# Helmet Visor



## HItorMiss (28 May 2007)

Anyone else see that ridiculous visor to be mounted on the helmet now???

If not read the most current Maple Leaf. There is a quote from some Sgt about how he would definitely wear this contraption on his head if he was going to Afghanistan. You know what I wanna know? When did DLR ask us the actual people that have to wear this retarded thing if we would wear it, cause so far the answer is uniformly for them to take that thing and a ha and go fornicate!


EDIT: To include link to Maple Leaf Online (Vol 10 issue 14 is the one)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/index_e.asp


----------



## armyvern (28 May 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Anyone else see that rediculous visor to be mounted on the helmet now???



This one??    It's been on the CTS Web-site for years now.







CTS Web-site Link


----------



## HItorMiss (28 May 2007)

Yes that is the one, though the article if you read it does make it sound like a new initiative and precurement. Regarless it is just one more useless POS article from DLR that I will likely get charged for refusing to wear.


----------



## armyvern (28 May 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Yes that is the one, though the article if you read it does make it sound like a new initiative and precurement. Regarless it is just one more useless POS article from DLR that I will likely get charged for refusing to wear.



The trials were done. They have just awarded the contract for it's provision (included on the CTS link that I included below) so the procurement stage itself is a new initive for this item. Sad fact is, they shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody...the info has been out for years that it was coming. Apparently it did _extremely_ well at DRDC ballistic trials as well.


----------



## McG (28 May 2007)

I suspect it is not MNVG compatable.


----------



## Farmboy (28 May 2007)

$20 says they still make you wear your ballistic eyeware with it just like the picture


----------



## HItorMiss (28 May 2007)

It in fact says to be worn in conjunction with the BEW.......


----------



## medaid (28 May 2007)

huh... waste of time and equipment. Honestly, if they really wanted to create something with more blast protection, they should've extended the visor and made it into a full face shield.... but then again, who'd wear it anyways?


----------



## seamus (28 May 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> huh... waste of time and equipment. Honestly, if they really wanted to create something with more blast protection, they should've extended the visor and made it into a full face shield.... but then again, who'd wear it anyways?


There are many ways in which the military wastes money and I think they have found another. In Afghanistan that would have been another piece of kit buried in the big green car.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2007)

seamus and others

Some of your comments make me wonder what you would wear in combat.  Would you be wearing gloves or leaving them behind while outside the wire in Afghanistan?  Would you be taking off a few layers of clothes while inside your LAV outside the wire?

Just wondering if you have heard of the term "Degloving"?


----------



## Sig_Des (28 May 2007)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> $20 says they still make you wear your ballistic eyeware with it just like the picture



Double or nothing, they make us start wearing it for ball hockey tournaments, too.


----------



## Testify (28 May 2007)

And I thought they were just trying to make the soldiers overseas more safe.  Do you guys remove your vests while overseas as well?


----------



## HItorMiss (28 May 2007)

Testify said:
			
		

> And I thought they were just trying to make the soldiers overseas more safe.  Do you guys remove your vests while overseas as well?



Who are you and what do you know?

GW:
As for what I wear outside the wire, I wear my body armour (sans useless shoulder pad's) my non issue chest rig, My eye protection and flame retardant gloves. I assume the risk involved in my job and what could occur because of what I do or do not wear. I know my job is dangerous and it means that there is risk I mitigate as much as possible with the kit I am given but I must be effective in my job and with some of the stuff they make us wear it's just not practical.


----------



## Sig_Des (28 May 2007)

Testify said:
			
		

> And I thought they were just trying to make the soldiers overseas more safe.  Do you guys remove your vests while overseas as well?



Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?

You know, sometimes we remove them to catch some rays. What the hell kind of question is that?


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2007)

No offence HoM, but perhaps some of the Medical types ought to wade in and explain some of the castrophic affects on the body if unprotected by protective clothing......such as what "degloving" is and when it can happen.  You have seen the affects in IED strikes and other 'explosive events'.  Looking cool and/or trying to stay cool can kill you.


----------



## HItorMiss (28 May 2007)

GW no offense at all and I know what Degloving is and I assume you have the new frag vest so you know as well as I how little use the shoulder pads are. Everything else I wear is extra protection none of it is LCF though I do buy things that I think look good as well as protect me from threats.

As for cooling down only under armour cover and only when in a static secured postion.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> ................ I assume you have the new frag vest so you know as well as I how little use the shoulder pads are. ............



