# Well well well another CTS triumph



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Oct 2007)

The new ruck is being issued now


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Oct 2007)

Really, guess they haven't really bothered to update their own site.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Oct 2007)

Probably too busy drinking champagne with another successful launch.


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Oct 2007)

hahahahahaha good one.


----------



## Loachman (3 Oct 2007)

So what do we not like about it?


----------



## armyvern (3 Oct 2007)

I was wondering the same thing Loachman.

You guys know they do trials on everything right?? Some of their stuff is crap ... but it's not all crap. Really, it's getting old ... and that's what causes the attitude of "it's all crap" to permeate the atmosphere which people like I get to work in everyday. What _fun_ it is made for us -- Not.

[/rant]


----------



## Shamrock (3 Oct 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> So what do we not like about it?



It gets heavy when we put stuff in it.


----------



## Jimmy C (3 Oct 2007)

By the looks of it you can put a lot of "stuff" in it, they're huge!


----------



## armyvern (3 Oct 2007)

Yeah it does doesn't it??

Thanks for the negative from whichever one of you just threw it on me.

Truth hurts some of you eh??

I call BS like that below ... really bad leadership. You haven't seen it, touched it, let alone use it ... but you're friggin' slaggin it and PEOPLE already. Rock on boys. You look really good and professional.


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Oct 2007)

My sarcasm, was at how long this has taken to be fielded, CTS' own documents said the ruck was "supposed" to been fielded 3 YEARS ago.  I don't know anything about the quality of the product, cause I have never seen the thing.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Oct 2007)

So Vern I guess that means I would see it when I make.......WO  ;D


----------



## armyvern (3 Oct 2007)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> My sarcasm, was at how long this has taken to be fielded, CTS' own documents said the ruck was "supposed" to been fielded 3 YEARS ago.  I don't know anything about the quality of the product, cause I have never seen the thing.



Hatchet man ...

Funny, I had one on my back a couple years ago. 

You just slagged something that is in initial distribution now and the people who work there ... based on diddly squat. Unfortunately, because of people and attitudes like yours ... this happens each and every time with every bit of kit ... and people like me get to put up with rants based on ZERO and people walking up to counters bitching at the sup techs about getting the latest and greatest "piece of shit CTS gear."

Bullshit like that laid out below ... is exactly what causes it.

NFLD_SAPPER ... A Sgt --


----------



## Loachman (4 Oct 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Thanks for the negative from whichever one of you just threw it on me.



There - balance restored. Happy Birthday again.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Oct 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hatchet man ...
> 
> Funny, I had one on my back a couple years ago.
> 
> ...



WOW quicker than I anticipated. 

BTW I dropped the "_" in my name a while ago Vern


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2007)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> My sarcasm, was at how long this has taken to be fielded, CTS' own documents said the ruck was "supposed" to been fielded 3 YEARS ago.  I don't know anything about the quality of the product, cause I have never seen the thing.



Fielded to trials it was indeed ...


----------



## Jimmy C (4 Oct 2007)

C Coy 3 PPCLI were issued them before they deployed to Afghanistan in Feb 07, the guys I talked to didn't mind them too much. They hardly wore them at all while they were there anyways.


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There - balance restored. Happy Birthday again.



Ahhh thanks Loachman, 

Oh happy happy day.

It just goes to prove when you call an ass an ass ... sometimes they can't handle it. See they don't mind bitching about your trade etc ... but boy when you point out a fault in them ...   _That'd_ be their problem vice mine.


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2007)

Jimmy C said:
			
		

> C Coy 3 PPCLI were issued them before they deployed to Afghanistan in Feb 07, the guys I talked to didn't mind them too much. They hardly wore them at all while they were there anyways.



That's correct. They were the pri issue ... and now initial distribution is ongoing for the other entilted pers.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Oct 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hatchet man ...
> 
> Funny, I had one on my back a couple years ago.
> 
> ...



Whoa, slagged? I never said it was crap.  In fact I never said anything about the quality of the gear, as I have not seen it or used at all.  I have just not been overall impressed with their timelines of issuing the gear, as they are always consistently off and sometimes by a very wide margin.


----------



## MG34 (4 Oct 2007)

You want to know what's wromg with the new ruck?? It's design for one, an internal frame is pretty much useless as there is nothing to strap equipment on but the outer shell of the pack of stuff it into the pack itself. I've used the new pack, it sucks for this reason we tried strapping an SF kit to it, the damn thing was so unweildy that it couldn't be carried for more than 2 or 3 kn at a time. The only place to strap the SF kit was to the front of the pack so the SF kit was about 21/2 feet off of theback of the soldier carrying it and the damn thing caused the pack to flop back and forth on his back. The same problem with the 84mm and Eryx missiles.
 The so called trial was about 50 or folks walking in circles around our building with nothing strapped on the ruck and a minimal load in it, of course it's much more comfortable than the issued wire frame piece of crap, but not as versatile as the 64 patten ruck. When we asked about load carriage the CTS clown's answer was to place the items inside the ruck...fine if it fits. For what it's worth I'll stick to the 64 pattern ruck.


