# tactical vest



## joe (15 Jun 2002)

Has anyone out there recieved the new tactical vest? if so, what do they think of it?  Big improvement?


----------



## Zoomie (16 Jun 2002)

If you are referring to the replacement for Webbing (ie Load Bearing Vest et al) it is not due for release under Clothe the Soldier until at least 2003.  They are still perfecting the design and one of the hang-ups at the moment (I believe) is problems with CADPAT materiel and its durability.  They are waiting for technology to improve so that the CADPAT pattern can be successfully meshed together with most pieces of the new kit.  Take the new armoured crew-suit for instance (which is also the new flight suits for the Airforce), right now the technology does not exist that allows the CADPAT design to be integrated with NOMEX.  So... until that technology does exist, the suits are being released in olive drab (NOMEX).


----------



## joel (16 Jun 2002)

I was told that reg force units out west have already recieved the new vest....in cadpat aswell.


----------



## astrof (16 Jun 2002)

LOL I‘ll believe when I see it, No CADPAT vests that I have seen out here in 1 CMBG Edmonton.


----------



## Andyboy (18 Jun 2002)

I‘m not sure where you get your info from Zoomie but you‘re way off. 

The contract for the TV was awarded about three weeks ago to a consortium comprised of two companies. Fellfab in Hamilton and Apparel Trimmings in Scarborough will be producing the 70 000+ vests with delivery taking place over 18 months after production begins.

The Air Force has been working on a project much the same as the Clothe the Soldier program but hasn‘t fielded anything yet so your statement about hte flight suit makes no sense (Notwithstanding the fact that CADPAT Nomex has been readily available for quite a while).

Hope this clears it up a bit.


----------



## Zoomie (18 Jun 2002)

Interesting info Andyboy.
As it stands right now, and this info is as up to date as it can be.  The airforce flight suits are due to be released in Aug-Sept 2002.  They are at present olive drab as the technology to mesh CADPAT and Nomex together does not exist so that it lasts operationally.  The clothe the soldier project is taking its lead from the airforce project for its armoured crewman suit.  Why not let the people who excel in fire protection design the new operational kit.
As to the TV, 18 months from now looks pretty close to my statement of being released in 2003.  My info came from the Clothe the Soldier OPIs directly when they came to visit us earlier this year.  If things have changed since then, so be it.


----------



## Andyboy (19 Jun 2002)

As I said NOMEX is readily available in CADPAT, and has been for a while. The Clothe the Soldier Project may be "taking the lead" from the airforce crew suit but to say they are one in the same is misleading. They are two different environments and have different requirements. A case in point is the new clothing for the flightline, they look a lot like the new combats but aren‘t the same.

As for the TV it‘s delivery schedule is intended to be complete 18 months from start of manufacture, not from now. Which could be a big difference or could be minimal, there are a few milestones and hurdles for the manufacturers to to get past between now and production. Knowing Public Works like I do and knowing the product like I do, it may be a while before they are released for manufacture.

I‘m not trying to get into a pissing contest with you but there is enough rumour and innuendo out there about the project as it is.


----------



## rceme_rat (21 Jun 2002)

Or (taking the wild possibility that both sources are correct) is it possible that there are different levels of protection of Nomex, some of which can - and others of which cannot - be integrated (due to the differences in the material that would be necessary - thickness, weight, weave, etc.)

Either that, or one of you will be eating crow ...


----------



## Zoomie (21 Jun 2002)

I checked again, it seems that the airforce has not yet approved the CADPAT covered NOMEX.  Gen Lucas has also been quoted saying that CADPAT flight suits were not f***ing likely.  So we will be happy with Olive Drab suits...  It‘s been a long time waiting, I am wearing these scratchy 100% wool blue suits ATM.


----------



## L.Ron (28 Jun 2002)

I was just at a surplus store in Edmonton and they have two of the new load bearing vests for $375 as well as two new cadpat uniforms.

The maufature dates for the vests were late 1999.