Well, they still will provide a medic a stump onto which he could apply a TQ.


----------



## HItorMiss (28 May 2007)

GW, are you forgeting where is I got hit? no I am not being condensending or anythign I'm just asking.

Nothing those things on the vest would have or will do would have changed that. Also very few injuries on a battle field will cause the nature of injury your describing, though traumatic amputations are more likely these again would not be stopped by 2 snaps and some velcro.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2007)

HoM

We have wandered way off topic......I started a topic in the Medical forums for the medically inclined to expand on.


----------



## HItorMiss (28 May 2007)

Rgr.

But I still stand by what I wore and will wear outside the wire.


----------



## darmil (29 May 2007)

I seen that issue on the visor looks completely retarded. My god the person who authorized these things for issue should get the old throat punch.I agree the shoulder pads are useless.What load bearing rig do you have HitorMiss. I'm trying to figure out a good one to purchase?


----------



## HItorMiss (29 May 2007)

I used a rig locally purchased from a rigger. In fact if you contact "riggermade" from this site he would be a good contact. It seemed to work failry well in the eyes of others as GO!!!! is now running my old rig.

but enough of the highjacking.


----------



## MG34 (29 May 2007)

A ballistic visor indeed...so are we to flip that thing up when we shoot, or take if off to fire the Carl G or M72?? Do LAV crews have to wear it, and can they flip it up to get their faces into their sights? How do I wear my MNVG with it? Score anotherone  for the CTS crew :


----------



## geo (29 May 2007)

If we are expected to do internal security with batons, shields & the like, I can see some applications for the darned thing but............


----------



## Yeoman (29 May 2007)

the only time I found any use for it was during cco training. but it's like anything else we've gotten that's visor/glasses wise. scratches WAY to easily. I had one paintball hit my mask and the thing was scratched horribly. the way it got connected to the helmet (at least for when I've used it) it tended to not actually stay on my helmet any time you tried to flip it up, you would also have to put down force on the part that clipped onto the helmet or it would pull right off.


----------



## geo (29 May 2007)

Yeoman,
You talking about the real deal - actual visor for the CTS program? or something that was purchased localy?


----------



## Testify (29 May 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?
> You know, sometimes we remove them to catch some rays. What the hell kind of question is that?



It wasn't to be taken seriously.  Just, they issue you vest to protect you.  They issue these new visors to protect you.  Just wanting to know the difference?



			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Who are you and what do you know?



I'm a civilian.  Doesn't matter who I am.  I have enough intelligence to understand what these people are trying to do to protect you guys, and hopefully soon me.


----------



## Yeoman (29 May 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Yeoman,
> You talking about the real deal - actual visor for the CTS program? or something that was purchased localy?



now this is where I'm just assuming. When I was doing riot training about a year and a half ago, they gave us full kit and kaboodle. this visor on the website, and the one I used looked very similar. so I'm just going that it is the same. No one said that is was part of CTS, but no one didn't say it wasn't either. wasn't something I was thinking of asking at the time. I was more interested in my foam baton and hitting guys in the shins (what? I'm young and stupid)


----------



## Big Red (29 May 2007)

Alot of units in Iraq have been using the face shields for the last couple years. I talked to a few guys and they seem to like them. They commented that most of the time their ballistic eye wear was being thrown off by IED blasts, so at least with the visor they had double protection.  Obviously it's only the guy in the turret who is wearing the face shield.  The American one is quick release and you can remove it from your helmet in about 1 second if it's getting in the way.

WRT to shoulder pads, there are good ones out there. When I go as gunner I sometimes wear DBT ones that are rated to 7.62.

For convoy ops I see the usefulness of this type of gear, but for offensive operations it limits your mobility.


----------



## medaid (29 May 2007)

Testify said:
			
		

> I'm a civilian.  Doesn't matter who I am.  I have enough intelligence to understand what these people are trying to do to protect you guys, and hopefully soon me.



You're right it doesn't matter who you are. However, intelligence or not, you have not served, and have not used the equipment we are talking about. The CTS programs have come out with more defective kit then any of us would like to see ever again in our lives. The fact that CTS has not listened to a single thing that the end users, meaning WE who wear the uniform and use the equipment have not given us much faith in the program and the kit that the produce. 