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> You want to know what's wromg with the new ruck?? It's design for one, an internal frame is pretty much useless as there is nothing to strap equipment on but the outer shell of the pack of stuff it into the pack itself. I've used the new pack, it sucks for this reason we tried strapping an SF kit to it, the damn thing was so unweildy that it couldn't be carried for more than 2 or 3 kn at a time. The only place to strap the SF kit was to the front of the pack so the SF kit was about 21/2 feet off of theback of the soldier carrying it and the damn thing caused the pack to flop back and forth on his back. The same problem with the 84mm and Eryx missiles.
> The so called trial was about 50 or folks walking in circles around our building with nothing strapped on the ruck and a minimal load in it, of course it's much more comfortable than the issued wire frame piece of crap, but not as versatile as the 64 patten ruck. When we asked about load carriage the CTS clown's answer was to place the items inside the ruck...fine if it fits. For what it's worth I'll stick to the 64 pattern ruck.



Ah now see, there's the difference. You've actually used it and humped it ... you are in your lanes. 

Interestingly, I find your point about the internal frame the most interesting ... because an internal framed ruck was one of the biggies being asked for by troops a few years ago. 

_Edited to add:  I'll be keeping my 64 pattern too -- just so you know._


----------



## aesop081 (4 Oct 2007)

So which one of you is going to ask for a posting to CTS in order to rectify what is going on over there ?


----------



## RCR Grunt (4 Oct 2007)

I think a lot of people are pissy with CTS for a couple of reasons.  I have 2 reasons myself.  These are my own personal reasons and are in no way official in any capacity.  So, if you don't like it, then tough.

1)  Re-inventing the wheel:  The trend thus far with kit from CTS is to come out with uniquely Canadian pieces of kit, using fancy studies, botched trials, and terms such as "human factors."  This is expensive, time consuming, and quite unnecessary.  All one needs to do to find suitable pieces of kit is to look south of the border or across the pond and ask allied armed forces, with more combat experience than we have, what they use and what works.  Then, proceed to equip our men and women with off the shelf equipment suitable for our needs, which aren't really that different than our NATO allies.  With such a small army, we cannot afford to throw away cash better spent on big ticket equipment or training so that some scientist in Toronto can re-invent the backpack.

2)  Ignoring UCR's:  We're all aware that certain pieces of kit CTS has issued have turned out to be junk.  We've also all been told that if you have a legitimate complaint, fill out a UCR and pass it up.  From 4-19JAN06, a TAV was sent to Afghanistan to investigate certain items.  The TAV did not visit the BG during this time.  They concluded that soldiers were ignorant as to the use of kit, that doctrine was not being followed WRT load carriage and that "human factors" were being ignored.  Nowhere in the TAV's report did they say that CTS had issued crap, or that CTS had made mistakes during trials or anything to that effect.  Instead, they suggested production of an informational video to train soldiers to use the kit, and that doctrine must be adhered to.  Basically "Its not us, its you."  I have some theories as to why this occurred, but I will not get into that at this time.  If anyone would like to see the TAV's full report, PM me and I will email to you.  I also have an AAR from the BG in theater coinciding with the TAV's visit RE: kit.

To summarize, I don't like CTS and don't trust their equipment.  I'm a big believer in off the shelf equipment.  I haven't used the new ruck yet, so I have withheld comment on it till such time as I am qualified to do so.  However, if MG34's comments hold true (and I do not doubt they will) sounds like another home run for the CTS gang. As for someone getting posted to CTS, I'm quite sure I am both unqualified and unsuitable for the job


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2007)

I have no problem with your post actually.

Para 1) Agreed, if the trials are flawed or idiotic ... the kit is, in essence, NOT trialled at all. I've seen trials on a couple items ... where the paperwork the users had to file afterwards ... really had them doing nothing job-related in order to fill it out. We bitched ... the trial got changed to include elements and factors which accurately reflected how the kit would be utilized and in life/work conditions. 

Para 2) It is actually pretty close to what I'd say about the items that we know (and have been proven to be crap) are useless in combat. Closer than you'd think actually.


----------



## RCR Grunt (4 Oct 2007)

Ladies and gentlemen, break out the parkas.  Hell hath frozen over.  Vern and I have agreed.  If only CTS were as reasonable as we are, what a world we would live in.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I have no problem with your post actually.



Vern, none of my posts are meant to cause you problems, it just seems that way.    >


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Ladies and gentlemen, break out the parkas.  Hell hath frozen over.  Vern and I have agreed.  If only CTS were as reasonable as we are, what a world we would live in.
> 
> Vern, none of my posts are meant to cause you problems, it just seems that way.    >



Nah,

We have agreed at least once before on a prior occasion.

I believe it was that I was "old", "female" (ergo a bad driver you said -- we disagreed on that point), and that the footwear policy sucks.