Just thought I‘d let you know


----------



## joe (30 Jun 2002)

Were the vest Cadpat?


----------



## Doug VT (1 Jul 2002)

The vests were obviously prototypes or copies that someone picked up some where.  Contracts have been awarded for the manufacture of the vests, and they are the next thing that we will see issued by the clothe the soldier project, to be followed shortly by the new frag vests.  They are also trialing the CADPAT print on the new temperate boots if you can believe it.  I took a picture and I will post it under equipment in the photo album when I can.


----------



## MJP (1 Jul 2002)

I thought they were joking when they said were trialing the boots with CADPAT.  Silly me for once, they were right.  We should be getting them when we get back from leave, so I‘ll let everyone know how they are(As far as I know there are four different types that we are trialing).  On another note we just just sized for our tac and flak vests.  Should be coming sometime in the next 6 months


----------



## Zoomie (2 Jul 2002)

Article in the latest Maple Leaf pretty well sums up this entire thread.


----------



## joe (3 Jul 2002)

Doug

there does not appear to be an equipment category in the photo album, but i‘m sure we would all love to see a picture of those boots.  Is there a web site that talks about these boots beside the cts site. (manufacturer)?


----------



## Doug VT (4 Jul 2002)

Finally I got hold of the picture.  I took the photo myself, so I know that they really do exist.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jul 2002)

Oh Man,
It‘ll take hours to clean your boots! Four cans of dye (two green, one ea black and brown) a bag of q-tips. OK, starting with your most prominent colour, and staying within the lines, put an even but thin coat........


----------



## Spanky (4 Jul 2002)

"They" are out of control with cadpat.  What‘s next, cadpat vehicles?


----------



## sgtdixon (5 Jul 2002)

Hey Spanky dont give em ideas ok, to the guy who said he saw the vests at a surplus store in edmonton? was it MILARM Co.? Because if it was i ended up buying one and it lasts well hold muchgearo and i like and i got it for cheap (Air Cadet Diuscount of 15% for Sgt.s)


----------



## Korus (5 Jul 2002)

I never thought I‘d see CADPAT boots... To those who‘ve been in the field (I‘m still waiting to be sworn in..), I‘m wondering.. do black boots stick out noticably against a green backdrop?


----------



## portcullisguy (11 Jul 2002)

They don‘t stay black for long, I don‘t imagine.

Anyway, I think quite a few troops in Afghanistan opted for the dessies.

I noticed the Brits are still wearing half-green and half-desert in most cases.

Anyway, I‘ve never seen a bullet go around something camoflauged.  Just because you can‘t be seen doesn‘t mean you can‘t be shot... I think the whole cammie debate is pure bunk.  The purpose of camoflauge isn‘t to look invisible, it‘s to reduce the profile and make it harder for your overall shape and outline to be readily identified.

Look at ships of war in WWII... they were camoflauged with bold diagonal lines and shapes, not to make them disappear (in fact they probably stood out more), but to make it harder to tell how many and how large the ships were, when together in groups, and to make it difficult for ranging, etc.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (5 Aug 2005)

has anyone heard of cadpat t-shirts. Now thats far fetched


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (5 Aug 2005)

I don't know who to ask, but in the equipment photo gallery there is a picture of a LBV. It's cadpat ar. Does anyone know who posted that photo and where they got the LBV?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Aug 2005)

The 3rd had CADPAT undershirts when they were trialing the CADPAT stuff.


----------



## Bomber (6 Aug 2005)

There was a bunch of the AR LBV's made in 02.  The Cadpat t-shirt was an old trial item from about 01 ish, the dye sealed the pores in the material and made it like you were wearing a Cadpat garbage bag.  Odour was the main problem.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (6 Aug 2005)

what's up with the military wanting to let go. Have you seen the cadpat ar jean jacket vest's brought back, please tell be this is a temp thing! ??? ???


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Aug 2005)

> The Cadpat t-shirt was an old trial item from about 01 ish, the dye sealed the pores in the material and made it like you were wearing a Cadpat garbage bag.  Odour was the main problem.