Sure they're trying to protect us. However, their designs, material and ideas are so out of date, that by the time it actually gets to the troops in the front lines, or the line units, they have become close to obsolete. 

I'm glad that you are attempting to join up. We always need more soldiers. However, until you've got some experience, please refrain from making comments that would be construded the wrong way. If you've got questions, feel free to ask them. But, ask them in a matter that will not cause people to jump on you. 

This site is a great place to get information. At the same time, keep in mind where you are. This is not a blog site. This is Milnet.ca.


----------



## McG (29 May 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> it is just one more useless POS article from DLR


Well, it provides protection to more of your face than ballistic eye wear & it looks like it will stop things that might just sail through the glasses.  I'd not count that useless.

It probably does have more than its share of limitations.  I can't see it being compatible with MNVG or the C79 scope.  However, worn by the rear sentry in a LAV who has a weapon with EOTech sight, this visor could save lives limit/avoid injuries.  If it has quick detach, it does not even have to leave the vehicle.

Based on not much more than a picture, many people have found it easy  to simply dismiss the idea.  I saw 1 CMBG soldiers trialling this about a year ago.  It might be nice to hear from someone that has actually had hands on the kit.


----------



## KevinB (29 May 2007)

It may look gay -- but its pretty common in Iraq for the turret gunners.

  Frankly I wear a lot of kit that I think is not exactly the top of the fashion world -- but if it works wear it.  I'm not a big fan of a lot of the DLR/CTS stuff -- but I think this has a use.  
 -- more than some other kit I would have pushed thru the system, no (but thats another story)


----------



## HItorMiss (29 May 2007)

Though I see limited use for AS pers in the LAV and the CC as well what I fear and I believe rightly so is a wide sweeping general issuance and order to be worn by all pers. I well and truly believe that it would/will hinder a dismounted soldier from carrying out his duties for a number of reasons not the least of which is getting proper eye relief with the optical sight and the EOTECH sight. MCG hate to burst your bubble but the avg AS scratch that, almost all AS's are using the C79 for the simple reason that they may have to engage at a distance and not just close to the vehicle (think RPG gunner stepping out at 200m from an alleyway).


----------



## KevinB (29 May 2007)

Its easy enough to hit with an EOTECH at 200m -- learn to shoot  >
Frankly rolling in the bad of a moving LAV - shooting beyond CQB distance is an excersise in making yourself feel better -- but all in all diminishing your ammo for no good use.

I do however share your feer that some ASSININE order will come out that in order to increase soldier safety  : that the blast visor must be worn at all times outside the wire...


----------



## geo (29 May 2007)

Huh.... assinine orders?.... nope, none here.... at least not lately...

Stand-by!..... uhhhh...... uh-oh!   BOHICA!


----------



## HItorMiss (29 May 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Its easy enough to hit with an EOTECH at 200m -- learn to shoot  >



Who said I couldn't hit  ;D, I was more thinking the avg guy with 2 days on the range a year.....



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Frankly rolling in the back of a moving LAV - shooting beyond CQB distance is an excises in making yourself feel better -- but all in all diminishing your ammo for no good use.



Though I semi agree a few close rounds might spook the aim if fired first and a few rounds down range are better then no rounds when your staring at an RPG that's my philosophy anyway.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I do however share your fear that some ASSININE order will come out that in order to increase soldier safety : that the blast visor must be worn at all times outside the wire...



I think it's probably the most common fear across the board and ranks.


----------



## medaid (29 May 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Who said I couldn't hit  ;D, I was more thinking the avg guy with 2 days on the range a year.....



Hey! Not fair! I can hit JUST fine!  ;D When I aim at Tgt #2 both 3&7 each gets two rounds into em. Good eh?  ;D


----------



## Big Red (29 May 2007)

Has anybody welded on pintle mounts for the air sentries so they can have a c6 or c9 mounted? It's pretty common to see multiple 240s on the back of the Strykers.


----------



## HItorMiss (29 May 2007)

Not that I have seen BR, but the new armour package might have something like that I don't know for sure.


----------



## Yeoman (29 May 2007)

Big Red said:
			
		

> Has anybody welded on pintle mounts for the air sentries so they can have a c6 or c9 mounted? It's pretty common to see multiple 240s on the back of the Strykers.



