto them for C9/C6 ammo. I'll likely put one of these on the bottom of my small pack, and wear the other one as a fanny pack.
-Top zippered pouch: Not sure yet. I'll probably keep a spare change of socks, towel, and goretex socks here for that quick sock change after you immerse your feet.

*Valise* 
Sleeping bag inner (I never use the outer unless it's about -40; I sweat like a beast in that thing), ranger blanket, bivvy bag, ground sheet. I'll probably invest in a smaller lighter sleeping bag at some point... My valise has the Stay-Puft look going on.

*Camelback* stuffed in whatever nook and cranny of small pack seems most convenient; alternatively, carried in nuke bag on patrol, or worn on back if I'm only wearing tacvest. 

I also got a modular grenade pouch form Wheelers today that I'll use for my GPS. I found the pouch is a lot alrger than I thought, so a few things may migrate. Alternatively, I'ljust keep a spare lanyard and use the same pouch for GPS and Compass. I also need to figure out a place for my ballistic glasses. Maybe I'll use on of the vest utility pouches for that, and migrade the para cord to a different pouch- that spare C7 pouch, maybe.

As for bringing both SPS and ruck on ex, that seems idiotic. The SPS carries as much as the ruck, and in fact the exterior pouches hold more. On top of that, it's mroe comfortable. I intend never to use my ruck again if at all possible. If my CSM gives me crap for just using my small pack I'll probably cry. That being said, a number of Camerons have various configurations of issued 82, issued 64, aftermarket 64, and even a few more exotic packs, so I should be good. Granted my particular packing means I can't easily use the SPS for going out on a raid or something, but large pouches and if necessary nuke bag give me all the room I need to mission kit.


----------



## career_radio-checker (13 Oct 2005)

Were did you put the kitchen sink? :blotto:


----------



## brihard (13 Oct 2005)

I keep that in the extra bit of space between my helmet and the supporting harness that ohlds the helmet to my head. I went over to Lightfighter and ordered one of their _HiSpeed Tac-Sink XTreme_ systems. 

Nah, I generally don't carry many things that I don't consider useful. The headband light is questionable, but I'll try it out first. I eschew a spare set of boots for goretex socks, I see the first aid kit as a necessity, and the heating stuff for coffee is my one real allowance for snivvle kit. The GPs saves me time and is useful when the nav guy is all out to lunch and the Sgt. asks in exasperation 'Can someone tell me where we are?' I don't really carry anything that I don't consider useful. If there's anything you'd like to make a reccomenation on though, I certainly welcome it.


----------



## Roger (13 Oct 2005)

This is a excellent piece of kit. And I use one of the extra pouches on the bottom of my Tac vest, when I throw the pack back on I can leave it or re-attach it on the small pack. Aside from my closet getting full of kit, I love this pack.


----------



## Craig B (13 Oct 2005)

Gunners take note .

The headlamps that brihard mentioned are the best piece of kit for fuze setting at night . No more trying to hold a projectile with one hand while fumbling with the fuze setter and drooling all over your maglight . I picked up a Ray-O-Vac model at Walmart that has 2 red led's , 1 white led and 1 white normal bulb for about $20 . Uses 3 AAA batts . 

Excellent buy .

Craig


----------



## kyleg (14 Oct 2005)

Brihard said:
			
		

> and the heating stuff for coffee is my one real allowance for snivvle kit. [...] I don't really carry anything that I don't consider useful. If there's anything you'd like to make a reccomenation on though, I certainly welcome it.



I haven't actually brought it on ex yet but I've got a mini, single-serving espresso machine (http://www.kitchenemporium.com/cgi-bin/kitchen/prod/16zzba270.html) (the smallest one in the pic) that I plan on keeping packed alongside my stove in my patrol pack. I can't wait to see the reaction I get when I brew myself a nice little espresso to mix with hot chocolate 8)

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## MOOO! (14 Oct 2005)

Hey Pinky, make sure when you Go on Ex in Pet that you find my trench and bring me a cup.  Odd thing for the field but if you can get away with it, I say do it.


----------



## kyleg (14 Oct 2005)

Haha, sounds good, I'll PM you next time we're heading out there


----------



## ROB14 (14 Oct 2005)

All I know is 38 Brigade wont get the SPS for a very very long time


----------



## brihard (17 Oct 2005)

Craig B said:
			
		

> Gunners take note .
> 
> The headlamps that brihard mentioned are the best piece of kit for fuze setting at night . No more trying to hold a projectile with one hand while fumbling with the fuze setter and drooling all over your maglight . I picked up a Ray-O-Vac model at Walmart that has 2 red led's , 1 white led and 1 white normal bulb for about $20 . Uses 3 AAA batts .
> 
> ...



Yup, exact same piece of kit I've got. I took the light off the headband and the mount and rigged the headband underneath my helmet scrim, so I've basically got a helmet mounted light that I can screw on or take off with just ten seconds and my gerber. My unit's heavily into OBUA this year, so I expect it will come in handy. That being said, it's a PITA when we're doing force on force trainign with Simunitions, though so far I've only been enemy force for that, so I didn't want to be bringing notice to myself with light anyway.

That espresso machine is one of the more odd pieces of kit I've heard of being brought to the field, but hell, why not? As ong as you can pack it and hump it without sacrificing necessary kit, more power to ya.


----------



## kyleg (17 Oct 2005)

The espresso machine is quite small actually, about the same height as my fist and not as big around (and I have small hands ;D ). Once I actually take it out on ex and use it I'll decide whether or not it's worth it. What I DO need to find is a WhisperLite, as my Coleman stove is a little bulky for carrying around.

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## Da_man (24 Oct 2005)

just got it... MUCH lighter than the rucksack when fully loaded.  Im lovin it.


----------



## Pikache (19 Dec 2005)

Got it issued. It is huge. 

How is one suppose to carry 82 pattern ruck plus the small pack now?
And how rainproof is the small pack?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Dec 2005)

I don't think your supposed to.


----------



## NL_engineer (19 Dec 2005)

In my tp, the wo wants us to take our ruck's on ex's, but we can also take our small packs.But in the new urban opps mind set, they are good because your ruck is in the 'camp' and your sps with you

Having a coffee maker on an ex is great, but if you have to carry it, it may not be that good. 8)


----------



## Redeye (19 Dec 2005)

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> Got it issued. It is huge.
> 
> How is one suppose to carry 82 pattern ruck plus the small pack now?
> And how rainproof is the small pack?



To hook it to the ruck, loosen the main pack cover straps on the ruck, then use the compression straps on the side of the small pack to attach it.  Or, just lay it over top of the valise and carry it that way.

The pouches are fairly water-resistant.  I use one of the accessory packs to replace the buttpack and it seems to be pretty useful that way.  It'd be wise to keep everything in plastic still though.


----------



## kyleg (19 Dec 2005)

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> And how rainproof is the small pack?



It ain't. Sure, if you sneeze on it your snot won't drench your kit, but anything else will. For my IBTS it was sprinkling rain all day and all of our small packs got soaked through. They also leave a weird yellow stain when they get wet the first 2-3 times. Waterproof everything inside, just as you would with any other pack.

As for the espresso machine, I have yet to try it on ex. I'm thinking I'll just stick with the ration coffee in my canteen cup.

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## NATO Boy (19 Dec 2005)

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> Got it issued. It is huge.
> 
> How is one suppose to carry 82 pattern ruck plus the small pack now?
> And how rainproof is the small pack?



I thought about trying this:

Empty the main bag on the 82; put the Smallpack in there.

Attach the 5L and 7.5L pockets to the outside of the main bag; use your imagination where they can attach.

Use Valise as previously used.

Seems kinda jumbled, but at least you can carry both this way (and it kinda keeps kit separated and readily accessible.)

Probably not gonna do this on the Winter EXes though; the ruck itself is enough as is.


----------



## Lerch (19 Dec 2005)

OR you can attach it to the top of the rucksack as mentioned. That, to me, seems the most logical solution (you're not losing any space inside the main bag, and it won't interfere with movement since it's sitting right behind your head (not on the side of the bag where it may snag on something).


----------



## Redeye (19 Dec 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> hey also leave a weird yellow stain when they get wet the first 2-3 times.



Ah-hah - I was wondering what the hell was all over my stealth jacket, it looked almost like rust stains, I couldn't figure out what the hell it was.


----------



## kyleg (20 Dec 2005)

Yeah, I couln't figure out why the floor in the shack was all yellow, along with my combat scarf in the pack. At first I thought that the packet of lemon juice mix I had in there had somehow gotten opened and mixed with the rain water. lol

Last ex (not the range ex) I sandwiched my empty SPS between the valice and main bag on my ruck and it worked pretty well. There's no need to have it loaded before getting to the actual training grounds because it is used to carry kit on a patrol/assault and one (usually) has time to prepare one's kit before said patrol/assault. Carrying a full ruck and full assault pack is both redundant and hard(er) on the back. This is advice I've gotten on several occasions from guys much more experienced than me, and I had no trouble keeping up with those who had their SPS's pre-packed.

Cheers, and happy holidays,
Pinky


----------



## armyvern (21 Dec 2005)

OK I'll say it again for all you who are still trying to figure out how to carry both....

They are NOT meant to be used together at the same time.

A quote from the Clothe the Soldier Web-site:

"*Concept of Use* â â€œ The Small Pack System will be a basic issue to CF personnel conducting land operations. It will provide load carriage in operations where soldiers are required to wear fragmentation protection and carry combat supplies and sustainment items sufficient for up to 24 hours. In addition to the soldier's own carriage requirement, the Small Pack System will provide a means to carry the soldier's share of section/platoon weapons, amunition and mission-oriented stores."