----------



## medaid (4 Oct 2007)

I'd actually love to see it up close and personal. Anyone mind lending me theirs for a week or so? Vern? Since you're sticking to your 64 (personal favorite) 


 ;D


----------



## aesop081 (4 Oct 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> As for someone getting posted to CTS, I'm quite sure I am both unqualified and unsuitable for the job



So, If the kit experts we have around here are either Unqualified, Unsuitable or *Unwilling* to take/ask for a posting to CTS that leaves us with the "clowns" that are there now. I'm just a dumb airman here but methinks that i see what the problem is and its not just the CTS people......


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Oct 2007)

I want to say something about how the CTS trials are done but I can't. Leave it at the trial was rigged so that the outcome was what they wanted IMO.


----------



## RCR Grunt (4 Oct 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So, If the kit experts we have around here are either Unqualified, Unsuitable or *Unwilling* to take/ask for a posting to CTS that leaves us with the "clowns" that are there now. I'm just a dumb airman here but methinks that i see what the problem is and its not just the CTS people......



I was only speaking of myself.  I would gladly take a posting to CTS if they would have me, but what I would prefer is the disbandment of CTS altogether.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Oct 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So, If the kit experts we have around here are either Unqualified, Unsuitable or *Unwilling* to take/ask for a posting to CTS that leaves us with the "clowns" that are there now. I'm just a dumb airman here but methinks that i see what the problem is and its not just the CTS people......



And you suppose for one minute that Cpl Mukluk, from 3rd Bn, The Kitimat Light Infantry, after serving 4 back to back to back to back tours and gets posted to CTS, is going to be heard and taken seriously there?  The army must indeed be a much better place than it once was. The guys with time on the tools are the last ones with any say in what works and what doesn't.  Anyone remember the LSVW trials?  It kept failing, so the trial criteria kept changing until it passed.  The quote went something like "if the truck doesn't fit the army, the army will have to fit the truck".


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Oct 2007)

For the record I had nothing negative to say about the ruck per se.  My negativity was directed at the time it took to create this piece of kit .  Perhaps it is quick by civy standards but when we have the Americans, Brits, Aussies, etc with combat proven kit I can't for the life of me see why our military needs to find different solutions to problems that a solution has already been found.  
On a side note, has anyone complained about the old jump ruck?


----------



## geo (4 Oct 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> On a side note, has anyone complained about the old jump ruck?


Though the Airborne used it... everyone else did too.  It wasn't a jump ruck - that moniker stuck when the wire frame ruck showed up and started to bend on impact & the Airborne "asked" for something more robust.

Old "problems"?
- the cargo bag was small
- the cargo bag wasn't all that solid - poor stitching
- the cargo shelf was flimsy / could get lost
- not much padding on the various straps
- weight (cargo bag) was at the bottom & light stuff (sleeping bag) was at the top


----------



## riggermade (4 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Though the Airborne used it... everyone else did too.  It wasn't a jump ruck - that moniker stuck when the wire frame ruck showed up and started to bend on impact & the Airborne "asked" for something more robust.
> 
> Old "problems"?
> - the cargo bag was small
> ...



Most bags for sale now are about 20% bigger
Bags are made of cordura not the rubber material and are alot stronger
Most people don't use the cargo shelf..no need
There is all kinds of pad systems out there
Most people prefer the valise on top from discussions I have had


----------



## McG (4 Oct 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Probably too busy drinking champagne with another successful launch.


Yep, that is right.  Everyone in CTS is only there working for the glory of their own project.  In fact, they are all-incompetent & hate the troops.  The more delay, inconvenience and discomfort that they can cause the soldiers, the happier they are.   :

Grow-up guys.  If someone were to as baselessly slag infantry sections then you would rightfully be demanding the pull their heads out of their asses.

Does the requirements & procurement world have its problems?  Yes.  Does it have its share of underachievers?  Most certainly (and so do the brigades).  However, for us to project an image of an organization, which is incompetent & uncaring down to every last person, is uncalled for.

In fact, if this site is openly hostile toward anyone from DLR or DSSPM then any of those people surfing this site may decide to tune us out, and even the good ideas here will be ignored.



			
				Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> when we have the Americans, Brits, Aussies, etc with combat proven kit I can't for the life of me see why our military needs to find different solutions to problems that a solution has already been found.


Do you recall the purchase of off the shelf helmets & flack vests which were not compatible?  Canada has different needs, TTPs & in-service equipment than our allies.  There is nothting wrong with buying there kit, but we also need to confirm it is compatible with what is already in existance.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Oct 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> There is nothting wrong with buying there kit, but we also need to confirm it is compatible with what is already in existance.



100% correct but I don't think it should take 10 years to figure that out.


----------



## KevinB (4 Oct 2007)

Well I happen to like Internal Frame rucks.  One of the designs put forward to base the setup of, was Kifaru's EMR, an outstanding ruck.  WE pushed CTS in the direction of the internal frame...
 I'm not a big 64 Pattern "Jump" ruck fan - I used one for years but it is in reality a poor design, and went thru several frames - the only thing it really had going for it was the 82 pattern coat hanger frame was a dismal disaster.
  What annoys me is we started a new ruck trial back when E Bty 2RCHA was jumping...  1992 was the date that people showed up with a "new" ruck for design trial.  