I've been saying I'll be doing that for weeks now. though I'm a driver. so I've still got to figure out a way to acquire one of them systems like in the apahces you know? move your head, that's where the boom stick goes. what? it'll work


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2007)

FWIW Athena Roto 0-1-2 and probably more suggested the pintel mount for the rear of the LAV -- My guess it the sorta thing a Pl WO has to do -- then present it and say -- look at us we built this -- now build more.

I guess others where busy ignoring this idea by ensuring that the TacVest was worn by everyone


----------



## TheHead (30 May 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FWIW Athena Roto 0-1-2 and probably more suggested the pintel mount for the rear of the LAV -- My guess it the sorta thing a Pl WO has to do -- then present it and say -- look at us we built this -- now build more.
> 
> I guess others where busy ignoring this idea by ensuring that the TacVest was worn by everyone



haha +1

Now instead of TacVests it's "Make sure your boots are bloused during fire fights troops".


----------



## aesop081 (30 May 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Who said I couldn't hit  ;D



....or get hit



(someone had to say it)


----------



## Gramantik (12 Jun 2007)

My only question is how do you shoot properly with the visor down.  It would seem that when you try to get a proper cheek wield on the stock the visor would get in the way.  Or am I missing something?

Les


----------



## josh (12 Jun 2007)

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=1891


----------



## geo (12 Jun 2007)

well.... from my perspective, the darned things will get issued, troops will use em and, either discard them OR continue to use em......

Time will tell.


----------



## McG (13 Jun 2007)

"less than 5 min" to attach is long enough to be inconvenient, and the swing up position is certainly not MNVG compatible.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 Jun 2007)

Now now...stop making sense..


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (13 Jun 2007)

TheHead said:
			
		

> haha +1
> 
> Now instead of TacVests it's "Make sure your boots are bloused during fire fights troops".



This is no joke!
I was On a foot Patrol...When over the PR, one of the IC's told one of his guys to stop and Blouse his boots before going any further, this was in the middle of a Long range Patrol in a Fairly Populated Town, With roughly 15-20 taliban in our area from what we were told.  I couldnt belive what I heard, and that is another reason this army needs to get with the Times, and get rid of the dinasaurs!


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2007)

*CDN*Blackhawk said:
			
		

> This is no joke!
> ........................................... and that is another reason this army needs to get with the Times, and get rid of the dinasaurs!



I have to take exception to your statement and disagree strongly with your point of view.  The Army doesn't need to get rid of the dinosaurs.........It has to get rid of the anal rententive Idiots that it has managed to promote into leadership positions and who make comments like those you used as an example.  Many 'Dinosaurs' are quite adaptive and intuitive and have done variations on the themes you have yet to learn.  Many of them have adapted and continue to think outside of the box.  It is the Brown Nosing Snives who have been such a bane on the system, by rising several ranks above their abilities, that are the problem.   These idiots are a total waste of rations.  I have met many 'screamers' lately, who fit that category, and they are under 25 years of age.   ;D

So, if you would like to clarify your statement a little more..........feel free.


----------



## KevinB (13 Jun 2007)

George -- we use the term Dinosaur, dont feel bad 
- we only think your a caveman  ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 Jun 2007)

I thought we had Kafasauruses?


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (13 Jun 2007)

your right george!, not all the old timers are Bad, infact their are some who are very good and have adapted, However A good number are still refusing to get with the times....And these are the "dinosaur's" i am talking about, Like you said The Anal retentive ones!!!


----------



## KevinB (14 Jun 2007)

CdnBlackhawk -- roger that was the point I was trying to make

Simply due to time in does not make one a Dinosaur -- its the refusal to adapt to combat realities...

  There are some young dinosaurs around too.
Fortunately the adaptive Caveman WO can slay the young Dino with his spear and the use of his most recent invention "fire"


----------



## mover1 (14 Jun 2007)

Here is the reason on why we do the stupid things we do.

Backin 1919 a fellow by the name of McLennan got promoted.

You see there were these two guys one named McLennan and one named Maclennan.

Maclennan was a vet of the great war. A real sound guy with experience both in the trenches and in the rear. He knew how the system worked and what didn't work. A forward thinker by far he was in the midst of trying to change the military and its archaic  traditions. He knew the only way to survive in was to be adaptable.

McLennan on the other hand was a rat bastard brown nosing sniv. He followed the rules administratively and was a micromanager extraordinaire. His war service saw him go to England where he served his time in various HQ's blading and sucking his way through life .