Now for trips longer than 24hrs....that's what the rucksack is made for.

And when you finally get your new rucksack..here is the concept of Use for that:

"*Concept of Use* â â€œ The Rucksack will be a basic issue item to dismounted CF personnel conducting land operations. It will provide the primary load carriage means in operations where soldiers are required to carry combat supplies and sustainment items for greater than 24 hours and sufficient for up to 72 hours. Additionally, the rucksack has been designed to be worn over fragmentation protection if necessary. While it will be used in conjunction with the Small Pack System and either the TV or 82 pattern webbing the Rucksack cannot be worn at the same time as the Small Pack. It will have the capacity to store the items normally carried in the Small Pack system."

So when you deploy etc, you take both..that way when you go out on a patrol or 24 hr mission, you can wear your small pack vice the rucksack.

If you're going to the field for a weekend...your small pack will do just fine.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/273_e.asp


----------



## kyleg (21 Dec 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> If you're going to the field for a weekend...your small pack will do just fine.



Unless your CSM forgot to turn off his "Course Mode" switch  :


----------



## armyvern (21 Dec 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> Unless your CSM forgot to turn off his "Course Mode" switch   :



Perhaps then he should be referred to the project documents for these items by your Supply staff?

Sounds quite like an internal problem to me.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Dec 2005)

"rucksack"

speaking of such things when are we supposed to get the new one Vern?


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Perhaps then he should be referred to the project documents for these items by your Supply staff?
> 
> Sounds quite like an internal problem to me.



Yep, I'll be sure to do that!

"Hey, RSM, you're RTFO.  Sgt Vern in supply says I don't have to take my ruck".


----------



## armyvern (21 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Yep, I'll be sure to do that!
> 
> "Hey, RSM, you're RTFO.   Sgt Vern in supply says I don't have to take my ruck".



 ;D

One must approach this with extreme caution. Much as we had to do with a certain Capt who insisted on us wearing our headress at our desks in Pet many years ago so that we could salute her. But it is in the IC CSGs job description to keep the CSMs/RSMs current on changes to the Kit/Clothing policies... that's why I suggested his Supply Clothing Section, they can do it with tact and documentation and it is part of the job.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (21 Dec 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> OK I'll say it again for all you who are still trying to figure out how to carry both....
> 
> They are NOT meant to be used together at the same time.
> 
> ...



Ok,

But what about guys that don't have the luxury of leaving their ruck behind in a base camp, or in a vehicle?   The guys in the light formations are invariably going to have to have a system that will allow for long-term sustainment (read longer than 24 hours), yet have a platform for shorter-term sustainment (read 24 hours and less).   So, with the CTS setup, you've got the choice of either or...rather than a system that allows for the ruck to carry the patrol pack.

It seems that the CFs have completely ignored what other forces such as the Brits and US have done with detachable patrol packs that work in concert with the main ruck.

The best integrated patrol pack/main ruck system I've seen to date is the Kifaru 'Piggyback' setup.   http://www.kifaru.net/MGpiggy.htm Which is probably the reason why 'certain CF user groups' are using Kifaru rather than CTS fielded stuff.


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Ok,
> 
> But what about guys that don't have the luxury of leaving their ruck behind in a base camp, or in a vehicle?  The guys in the light formations are invariably going to have to have a system that will allow for long-term sustainment (read longer than 24 hours), yet have a platform for shorter-term sustainment (read 24 hours and less).  So, with the CTS setup, you've got the choice of either or...rather than a system that allows for the ruck to carry the patrol pack.
> 
> ...



I've been attaching my NBCW bag to my rucksack for the past 7 years without much difficulty.  I'm sure sticking the small-pack on top of the new ruck won't pose a huge problem either.


----------



## Farmboy (21 Dec 2005)

> It seems that the CFs have completely ignored what other forces such as the Brits and US have done with detachable patrol packs that work in concert with the main ruck.



 It's that stubborn CF mindset that says "We don't want to be anything like the Americans" even if they come up with a good idea  :


----------



## kyleg (22 Dec 2005)

It's nothing a little (or a lot) of gun tape and swearing can't fix ;D


----------



## The_Falcon (22 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I've been attaching my NBCW bag to my rucksack for the past 7 years without much difficulty.   I'm sure sticking the small-pack on top of the new ruck won't pose a huge problem either.



Yeah but have checked out the small packs that three of the guys in our unit have?  They are a wee bit bigger than a nuke bag (especially when they have the extra pockets attached).


----------



## kyleg (23 Dec 2005)

They compress pretty flat when they're empty, which they should be when attached to the ruck


----------



## KevinB (23 Dec 2005)

DItto to MattF's comments.

 Kifaru really has cornered the market -- too bad CTS does not take feedback...


----------



## NL_engineer (25 Dec 2005)

I had a nice post done up for this but I guess it got lost in siber space.

The compression straps on the SPS can probably be used to attach it to the new ruck. This should be possable because it is made to hold the same pockets as the small pack (I haven't seen the ruck its self but, from what I read on CTS there should be no problem attaching the SPS to it). as for the old ruck you can do what Pte. Pinkey said "compress it between the valise and the ruck" or you could put your valise in the SPS and then attach it to the ruck.

just my 2 cents, and a *Merry Christmas to all especially our troops over seas*


----------



## brihard (25 Dec 2005)

I would like to point out that the SPS has the same internal capacity as the rucksack. , as well as more capacity once the outside pockets are added. To argue that the rucksack is necessary for a longer haul is false, since they share the same capacity. Once all four pockets are attached (sides, back, bottom), the total 'on paper' capacity is 49L

At the Camerons we're still fighting a bit of bureaucratic inertia in using the SPS, however we have used them instead of rucksacks on exercise, and soon enough we hope that the sr. NCOs will realize that there's no reason not to substitute it for ruck marches as well- far from it, since using it on ruck marches for first period PT on Thursdays will let each troop get a bit more familiar with it and figure out their own ideal setup for comfort.

I'm looking forward to the new 80L ruck, but as an R031 I don't expect to see it any time soon. The SPS will more than suffice in the interim, and I've got a CADPAT nuke bag I picked up in Kingston that I can use to hump C6 ammo or other misc kit on patrol.

the other nice thing about the modular pouches is that you can pack 'mission' kit in them, and simply detach them from the SPS and clip them to your vest, leaving all your spare clothes, valise, and other snivel kit back at the hide... I'm a bit leery of the strength of the modular attachments still- I predict some serious buckle breakage on winter Ex, but nothing duct tape won't fix in the interim until you pick up some metal buckles at a surplus shop...


----------



## NATO Boy (25 Dec 2005)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I would like to point out that the SPS has the same internal capacity as the rucksack. , as well as more capacity once the outside pockets are added. To argue that the rucksack is necessary for a longer haul is false, since they share the same capacity. Once all four pockets are attached (sides, back, bottom), the total 'on paper' capacity is 49L



While I agree it seems silly to carry both, the ruck has one thing going for it that the SPS doesn't: The FRAME. Hauling awkward items on your ruck like the SF kit (or other cargo, like jerry cans) is a lot easier with a frame than without one. Also, a frame also gives you something more secure for attaching other awkward (albeit, lighter) kit such as snowshoes. From what I've come to understand, this is why some CF members are skeptical of the CTS ruck; it doesn't have an external frame. Now this probably doesn't phase some people; ie "Why not just carry the awkward gear separately?" Carrying an SF Kit in the issued bag sucks; carrying it pre-assembled while on-the-move makes you momentarily ineffective with your personal weapon (also sucks carrying a jerry can of water on your shoulder sucks. Carrying it your ruck at least addresses the issue somewhat. Now, imagine doing that with the SPS; I don't know about you, but I don't think it would work too well (for the SPS anyway.)



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> At the Camerons we're still fighting a bit of bureaucratic inertia in using the SPS, however we have used them instead of rucksacks on exercise, and soon enough we hope that the sr. NCOs will realize that there's no reason not to substitute it for ruck marches as well- far from it, since using it on ruck marches for first period PT on Thursdays will let each troop get a bit more familiar with it and figure out their own ideal setup for comfort.



If it's just a weekend ex, and you're not hauling wierd kit around the training area, fill your boots. As for using the SPS for PT WRT familiarization, I like the idea. It would help reveal the load-bearing features on the SPS and help troops better to "fit" their kit.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> the other nice thing about the modular pouches is that you can pack 'mission' kit in them, and simply detach them from the SPS and clip them to your vest, leaving all your spare clothes, valise, and other snivel kit back at the hide... I'm a bit leery of the strength of the modular attachments still- I predict some serious buckle breakage on winter Ex, but nothing duct tape won't fix in the interim until you pick up some metal buckles at a surplus shop...



Amen to that. I especially like the 522 "soft-shelf" and the aluminum stay inside the main bag; feels more secure than the one in the '82 bag. As for the buckles, I'm thinking of making a repair kit (like the one at MEC) for when buckles start bursting or getting cracked (from throwing kit off the bus, ha ha ha.)


----------



## Bomber (26 Dec 2005)

There is a theory, that you will put your SPS into the CTS ruck, Picture it.  In the bottom of the ruck goes your valise, above that is a shock corded opening, that when sealed makes it into two seperate compartments.  In the compartment goes your "24-72 hour" kit.  Like changes of clothes, shave jazz, that fun stuff.  Then for your "8-24 hour" stuff, you toss it into the SPS, which when devoid of pouches is designed to fit into the CTS Ruck, on top of the other kit, on top of the valise.  Then clip all the pouches onto the outside of the ruck, which comes with an extra 2, for a total of 6.