OK, now I *HAVE* to have one of those.....


----------



## Bomber (6 Aug 2005)

They are right up there on my most wanted list with the Old rain jacket done in cadpat print.


----------



## fourninerzero (21 Sep 2005)

the tacvest is a good peice of kit, but it has its drawbacks.
1) its hot to wear, covers most of your torso and upper body and retains heat.
2) small load capacity, without adding a pouch off the small pack, it just cant hold enough stuff. adding the large pouch off the smallpack remedys this problem for the most part.
3) harder to remove mags from teh chest pouches when lying in the prone.

on the other hand, it does carry the load better than the webbing, and it is more customizable with the side and rear pouches.


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

fourninerzero said:
			
		

> the tacvest is a good peice of kit, but it has its drawbacks.



AHAHAHA



> 1) its hot to wear, covers most of your torso and upper body and retains heat.
> 2) small load capacity, without adding a pouch off the small pack, it just cant hold enough stuff. adding the large pouch off the smallpack remedys this problem for the most part.
> 3) harder to remove mags from teh chest pouches when lying in the prone.
> 
> on the other hand, it does carry the load better than the webbing, and it is more customizable with the side and rear pouches.



 :
I'm sorry I was sure you where joking intially

Please expound your extensive time using this comapred to other systems to base this on...


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

fourninerzero said:
			
		

> the tacvest is a good peice of kit


'scuse me?


> it has its drawbacks


truer words were never spoken


----------



## Infanteer (21 Sep 2005)

fourninerzero said:
			
		

> the tacvest is a good peice of kit, but it has its drawbacks.
> 1) its hot to wear, covers most of your torso and upper body and retains heat.
> 2) small load capacity, without adding a pouch off the small pack, it just cant hold enough stuff. adding the large pouch off the smallpack remedys this problem for the most part.
> 3) harder to remove mags from teh chest pouches when lying in the prone.
> ...



Leave it to 4PPCLI to set the record straight.

hahahahah

 ^-^


----------



## fourninerzero (23 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Please expound your extensive time using this comapred to other systems to base this on...



Ive used the older webbing, as well as seen and used other peoples chest rigs and vests, and thats what i base it on. overall i like our tacvest, it works well once you get it worked out to how you want it.


----------



## R711 (23 Sep 2005)

Well seen and used other peoples chest rigs doesn t expound on real world use. I will not argue with Kevin B on that one and besides just whos chest rigs did you use cause it sure wasnt mine.  The tac vest is especially good if you are a non combat arrm trade cause it gives you an idea of what to carry cause they will tell you what to carry. However due to the fact that modern combat is an evolving creature and the individual user must be able to adapt to meet the requirements of th modern combat. The tactical vest for the combat arms in modern operations is very lacking in both modularity and carrying capacity. Rant ends. Besides the only time I have seen Kevin B outsmarted by anything was "The Pyramid"
R711 OUT


----------



## teddy49 (24 Sep 2005)

fourninerzero said:
			
		

> Ive used the older webbing, as well as seen and used other peoples chest rigs and vests, and thats what i base it on. overall i like our tacvest, it works well once you get it worked out to how you want it.



When I get home from here, and pay my visit to the mess, I'm so slapping you upside the head  I'll bring pictures of proper combat loads, worn by people who were getting shot at on an almost daily basis, so then you can understand just how stupid what you said is.  Kevin B I'm sure already has lots.  Sure the tac vest feels comfy, but it has virtually zero modularity.  Being able to pick from 2 different kinds of pouches does not count as modular.  It has no compatibility with allied modular systems, like MOLLE.  And you can't expand it.  Thankfully the aftermarket is offering up some solutions, but they are band-aids on an inherently flawed design.  Until the thing is completely redesigned by people who have an idea of what the requirements are, it will remain crap.  Or we could just save hundreds of thousand of taxpayer development dollars and call Paraclete or Eagle or Blackhawk(maybe not such a good plan) or someone of their ilk.  All of those companies have fully modular systems that would fit the bill nicely.  But then that's what happens when you have a schmick about what the real world requirements for such a system are.  Not what the requirements for going to the range or guarding the gate are.  But it's probably nicer to where around the armoury :


----------



## KevinB (25 Sep 2005)

Damn that Pyramid...  
 I'll beat it this year  ;D


R711 hit the nail on the head - it is a good vest for non combat arms trades, with the essentials they need to briefly fight.