One day  around the officers tent it was discussed that the troubles of the great war were not finished and the Army would need leaders, great leaders to shape the military for the future conflict to come. They sat around and pondered and prodded.

Maclennan was the choice of men to promote he was a forward thinker with sound ideas and common sense.

The orders were drawn up, messages were typed and due to a clerical error McLennan  was promoted. 
First thing Mclennan did was Promote some of his rat bastard buddies and they in turn did the same. This carried on throughout the history of the CF.

Now remember to blouse you boots MR and wear your hockey mask!


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jun 2007)

mover1

I personally use that old VO5 commercial as an anecdote:  "......And I told two friends,and they told two friends,and they told two friends, and........." as to how we came to be the way we are.   

.....then again, who remembers that commercial.................or has even seen it?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Jun 2007)

Sometimes I hear the good old "we've always done it that way".. I love to ask the question "why?" and see what answers people can provide me.  Usually silences a crowd real quick.

We have a "back door" at the regiment.  No one is allowed to use it, no one knows why but if anyone sees you using it you get in trouble.  It is actually on the front of the building and opens up to the other regiments, saving time if you have to go to them or even to the shacks on base, but it will NOT be used.  Weird.


----------



## Armynewsguy (25 Jun 2007)

Here is a link to the video story on the ballistic visor it may help explain a bit more of what is intended for the equipment.

http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1_1.asp?id=2039


Armynewsguy


----------



## Bzzliteyr (25 Jun 2007)

What's the cutout in the nasal area for?? I mean the visor sits so far off the head that it doesn't need a slit for a nose.


----------



## medaid (25 Jun 2007)

Ya Bzz that looked kinda weird. I thought the whole point was to completely cover the eyes and the noes? The nose slit looked kind of redundant...


----------



## Big Red (26 Jun 2007)

Another shoddy design brought to you by the rocket scientists at Clothe the Soldier.


----------



## JSR OP (26 Jun 2007)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Sometimes I hear the good old "we've always done it that way".. I love to ask the question "why?" and see what answers people can provide me.  Usually silences a crowd real quick.
> 
> We have a "back door" at the regiment.  No one is allowed to use it, no one knows why but if anyone sees you using it you get in trouble.  It is actually on the front of the building and opens up to the other regiments, saving time if you have to go to them or even to the shacks on base, but it will NOT be used.  Weird.



This reminds me of a story one of my Cpls told me.  It sort of goes like this:

An Experiment was conducted at some university, where they took 5 monkeys and put them in a cage with a metal floor.  In this cage was a wooden staircase, and at the top of the staircase was a basket full of bananas. Now the monkeys would see the bananas, go up the stairs, and eat the bananas.

After a couple of weeks, the staircase was fitted with an electrical switch on the top step, and wired to the floor.  When a monkey stood on the top step to eat the banana, the electrical circuit was closed, and the other four monkeys in the cage were electrocuted.  

After about two weeks, the monkeys knew not to go eat the bananas!  In fact, they stayed away from the staircase all together.  The electrical power was disconnected, but the monkeys still wouldn’t go for the bananas. 

Once the monkeys wouldn’t go near the staircase, the researchers removed one of the monkeys from the cage and replaced him with another one.  This monkey had never been electrocuted, so it didn’t know any  better.  It saw the bananas at the top of the staircase and decided to go have one.

Well, that monkey didn’t make it up two steps, when the other monkeys in the cage grabbed him, through him down on the floor of the cage and beat the crap out of him!  This went on for about three days.  After that, the new monkey didn’t go near the stairs for fear of being beaten again!

Another of the original monkeys was replaced and again, the new monkey of the group saw the bananas, tried to climb the stairs to have one, and he was beaten by the other four!  After about 4 days, this new monkey wouldn’t go near the stairs either.

Over time, this same scenario was played out until all the original monkeys were replaced with new monkeys who had never been electrocuted.  And every time one of the new monkeys would see the bananas and try to climb the stairs, he would then have the crap beaten out if him.  None of the monkeys had any knowledge of the electrocutions that occurred with the original monkeys, but they continued to beat the crap out of each other for trying to go up the stairs to the bananas

So, the moral of the story is, when people ask why things are done they way the are?  The answer is “Because that’s just the way its F#*kin’ Done!”