Is this plan good?  Maybe, is it better than what we currently have?  Yes.  Will everyone be happy?  Nope.  Should the Light infantry be given thier own mission specific kit, I figure sure, if they have to carry thier stuff, stop worrying about how a bag will fit or look in a LAV, and worry about how Homer is going to daisy chain 200 pounds of kit onto himself.  I am still blown away at the comments of "Not everyone is on a tour" or "Sure it is great over there, but how about people back in Canada?"

So anyway, This rucksack stuff is interesting, uniquely Canadian "re-inventing the wheel" style, but we do it every time, why would we really change.  

And Remember, the bigger pouches on the SPS have belts on them, so you can deal with bad guys wearing a manly fanny pack.  Hillier better look a bit harder at the "Our job is to kill people" if we are expected to wear fanny packs.  FANNY PACKS.


----------



## NATO Boy (26 Dec 2005)

You think the Fanny packs are bad? I've seen one guy use the quad fanny pack as a mini nuke bag. He sticks his arms through the quad straps and actually wears it as a daypack on our Driver's course. Quite hilarious, yet effective for toting notes and a CD Player.


----------



## COBRA-6 (26 Dec 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> And Remember, the bigger pouches on the SPS have belts on them, so you can deal with bad guys wearing a manly fanny pack.  Hillier better look a bit harder at the "Our job is to kill people" if we are expected to wear fanny packs.  FANNY PACKS.



This is part of the psyops plan. The enemy will have a hard time hitting you if they're laughing too hard to aim properly!  ;D


----------



## NATO Boy (26 Dec 2005)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> This is part of the psyops plan. The enemy will have a hard time hitting you if they're laughing too hard to aim properly!  ;D



Somehow, that wouldn't surprise me.... :rofl:


----------



## Matt_Fisher (26 Dec 2005)

Nothing wrong with a 'fanny'/lumbar pack:
http://www.kifaru.net/MG_TGhome.htm
http://www.kifaru.net/MGscout.htm

I use a Kifaru Scout and I've never had a patrol pack that has interfaced so well with my body armor and fighting load carrier, that also mates as a system with my main ruck.

As for the comments about how the SPS being all you need when loaded up with the side pouches, etc. Let's do some real world ops with a combat load of ammo, and sustainment kit and see if your opinion changes.  What works for a weekend ex with snivel kit and 4 mags of blanks isn't a good basis to evaluate the kit you've got to go to war with.


----------



## brihard (26 Dec 2005)

I don't see any validity to the complaints about the fanny packs- it simply replaces the old webbing butt pack for me. That was my one regret when I went from webbing to the tac-vest after I got my trade quals; not having a buttpack. As long as the fanny pack will stay where I put it and not slide around, I don't care if it looks manly or not. It seems to be big enough to hold a can of C6, which settles my butt pack requirements on the spot.

Good point earlier on the external frame of the old ruck- which begs another question; will the new CTS ruck be jump-sturdy, or will jumpers keep using the 64 frame?

About the buckles on the modular pouches- I like to collect dead helmet straps from buddies when they break theirs and salvage the metal buckle for the chin strap. I've never had one of those open on me when it wasn't supposed to, and they sure as hell won't get brittle in the winter. If I can find a suitable metal alternative with a wider strap loop though, I'd pick that up in a pinch too.


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Dec 2005)

Yeah, the only mistake as far as the fanny-pack is concerned was in the naming.  If they'd called it a butt-pack, nobody would be complaining.

Now, can ANYONE explain why the small-pack system comes with TWO fanny packs?  I'm assuming most of us only have one ass.


----------



## brihard (26 Dec 2005)

You can mount one on the back of your TacVest, for one thing. Pretty much the only use I've found for that is carrying extra grenades in OBUA. You can also put one of them on the bottom of the small pack. I keep my valise up top, so I leave one on the bottom of the SPS for smaller things I want to be able to get at without opening the main bag.


----------



## RossF (26 Dec 2005)

I had a question to anyone that's had experience with the small pack out in the field -- do you find that it replaces the use of the ruck sack on some training exercises, at all? This is just curiousity speaking (I know, curiousity killed the cat) -- I was just wondering this because on some exercises you don't ALWAYS need the bigger load carriage of the ruck, thought maybe the small pack would replace it in some situations.


----------



## brihard (26 Dec 2005)

Very much so, and in fact the internal capacity of the small pack is equal to the ruck. Aside form the lack of an external frame, it doesn't give up anything to the ruck. I find mine very comfortable, and certainly useable on exercise as an alternative to the ruck.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2005)

RossF said:
			
		

> I had a question to anyone that's had experience with the small pack out in the field -- do you find that it replaces the use of the ruck sack on some training exercises, at all? This is just curiousity speaking (I know, curiousity killed the cat) -- I was just wondering this because on some exercises you don't ALWAYS need the bigger load carriage of the ruck, thought maybe the small pack would replace it in some situations.



Hell, I'd be more than happy going on ex with just my nuke-bag, which is smaller than the new small-pack.  Unfortiunately...there's there's this guy whose rank is a three letter acronym....yeah, he's not a big fan of us doing that.  So if you're asking wether the small pack can be used to replace the ruck for a 2-3 day ex, then yeah, it can.  Wether you'll get away with it...that's a different matter entirely.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2005)

The Assault-Pack is a perfect thing to use on a three-day ex; there is a reason that many call them "3-day assault packs".


----------



## kyleg (27 Dec 2005)

And I though I was the only one that found it strange that 3-day packs were not enough for a less-than-three-day ex. I felt like I was taking CRAZY pills! *screamed in the voice of Will Ferrell*

The only reason I can see for using the ruck on a weekend ex is to reinforce the point that we may be out for much longer than we plan.  Although, I feel this point would be much better reinforced if we were issued a good amount of ammo, POL, water, radios, and the like. It seems to me that making us use rucks and then letting us pack them with snivel kit, thereby filling up the space that would usually be taken up by the aforementioned items, teaches us nothing. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a private :warstory:

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## NATO Boy (27 Dec 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> The only reason I can see for using the ruck on a weekend ex is to reinforce the point that we may be out for much longer than we plan.





			
				Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> this point would be much better reinforced if we were issued a good amount of ammo, POL, water, radios, and the like



Agreed 100% With the exception of Winter Exes, the idea of Marching Order and the sustenance it provides has gotten less reinforced.


----------



## Douke (29 Dec 2005)

Been isued all 3 items this summer. Completly replaced the rucksack (my metal frame was kind of broken and it kept sticking in my back) for me (been pretty much encouraged to do so by the unit), been using it on exes and so far no complain except for the sleeping bag carriage system, wich looks fragile, keeps hitting your butt and just plain feels akward to me, but I am still experiencing with it so there may be something I missed out.

The cadpat leather gloves are excellent shooting gloves (or trench making, have to remember we are in the infantry, we are supposed to use shovels more than guns) for warm and dry days, when it gets cold and wet mortar gloves are doing a much better job (I could wear mortar gloves on their own on a -10 celcius snowy autumn day without any problems).

Finally, the big winner, the new ballistic glasses, absolutly no complains about those. Cover the whole field of vision, excellent sun protection, equally excellent foreign object protection (I love wearing them with the clear glass for those night recces to keep branchs away). If the ballistic protection is just as good, it's an excellent piece of kit imo, and I can finally get new glasses through system when they scratch!

Oh and anyone else got issued the new belt? Came back from last ex with a huge red circle on my waist  :-\ . Maybe I just need to get used to it.

just my thoughts on these, btw I am a reservist, anyone who can put them to a more... extensive and realistic use then me saw anything I didn't ?


----------



## kyleg (29 Dec 2005)

Put the valise on top


----------



## Douke (29 Dec 2005)

On top?

I'll have to figure a way and try that, I love solutions that go out of the traditional limits of the problem.


----------



## genesis98 (29 Dec 2005)

Douke said:
			
		

> Oh and anyone else got issued the new belt? Came back from last ex with a huge red circle on my waist  :-\ . Maybe I just need to get used to it.




New Belt?


----------



## Armymedic (29 Dec 2005)

Issued Cbt belt,

For your Cbt Pants.

Pure GARBAGE.


----------



## genesis98 (30 Dec 2005)

may be garbage but atleast they finially decided to take a look at making a combat belt, and get away from the shiny brass one.

Anyone have a picture?


----------



## kyleg (30 Dec 2005)

Putting the valise on top is easy, just use the usual straps and put them through the daisy chains up top. If the buckle won't fit through try taking it off the strap, put the strap through, then re-attach the buckle. It puts the weight in a much better spot and keeps the valise well away from the back of your thighs.

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## Douke (31 Dec 2005)

That's what I figured out yesterday  ;D. Valise feels much more comfortable like that and it takes down by much my complaints about the smallpack.

As for the new combat belt, its that very large and wayy too long green belt with tactical yellow markings (/sarcasm off) on it, I'll post a picture today, but when you receive it don't expect anything great. Although it is more resistant and the buckle system much better (no more losing combat pants on that advance to contact), it's so far extremely uncomfortable to use, they made the belt fabric way too solid, and it simply digs through your waist after intensive use.


----------



## armyvern (31 Dec 2005)

genesis98 said:
			
		

> New Belt?


They were distributed to the 4 main Army Bases (Pet, Ed, Val & Gage) this past fall. We just did our bulk initial issue here in Gagetown to our 1st Line Field Units and CTC school staff here on 8/9 Dec along with their new lightweight thermal mortar gloves.