 Unfortunately it is 'Legacy' kit designed around patrolling in FYR with 5 mags.  It never incorporated some of the equiptment we use, nor due to its design can it be adapted that way.

 CTS is stuck to it, unfortunately it is a sacred cow and despite its vast shortcomings they have their 80% solution ( the 20% half not's being the fighting troops)

The same can be said with the GenIV PBA.

I am sure a search here will uncover NUMEROUS threads with alternative systems...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (26 Sep 2005)

As an aside, it seems that the CFs aren't the only ones who are unhappy with their current issued Tac-Vest.

I've got a good friend in the British Army serving with the Highlanders.  They all got issued the new PLCE COP vest, but are quite unhappy in that since the C9/Minimi came into British service, these new vests they've been issued don't have pouches large enough to accomodate a 200 round drum.  The utility pouches are sized to fit a British water bottle and assorted kit, not Minimi drums.  Since the vest is a non-modular fixed pouch design, they're screwed.


----------



## kyleg (26 Sep 2005)

That really bites. What were the higher-ups thinking? Didn't they realize that LMGs need ammo? And it needs to be carried somehow?


----------



## R711 (26 Sep 2005)

matt,
You have to remenber that the vest was designed before they had purchased the minimi/249. I do have the feeling that the brits will listen to thier troops and redesigned or adapt the system to meet the requirements of modern combat. They also can fall back on a system that still works, the PLCE webbing. Unlike to the Canadians and thier scared cow of the tac vest.
R711 OUT


----------



## fourninerzero (28 Sep 2005)

teddy49 said:
			
		

> When I get home from here, and pay my visit to the mess, I'm so slapping you upside the head   I'll bring pictures of proper combat loads, worn by people who were getting shot at on an almost daily basis, so then you can understand just how stupid what you said is.   Kevin B I'm sure already has lots.   Sure the tac vest feels comfy, but it has virtually zero modularity.   Being able to pick from 2 different kinds of pouches does not count as modular.   It has no compatibility with allied modular systems, like MOLLE.   And you can't expand it.   Thankfully the aftermarket is offering up some solutions, but they are band-aids on an inherently flawed design.   Until the thing is completely redesigned by people who have an idea of what the requirements are, it will remain crap.   Or we could just save hundreds of thousand of taxpayer development dollars and call Paraclete or Eagle or Blackhawk(maybe not such a good plan) or someone of their ilk.   All of those companies have fully modular systems that would fit the bill nicely.   But then that's what happens when you have a schmick about what the real world requirements for such a system are.   Not what the requirements for going to the range or guarding the gate are.   But it's probably nicer to where around the armoury :



Fair enough points, I'm just going off of my experences. as for paraclete or blackhawk, I completely agree. a MOLLE system would be much better than the ladder style daisy chain setup and velcro we have.


----------



## kyleg (28 Sep 2005)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand the CF is required to purchase its kit from Canadian suppliers. Now I won't say whether it's right or wrong, because there are more factors than meet the eye, I'm just saying it could limit the options somewhat. Though I sure as hell wouldn't mind being issued a Dropzone Mutha Ruka  ;D

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## KevinB (28 Sep 2005)

NO it is not - but Canadian content aways gets a it a few bonus marks.

 I've been underwhelmed by a lot of Drop Zones kit, either impractical (his LBV system) or utterly bizzarely using a non-MOLLE/PALS attachment system - quality of work is good - just soem design issues.  -- his Recce Smock is a nice piece of work.

Arc'Teryx - as Matt Fisher pointed out the new USMC ruck...