Keep in mind I am about the biggest burn it down (CTS) crusader out there.   However we do have to accept responsibility for pushing them in the directions we wanted to go.
  Where we have a legitimate beef is both time lag in deleivery, once the system has been UCR's and actions are not taken on it.


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Oct 2007)

I love my 64 pattern Ruck but I more then willing to give this new ruck a fair shake on how it preforms, having used a Bergen before I was/am a large fan of internal frame rucks. I have no difficulty carrying the kit I required using it. The question will be id they listen to us when soldiers raised the concern that if you make the main compartment larger then will we just be made to carry more *useless* kit as per the needs of uniformity. Yes I am well aware that people stop packing as per kit list however the direction still exist.




			
				RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> As for someone getting posted to CTS, I'm quite sure I am both *unqualified* and unsuitable for the job




Grunt we have talked about this before, You and I and many others are very qualified to do the job we have the necessary real worldexperience to do it. What u are most certainly right about is that we would be considered "*UNSUITABLE*" for the postion based on our current level of rank and likely what would be considered time in trade. Oh ad our clear bias towards combat arms soldiering may very well not be looked on kindly by other areas of our Military system.


----------



## MG34 (4 Oct 2007)

Internal frame rucks are indeed much more comfortable and do have much better ergonomics, but they cannot support extenal loads as efefctively as a frame pack. IMHO the best option from CTS was the improved packboard, which allowed the most flexibility of ant system in the trials,sure it isn't as comfortable as a Bergan inspired ruck but you can carry what is needed for extended dismounted operations.


----------



## KevinB (4 Oct 2007)

You know you can take the internal frame out of a Kirafu EMR and make it a packboard   
   I wonder why "part" of the CF rejected the new ruck in favour of Kifaru's stuff...


----------



## BKells (4 Oct 2007)

So, getting back to the first post... when is everyone expected to get it issued? Are TF3-08 pers considered priority?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Oct 2007)

TF 1-08 is priority.  Last direction I heard was Nov issue.


----------



## geo (4 Oct 2007)

riggermade said:
			
		

> Most bags for sale now are about 20% bigger
> Bags are made of cordura not the rubber material and are alot stronger
> Most people don't use the cargo shelf..no need
> There is all kinds of pad systems out there
> Most people prefer the valise on top from discussions I have had


Yeah, individuals have worked & developed the parts to make it a better ruck BUT, as indicated by some, the 64 pattern ruck wasn' 100% perfect.

The shelf was useful - carry a crate of ammo or a jerrycan with shelf VS without one & you'd become a "fan" of the shelf... just not that one.


----------



## Strike (4 Oct 2007)

Anyone have any photos of this new piece of wonder-kit?


----------



## MG34 (4 Oct 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> You know you can take the internal frame out of a Kirafu EMR and make it a packboard
> I wonder why "part" of the CF rejected the new ruck in favour of Kifaru's stuff...



Yes I cannot imagine why they did that,seeing as how they were the first to get the new ruck....and rejected it


----------



## Armymedic (4 Oct 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I wonder why "part" of the CF rejected the new ruck in favour of Kifaru's stuff...


Kifaru and Lowe Alpine. 

Perhaps they got tired of waiting?


----------



## riggermade (4 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Yeah, individuals have worked & developed the parts to make it a better ruck BUT, as indicated by some, the 64 pattern ruck wasn' 100% perfect.
> 
> /quote]
> 
> Agreed but as this topic shows nobody will be totally satisfied regardless of what they get


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2007)

Or even because that internal frame was vastly identified by the troops on their most-wanted "wish list" like I said below?? 

Kind of like what happened with the boots ... they all wanted "vibram soles" as the number one thing for inclusion in their new boots ... they did get what they asked for ... just not exactly how they wanted it.  :-\

Reminds me of that saying about being careful what you wish for ...


----------



## KevinB (4 Oct 2007)

Ah yeah the Lowe -- I've got both and I think the Kifaru is better - but I see why some prefer the Lowe.

   The joke is is a unit can give Mel from Kifaru rough sizing for the guys (these are custom/semi custom setups) and bang 4 weeks later you get your stuff...

Now I know the size of the order is way different than the whole of the CF -- but say we could get  200 rucks a month from Kifaru (I would bet more but I am being catious).
  How many members of the CF are entitled to a ruck - field force only correct?

  If we started in 2002 when the 3VP battlegroup deployed to Afghanistan, I'm pretty sure a semi custom ruck could have been procured for all regular and reserve members who are entitled. 

Call me crazy but perhaps adopting the US RFI method and having a unti Master Gunner/S7 (Force Mod) cell might be a bit more expediant - and we can post CTS back to the sharp end.