3 ASG personnel will be issued their new belts, thermal mortar gloves and Tactical Vests on 10/11 & 12 Jan.

The message announcing the final distribution to the 4 main bases came out on 13 Dec along with the notice that all Res F Units and Air/Naval Base Clothing Stores can now begin ordering for their supported personnel who wear Land DEUs.
We just placed an order for 2000 more so that we can begin issuing to all Land DEU students (SQ, CAP, Phase, QL etc) beginning in the new year.

The belts are indeed crap. Until you modify them. I had the MAT Tech add on the standard velcro that we all love so much once I cut the belt down to size (I could have fit 4 of me in it originally). You can modify this item by cutting it to your proper size (that was the intention of it) and adding velcro as it is a "C" class non-accountable item that will be retained upon release/roll-over.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (31 Dec 2005)

So vern, when I go in on the 4th to pick up my black socks I can get my new belt at the same time then beg the mat techs to fix it?


----------



## Patrolman (1 Jan 2006)

I hear a lot of in-experience talking on this topic(aside from armyvern and maybe a couple of others). The Small pack is not designed to be carried full along with your ruck,nor is made for carrying your valise. Not with our cuurently issused sleeping bag.It is meant for use over short periods of time such as short range patrolling. Carrying the small pack with your valise with valise on top is silly. If anyone of my soldiers showed up with that configuration there would be some quick changes made ie. transferring the load to it's proper place. The ruck! 
 As for the criticism of your CSM. Well maybe he has a little bit more experience than a new Pte. Do as you are told and stop crying.When soldiers are deploying on ex. checks must be done and kit lists issued. I am in the regs and have deployed to the field many times.And prior to deploying i have been on many inspections. You would not belive some of the kit people bring and the stuff left behind.This is necessary in almost all units to ensure people are equipped and ready for the job.(especially new Pte's)
  Now onto the new ruck . It is an excellent piece of kit. I carried it during the 2003 Cambrian Patrol in Wales.The Patrol itself was around 65k in extemely adverse weather conditions and harsh terrain.It perfomed  waybetter than even I expected. As well as the patrol our team logged hundreds of k's during prep. With average loads of 85 pounds it felt as if we were carrying 25 pounds compared with the old ruck. By far the piece of kit I'm looking the most forward to recieving. In case your are wondering where the one I wore during  the Cambrian went. It was sent back to Trials and Evaluations in Ottawa. It was for publicity purposes only we were allowed to wear them in Wales.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jan 2006)

Patrolman,
Welcome to Army.ca. Your experience and wisdom will be welcome, just try not to talk down to people. There's lot's here with lots of time, experience, tours, posting, courses, etc. We value all factual informaton. Please read the guidelines, if you haven't already, and peruse some of the forums, like the Combat Arms. Your input is welcome.


----------



## NL_engineer (1 Jan 2006)

Patrolman,
I find that you need a small bag (not just the small pack), to carry equipment needed for tasks so your ruck can be left in the hide (dismounted), or in the trucks/APC (mounted). It is only logical that we would be looking for ways to attach the small pack (because it is issued) to our ruck's. We are not saying to attach it for extra storage, but for use on tasks, etc.


----------



## Douke (2 Jan 2006)

As for the small pack no being made to carry a valise/sleeping bag, I was issued valise securing straps with it, and a paper explaining they were they to secure the classic valise/sleeping bag system onto the smallpack, so I doubt it was not made to carry this task on (and it quite honestly fill that role quite nicely for me as I prefer and carry around a smaller pack for patrol stuff, and the smallpack has pretty much the same load capacity as the old rucksack).

The if it is the best configuration or not I lack the experience to tell and am quite happy to have your judgement on the matter, I am simply curious how you bring your smallpack to the cache if you do not secure it to your rucksack ?


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2006)

Patrolman said:
			
		

> I hear a lot of in-experience talking on this topic(aside from armyvern and maybe a couple of others). The Small pack is not designed to be carried full along with your ruck,nor is made for carrying your valise. Not with our cuurently issused sleeping bag.It is meant for use over short periods of time such as short range patrolling. Carrying the small pack with your valise with valise on top is silly. If anyone of my soldiers showed up with that configuration there would be some quick changes made ie. transferring the load to it's proper place. The ruck!
> As for the criticism of your CSM. Well maybe he has a little bit more experience than a new Pte. Do as you are told and stop crying.When soldiers are deploying on ex. checks must be done and kit lists issued. I am in the regs and have deployed to the field many times.And prior to deploying i have been on many inspections. You would not belive some of the kit people bring and the stuff left behind.This is necessary in almost all units to ensure people are equipped and ready for the job.(especially new Pte's)
> Now onto the new ruck . It is an excellent piece of kit. I carried it during the 2003 Cambrian Patrol in Wales.The Patrol itself was around 65k in extemely adverse weather conditions and harsh terrain.It perfomed  waybetter than even I expected. As well as the patrol our team logged hundreds of k's during prep. With average loads of 85 pounds it felt as if we were carrying 25 pounds compared with the old ruck. By far the piece of kit I'm looking the most forward to recieving. In case your are wondering where the one I wore during  the Cambrian went. It was sent back to Trials and Evaluations in Ottawa. It was for publicity purposes only we were allowed to wear them in Wales.



I recognize that between the two of us you're obviously the one with both time-in and 'real' (operational) experience, but with regards to the small pack I have to respectfully disagree.

The SPS has as much internal capacity as the ruck, and so far appears to be rpetty durable. The plastic buckles irk me a bit, but that's my only complaint. Straps and buckles were provided to attach the valise to the SPS, so clearly there is some intention for it to be sued that way. The mag can be attached to the bottom if you want, though it seems that common concensus is that it's much more comfortable on top; I personally feel like I'm carrying half the load when it's mounted higher up, which is harder to accomplish with the old pattern ruck. Some of us won't see the new ruck for quite some time, so in the mean time we must make due with what we have. The valise on top is comfortable and it works.

Yes, the ruck is intended to be completely sufficient for sustaining yourself so long as you're resupplied fairly regularly, and I will admit that the SPS was perhaps not designed with that in mind, but I think we can agree that issued kit often finds use beyond its intended purpose, or that simple 'make-dos' will help to make issued kit much more effective. God knows we've all been issued kit that ended up being either more or less effective or versatile than originally intended- the Tacvest threads here would be an example of such.

Uniformity has its place, and I won't argue that, however the SPS is a comfortable piece of kit with a good carrying capacity. I can pack just as much if not more in my SPS than in my ruck and carry it more comfortably. I'd like to think that the primary motivation with regards to kit is the end effectiveness of the soldier utilizing it. I personally find that I can use the SPS more effectively than I can the ruck. I can do the job (such as it is as an R031) with either without complaint, but I find myself more comfortable with the SPS- and all else being equal, should that not be taken into consideration?

If I can be shown a substantive reason why the SPS is a less effective piece of kit than the ruck, I'll gladly go back to using the rucksack, however in the interim I'll continue to use the SPS on exercises. My unit has allowed me to do so, and our NCOs - including at least one former regforce 031 NCO - are approving of it, so I would submit that perhaps there ought to be room for individual preference until and unless it can be shown that the SPS is actually less effective than the ruck in the role being debated here.


----------



## Patrolman (2 Jan 2006)

O.k I am going to try to clear up a couple of points from my last post. First  in-experience is not a bad thing. The only way to get experience is through time in and trial and error.
  The small pack does come with straps to secure your sleeping gear.However that sleeping gear is meant to be carried in a stuff sack which is not issued with the small pack system. Once you recieve your new rucks( I am still waiting also) you will see the valise is a thing of the past. So once again the small pack is not designed to carry the valise which is currently used with the 82 pattern ruck. Go on the Defence site a do a search for the Clothe the soldier Program and you will see my point are founded in truth.I would post the link here but my computer skills are lacking.I guess it is a lack of  experience.
  As for units allowing soldiers to use the small pack in place of the ruck. If your unit allows it then fill your boots. I myself would find it to uncomfortable to carry valise with the SPS. I think you would be hard pressed to find many reg force units who woulod allow this since the SPS is designed for a 24hr period and most of our exes are far longer. During the summer months carring the SP in place of the ruck for periods up to 72hrs is a feasible idea in colder months though the amount of additional kit required increases making this option a little less likely. I still believe uniformity of kit in an army unit is a must. If one soldier uses the old stle ruck as a primary load carriage system then everyone should. Again a unit call.
  I agree the only way to carry the SP in addition to your ruck is to carry it on the outside.Though empty not full. If possible it should be carried in your follow-up kit providing you have access to it , ready to be used when needed. If you are in a mech unit it should be carried in your vehicle.
 The SPS is an excellent piece of kit and once we recieve the rest of the Load Carriage System ie. the ruck and stuff sack this will  be even more apparent. Until then it may be hard for some to invision.
 My opinion is strictly that an opinion. You are all entitled to your own and can do as you feel comfortable doing within the guidelines of you units orders. The 82 pattern system outdated ,uncomfortable and is deffinately ready to be replaced . Let's just hope maybe with the next government the procurement process will be sped up allowing for faster kit issues in both the regs and res.
                                                                                                    Thanks Patrolman


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2006)

Patrolman said:
			
		

> O.k I am going to try to clear up a couple of points from my last post. First  in-experience is not a bad thing. The only way to get experience is through time in and trial and error.
> The small pack does come with straps to secure your sleeping gear.However that sleeping gear is meant to be carried in a stuff sack which is not issued with the small pack system. Once you recieve your new rucks( I am still waiting also) you will see the valise is a thing of the past. So once again the small pack is not designed to carry the valise which is currently used with the 82 pattern ruck. Go on the Defence site a do a search for the Clothe the soldier Program and you will see my point are founded in truth.I would post the link here but my computer skills are lacking.I guess it is a lack of  experience.
> As for units allowing soldiers to use the small pack in place of the ruck. If your unit allows it then fill your boots. I myself would find it to uncomfortable to carry valise with the SPS. I think you would be hard pressed to find many reg force units who woulod allow this since the SPS is designed for a 24hr period and most of our exes are far longer. During the summer months carring the SP in place of the ruck for periods up to 72hrs is a feasible idea in colder months though the amount of additional kit required increases making this option a little less likely. I still believe uniformity of kit in an army unit is a must. If one soldier uses the old stle ruck as a primary load carriage system then everyone should. Again a unit call.
> I agree the only way to carry the SP in addition to your ruck is to carry it on the outside.Though empty not full. If possible it should be carried in your follow-up kit providing you have access to it , ready to be used when needed. If you are in a mech unit it should be carried in your vehicle.
> ...