----------



## fourninerzero (30 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Arc'Teryx - as Matt Fisher pointed out the new USMC ruck...



arc'teryx is required to contract out to an american company to produce the rucks. the americans require that the products are made in the USA, they dont care where the design came from as long as one of their companies that make it.


----------



## Jinxed (30 Sep 2005)

Interesting thing about the tac vest (and the 82 pattern webbing back then) is that after I've stuffed it with things like cam paint, bug juice, raingear, etc, I've now got no room to actually put a C9 box, frag grenades or smoke grenades (as if I get any of these on a regular basis) into it.  On the other hand, if I'm just going to be a rifleman, this vest sure is great for bearing the weight since my shoulders don't hurt anymore running around with the full load as I did with the 82 pattern.  Some other guy I know just used the "man purse" configuration of the buttpack for most of his other stuff because we don't have the smallpacks yet.

One minor and inconsequential complaint I have is that they could've made a small version since quite a lot of us tighten the back straps all almost the way, even with a jacket on.  A small version where the straps are maxed out only with all your winter kit on would've been great, but hey, this is still better than the 82 pat.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2005)

Jinxed it is designed to wear with the body armour...


----------



## Britney Spears (1 Oct 2005)

> after I've stuffed it with things like cam paint, bug juice, raingear, etc, I've now got no room to actually put a C9 box, frag grenades or smoke grenades (as if I get any of these on a regular basis) into it.



Dude, that's what the pockets on your combats are for. The guy stripping your corpse during the consolidation won't need your cam paint and bug juice, so don't put it in your webbing. It willl just slow him down.


----------



## DEVES (7 Oct 2005)

Just wondering,
Do cooks in the reserves get Tac-Vests, also how about the small pack system?


Thanks beforehand...


----------



## armyvern (7 Oct 2005)

Depends upon which Unit you serve with as entitlement to them is by Unit vice by trade. 1st Line field Units are entitled.


----------



## DEVES (7 Oct 2005)

I dont know if anyone know,
It would be for 15 service battalion, Reserves Edmonton.?

Thanks..


----------



## Pencil Tech (7 Oct 2005)

Yes, 15 Svc were issued Tac Vests last winter/spring.


----------



## DEVES (7 Oct 2005)

Thats Sweet,
Anyways thanks for such the quick reply. 

Take care.


----------



## [RAMMSTEIN] (14 Nov 2006)

Does the Seaforth Highlanders get teh smallpack system ?


----------



## noneck (14 Nov 2006)

Homer-
The Seaforths are issued two green laundry bags in place of the small pack system. You merely knot the drawstrings together and voila you have a unique West Coast approach to carrying your gear. 

The Westies are trialing a similar model with a melmac cup attachment. If you raise Westie 47 he may have a picture he can send you. ;D

Noneck


----------



## fourninerzero (15 Nov 2006)

noneck said:
			
		

> Homer-
> The Seaforths are issued two green laundry bags in place of the small pack system. You merely knot the drawstrings together and voila you have a unique West Coast approach to carrying your gear.
> 
> The Westies are trialing a similar model with a melmac cup attachment. If you raise Westie 47 he may have a picture he can send you. ;D
> ...



I hear some of the troops are getting aftermarket setups like that, the Canex Cadpat laundry bags and a Titanium spork and folding cup for HSLD usage. ;D


----------



## armyvern (15 Nov 2006)

Homer Simpson said:
			
		

> Does the Seaforth Highlanders get teh smallpack system ?



Yes. And if they are not, they should be as they are entitled to them.

Vern


----------



## PhilB (15 Nov 2006)

who cares? the small pack system sucks as much as the tac vest!


