# Need Help: Load Bearing Vest VS Webbing



## MPSHIELD (1 Feb 2003)

I recently acquired a CF load bearing vest (the OD ones like  overseas). I have not tried it in the field yet. I have a few questions about this vest. I have seen a lot of units having them now as to what looks as a standard issue even if they are not on operation. Do they get to keep them after tour or are they getting them issued? Some people seem to keep them and some turn them back in? I know some people even reserve members who didn‘t have to turn them in (forgot about them?) I would like some feedback to any member who has used them. I know it has good and bad points. from what I have heard they are
1) hot to wear in the summer (no breathing room)
2) the stitching come apart (heard as a rumor)
I would like to know everything there is to know about it....
All I know is that i like how it fits closer to your body and doesn‘t flap around like the webbing.

Any info would be helpful!


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Feb 2003)

In my opinion the 82 pattern webbing is better in a tacticle enviroment. 
Things i didn‘t like about the load bearing vests are that the two main pockets (largest) are located on your back, one being between your shoulder blades and totally inaccessable by yourself and the other one at the small of your back, barely a step easier. Having equipment in your back pockets also makes carrying a nuke bag or more importantly a ruck sack very uncomfortable.  Wearing them in the summer as you said is very warm.
The pockets for your C7 magazines on the LBV are very high and if you try and bring your C7 up to your shoulder to shoot you‘ll find the magazines get in the way and the butt slides off your shoulder and it seeds into your shoulder/bicep  very awkwardly.

I‘ve read that the guys in afganastan who wore them ended up regretting it as well.


----------



## IceHawk (2 Feb 2003)

The load bearing vests you‘re talking about were meant only to be a stop-gap measure.  The real test are the new Tactical Vests that are coming out.  They are supposed to make up for all the deficiencies of the current load bearing vest, 82 pattern webbing and then some.  I‘d like to know if anyone has managed to get their hands on the new TV‘s??  I‘d love to hear what you think of them.  Personally I didn‘t like to 82 pattern webbing simply because it never stayed in one spot and when you lay prone the mags were in a really awkward and sometimes painful position.  The bayonette would always get in the way too if I remember correctly.  I never had the opportunity of use the LBV but I heard they were better then the webbing.


----------



## MPSHIELD (3 Feb 2003)

Thanks for the info! I guess the Load Bearing Vest (LBV) and webbing depends on the tac situation or what environment you are in. Like the webbing i usually add a mag pouch or two , or an extra utility pouch depending on what i need. It is more versitile. But I don‘t like the "flopiness" of the webbing. Also even lowering your straps on the webbing for rucksack use does not help. Hope the new Tactical Vest (TV) solves most of these problems. 

Ghost778-thank you for the info regarding the magazines. I will now not have any surprises in the field regarding this. I guess the pockets, especialy the top one would be hard to access. HMm I‘m going to have to think about what i put in them for immediate access.

IceHawk- I realize the LBV is only interm. But I‘m sure it will be years before we see the new TV. Yes the Webbing doesn‘t stay in one spots. That‘s for sure. It  bugs the heck out of me. 

Conclusion: we are screwed either way because it depends on what you do. Personaly i think the army should come up with 2-3 versions of webbing or Load bearing vest or chest rigs so you can customize for you trade, whether you are mounted vs dismounted or mission. 

Well lets hope the TV is way better and solves those problems. Thanks for the help!

P.S. has anyone heard about the durability of the LBV? I heard the LBV of some guys in Afganastan were falling apart from the sticthing! Not sure on that one.


----------



## IceHawk (3 Feb 2003)

If you go to the Clothe the Soldier project website, it says that the TV has been put into production so someone has to have them by now right???


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Feb 2003)

I used the new tacticle assault vest for a few weeks during some user trials. This was actually the TAV that was set to come out before all the cadpat came into play. (Also used the new generation flack vest, very cool. Very flexable and discreet) It seemed pretty cool at the time because it was new. One of the major things i didn‘t like about it was that it seemed to have a weird amount of velcro straps and fasteners.
The new TAV looks pretty cool too but i don‘t think it‘s intended to be used by the combat arms (or maybe just infantry) in a "war fighting" role. Just think. You would be diving down and crawling around on your chest with a soft layer of 30 round magazines and grenades between you and the rocks. I still can‘t wait to get one issued and play around with it though, i hope those and the new ruck sacks are out for roto 13.