Seen and understood.

I'd not heard about the new stuff sack- is it going to be a high compression sack that actually functions to physically shrink the load? that will be a VERY nice bit of kit to have if so; the valise isn't heavy, but it's certianly large, no matter how much you make it resemble a bratwurst by reefing on the drawstrings. 

Thanks for clearing that up, and I agree, it's time we see the new ruck.

Regards,
Brihard


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2006)

Rucksack:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/273_e.asp

Small Pack:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/272_e.asp


----------



## DG-41 (3 Jan 2006)

So we got the small pack right before Xmas, and I've been playing with it.

1) For a supposedly modular and configurable system... it sure ain't very. It only wants to go together one way, and the loops/attachment points to put it together in alternate configurations just aren't there. Furthermore, the attachment point system is very.... odd, with the pouch compression straps being the same straps that secure the pouches to the main bag. Why they didn't use the same method as the tac vest (little velcro straps with a big velcro backing patch) is beyond me.... And why two butt packs? I only have one butt.

2) The instructions provided are singularly unhelpful. No descriptions of the intended configuration. No advice as to why the thing is designed the way it is. No picture of a fully-assembled system!

3) But I made time to sit down with the silly thing and play with it, and after much experimentation, I got it into a workable configuration. I have the two clip-top pouches on the lower back, one of the butt packs (the one with the simple strap) placed horizontallly above them (some creativity is needed to get this to work; it doesn't want to go this way natively, even though doing so is an obvious configuration) and then I have the spare canteen holder and C9 pouch from my Tac Vest mounted on the sides.

4) My loadout is roughly:
    - socks and underwear in the horizontal pouch
    - a ration in one of the veritical pouches
    - toiletries, wet wipes, and boot cleaning kit in the other vertical pouch
    - odds and sods in the C9 pouch
    - either my regular canteen or the thermos canteen (depending on which is in my tac vest) in the canteen pouch (you can never carry enough water in my book)
    - uniforms, t-shirts, thermals etc in the main pouch
    - raingear, flashlight, gloves, and KFS in the other buttpack (worn as a buttpack, and replacing the 82 pattern buttpack I had similarly loaded and carried as a man-purse)

So confgured, it actually carries more than the 82 pattern ruck - it seems like the main compartment internal volume is similar, but the external pouches are larger.

5) I actually have the new compression sack valise - Wheeler sells them, and they ROCK - and I tied it on the underside of the pack using the supplied straps.

6) I'm working up to being able to do the BFT, and last night, I went for a walk in it. The underslung valise is a loser; it rides way too low. I'm going to try moving it up top and see how that works out. But otherwise, I actually think it may be more comfortable than the 82 pattern ruck, and I'm one of those oddballs that likes the 82 pattern.

It took far more work than should be necessary to get it working right... but I think I can live with it now, and I can't see any reason to carry the 82 pattern any more.

DG


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2006)

It's modular because not everyone will require all the accessory packs attached at the same time. Depends upon the tasking you are using the SPS for. That's why they're seperate. If you don't require it...don't carry it. I have all 4 of my accessory packs on mine, and I find it very comfortable to carry the way I have mine configed.

As for all the straps and their configuration...try this link:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/3/3_e.asp

scroll down to the Load Carriage System and choose the "User Guide" link for the SPS. It explains why the straps are the way they are and how to go about properly using/adjusting them to balance whatever load you are carrying properly. The PIP (Project Implementation Plan) also explains in much greater detail, but you must be on the DIN to access it.

Vern


----------



## DG-41 (3 Jan 2006)

That link http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/PDF/SPS-UserGuide_e.pdf is the useless one I'm talking about - that's the booklet that came with the small pack.

Where, for example, does it show a picture of a fully assembled small pack? 

It does handle the fit adjustment reasonably well, but it doesn't describe how to put the bloody thing together. Nor - beyond the radio pouch - does it describe the intent for how pouches are to be loaded.

Surely when the thing was developed, they started with a pile of stuff the soldier was intended to carry, and designed around that. There must be a "design loadout" for it. Why not tell us what it is? If nothing else it makes for a good start point.

The DIN link I don't have access to right now.

DG


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2006)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> That link http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/PDF/SPS-UserGuide_e.pdf is the useless one I'm talking about - that's the booklet that came with the small pack.
> 
> Where, for example, does it show a picture of a fully assembled small pack?
> DG



Relax DG. There is no picture of the fully assembled SPS. As per my below post it is a modular system and is intended to be used based on whatever your personal requirement/task is. 
Therefore the configuration of it is always changing based upon what you personally require at the time. I personally have the canteen and the smaller pack on the side, a butt pack on a side and a butt pack on the back. Compression sack on top. That's what works for me. What works for you might be something else entirely. That's the point of a 'modular' system.

You wear what you need when and where you need it. So there is 'no right way' to wear it.


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2006)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> Surely when the thing was developed, they started with a pile of stuff the soldier was intended to carry, and designed around that. There must be a "design loadout" for it. Why not tell us what it is? If nothing else it makes for a good start point.


Because you would have a design load-out for every single trade and individual. What the Infantry guy carries does not equate to what the Arty. Armd, Sup, Trucker, RMS, Medic etc carry. And then break it down futher...what the infantry C9 gunner is carrying doesn't equate to what the infantry signaller is carrying. Therefore there is no one set 'proper' way to load up your SPS.
It's modular...you use what parts you need for what ever your own individual task is. I agree that it would have been a good starting point...but let's face it. Had CTS done this and come up with the "design loadout" specs for this item...then it wouldn't really be modular then would it? And then all the troops would be whining about how this design and loadout does not suit their purposes and isn't really modular. 

I give up. No matter what they bring into the system...someone is going to complain about it. Do what's best for YOU.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

Patrolman said:
			
		

> Not with our cuurently issused sleeping bag.It is meant for use over short periods of time such as short range patrolling.



Well, from my own experience using one as a "go-bag" and from reading alot of the input over at Lightfighter, the principle behind the 3-day pack or assault pack (what the new pack is) is to act as a tactical load carriage system for short operations.  In many cases, US soldiers and Marines in OEF/OIF would be away from a harbour/camp and be on continuous operations for days with very little time to rest due to high op tempo.  Since the rucksack is becoming more of an administrative thing for carrying your kit from operating area to operating area, the A-pack will is basically a tactical extention of your fighting order.  I would consider it more "2nd Line" kit than "3rd Line" (which the rucksack is) - it can extend you ability to function self-sufficiently from a day to three days with little hassle.

Picture it as an oversized "buttback" which, as originally intended with the 82 system, was put on the load-carriage webbing when operating for extend periods of time.

Now, in my opinion the ideal small-pack should be able to interface smoothly with the rucksack - a soldier should be able to go from 2nd Line+ to Third Line without having to unpack/repack and what-not.  To date, the best system on the market I've seen is the Kifaru dock'and'lock.  The Kifaru Scout, seen here, can be worn as a small pack for short missions or beefed up with pouches like this to make it an effective 3-day assault pack.  If the need for the ruck arises, then the whole system can be easily broken down and attached to a larger ruck like this.  The issue small-pack may not be here yet, but it is a decent system and it is bringing the principle of modularity into mainstream acceptance in the CF (we are always 10 years behind the times....).



			
				Patrolman said:
			
		

> I still believe uniformity of kit in an army unit is a must. If one soldier uses the old stle ruck as a primary load carriage system then everyone should. Again a unit call.



...and I can easily guess what your unit is.  



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> boot cleaning kit in the other vertical pouch



Are you expecting a parade halfway through an Advance or a reconnaissance patrol?  ???



> (you can never carry enough water in my book)



Well, technically you can carry too much water.  I've got a few studies on load carriage on operations (one done by the US Army and a few in the Marine Corps) and it was found that water is one of THE biggest logistical burdens (literally) when it comes to going into the bush.  I own one of these that I bought from MEC and it is the cat's meow.  I used it overseas when the local water supply went bad and the camp was very low on water.  The documents in the US point to making these standard issue to help improve austerity and self-sufficiency for small units; a good filter can eliminate the need to carry liters and liters of water into the field.


----------



## DG-41 (3 Jan 2006)

> then it wouldn't really be modular then would it?



If the pouches only fit one way, then it isn't "modular" - save the fact that individual pouches can be removed, and really, what's the point then? I never once said "gee, I really wish my 82 pattern ruck's front pouches would come off"

Weight savings? I bet the weight of all the extra loops and buckles approaches or exceeds the weight of the pouches just being sewn on (like the 82 pattern) and there's a lot less straps to get hung up on.

I'm genuinely curious here (seeing how you appear to be a member of the Clothe the Soldier team) What's the value-add of having removeable pouches that only fit one way, and then not providing documentation as to what way they are supposed to fit on? What operational requirement is being met here?