----------



## josh (26 Jun 2007)

Armynewsguy,

Too slow.  Scroll up and you'll see I posted the same link about two weeks ago.  These things always look good in a sterile environment like an armouries.  Perhaps the story would have been more effective had it actually be shot in the "field", and interviews done with the troops using it.


----------



## TN2IC (26 Jun 2007)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> What's the cutout in the nasal area for?? I mean the visor sits so far off the head that it doesn't need a slit for a nose.



In case you have to blow your nose? He hehehe


Now wait and see an aftermarket Oakley version soon.  ;D

Who calls debs?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Jun 2007)

<rant>

Um, can't have an Oakley version.. it isn't CTS approved EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE THE SAME MILSPEC RATING.. oops, was I yelling while thinking of the ballistic goggle situation?

I mean, I can't go buy Wiley-X GOGGLES (versus ballistic <u>glasses</u>) to keep the dust out of my eyes in the DESERT!  Can someone actually tell me that with all the advances in technology, my "goggles, sun, wind and dust" dated <b>1974</b> are actually safer than any highly reserched lenses/googles on the market today that have been accepted as usuable by the US forces???

Another question: I saw a memo stating that Wiley-X was not allowed outside the wire.  Why must they generalize like that?? There are many different models of Wiley-X.  That's like saying no Ford vehicles would be used because Explorers roll over.. GEEZ!!!

</rant>


----------



## geo (27 Jun 2007)

Uh Bzzz
There are bopdy armour systems that the US servicemen were buying and using - for a variety of reasons - till they too were told not to use em - use only the approved kit.

IMHO If you want to buy em and use em, that would be fine by me
But the problem here is that there are a multitude of quality levels available.... 
no telling what you can afford and what you are willing to pay.

Does that mean that if you get hurt while wearing them, you're willing to also buy the medical services to make you well?


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2007)

The Oakley SI line has a HIGHER degree of protection.

Secondly the CF "issues" BOLLE Tactical goggles -- your chain of command needs to request them -- they where issued when I was in 1VP, and for Roto II Athena


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Jun 2007)

Kev, thanks.. We leave in one month.. probably too late to request them.  We heard rumours of ESS V-12s coming, mind you we also heard rumours of new pistol holsters too!!  Go Vandoos!!!

Geo, I know that they were indiv. purchases.  My point is the necessity of such "add-ons".  I have seen side panel, leg panels, neck panels... how many rich cpls would go out and buy all that stuff only to findo ut they couldn't move after they put it all on??  How many troops might have been saved if they were wearing it?  I don't know.  And as for quality levels, they set a minimum standard, and then you must at least match it.  Pretty simple.  Kind of like what we should do with our ballistic googles.


----------



## MG34 (27 Jun 2007)

FWIW,the veh techs were issed with the Bolle tactical glassses, they are nice,I went through a couple of pairs of them. Eyeware are like gloes, very necessary and very disposable, unfortunately the CF doesn't quite get the fact that once they are scratched they are useless.
 I threw away my WileyX SG1 and  CQCs after have serious issues with lens retention and fogging, the V12 Advancer by ESS is bar none the best set of " eye pro' that I have owned, but once again I consider them disposable, any agency purchasing them should realize this and hopefully will get spares (assuming you get them in the first place).
   My views on aftermarket kit are well know here, if it is better go with it, and damn those who can't grasp that tidbit of common sense.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Jun 2007)

MG, I hear you on that.  I try to convince my chain of command of the fact that certain equipments meet (or exceed) the mil standards that our own equipment has.  I told the boys in Bliss to look for mil-spec goggles if they were going to buy any as they had a greater chance of being accepted.  That went out the window with the latest memo from the sandbox reference eye-pro.


----------



## Gaz (2 Jul 2007)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> What's the cutout in the nasal area for?? I mean the visor sits so far off the head that it doesn't need a slit for a nose.



Like you said it sit's pretty far off the face, but maybe it reduces fogging. Or one of the testers had a huge nose.


----------



## NL_engineer (3 Jul 2007)

After watching the video on the DWAN, I don't know what to say  :.  Besides for look, it can't stop the darn projectile shot at it.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 Jul 2007)

But it SLOWS down the projectile, protecting your eyes IF you are wearing the ballistic glasses at the same time...  

I heard they will be issuing us WALLS to put in front of us to protect us againts bullets that might hit us too, another CTS project to be loved by all!!