As for your ruck sack not fitting with the webbing when you throw your ruck on try taking everything out of your butt pack and putting it in the top of your ruck OR get an A-frame and either make a jump ruck set up or just string your old ruck sack bag onto the new (old) A-frame. I guarentee it will fit better 100%.  even with a fully loaded butt pack.


----------



## Cdn Soldier (3 Feb 2003)

The Inf BG on Roto 12 is getting the new vest.  Just the BG not the WOGs.

As for "acquiring" and then actually using something you haven‘t been issued, all I can say is I hope your Pl WO proves to you the adage of a fool and his money.  Being able to buy it at Billy Bobs Surplus doesn‘t mean you‘re entitled to wear it.   Same goes for the LCF kit the various unit kit-shops sell to part the troopie from their hard earned coin.   Had a guy running around on Garrison with a knock-off CADPAT fleece touque the other day.  Watching him trying to figure out how to get back to shacks after I set him straight was priceless.

Call me crusty, but if the CF wanted you to have it, you would have been issued it.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Feb 2003)

> The Inf BG on Roto 12 is getting the new vest. Just the BG not the WOGs.


  



> As for "acquiring" and then actually using something you haven‘t been issued, all I can say is I hope your Pl WO proves to you the adage of a fool and his money. Being able to buy it at Billy Bobs Surplus doesn‘t mean you‘re entitled to wear it. Same goes for the LCF kit the various unit kit-shops sell to part the troopie from their hard earned coin.


This does raise a good point; each unit and subunit has varying standards on this - always best to check with your bosses before using privately purchased kit.



> Had a guy running around on Garrison with a knock-off CADPAT fleece touque the other day. Watching him trying to figure out how to get back to shacks after I set him straight was priceless.


I believe it was Napoleon, or perhaps Winston Churchill (?) that was of the opinion that belittling a junior rank could only be fulfilling if you bragged about it publicly afterwards and made the miscreant a subject of open ridicule.  Well done.  Could you post his name and SN for us, too, just to complete the picture?  You may want to embellish the story a bit for future tellings, though, it will make you come off all the better.  A couple of suggestions: mention that the guy was a Militia loser, and that you made him cry, or even better, cry AND piss his pants.  The other lifers in the office will love it so much, they‘ll probably let you win the next couple of games of euchre out of sheer respect.



> Call me crusty, but if the CF wanted you to have it, you would have been issued it.


Don‘t know about crusty, but given your comments above, a couple of other appelations come to mind.

Some historical examples of the bankruptcy of your "logic" do present themselves.

The CADPAT issue to soldier in Afghanistan has been discussed to death, and I feel that the matter was overblown.  But while the green stuff was probably not wildly inappropriate for the majority of troops there (as has been demonstrated on this board, and elsewhere), I think you might agree that the lack of tan coloured clothing for the snipers was an instance in which a soldier might be excused for not wearing his basic issue?

Private Smokey Smith armed himself with a Thompson submachine gun in the autumn of 1944; during the fighting following the crossing of the Savio, he singlehandedly fought off a platoon of German infantry and a column of vehicles, including PzKpfw V "Panthers".  He stated in a recent TV interview that had he been carrying his issued weapon - the bolt action Lee Enfield - he would have been killed that night.  Instead, he survives today as our sole living VC recipient.

Canadian troops in Korea routinely outfitted themselves with American weapons (at one point, a battalion of RCR serving in theatre had about 50 percent of its issue replaced by US weapons, though maybe Art Johnson can correct me on that).  The bolt action Lee Enfield was again seen as inadequate to the task.

More recent, peacetime, examples show up too.  The popularity of the 64 pattern rucksack vice the newer 82 pattern is nothing new.