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

PhilB said:
			
		

> who cares? the small pack system sucks as much as the tac vest!



well.... you have a lot of constructive things to say - don't ya


----------



## PhilB (15 Nov 2006)

Lol, I try and be productive at times! Here I will elaborate. I do not like the small pack system for the following reasons:

a) The daisy chain system of attaching pouches to it is completely ineffective. When a pouch is loaded up with anything heavy i.e. ammo it sags and pulls off the pack.

b) The shoulder straps. This is my biggest complaint. I'm not a big guy but when wearing the pack over a vest and flack jacket with plates the straps are to short, you are basically stuck with having the strap, not the padded portion, digging into your arm pits. Additionally who ever put the slippery nylon material on the bottom, part of the strap that sits on your shoulder, portion of the strap should be shot. This nylon causes the pack to slip around on your shoulders and makes carrying heavy loads uncomfortable.

c) This is a personal preference but I dislike the top loading design. With all of the improvements in pack design out there i.e. a clamshell design having a top loader does not make much sense to me. It makes getting kit out of the pack difficult, particularly at night.

d) The weight of the empty pack is ridiculous. I understand the benefit of having an aluminum stay but come one! This pack weighs a ton empty!

I know in reality the small pack was in essence designed to carry pt kit to the gym and stuff around bases, but for a system that is supposed to make up for the deficiencies of the TV it falls well short in my opinion. Another example of a piece of kit that is not designed around end user requirements and not designed for use in the field or on operations. Hopefully this clarifies a bit.


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

Have you talked with your masters about submitting a UCR?

It's certain that because the production line has been ramped up and ramped down, they're not going to be producing more for a little while but, there may be work arrounds.... else, if you relly aren't built for the frame, it is possible something else might be ordered / made to fit the need.

Yeah - I know, dreaming a bit


----------



## PhilB (15 Nov 2006)

haha, dreaming indeed. I have and a UCR has been submitted ref the small pack. As far as changes, well I think that a lot of the problems are somewhat intrinsic to the design so I'm not sure what changes can be made. As for myself I'm an average size troop in almost every respect so I don't know about getting a different one issued, but as with everything else, I've spent my own money and got a decent piece of kit.


----------



## NL_engineer (15 Nov 2006)

Hey the Small pack is good  ;D

For PT gear, kit you require for a range, carring books on course or course staff (the chest strap keeps it in place), and other things along those lines.  


Not to get it confused  with field kit


----------



## PhilB (15 Nov 2006)

Have you ever carried anything else other than books and pt strip? Try carrying radios, ammo, pyro etc. It sucks


----------



## NL_engineer (15 Nov 2006)

PhillB, 
I have and know how much it sucks.  My commeants were ment in a more sarcastic sense.  I use my nuke bag, it holds all the stuff the TV doesn't.


----------



## PhilB (15 Nov 2006)

No worries man, the intricacies of online humor always seem to allude me. I alwyas used my nuke bag, and I think its pretty sad that it still remains a better option in my opinion. the only part I didnt like about it is when you carry oddly shaped things and get them jabbing you in the back. I use a Lightfighter RAID pack now. Hands down the best pack I have ever used.


----------



## KevinB (16 Nov 2006)

The Small pack - got UCR's from the get go.
 Like everything else in CTS...


----------



## paracowboy (16 Nov 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The Small pack - got UCR's from the get go.
> Like everything else in CTS...


yep. As did the Tac Vest, the backpack, ad nauseum.  :


----------



## Jay4th (16 Nov 2006)

First week in theater in february bought a Camelback motherload in old American desert pattern,  because of the molle all over it and the clamshell opening.  The shoulder straps are long enough to be in the right place even over armour and set wide enough apart at the top.  Radio fits beautifully , it has these sweet straps that seem made to hold M72' on the side.  I love it, I am gong to sleep with it tonight.  I don't remember what adress I mailed the issue small pack to from theater, no big loss.   Serious well spent money on R&D on Tac vest and small pack. : Don't mention to CTS that they put the molle on sideways, it might hurt feelings. ;D


----------



## [RAMMSTEIN] (17 Nov 2006)

when do i get issued the kit if i am doing the BMQ on weekends ?
is it after i sworn in ?

thanks


----------



## PhilB (18 Nov 2006)

yes


----------



## westie47 (18 Nov 2006)

Not many people know this little tidbit.......I-6 actually helped design the TV and Small Pack as a way to get back at "The Man". Now he is on the cover of SOF!