----------



## KevinB (3 Jul 2007)

Uhm your helmet will not stop a lot of rounds either...
 (Its not stopping 7.62x54R AP)

The idea of the visor is to reduce facial damage from spalling etc.  Keep in mind rounds that dont hit you tend to hit things near you -- those fragements can be just as dangerous to eye etc.   Fragments from explosions kick up all sorts of things too.

The Visor is not for all -- but if your up in a turret exposed - you may appreciate it.
I would say that 99% of the American soldiers I see here in the hummer turrets have a visor on.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 Jul 2007)

I am all ready for it.  I just wonder about the nose hole.. what's it for?


----------



## KevinB (3 Jul 2007)

No idea
 It seems counter productive and brings up ideas of the Shovel wit the hole in it from WWI


----------



## Grunt (4 Jul 2007)

I tested this POS with the CTS team last summer when I was in TSC FD TRG in Wainwright Alberta.

You wear the ballistic eyewear underneath that thing.

It is not quick release, takes a good 5 mins to install everything/remove (or else I are Infantry darrrr )

Its pretty heavy.

Scary part was, the test officially called for 20 Regular Force Infantryman (only a few reg force tested it with us the rest were reservists, and many of them not infantry).

The nose hole is actually meant for your rifle stock to go into so you can take up a "firing position" (its IMPOSSIBLE to take up a good fighting stance and be able to see through your weapon sights with this POS)  You have to cant your head into a rediculous position in order to see through your optical sights half decently.

The test was a joke and did not even include a live fire portion (i would have loved to see if anyone would have got any hits on target if we had ball instead of blank ammunition on the jungle lanes).  The reviews they had us fill out at the end of each test were multiple choice and pretty much worded in favour of the visor.  Ie theyre was no...do you like the visor...yes/no,can you see a sight picture through your the visor yes/no (def NO), Does the visor reduce your situational awareness yes/no. All of the questions were along the lines of.  How do you rate the optical clarity of the visors lens?  1-10 (1 for bad, 10 for good)

It has a stupid rubber stopper on the top of the lens that partially obscures your vision (CTS response, thats the way its designed, deal with it).

It tended to fog, even with the antifog they gave us.  Makes the whole world like looking through a fish bowl reducing situational awareness (imho though oppinions on that varied).  Most of the guys got headaches from wearing multiple lenses (ballistic eyewear with the visor over top)

The LAV guys HATED IT 

When I brought up concerns about not being able to take up a sight picture with my C7 rifle to the CTS team, they didnt sound very interested in my oppinions.  They responded with, "under contact you flip the visor up", "your only here to assess the visual clarity of the visor" or my all time favorite, "at close range you dont need to use your sights".  It takes both of your hands to flip the visor in the upwards position so basically you will have to sling your rifle to do it (I have no overseas experience, but that sounds a pretty silly to me, trying to mess around with a visor when you should be putting rounds down range).  

Over all the Regular Force guys and most of the Reserve Infantry guys HATED it.  However alot of the non-infantry reservists (a few of them who didnt even have their trade qualification) loved the thing .  So....it passed .

While the CTS team stated its for static positions only, I can see someone in an office making it mandatory to wear 24/7

Over all the only good part was I got a free pair of ballistic eyewear at the end of the trial ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr (4 Jul 2007)

I wonder if they sent it through the T&E section here in Gagetown??


----------



## geo (4 Jul 2007)

Well, regardless of what everyone and anyone is saying, if the visor goes over with FO 3/07, it will get a real life evaluation and, if it is complicated, heavy, and / or POS, it will be pushed off to the side, along with all other ideas that didn't make it


----------



## Bomber (7 Jul 2007)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I wonder if they sent it through the T&E section here in Gagetown??



Normally they go on the road to monitor the trials


----------



## MG34 (14 Jul 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Well, regardless of what everyone and anyone is saying, if the visor goes over with FO 3/07, it will get a real life evaluation and, if it is complicated, heavy, and / or POS, it will be pushed off to the side, along with all other ideas that didn't make it



Yeah right!!! That must be why the tac vest is still being issued,all bad kit gets pushed aside...man that's a good one


----------



## geo (15 Jul 2007)

Heh...
Better than the 50ish, 60ish and 80ish patterns that we used to wear.
Our new LBVs leave a lot to be desired but progress - at least from my perspective.... sorry it doesn't meet your needs MG34.  Have you sent an UCR report up the pipe?