My method would have saved 5 years and the salaries for the CTS staff in 5 years


----------



## GregC (4 Oct 2007)

Having deployed with C-Coy overseas (without the issued ruck, however), I was able to get a bit of a feel from it from other guys who had it in the platoon. Since I didn't personally hump it I'll limit myself to my 3 biggest observations:

1) This new ruck is pretty damn heavy empty, I haven't put it on a scale, but an empty 64 weighs next to nothing, and this weighed significantly more than that, I'd wager around 15-20lbs. 

2) It's massive. That's all there is to it.

3) No capacity (as others have mentioned) for strapping down awkward loads. Thinning out a checkpoint we were each strapping on things like 60mm packs, mortars, SF kits, MG ammo, you name it, without a problem. I'm not so sure the ruck could handle this as easily or effectively.

I'll give the new ruck a chance (if it's issued to me), however I think it would have to be a pretty outstanding piece of kit for me to switch over, and from what I've seen and heard I (unfortunately) don't think it is.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 Oct 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> You know you can take the internal frame out of a Kirafu EMR and make it a packboard
> I wonder why "part" of the CF rejected the new ruck in favour of Kifaru's stuff...



I don't think that the Kifaru stuff was ever given a fair shake, outside of "Oh, XXXX unit is using them, but that's because they have very specific requirements for specific missions that the rest of the Army doesn't do...which is why we have XXXX unit.  If you like the equipment that XXXX is using, then you should go and try out for XXXX unit."

I've got a pdf file that goes through the development and early trials of the tac-vest, small pack, and rucksack system.  If anybody wants them, I'll gladly send it over.
Just PM me your email address, or email me at matt@cpgear.com

A big reason as to why pretty much any CADPAT Cordura nylon items weigh considerably more than commercial or other military's similar items, is due to the heavy duty urethane coating that's applied on the mil-spec material.  This coating adds considerable weight to the fabric.


----------



## riggermade (4 Oct 2007)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I don't think that the Kifaru stuff was ever given a fair shake, outside of "Oh, XXXX unit is using them, but that's because they have very specific requirements for specific missions that the rest of the Army doesn't do...which is why we have XXXX unit.  If you like the equipment that XXXX is using, then you should go and try out for XXXX unit."
> 
> I've got a pdf file that goes through the development and early trials of the tac-vest, small pack, and rucksack system.  If anybody wants them, I'll gladly send it over.
> Just PM me your email address.
> ...






Matt is right

I f you have a 64 pattern ruck in Cadpat it is heavier than a green one


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Oct 2007)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I don't think that the Kifaru stuff was ever given a fair shake, outside of "Oh, XXXX unit is using them, but that's because they have very specific requirements for specific missions that the rest of the Army doesn't do...which is why we have XXXX unit.  If you like the equipment that XXXX is using, then you should go and try out for XXXX unit."
> 
> I've got a pdf file that goes through the development and early trials of the tac-vest, small pack, and rucksack system.  If anybody wants them, I'll gladly send it over.
> Just PM me your email address.
> ...



Hey Matt can I get a copy of said pdf?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 Oct 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> Hey Matt can I get a copy of said pdf?



PM me your email address.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Oct 2007)

Done, check your inbox


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 Oct 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Kifaru and Lowe Alpine.



There was also a purchase of the Gregory/Bianchi UM-21 for DHTC back in the late 90's.  Apparently they hated it as much as USSOCOM did and have since gone in favour of Kifaru.


----------



## COBRA-6 (4 Oct 2007)

Internal frames are comfy but how do they work with body armour? Has anyone tried the new ruck while wearing the issue vest and plates?


----------



## genesis98 (4 Oct 2007)

Can we get some pics up in here?


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2007)

genesis98 said:
			
		

> Can we get some pics up in here?



Try here:

CTS


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Though the Airborne used it... everyone else did too.  It wasn't a jump ruck - that moniker stuck when the wire frame ruck showed up and started to bend on impact & the Airborne "asked" for something more robust.
> 
> Old "problems"?
> - the cargo bag was small
> ...



Plus: You could throw a full 5 gallon Jerry Can of water (50 lbs) on the frame in under 30 secs and continue with an Advance to Contact at Borden (ca 1981)

Minus: 3 washings and the Bag had more Irish Pennants than I had matches.

Beyond that I agree with Geo.


----------



## Spartan (4 Oct 2007)

I caught this as interesting in the description:
"One of the greatest innovations is the hip belt which actually bears weight. A strap on the hip belt is attached to load transfer rods that run up the sides of the rucksack. This allows weight to be transferred between the shoulders and the hips. " 

Is it just me or hasn't this concept existed for a VERY long time before the creation of CTS?


----------



## RCR Grunt (4 Oct 2007)

Spartan said:
			
		

> I caught this as interesting in the description:
> "One of the greatest innovations is the hip belt which actually bears weight. A strap on the hip belt is attached to load transfer rods that run up the sides of the rucksack. This allows weight to be transferred between the shoulders and the hips. "
> 
> Is it just me or hasn't this concept existed for a VERY long time before the creation of CTS?