Noneck - YEs we did add the Malmac cup attachment as well as the old style thermos carrier, shich we had custom made in CadPat. :skull:


----------



## medaid (18 Nov 2006)

MUAHAHAHAHA all too funny....although honestly...I LOVE the Small Pack (I'm actually serious here) for anything but its intended purpose... yes yes I know everyone else does too...but I think some of the civilian companies who make backpacks should copy the design  hahahaha school packs for any busy post-sec student. 


However, on a serious note, I like the new Eagle A-III-P Assault pack and I would highly recommend it. I've got the multi-cam counterpart and so far....DAMN....


----------



## Douke (18 Nov 2006)

PhilB said:
			
		

> Lol, I try and be productive at times! Here I will elaborate. I do not like the small pack system for the following reasons:
> 
> a) The daisy chain system of attaching pouches to it is completely ineffective. When a pouch is loaded up with anything heavy i.e. ammo it sags and pulls off the pack.
> 
> ...



I feel I am about an average size (5'11'', 165 lbs, ok maybe a bit thiner than the average soldier), and I will agree that I am a reservist and haven't tested it under real combat conditions, but while it is certainly not the best piece of kit available, Idon't have most of the problems described above with the small pack. The daisy chains are holding fine for me (had no problems carrying 2 C6 ammo boxes in the pouches, and I cannot see what heavier things could be fitted in there), but I tend to put heavier stuff in the main compartment anyway. I don't have the strap problem, even with TV and frag vest on, but I will agree that I am rather thin and that heavier built soldiers might find it problematic and that different sized straps should be made available. As for the top loading I lack the experience with other systems so I'll refrain from any comments, even though I can see the theorical advantages of the clamshell, but I don't have any problems with it, be it night or day. Finally I don't understand the weight comment, I am more built for marathon running, and I barely notice the weight at all.

Anyway, I can see the problems with it, and after seeing systems like the RAID pack, i see that there are better pieces of kit out there, but I don't think it's that bad of an option really. Nothing like the tactical vest, wich has real problems like not being able to hold what we need to fight or be able to be tailored to fit the different roles todays infanteers have to face...

Douke


----------



## fourninerzero (19 Nov 2006)

I'm 6'2" and 185lbs, and have some issues with the smallpack. for me, its too high up, so the waist belt is basically useless to me. the shoulder straps dont cinch up well, and i end up with the strap without padding cutting into me. with armor and second line kit and etc, the shoulder straps are pushed out farther causing undue strain on my back and shoulders. my accessories pockets are starting to break, with the stitiching coming undone and failiing.

I use a SpecOps Brand T.H.E. Pack, and have no issues with it.


----------



## KevinB (21 Nov 2006)

RAID pack -- a huge improvement over the CTS Book Bag


----------



## Lerch (21 Nov 2006)

Mmmm nice patch ;D


----------



## nsmedicman (21 Nov 2006)

Correct me if I am wrong.....I probably am.... ;D

Weren't the TV and small pack combo designed to replace the 82 pattern web gear, and give the ability to carry enough kit and supplies for up to 24 hours?


----------



## paracowboy (21 Nov 2006)

nsmedicman said:
			
		

> Weren't the TV and small pack combo designed to replace the 82 pattern web gear, and give the ability to carry enough kit and supplies for up to 24 hours?


no. 

The _*concept*_ behind the finished product was to come up with webgear and a patrol pack to replace the 82 pattern web gear, and give the ability to carry enough kit and supplies for up to 24 hours.

What these ridiculous POS's were _designed_ for were Gate Guard in Bosnia, and carrying PT kit/school books.


----------



## HItorMiss (21 Nov 2006)

+1 Para


Those items were not designed with the combat soldier in mind, it was made for the 80% solution, which when 80% of the CF are CSS trades well you get the idea.