My unit issued out the universal pouches of the 51 Pattern web gear as an addition to the standard 82 pattern gear to all the riflemen; issue stopped once all the 51 pattern ("Bren Gun") pouches had fallen apart.  They were popular, and endorsed by the unit as an official supplement to the basic issue.

Just because someone writes something down in a regulation, doesn‘t mean it is the God‘s truth about what should or should not be done.

Your way of thinking manifested itself in 1914 - when stuffy British colonels objected to the addition of machineguns to their war establishment, saying it threw off the balance of firepower in front line units!

So please spare us your stories of false heroics just because you yelled at some poor ******* for taking the intiiative to outfit himself with a camouflage garment.  If your point was simply that he should not have been wearing an unauthorized toque in garrison, so be it, but the schadenfreude at having rattled the kid to the point he didn‘t know how to walk back to his shack really doesn‘t seem consistent with the basic tenets of professionalism.  If you don‘t have anything better to do with your time than stress out your subordinates and then brag about it on the internet, I would suggest that is a far more important issue than what some stranger is wearing on his head.

Canadian soldiers have always shown themselves adaptive to their environment, and with their kit, and restricting soldiers from adopting kit extra to their issue card - within reason - seems short-sighted and unnecessary at best, and at worst could have fatal consequences should personal initiative be stifled to increasing degrees as a result of petty actions like this.


----------



## MPSHIELD (4 Feb 2003)

Well gee... what have i started....I never said i bought it. I got it of of a friend who was in the regs and the reserves who cleared out of the forces all together. For some reason when he returned all his kit he did not have to turn in his vest. I‘m guessing that he got it issued in Edmonton or overseas. He even has his Gore tex stuff. He asked to turn it in and they said if it is not on your clothing docs i don‘t want to see it. As for using it. There is always ennemy force. I also don‘t think my PL WO would mind. But if he does...I don‘t care no loss. The LBV was not replacing my webbing. I just wanted to try it out. 

Ghost778-Thanks for the info. I will try the webbing ruck combo. I have tried a slight variation on that before. Also thanks for the news on the TV or TAV. I just hope the velcro last a long time in the field.

Cdn Soldier-I think this was taken out of perspective. It is a LBV CF issued for operations...I‘m not talking about american or civillian made kit. All I wanted to do was to try a CF piece of issued kit (albeit operation kit) for one day in he field and not prance around a base with a unauthorized piece of kit. There is a difference.Beside many soldiers that have it still use it.

Michael Dorosh-I agree with your comments


----------



## onecat (4 Feb 2003)

As for this

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Had a guy running around on Garrison with a knock-off CADPAT fleece touque the other day. Watching him trying to figure out how to get back to shacks after I set him straight was priceless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would have to agree that you have lost your bearing, knocking someone down so you can feel good; doesn‘t give you any respect.  Making someone so stressed that he couldn‘t find the way back.... is just wronng.  What point do you think that made on him; he mostly thought you were a jerk, and that army doesn‘t care.  So maybe he will quit, and what would prove.


----------



## IceHawk (4 Feb 2003)

There was an article last year, I‘ll see if I can find it, that talked about one Canadian soldier in Afganistan who took the desert cam net he was issued and sewed it into a wearable garment.  His CO thought it was such a good idea that he requested Ottawa to make and issue these en-masse to the rest of the unit as a stop-gap until the new combats came.  It never happened but at least he wasn‘t dumped on for creativly addressing shortfalls in the CF‘s issued kit.  Let‘s face it, the CF doesn‘t always issued what is really needed so it would be naive to assume that if the CF didn‘t issue it then it wasn‘t important.


----------



## Cdn Soldier (5 Feb 2003)

Mike:  Wow...quite the response there.  Since you trumped my tired old adage with a non-researched, almost a quote from Napoleon or was it Churchhill...maybe Currie, just for some Can Con..., anyways, some maybe famous guy in history said something kind of along those lines, obviously you win.  Not that it really matters much since your rant was totally off the mark.  You made quite a few assumptions in there and, to pull out yet another tired old adage, we all know what happens when you assume something.  