Just them re-inventing the wheel again.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 Oct 2007)

Actually, the load transfer rods were something that is somewhat unique to the CTS ruck.  The load transfer rods are not the aluminum stays, but rather a fiberglass/carbon fiber pole on the sides of the ruck, that when in use, are actually tensioned/bent in the sleeves they are located at in the ruck.  You can see a good diagram of them from the Ostrom Pack site http://www.ostrompacks.com/suspension/suspension.htm Ostrom Packs built the prototype small pack and rucksack for CTS and had the lion's share of R&D work for this project. This tension causes force to be put onto the hip-belt, helping to transfer some of the weight of the ruck onto the hip belt.  Where problems may arise though, is during airborne operations (or any events where there is an impact force put upon the ruck i.e. being thrown off the back of an truck, dropped from the top of a locker, etc.) if the load transfer rods are not removed, they risk breaking, thereby eliminating the benefit of load transfer to the hip belt.

The other main issue I foresee is that when the ruck is worn with body armour, the length of the CF ballistic vest on the torso will prevent effective use of the ruck's hip belt.  Properly sized current issue ballistic vests extend down the torso to the hip region of the wearer.  Additionally, the rear of the vest panel overlaps the front panel.  As such, the hip belt will not sit very well, and any effective transfer of the weight to the hips will be negated.


----------



## Farmboy (4 Oct 2007)

> the load transfer rods were something that is somewhat unique to the CTS ruck



 I know the Drop Zone Mother Rucker has these.  I also had a "Power" backpack when I was 16ish (33 now) that had these as well. 

The funny thing is that the exact thing Matt describes happened to my pack, when I filled it up to much once and "abused" it the rods or straps holding them, can't remember which, broke.


----------



## Bomber (5 Oct 2007)

At this point, I have not seen a broken load transfer rod, I have some experience working with this new ruck, and can say it is a much better item than before, I have todl this to Matt on the phone, but have still yet to put on the armour and check the fit.  Perhaps today.  Carrying outsized loads is another issue being raised, the new ruck has about 6 compression straps per side, each with a fairly long length of webbing on it.  Loosen it off, and it would probably hold a 105 round securely.  Matt, give me a call when your coming through town and you can be my guest to check out my ruck.  When completing the testing for the shoulder straps, I regularly had 90 plus pounds in it, and was doing it three times a week.  The load transfer roads held up to it, and it makes it very nice to be able to switch the weight from the shoulders, to the back, to the hips, kind of like rocking a car that is stuck.  Wait until you see it before passing hearsay judgement, they are coming out now, the OMLT has been issued, earlier this year I issued them to the FE Dets in Pet, and they are ramping up the production to their full capacity now.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (5 Oct 2007)

Bomber said:
			
		

> At this point, I have not seen a broken load transfer rod, I have some experience working with this new ruck, and can say it is a much better item than before, I have todl this to Matt on the phone, but have still yet to put on the armour and check the fit.  Perhaps today.  Carrying outsized loads is another issue being raised, the new ruck has about 6 compression straps per side, each with a fairly long length of webbing on it.  Loosen it off, and it would probably hold a 105 round securely.  Matt, give me a call when your coming through town and you can be my guest to check out my ruck.  When completing the testing for the shoulder straps, I regularly had 90 plus pounds in it, and was doing it three times a week.  The load transfer roads held up to it, and it makes it very nice to be able to switch the weight from the shoulders, to the back, to the hips, kind of like rocking a car that is stuck.  Wait until you see it before passing hearsay judgement, they are coming out now, the OMLT has been issued, earlier this year I issued them to the FE Dets in Pet, and they are ramping up the production to their full capacity now.



How much impact testing has been done of dropping the ruck from heights with the load transfer rods under tension?  Fiberglass/carbon fiber materials have a tendency to stress fracture over time, resulting in catastrophic failure eventually; i.e. look at the failure rates of carbon fibre hockey sticks.  They give no outward appearance that they are under stress or are damaged, until they snap/shatter.  I've gone through enough fiberglass and aluminum tent poles to realize that over time, they weaken and will snap; Given that the load transfer rods are very similar in size and structure to a fiberglass tent pole, we can assume that they will behave in a similar manner.

I'm not saying that utilizing a load transfer rod in the ruck is a bad principle, but how much testing was done to warrant that the rods snapping is not a problem?


----------



## Bomber (5 Oct 2007)

Couldn't tell you Matt, I kow it got thrown from a plane a bunch of times and survived, all be-it in the drop bag.  A benefit of the composite/fiberglass rods is that over time, they won't degrade in performance, until they actually fail, much like the hockey sticks.  The materials are less suceptible to fatigue than metal and wood.  This si why it is always at critical/surprising times to the players when their sticks fail, that, and the fact that they modify the hell out of them, but I doubt a troop will be enhancing the curve or lowering the weight of the load transfer rods on the new ruck.  Also, if they fail, grab a new one, and pop it in, it takes about 30 seconds to replace them, and if they fail, the ruck is not a write off, it is just going to be a little less comfortable if you are used to using them under tension.  When not tightened, you can remove them from the ruck while it is being worn, so if it snaps, loosen it off, and carry on.