We're not talking about specialized load carrying kit here, like an entrenching tool carrier or a C9 barrel carrier - these are generic pouches. You could take "my" configuration, and hand it to a medic, an infanteer, a trucker, or a chaplain, and while they wouldn't necessarily put the same stuff in the same space as I would, it would still do the job.

Hell, the only specialized section of the whole small pack is the radio carrier inside the main pouch... and that ISN'T removeable.



> I give up. No matter what they bring into the system...someone is going to complain about it. Do what's best for YOU.



Nothing personal, but that's a cop-out.

We got issued these things en masse, and the natural inclination for anybody given a new toy is to play with it. So pretty much right away, we had a bunch of experienced, capable, well-educated soldiers trying to figure out how their new small pack went together. There was MUCH confusion, much of it related to the apparently self-contradictory nature of the small pack design: it's supposedly modular, but the fasteners only line up one way, supporting only a single configuration. It (apparently) only has one design configuration, but there is nothing in the documentation that describes what that configuration is - not even an example picture of a sample fully-assembled configuration. Two of the pouches have straps that enable them to be used as butt packs, but they have different style waist belts (why?) and there doesn't seem to be a design configuration for the small pack that mounts one butt pack horizontally on the bag, and has the other one worn as a butt pack.

Do you *not* want user feedback?

DG


----------



## 48Highlander (3 Jan 2006)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> There was MUCH confusion, much of it related to the apparently self-contradictory nature of the small pack design: it's supposedly modular, but the fasteners only line up one way, supporting only a single configuration.



Kinda reminds you of the Tac Vest, no?  ;D

I think there's a very basic misunderstanding in some higher levels of our procurement system when it comes to the definition of the word "modular".

Not that I'm not happy with the new kit.  The Tac Vest IS an improvement over the old webbing, and the SPS is an improvement over the....well, over having to buy you own kit or go without.  But neither one is truly modular, and the role of either could have been much better filled by existing off-the-shelf equipment.


----------



## Pte_Martin (3 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Not that I'm not happy with the new kit.  The Tac Vest IS an improvement over the old webbing, and the SPS is an improvement over the....well, over having to buy you own kit or go without.  But neither one is truly modular, and the role of either could have been much better filled by existing off-the-shelf equipment.



I agree it is better than the old stuff or what we didn't have and had to buy, But what do i do now with the stuff that i did buy


----------



## 48Highlander (3 Jan 2006)

RHFC said:
			
		

> I agree it is better than the old stuff or what we didn't have and had to buy, But what do i do now with the stuff that i did buy



I gave mine to my little sister  ;D  she'll be the coolest kid in 7th grade!


----------



## NATO Boy (3 Jan 2006)

RHFC said:
			
		

> I agree it is better than the old stuff or what we didn't have and had to buy, But what do i do now with the stuff that i did buy



Sell it to people who play airsoft or paintball. Hell, why not put your stuff up on the Buy / Sell forum and see what you can sell / trade for it?


----------



## mudgunner49 (3 Jan 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> ...What the Infantry guy carries does not equate to what the Arty. Armd, Sup, Trucker, RMS, Medic etc carry. And then break it down futher...what the infantry C9 gunner is carrying doesn't equate to what the infantry signaller is carrying. Therefore there is no one set 'proper' way to load up your _ _ _ _ _ ...It's modular...you use what parts you need for what ever your own individual task is....



This is incredible logic!!!  Oh, how much further ahead we would all be if this sort of thinking had been considered when "they" were designing/developing that other newish piece of sh... kit the short form of which sounds very like the abbreviation for "television"...  ;D  ;D

blake


----------



## kyleg (4 Jan 2006)

mudgunner, if I recall correctly you have a RAID pack, do you not? Mine arrives in a couple days ;D

On that note, how do you guys feel about the top-loading design of the SPS, as opposed to a panel-loading design? Personally I can't wait for my RAID to arrive because I HATE having to dig to the bottom of my small pack every time I need something. While I realize there are certain advantages to a top-loader, I feel that this type of design slows down the end user. Assault packs are meant to give the soldier quick access to supplies.

Just my two cents,
Pinky


----------



## DG-41 (4 Jan 2006)

> I think there's a very basic misunderstanding in some higher levels of our procurement system when it comes to the definition of the word "modular".



I'm forced to agree. A *truly* modular system uses parts that are completely interchangeable, regardless of their position or orientation on the base unit.

It's odd, for example, that the mag pouches, grenade pouches, and the small pouches on the tac vest are sewn on, where the canteen pouch and C9 pouches are removeable.



> Not that I'm not happy with the new kit.  The Tac Vest IS an improvement over the old webbing, and the SPS is an improvement over the....well, over having to buy you own kit or go without.



I agree with this too. I liked the old webbing, and it fit requirements well, but it had its problems too. Specifically, the clip attachment for the main straps had a nasty habit of failing, especially if you tried to configure it without a buttpack (to make living with a vehicle easier) I used to have to take my webbing off every time I got into a vehicle with the old webbing, but with the tac vest, it can stay on all the time with no real downside aside from not having a place to keep raingear - and with the new buttpack that comes with the small pack, that problem is addressed.

The small pack... it really seems like a ruck replacement more than a separate small pack. There's no way to carry an 82 pattern ruck and the small pack at the same time (like there is with some of the civvie two-part ruck systems, where the "small pack" detaches from the ruck frame of a larger pack system) so I can't see bringing both the small pack and the 82 pattern ruck to the field at the same time - in fact, I doubt I'll ever use the 82 pattern again. There really is more room in the small pack.

I've mounted the compression sack up top and tried that out... it's not a real positive mount, like it is with the 82 pattern; it's just kinda up there, hanging on. But it does go, and it seems comfortable enough, and there's lots of helmet room - and with the valise up top, the buttpack fits. Configured this way, I can actually wear the tac vest plus buttpack plus small pack (filled with everything I used to carry in my 82 pattern) and everything fits and doesn't interfere. That's a definate step forward.

If I were to change the small pack, I would:

1) Add more loops to the base pack so that any pouch from either the tac vest or the small pack could be attached either vertically or horizontally

2) Change the attachment method to that of the tac vest (the velcro straps plus the backing patches)

3) Delete the butt pack waist belt off one of the long pouches

4) Change the strap ends so they can be rolled back on themselves and tucked away once adjusted for length (like the 82 pattern) so that the strap ends aren't dangling all over the place

5) Adopt the 82 pattern shoulder strap quick releases

6) Maybe rethink the valise attachment points up top to make it more positive... somehow. Maybe.

None of these are critical though. Overall, it's a step forward. It's just not as big a step forward as it could have been.

DG


----------



## kyleg (4 Jan 2006)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> 1) Add more loops to the base pack so that any pouch from either the tac vest or the small pack could be attached either vertically or horizontally
> 
> 2) Change the attachment method to that of the tac vest (the velcro straps plus the backing patches)



These two seem contradictory to me. Firstly, the method by which the C9/canteen pouches attach to the TV is far from the best. Look up MOLLE or PALS on google, you'll be pleasantly surprised  Second, if they were to change to this method on the SPS it would severely limit the possibilities because the attachment method is very demanding in terms of placement and orientation. Again, a MOLLE-like attachment method is the way to go. I feel that the daisy chain system is a step in the right direction, but it could still be improved quite a bit.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> 5) Adopt the 82 pattern shoulder strap quick releases



I have to disagree here as well. The velcro can wear out quite quickly on those quick releases, to the point where some of my buddies had to tape the pull straps in place to stop them from popping off at the wrong time. A modification that voids the entire reason for having quick release straps. A fastex (AKA side release) buckle in place of the usual ladder-lock would do much better IMO.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> 6) Maybe rethink the valise attachment points up top to make it more positive... somehow. Maybe.



I don't DISagree, I just feel that you suggest this for the wrong reasons. Remember, the current issue (82 pattern) valise was not designed for use with the SPS. A much smaller compression sack is supposed to be used.

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## DG-41 (4 Jan 2006)

I have that new compression sack - thanks to Wheelers. It's a great piece of kit.

DG


----------



## kyleg (4 Jan 2006)

From what I understand the Wheeler's compression sack is about the same size as the issue valise. The kind of compression sack I'm talking about is about the same size as this:
http://lightfighter.com/istar.asp?a=6&id=BHI-22CS01!002&csurl=/istar.asp?a%3D29


----------



## KevinB (4 Jan 2006)

Attention Dinosaurs - while we thank you for your time at the rink in Germany awaiting to be rolled by the Russian Horde please dont attempt to steer CF policy in anyway today...    ;D


 Load Carriage -- I had send a few members here a copy of a current US Army combat load study -- one Infanteer references in his comments.  I can only say that if you have not been involved in combat operations - please STFU and listen to those that have.

   Oh and I HATE CTS crap.

*the TV is NOT better than webbing (which was truly modular)


----------



## kyleg (4 Jan 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I had send a few members here a copy of a current US Army combat load study



Got a link? It sounds like an interesting read.

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## KevinB (4 Jan 2006)

It was a email .PDF file.

I dont have it on my computer over here -- just at home.
 Maybe some others here can share it -- or send it to a computer savy person to host it online.


----------



## mudgunner49 (5 Jan 2006)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> mudgunner, if I recall correctly you have a RAID pack, do you not? Mine arrives in a couple days ;D
> 
> On that note, how do you guys feel about the top-loading design of the SPS, as opposed to a panel-loading design? Personally I can't wait for my RAID to arrive because I HATE having to dig to the bottom of my small pack every time I need something. While I realize there are certain advantages to a top-loader, I feel that this type of design slows down the end user. Assault packs are meant to give the soldier quick access to supplies.
> 
> ...