----------



## HItorMiss (15 Jul 2007)

Geo for the record more then one guy went back to the 82 pattern webbing (or something similar) as a load carriage system on tour. 

UCR have/are, continue to be sent up the pipe by pers from 3-06 and I imagine the same for 1-06 and soon the current Roto as well.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Jul 2007)

stay on track here boys and girls.. we are not bashing the tacvest in this thread.. let's keep it out of here and continue with our dislike for the yet unseen helmet visor..


----------



## HItorMiss (15 Jul 2007)

Hey I started this thread I'll derail it as much as I like!  ;D


I semi started this thread on my dislike for all things DLR  , But yes I agree back to hating the Visor.


----------



## KevinB (15 Jul 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Heh...
> Better than the 50ish, 60ish and 80ish patterns that we used to wear.
> Our new LBVs leave a lot to be desired but progress - at least from my perspective.... sorry it doesn't meet your needs MG34.  Have you sent an UCR report up the pipe?



WOW -- since its 2007 one would HOPE its better than that stuff -- nothingn like setting the bar low...
  Secondly I think the 1982 pattern webbing is better...

Anyway DLR and CTS have long proven that a UCR on kit does not mean anything.


----------



## geo (15 Jul 2007)

Bzzz... not really sidetracking the topic -  I was more interested in knowing if the UCR system was working.
I have seen plenty of instances where it did..... but, by the sounds of it, there are plenty of instances where it does not.

I6 - in general, when combining web gear with body armour, I concur, the 82 pattern does make sense & does work better.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Jul 2007)

Sorry, there are just too many threads on Army.ca that end up with everyone bitching about the tacvest and UCR system.  I thought by now you too would know everyone's opinion on both. 

From what I can read on here and from what I hear on the ground, the UCR system is an unknown entity to some units/soldiers.  Some people fill in UCRs which sometimes result in "technical advisor visits" which involves someone coming to your unit to "asses" what has been reported and evaluate.  From what I have read, It seems to end up with them telling the soldier they aren't using the item correctly and there is nothing wrong.  If you need to see a copy the of the TAV from overseas reference the tacvest, PM me.


----------



## FMRWO (16 Jul 2007)

Gee, seems like another  piece of kit I'd lose while on night ops ... no biggy !  :-X


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2007)

Not having first hand use of the Visor -- I would guess (yeah yeah ) that the designers dont really understand a lot of things, about the why's of it -- and employment of weapons from a turret (be it a LAV/Coyote, Hummer, GWagon, Bison M113 whatever).

  I will stop bitching about UCR's here though.


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2007)

For those interested in the mil specs, ballistic testing etc for this item; I can provide on request but will not be publishing here.

Be warned: I send only to appropriate DIN addys.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Jul 2007)

Vern does that mean my I_hate_CTS@hotmail.com is out of the question??  Hehe


----------



## ProPatria031 (20 Jul 2007)

those are the absolute biggest piece of ***** i have ever seen aside from those zebra mitts. that thing would end up getting scratched and hindering visions and piss us off just like the ballistic shades we wear now. not to mention they would fog up during a ruck march for sure.

 :cheers:


----------



## LordOsborne (20 Jul 2007)

After watching the Army News video, I have to wonder what use the visor has if it doesn't appear to have the same ballistic qualities that the glasses do. I could see the value in adding a second fragmentation resistant layer to the same level as the glasses, but to put something that is allegedly bulky, heavy, awkward and NVG-incompatible on our helmets seems silly, especially if the test video showed the projectile _cutting through _ the visor (producing fragments, i might note) and bouncing off the glasses. 

And my guess for the nose cut in the visor: makes room for the C4 gas mask?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (20 Jul 2007)

Patrick.. I like that theory.. gasmask.. makes sense!!


----------



## LordOsborne (22 Jul 2007)

I can see gas hut drills becoming even more awkward as recruits attempt to run through the decontamination drill with the cumbersome gloves as they try to unhinge the visor and remove the mask :blotto:


----------



## Grunt (22 Jul 2007)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> And my guess for the nose cut in the visor: makes room for the C4 gas mask?



The rifle stock gets wedged in there when you attempt to take up a propper sight picture.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jul 2007)

Grunt said:
			
		

> The rifle stock gets wedged in there when you attempt to take up a propper sight picture.



Interesting. With this statement I assume you were one of the members at the first line Unit who did the trials?

Check. I see that you were.


----------