----------



## Big Daddy142 (5 Oct 2007)

Where does the sleeping bag go?


----------



## Bomber (5 Oct 2007)

The simplest way to describe it is two compression sacks sewn together, the top one faces up, the bottom one faces to your rear.  O, when the bag is standing up, th ebottom if empty is floppy, but the top can be filled, and compressed with the straps.  If the ruck is laying down, on the shoulder straps, the bottom one is now facing up.  both bags have fairly comparable capacity, but I prefer to pack the sleeping stuff in the bottom.  I am larger, and prefer to have more weight on my shoulders.  Once packed, the entire system can be pulled very tight with the compression straps, and it sinks in on itself very well.


----------



## Yeoman (5 Oct 2007)

BKells said:
			
		

> So, getting back to the first post... when is everyone expected to get it issued? Are TF3-08 pers considered priority?



to my last understanding, no we're not. might not even get them before we leave.
again what I was told.
................so am I going to have to exchange my 64 and 82 frames *shudders*
yes I know Vern, we had that talk a while back about the new things for jumpers, but it wouldn't suprise me if they made us try it out at least once.
this thing is indeed big, I've only had a few minutes to play with it three years ago and I'm sure they designs have had some more changes to it. but I really didn't mind it at all and it is a step up then what's currently issued. but not by much.


----------



## LordOsborne (7 Oct 2007)

Well.. I'm disappointed that it took this long to finally finish this project, but I'm not really surprised. I'll give this new ruck a chance, and see how it all works out. It sounds though like it's going to be an empty-heavy design like the small pack. I suppose just about anything is an improvement over the wire-frame ruck I currently use. 

Regarding the earlier discussion of getting some experienced Cbt Arms soldiers working in CTS - I think it's a great idea, but after having read the TAV AAR on load carriage in the TF, I can't help but think that any opinions voiced by those in the "know" would only get silenced by the holier-than-thou attitude that CTS seems to have; especially in the way they rub words like "bio-design" and "human factors" in everyone's face like the troops don't know what they're talking about. I personally think they mean well, but they're just terribly misguided.


----------



## R031button (9 Oct 2007)

I'd just like to comment on the holier then thou attitude of the DLR. A few months ago we had a delegation from DLR come to B Coy, and they wanted to talk to the troops about what the troops though about tac vests, and what could be done to improve them. Which is fine, it's more then fine actually, it's great and is what should be expected of DLR when their planning a new project. However, the manner in which it was conducted wasn't that of an interview, or a town hall open house, it was definitely more of an inquisition, troops being questioned on  why, if they wanted modularity, had the Arktis 1600 series Battle Vest been suggested as an example of where to go. They also focused on asking troops "what is modularity" as opposed to simply asking, what do you want, they sculpted answers into a picture of the troops not really knowing what was actually wanted. All in all, it was an hour of questions from persons who clearly wanted to find answers they would like, and wanted to validate their own opinions through a token questioning of soldiers.

I realise it's not perhaps relevent to the topic of the ruck, but I think it shows where the DLR's head is at when it comes to equipment fault sand problems.


----------



## geo (9 Oct 2007)

Hmmm... If DLR wanted opinions on the TV, shouldn't they have been talking to the troops who have just come back from overseas deployment and have used the TV with the balistic protection vests?

Talking to 31 CBG reservists who mostly work in Canada and work with the vest alone, without anything else, will result in DLR not addressing recommendations from the people who really need em.

(PS - not dissing the reservists)


----------



## medaid (9 Oct 2007)

I don't think you're 'dissing' us at all. In fact you brought up a very valid point. However PRes personnel who have recently come off tour DO have relevant things to say and inputs that should not be taking lightly. I may be a cynic, but I hope it's not another one of DLR's ploys. " Oh look! We did talk to troops, and hey they think it's great!" Kind of thing...

EDIT:

 I will now stop posting from my crackberry... most of my posts become hard to read and full of errors!  :-[


----------



## geo (9 Oct 2007)

Yup, reservists just coming off tour certainly do have opinions that mirror Reg force opinions
It's just that you are not going to find a critical mass of cuirrent Afghan Roto experience in any one reserve rifle coy.

The tac vest alone is not much of a problem
The tac vest worn together with the balistic vest and all sorts of other strap on stuff IS a problem.
Fix the problem and you'll end up with a better product.... with & without the extra gear.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Oct 2007)

Maybe Rucks are like boots - everyone's body (like their feet) is different and thus different folks prefer different things.