As for the rest of your post, the telling comment is  _"Just because someone writes something down in a regulation, doesn‘t mean it is the God‘s truth about what should or should not be done."_  Really? You mean the Army is just a bunch of people doing what they want, when they want, how they want, dressed in whatever they feel like??  Oh right, I forgot we‘re in the feel good Army where the individual comes before the whole.  Guess we might as well scrap the whole rule book, from the NDA on down.  Additionally, supporting someone wearing a non-issue head dress in Garrison, or an "acquired" piece of kit on a peacetime Ex, with a few poignant war time examples brings tears to my eyes, although it‘s comparing apples to oranges to watermelons.  Hmm...that‘s three, no wait, four! four! muahahaha!, tired old adages now...does that beat a sort of remembered kind of quote by someone who might have been famous?  Bueller...Bueller...?

I‘d also like to address yours, and others, wild interpretation of my comment  _"Had a guy running around on Garrison with a knock-off CADPAT fleece touque the other day. Watching him trying to figure out how to get back to shacks after I set him straight was priceless."_  Not really quite sure how setting someone straight becomes calling him out in front of the parade followed by a verbal thrashing the likes he and his Militia chums have never seen, which left him crying in his boots and wanting to go home to his dear ma-ma, if he could only remember where she lived, never to be seen in the Queens uniform again, prefaced by a visit to the Harassment Advisor on the way out the door of course...oh, and did I forget to mention that I made him eat the touque?, thereby cementing my reputation as the biggest jerk since Steve Martin was The Jerk.  Next time I‘ll make sure I draw the picture with the extra large crayons so even I can understand it, just to make sure I don‘t get accused of harassing someone to the point of suicide.   The reality of the situation, for those sitting on the edges of their seats, was the individual, a Reg Force Cpl (gasp! Not a Militia guy?!) recently attach posted, arrived at a location on Garrison wearing a non-issue item of apparel he‘d bought at a unit kit-shop.  "Setting him straight" was a quiet word prior to lunch as to what was and was not approved dress, followed by a brief chuckle to myself as he then tried to sort out which was the best course of action; marching back to shacks without headdress or with what he now recognized to be unauthorized headdress.  Oh, for the faint of heart, fear not!  One of his friends had both a beret and an issue touque, which he was kind enough to lend our hapless Cpl.  Now, one could posit that when a reader doesn‘t have all the facts, the reader would have a tendancy to assume that the course of action taken by the person in the situation would be the same one the reader would take in a similar situation.  But then again, that‘s learned person, universitimity sycologie type stuff...way beyond what a simple soldier would ever think about and would also imply things I would never think of implying.

Lastly, glad to see maintaining and enforcing discipline is now considered to be a petty action.  Makes my chest swell with pride to see how far the Scout Troop...err...Army has come in the last decade or so.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Feb 2003)

I do like your sig:

"Cajones are useful for their purpose but they are no substitute for brains."

I don‘t think anyone doubts you acted properly, given your full explanation, nor would anyone champion the rights of the troop to wear non-regulation stuff in garrison. Given your one-liner about how amused you were at the spectacle you let us create in our minds, though, if you are honestly going to have us believe that your wording wasn‘t done to convey exactly what we (wasn‘t just me, as the comments above show) assumed, then I apologize.

Granted, the examples of non-regulation kit being used they were extreme.  But do you actually feel that common sense, applied in moderation - peacetime or not -  is really that much at odds with maintaining "good order and discipline"?  Maybe I‘m reading too much into your comments - it seemed like you had made a sweeping "use only what you‘re issued" remark.  Reminds me of (apocryphal?) stories of a 1 CMBG commander who would fine troops for wearing non regulation underwear.  Is this the old Army you would prefer to belong to?   Where would you draw the line?


----------



## combat_medic (5 Feb 2003)

I think the idea everyone was trying to get across by this thread was; wear non-issue kit if you want, but at your own peril.

The example of the Cadpat toque was just the consequences of getting caught with it, when you weren‘t supposed to have it in the first place. I don‘t think he was intending to be overtly malicious, but mentioning why you shouldn‘t do it.