Pte. Pinky - I do, in fact, have a RAID (and an Eagle A3 or two...) - you will be pleased, I'm sure.  The quality of construction and design are so far ahead of the SPS as to be laughable.  When people who are adverse to purchasing a quality piece of kit (but NOT oppsed to buying a second or third game system or spending $400 on a weekend of beer and shots...) say to me "what are you going to do when your "XXXXX" breaks on ex/operation??"  I just look at them and shake my head.  I've already had two TV give up the ghost, just used on ex and for PT.  My Hellcat and RecceGear Busty IV are both going strong with 10 times the use...

The panel-loading feature is a great benefit, IMHO, and *much* easier to get a 522 into and out of!!  As an aside, I believe that I have a copy of the file that Kevin is referring to - shoot me a PM and I'll see if I can dig it up for you...

KevinB - I join you (and countless others) in your didain for the majority of CTS contributions... 


You get what you pay for,

blake


----------



## flashman (6 Jan 2006)

mudgunner49 said:
			
		

> When people who are adverse to purchasing a quality piece of kit (but NOT oppsed to buying a second or third game system or spending $400 on a weekend of beer and shots...) say to me "what are you going to do when your "XXXXX" breaks on ex/operation??"



Hmm, I dunno? How about hop on the welfare internet terminal, whip out a credit card and have a new one-of-whatever couriered to you in a matter of days... That is if it does break, which it won't, because it was well made in the first place.  

I can only hope that this retardation that most of the CF suffers from over aftermarket kit will iron itself out with continued deployments to Kandahar.  When large numbers of troops are forced to use crap kit in demanding environments, I am going to guess the weaknesses of CTS items will be drastically highlighted. 

RAID; I'm jealously waiting for mine.  Camelbak Motherlode for now (and continued use as "the to work and back bag").  RAID is the best current answer for a field pack I think.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Feb 2006)

We just got our SPS last week en masse.  I too have been trying to figure out how to set up the pouches without to many problems.  I have the two larger "fanny" packs on either side of the SPS, my only problem was trying to figure out how to decently attach the smaller pack on the back of the SPS.  There is only one strip of attachment down the middle which makes attaching two pouches side by side a little difficult but not impossible.  All the straps are a pain though. I did discover however that on each fanny pack you can hide the belts.


----------



## NATO Boy (9 Feb 2006)

We've had the SPS issued to us for a couple months now; as of 2 weeks ago, my PL WO Authorized the use of SPS as our alternative main ruck (granted we can fit everything he wants us to bring.) With the SPS, extra pockets on the outside, and the valise strapped to the top, this thing kicks a$$ compared to the 82 (as long as you're not carrying awkward stuff.) Hope it holds up as long as my 82 ruck did; after three years, the stitching in the shoulder straps and back padding is starting to wither up and die.


----------



## geo (9 Feb 2006)

82 frame bends on impact ...... can't get worse than that


----------



## NATO Boy (9 Feb 2006)

"...so that's why I'm issued a gerber..."


----------



## mudgunner49 (10 Feb 2006)

Mickey said:
			
		

> "...so that's why I'm issued a gerber..."



Please tell me you're kidding... :


----------



## NATO Boy (10 Feb 2006)

mudgunner49 said:
			
		

> Please tell me you're kidding... :



In a way, I'm kidding; but at the same time, no. On SQ and DP1 INF, I was bending the wire frame back into place once in a while with.....good god...a gerber.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (24 Feb 2006)

Grey and Simcoe Foresters Barrie Garrison were mass issued the Small Pack last night(23feb06)


----------



## westie47 (2 Mar 2006)

After talkng to xxxxxxxx, apparently the new officer in charge of the CTS program says MOLLE is on the way out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about still fighting in Germany mode circa 1980. Typical for this army. Take 10 years to come out with crap kit that nobody likes.  By nobody I mean guys that have done the business. Everyone who says the TV rocks has never been under effective enemy fire. That said I haven't gotten issued my SPS yet as I have been away on leave doing this stuff for real. I used an Eagle CIRAS, that is by far and away the best vest out there. With the RAV and Predator coming very close. RAID packs rock as well. Just my two cents.

Name removed at member's request.

Regards


----------



## fourninerzero (2 Mar 2006)

I have a couple of problems with the new SPS. First, rather than hugging your back, and curving with your spine to feel comfortable, it just sits there like a jerrycan with straps. Even with light loads (around 10-20lbs) after a short while I can start to feel the strain of the stupid thing. also, the waist belt is useless, as the pack is designed to ride so high up on your back, that the belt would wrap around top of the acessory pouches on the TV. i have tried to curve the internal frame peice (which feels like a stiff sheet of plastic), but with little success.

In the credits colum for the SPS, there is the fact it is capable of holding a lot of stuff. the additional pockets work reasonably well from what i can gather, but unless they and the main pack are stuffed up and compressed as tight as possible they have a tendency to shift or shake.

Please take note this is based on light usage, and usally carrying small loads (extra jacket, gloves, some rats, rain gear etc)  and other minor stuff for day ex's to the range and that sort of thing.

Just my $.02


----------



## mudgunner49 (2 Mar 2006)

westie47 said:
			
		

> After talkng to xxxxx, apparently the new officer in charge of the CTS program says *MOLLE is on the way out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * Talk about still fighting in Germany mode circa 1980. Typical for this army. Take 10 years to come out with crap kit that nobody likes.  By nobody I mean guys that have done the business. Everyone who says the TV rocks has never been under effective enemy fire. That said I haven't gotten issued my SPS yet as I have been away on leave doing this stuff for real. I used an Eagle CIRAS, that is by far and away the best vest out there. With the RAV and Predator coming very close. RAID packs rock as well. Just my two cents.



I got this same line of drivel from the CTS office as well.  My response was "Riiiigghhtttt...."!!!

A big +100 on the CIRAS - it is currently without peer, and is my next significant gear purchase, however I did pick up an Eagle Plate Carrier with Cummerbund in the interim as it was both cheaper and available.

CTS has it's collective head so far up it's 3rd point of contact that it is actually coming out of it's neck again...



blake


----------



## COBRA-6 (2 Mar 2006)

Agree with Westie47 and mudgunner49... CTS is RTFO... 

This tour has taught me a few things, and one big one is that the TV is junk... the SPS isn't bad but isn't great either, something like a RAID pack or Marauder would be much better... and they could have been bought COTS if we threw some CADPAT material at them... but that would make sense and be too easy...

I've got a LF Falcon chest rig waiting for me at home, as I wasn't ready to spend the dough on BALCS cut soft armour just yet, but after hearing about the Zylon issue and feeling how light KevinB's RAV was with poly plates, even with the side plates in, I might have to reconsider the CIRAS if the Falcon doesn't do the job...


----------



## armyvern (4 Mar 2006)

Just to add...

Our FPV does not incorporate zylon.


----------



## ouyin2000 (7 Mar 2006)

It looks like eBay is already getting issued their small packs... :

http://cgi.ebay.ca/CADPAT-SMALL-PACK_W0QQitemZ6611439448QQcategoryZ36071QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## kyleg (7 Mar 2006)

You've gotta be kidding me. That really grinds my gears (to quote Peter Griffin). Is there anything we can do about this? According to Ebay the best way to deal with stolen property (it's the closest I could find) being sold on Ebay is to contact a LEO. Any way to fast tract this to someone with some pull at DND?

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## ouyin2000 (7 Mar 2006)

That's what I would like to do, but I don't think I have the right connections or authority since i'm still only a civvie.

I would be happy to assist in any way I can, if this is infact stolen property.


----------



## kyleg (7 Mar 2006)

Well, as a civy you're not restricted by the chain of command, so you could probably talk to someone important faster than a memo from a shmo private (like me) would get there (if it ever did). There's no need to ask whether or not it's stolen property because, AFAIK, nothing from CTS has been released to the public in the form of military surplus (I'm no authority on the matter though, so we'll have to wait for someone who knows more about it speaks up). That means that some moron is selling the small pack he was issued. Even if he pays for the replacement it's still illegal (again, AFAIK).

Wow that was a lot of parentheses.

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2006)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> There's no need to ask whether or not it's stolen property because, AFAIK, nothing from CTS has been released to the public in the form of military surplus (I'm no authority on the matter though, so we'll have to wait for someone who knows more about it speaks up).


No, it hasn't been released to the public.


			
				Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> That means that some moron is selling the small pack he was issued. Even if he pays for the replacement it's still illegal (again, AFAIK).


More often than not it is a common thief (who happens to wear a uniform) who stole your buddies pack so it's not costing the thief a dime to replace anything. This thief is sucking out your buddies kit and making a killing on e-bay with it. Your buddy, meanwhile, has to file the loss report to have his stolen kit replaced and is probably facing an Admin deduction for the replacement cost. Sound fair? No. So, if you are aware of anyone selling or getting rid of excess kit which incorporates either the cadpat material or is a Clothe the Soldier item...they are either screwing you, your buddy, or the taxpayer. 
There seems to be an abundance of thieves in the military these days who seem to think that they are entitled to supplement their income by screwing you, me, your buddy and the taxpayer. That's exactly the type of 'soldier' I'd want in the trench beside me when the crap hits the fan...someone who'd sell me out for a few bucks.  : No thanks. I'd rather throw his ass in jail where it belongs.
Do something about it folks. Print screen the E-bay page showing the listing and the originator's e-mail address and e-mail it to your closet Military Police Section for investigation.


----------



## ouyin2000 (7 Mar 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Do something about it folks. Print screen the E-bay page showing the listing...


Done, now who would I go to, to have this dealt with? The best I can think of is the MPs at CFB Naden.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2006)

That will do.