Is there any thought that rucksacks may be becoming somewhat obsolete as a piece of tactical gear?  Do we really want to launch guys into battle wearing a 90 liter backpack (regardless of external/internal frame or any other issue).  I'm happy with lighterweight layers/sleeping bags/etc that are compressed and can fit well into my 25 liter assault pack.  We need to get the dimensions and weight of our rations down so deploying with 3 days of food doesn't require 50% of your space.  As well, water is a huge logistical burden; any thought to water purifiers/filters as a piece of individual issue kit so we don't have to carry 5-10 liters per man - I remember seeing a product at an AUSA show that turned swamp water into gatorade (I actually drank it and didn't come down with dysentary).

Rucksacks suck, old or new; we still put guys out with too much weight on them, ultimately detracting from their ability to fight.  Perhaps lightening the logistical load is the real future, not a fancy new backpack with flex rods?


----------



## medaid (9 Oct 2007)

Infanteer should we split this? Maybe name it 

Light Infantry Loadbearing In Modern Warfare: A split from CTS Triumph


----------



## R031button (10 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm... If DLR wanted opinions on the TV, shouldn't they have been talking to the troops who have just come back from overseas deployment and have used the TV with the balistic protection vests?
> 
> Talking to 31 CBG reservists who mostly work in Canada and work with the vest alone, without anything else, will result in DLR not addressing recommendations from the people who really need em.
> 
> (PS - not dissing the reservists)



Sorry I should have specified, that's B Coy 1VP, I'm attached for TF 1-08. But agreed, they should be tlaking to returning, rahter than departing troops.


----------



## KevinB (10 Oct 2007)

R031 - DLR/CTS likes to show up pre tour and brief troops on their kit...
  They dont take feedback anyway - so they like to show up pre-deployment
*some do take feedback but are muzzled or ignored


----------



## MG34 (10 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Yup, reservists just coming off tour certainly do have opinions that mirror Reg force opinions
> It's just that you are not going to find a critical mass of cuirrent Afghan Roto experience in any one reserve rifle coy.
> 
> The tac vest alone is not much of a problem
> ...



Actually the Tav Vest is a problem , we do not wear it without ballistic protection even when training. It is a substandard piece of crap even without the farg vest and plates. The frag vest is a whole other matter that should be opened for debate.


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2007)

MG34
My intent was to suggest that the two should be looked at concurrently - not separately.

To date I have used 50s, 60s, 80s & 00 pattern webbing - they all have their problems.  Nothing is perfect... but considering some of the other systems out on the international market that come awful close, you would think CTS should be paying attention.


----------



## HItorMiss (10 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> MG34
> My intent was to suggest that the two should be looked at concurrently - not separately.
> 
> To date I have used 50s, 60s, 80s & 00 pattern webbing - they all have their problems.  Nothing is perfect... but considering some of the other systems out on the international market that come awful close,* you would think * CTS should be paying attention.



Thats the key eh Geo, clearly they don't or they do too much but regardless they haven't listened to us for some time.


----------



## MG34 (10 Oct 2007)

That would imply them actually doing their job and putting the soldier first. I know that they do not operate with unlimited resources and all that but how hard would it be to send one or two down to say the OTAB show or hell even SHOT show to see what is out there beyond the end of their noses.


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2007)

Ah well... guess some people are more motivated than others.

Lets get the CTS people to strap on the kit and go on mission (at the pointy end of things) for just one ROTO.

Must be dreaming again


----------



## KevinB (10 Oct 2007)

I'm all for sending them to AUSA, Modern Day Marine, TREXPO, and SHOT (and others) but it also needs to go hand in hand with units etc. taking a serious interest in bettering their kit etc.

  Its fine for the less than or equal to WO, and Capt and lower crowd to complain based on recent operations - but the CO's and CWO's need to start taking feedback from the troops and pushing it up.

Maybe instead of sending all the unti SNCO's and Officers golfing in the States for a leadership symposium (and yes I do knwo a LCol that did that) - send a few Pte/Cpl's with a Jack, Sgt,WO and two to three officers to the aforementioned shows to get ideas - and share info with other units.

  I still feel the unit level S7 cell run by a tech WO /Master Gunner is the way to run things...


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2007)

+1 I6 (though I've never been on that kind of junket)


----------



## McG (12 Oct 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> R031 - DLR/CTS likes to show up pre tour and brief troops on their kit...
> They dont take feedback anyway - so they like to show up pre-deployment
> *some do take feedback but are muzzled or ignored


DLR maintains a tech LO in theatre to feed back what works and what does not work with respect to kit & equipment.  On Monday, reps from DLR will be visiting Gagetown (I've been told they will be joined by folk from lessons learned) to get information fresh from 1-07.  I know it is a hobby for some to demonize DLR, but DLR is trying to listen.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ..  but the CO's and CWO's need to start taking feedback from the troops and pushing it up.


This is true. The requirements that the chain of command gets behind are moving rather quickly.  The quantity of UORs flowing into theatre shows this.


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2007)

Even the DLR guys that do listen (typically the Sgt/WO and Capt/Maj) get squashed by the seniors.
   I know several that beat their heads to a pulp.

and the tech LO's job should not be to tell people they are carrying to much ammo and water


----------