That being said, there are often new troops in my unit who try to show up wearing non-issue kit (desert boots, british cam, tactical vests, danners etc.) and then it‘s a huge surprise that they get jacked up for it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2003)

I‘ve watched one of the smartest  men I have ever met quit the military over something kinda like this;

Had about 7 or 8 years in the military. He was a corporal, never went for his JLC because he simply could not get time off work. He came into work for a week-end excersise wearing desert boots (which he was issued over seas) and he was jacked up by a sargeant for wearing them. Not just a regular "don‘t wear that" but a real "Everyone in the armories has to hear me im a sargeant and im jacking someone up" line. Moments later a warrant officer walked by wearing desert boots. When the sargeant was asked how it was fair that he was unable to wear issued boots and the warrant was allowed to wear them he was told "because your just a corporal". He walked out and never came back.
I can see trying to keep a standard in garrison. If you let too many things go it will get out of hand. I guess it‘s a case by case basis though. However if the standard only applies to certian ranks like in my example then I figure it‘s a farce to try and maintain a pesudo standard.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (6 Feb 2003)

How do you wear deset boots (regardless of issue or not) if you‘re not in the desert? If your regs authorize the wear of desert boots anywhere/anytime then the sgt was wrong. Now anyone who shows up wearing British stuff...hey, wrong country numbnuts. BTW, what‘s wrong with Danners?

In any case, I‘m still laughing over ‘touque.‘


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Feb 2003)

We use the desert boots when its really hot out regardless of actual desert or not. (I have a picture of them in my profile pic of your interested. Very comfortable-very ugly). I honestly have no idea why it‘s usually made into such an issue. In most cases i‘ve seen people are told if your not on an operation then your not allowed wearing it which i‘ve always found as silly.It‘s issued after all right?  I think it would be cool (ha little pun for ya) to wear them in garrison but I can understand them not being allowed. I really don‘t see the point in not letting troops wear them on excersise though unless its a matter of someone saying "Well I don‘t have a pair of those so no one else will wear them"


----------



## combat_medic (6 Feb 2003)

Well, Danners aren‘t "supposed" to be worn unless you have a chit, but you can usually get away with it. As far as the field, you can get away with a lot, but if you‘re a brand new recruit and you think you can show up looking like gi-joe, you‘ll usually get your nuts slapped. Once you‘re trained, it‘s different, but as a new guy, you have to at least learn to conform to the standard before you can break it.

And as for desert boots, this kid was an idiot: tried to wear them on a range ex where it was really rainy (outside Vancouver no less). After me and others jacked him for even owning a pair (he had been in for about 3 months at the time... we knew they weren‘t issue), we all got a good laugh out of the deal. I think he was just trying to look cool, but ended up making a fool of himself.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (6 Feb 2003)

Does it really matter if the gear is actually issued to the soldier? I mean, as long as it is issue gear (i.e. authorized) who cares if the government paid for it of the soldier paid for it? Down here, you only get your initial issue free, after that you have to buy any new stuff, so it doesn‘t matter if you bought it or had it issued to you, as long as what ever it is is within regs. For instance. Joe can‘t show up wearing desert boots, even if he just got back from the ‘Stan and they were issued, because we are not in a desert and they are not authorized. But if PFC Joe who just got back from Basic wants to wear Jungle boots, he can. Obviously he didn‘t get them issued, but they are authorized. Heck if PV1 Joe who hasn‘t even been to Basic wants to show up in a full set of BDU‘s he bought himself, I ain‘t gonna jack him up, I‘d applaud his initiative. The point of all this is: isn‘t more important if something is within regs than who paid for it?

BTW, US soldiers can wear Danners, not only because they look just like the issue Matterhorns, but AR 670-1 (Wear and Appearance of the Army Uniform) simply states that boots will be, "Black leather with a plain or capped toe." It further states that jungle boots are authorized, and steel toes are not. Otherwise, that‘s the standard. Don‘t you guys have uniform regs?


----------



## DnA (6 Feb 2003)

I saw a Sgt in the RWR wearing dessie boots like a while ago, at their Armouries, it was like Oct or somthin, 2001


----------