You may also wish to express your concerns regarding the selling of "cadpat" or Clothe the Soldier", or "CTS" items directly to E-bay security via:

http://pages.ebay.ca/help/policies/stolen.html

I just did.


----------



## ouyin2000 (7 Mar 2006)

Thanks, I'll give them (eBay and the MPs when I can) a shout.


----------



## ouyin2000 (7 Mar 2006)

An update:

"Item: CADPAT SMALL PACK (6611439448) 
This message was sent while the listing was active. 
undertow322 is the Seller. 

It's not new and I got it from a surplus store in T.O. I got another e-mail from somebody saying it was ilegal for me to re-sell it, so I might be taking it off the auction."

I received this from the seller.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Mar 2006)

*WARNING*

When you find items like this on E-Bay, follow the advice given above to call the MPs  and give them all the information, with as much detail as possible.  They will deal with the matter.  DO NOT take it upon yourself to contact in any way, shape or form the person selling these items, as then you may compromise a Police Investigation.  You may be called in as a Witness, if you have evidence.  You may, if you have interferred with a Police Investigation, become an Accessory to a Crime.  You may in turn become the only one to be Charged for a Criminal Act, should the 'real' criminal be warned off.  

So be wary of what you do in these open forums and on the internet at large.


----------



## kyleg (7 Mar 2006)

He gave me the same response (I was the other one telling him it was illegal). I said "You ARE aware that it is illegal to sell this item, right?":

Item: CADPAT SMALL PACK (6611439448)
This message was sent while the listing was active.
undertow322 is the Seller.

No I wasn't. I got this from a surplus store and realized I paid too much. Why can't i re-sell it?

- Pinky


----------



## Pte.M13 (10 Mar 2006)

well, i just got issued my small pack and being a reserve sig out west, i find the thing great, took it with me to quebec for a weekend long course, did the job fine.

rarely do i see winter conditions, so no worries on the buckles, rarely am i dismounted, no worries about loading awkward items, it's really a wonderfully designed piece of kit for me. i have the CP valise i attach to the top, sadly i can't attach a cot or recce tent easily to it as i did my ruck, so i run the risk of having sombody run off with my coveted sleeping kit now, but oh well.

for a cbt arms trade like infantry, i can see the issue of having no easy way to attach it loaded to a ruck, save perhaps some aftermarket straps hooking into where the detachable wasteband on the small pack attachs to. then perhaps using some sorta scrounged strap to attach the top to your ruck.. however it's definatly gonna leave you very bottom heavy.  maybe moving your valise to the top of your ruck, and putting your SP sidways in place of the valise at the bottom of the ruck and attaching your air matress somwhere clear on the back.

*shrug* it certainly is exactly what i need for my occupation, just like the tac vest was, sombody at CTS really likes us sigs. the SP even fits my radio better.


----------



## geo (11 Mar 2006)

M13
It wasn't designed as a replacement to the Rucksack
as a patrol pack.... it does the job.


----------



## Cliffy433 (11 Mar 2006)

Me like... for the most part.... until this weekend, I was swinging mine up onto my back and one of the - I don't know - about 80 different adjustment straps flew up and smacked me in the eye!

I'd hate to be on BMQ/SQ now with the TV and SPS - I think if any of my "French Roll" loving staff had asked me to do all those straps I'd throttle them!

Apologies to Francophones out there, but that's the only term I know, and I got jacked only a year ago in Valcartier for not having them on my kit.

tlm.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2006)

tlm said:
			
		

> Me like... for the most part.... until this weekend, I was swinging mine up onto my back and one of the - I don't know - about 80 different adjustment straps *flew up and smacked me in the eye*!



Maybe you should have got your ballistic glasses issued at the same time ;D


----------



## Cliffy433 (12 Mar 2006)

They were in the one of the side pockets...


----------



## cadettrooper (27 Jun 2006)

Once again some dumb@$$ "idiot" is trying to sell a brand new SPS on E-bay, i'm not sure if anyone has reported this to the authority yet, but i know i sure am............


http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canadian-CADPAT-Small-Pack_W0QQitemZ170001660357QQihZ007QQcategoryZ36071QQssPageNameZWD3VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## Lost_Warrior (2 Jul 2006)

Who knows.  Maybe that eBay sellers name (322) are also his last 3?


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Jul 2006)

From the site:
"The seller ended this listing early because the item is no longer available for sale."

Perhaps the seller has received a warning?


----------



## cadettrooper (2 Jul 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> From the site:
> "The seller ended this listing early because the item is no longer available for sale."
> 
> Perhaps the seller has received a warning?



or maybe because i PM'd him and said it was illegal to sell the pack ..........................


----------



## Bzzliteyr (2 Jul 2006)

and maybe you didn't read the warning posted by George Wallace at the top of THIS PAGE!!!


----------



## cadettrooper (12 Jul 2006)

well once again another fraudulant sale of a controlled item on e-bay, and but not sure how to report this one?...........seeing as the seller is from hong kong..............and the reason that i contacted the seller of the other item was becuase i did in fact contact the MP's at CFB Esquimalt and was told that the couldn't do anything about it............

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Cadpat-Military-Issued-Tactical-Vest-with-Extras_W0QQitemZ170006540134QQihZ007QQcategoryZ36071QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## Lost_Warrior (17 Jul 2006)

After I read your post about the MP's telling you there is nothing they can do, I contacted the seller letting him know that it was illegal to sell this item, to which he replied:

"Thank you for reminding me that, I am really appreciate it."


----------



## cadettrooper (17 Jul 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> After I read your post about the MP's telling you there is nothing they can do, I contacted the seller letting him know that it was illegal to sell this item, to which he replied:
> 
> "Thank you for reminding me that, I am really appreciate it."


you contacted the seller in hong kong? 
          because it doesn't seem like it helped much, seeing as the LBV is once again up for auction........ :threat:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Cadpat-Military-Issued-Tactical-Vest-SAS-JTF2-USMC_W0QQitemZ170008972498QQihZ007QQcategoryZ36071QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## Lost_Warrior (17 Jul 2006)

It was never taken down.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2006)

Once more..................  :

*WARNING*

When you find items like this on E-Bay, follow the advice given above to call the MPs  and give them all the information, with as much detail as possible.  They will deal with the matter.  DO NOT take it upon yourself to contact in any way, shape or form the person selling these items, as then you may compromise a Police Investigation.  You may be called in as a Witness, if you have evidence.  You may, if you have interferred with a Police Investigation, become an Accessory to a Crime.  You may in turn become the only one to be Charged for a Criminal Act, should the 'real' criminal be warned off.  

So be wary of what you do in these open forums and on the internet at large.


----------



## asterix_prl (5 Aug 2010)

Is there anyone out there that would be able to post an updated working link for the SPS-UserGuide_e.pdf

Thank you


----------



## REDinstaller (5 Aug 2010)

There was a link posted by Pbi, but it doesn't work anymore. You will probably have to go into work and use the DIN to access the Clothe the Soldier project. Alot of the links have changed and are no long acessable from the web.


----------



## my72jeep (15 Feb 2012)

asterix_prl said:
			
		

> Is there anyone out there that would be able to post an updated working link for the SPS-UserGuide_e.pdf
> 
> Thank you



I was just issued mine, as I don't have DIN use any out side links as how to attach the pockets would help.


----------



## Redeye (15 Feb 2012)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> I was just issued mine, as I don't have DIN use any out side links as how to attach the pockets would help.



Not really rocket science, the straps on the sides of the add on pouches go through the loops on the small pack. But generally speaking, unless absolutely necessary, no one uses them.


----------



## my72jeep (15 Feb 2012)

OK I was looking at it as if all the straps hooked to each other. that's what happens when you have a degree in enginering. You look to hard at easy things.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Feb 2012)

Unlike the common MOLLE system pretty much in use everywhere on the planet, we chose to use a proprietary "system" that really doesn't allow for much flexibility.   Pouches tend to fit very well in my barrack box, brand new, never used.


----------



## HollywoodCowboy (15 Feb 2012)

I just gave mine back, never used it once when it first came out.
The bin rat was shocked that it was still in it's original packaging.


----------



## Lerch (16 Feb 2012)

I keep mine so my girlfriend has a backpack when we go camping...

She doesn't like it much...


----------



## Redeye (16 Feb 2012)

I used to think it was a great piece of kit, but there's so much better out there. The biggest piss off with mine is that the slide locks on the shoulder straps are so poorly made they don't keep the straps in place. I have to keep retightening them and it gets really annoying.

Friend of mine has a Mystery Ranch Dragon Slayer. Now THAT is a patrol pack.


----------



## Lerch (16 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Friend of mine has a Mystery Ranch Dragon Slayer. Now THAT is a patrol pack.



Any of the Mystery Ranch packs are great, including the Camelbak ones that use the Mystery Ranch guide/futura system.


----------



## Redeye (16 Feb 2012)

Lerch said:
			
		

> Any of the Mystery Ranch packs are great, including the Camelbak ones that use the Mystery Ranch guide/futura system.



The only sad part is the price. Even though you definitely get what you pay for...


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (18 Jun 2012)

I have been using the 5.11 72 hour pack in OD since last fall in concert with a duffle bag for molitia weekends.  Works wonderfully well and being the 72 hour pack, I can compress it down or expand it accordingly when required.  Worth the money.


----------



## CombatDoc (18 Jun 2012)

Panzer Grenadier said:
			
		

> I have been using the 5.11 72 hour pack in OD since last fall in concert with a duffle bag for molitia weekends.  Works wonderfully well and being the 72 hour pack, I can compress it down or expand it accordingly when required.  Worth the money.


Ditto.  I have the same pack, and it puts the CF-issued small pack to shame.


----------