----------



## PhilB (21 Nov 2006)

I believe that I was reading on the forums somewhere that 3VP was trialling some off the shelf load bearing equipment, or that some sort of test program of buying your own gear with an allowance was being used for the Coy deploying on 1-07. 

Could someone dispel my hair brained notion or give me an update on the status of this trial? Thanks guys.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Nov 2006)

PhilB said:
			
		

> I believe that I was reading on the forums somewhere that 3VP was trialling some off the shelf load bearing equipment,


yes, we are. Or rather, a sub-unit is.



> or that some sort of test program of buying your own gear with an allowance was being used for the Coy deploying on 1-07.


 not pers-owned kit. Issued as a trial for the CLS.



> Could someone dispel my hair brained notion or give me an update on the status of this trial?


 NSTR


----------



## PhilB (22 Nov 2006)

NSTR? what does that mean? 

What kit is being trialed?


----------



## MJP (22 Nov 2006)

Nothing significant to report


----------



## PhilB (22 Nov 2006)

Ahh I see, well colour me stupid! :blotto:

Well its good to hear that the army is a least realizing to a certain degree that the TV is a POS.

I think that the best thing to do would be to leave the Tac Vest for non combat arms trades and give the combat arms an upgraded system.


----------



## GregC (22 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> yes, we are. Or rather, a sub-unit is.



I've heard alot of talk, but nothing concrete myself, but then again that's a troop on the bottom of the food chain speaking.

Most NCO's in my platoon are saying I shouldn't hold my breath about a new tac-vest for the tour, or Eotech's and heavy barrel C8's for that matter. Looks like I'll have to buy one out of pocket, along with gear to carry 40mm grenades.

Just makes seeing all the tankers and MP's at CMTC with FTHB's and Eotech's more of a kick in the teeth I suppose!


----------



## Jay4th (22 Nov 2006)

Greg, order a 40mm belt from Tactical Tailor now.  Email www.davesarmysurplus.com if you don't see it on the site.  Your section will likely get 2x C8FTHB and if they are smart they will give them to the m203's like our chain did.  I got a loaner prototype  belt from icetactical but I haven't sent it back with feedback yet  so I don't know if they are a production item yet.


----------



## nsmedicman (22 Nov 2006)

Thanks for the clarification on the TV/small pack issue.


----------



## HItorMiss (22 Nov 2006)

Greg you will get C8HB's and EOTECH's for sure in theater in fact some may be in the system for use before deplyment. You yourself might not get either but you will for certain see them in your section and PL.


----------



## paracowboy (22 Nov 2006)

Greg,

your chain seems to think they have to take everything in Bn with them into theatre. They seem to have forgotten that the Brigade has raped itself over the past 3 years to send everything into theatre. It's all there. But, they want to take a Battle Group's worth of kit over with them, even though there is more than a Battle Group's worth already there. They're killin' me.

The vests/chest rigs aren't expected until December. That was right from the manufacturer. They need 'x' amount of time to prepare the order, after receiving it. Again, your chain expected the kit to be shipped and in Bn the day after the CLS cut the order.


----------



## medaid (22 Nov 2006)

sorry...but I'm slightly confused about which tac/lbvs we're talking about here. Does anyone have a picture of sorts?


----------



## GregC (22 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Greg,
> 
> your chain seems to think they have to take everything in Bn with them into theatre. They seem to have forgotten that the Brigade has raped itself over the past 3 years to send everything into theatre. It's all there. But, they want to take a Battle Group's worth of kit over with them, even though there is more than a Battle Group's worth already there. They're killin' me.
> 
> The vests/chest rigs aren't expected until December. That was right from the manufacturer. They need 'x' amount of time to prepare the order, after receiving it. Again, your chain expected the kit to be shipped and in Bn the day after the CLS cut the order.



Interesting points Para, thanks for the heads up re the expected delivery date. I can't comment on any of your other points as I'm still a newcomer to Charlie, but at least I have some idea of a time frame for the new LBV. I'll hold out on purchasing the chest rig I had in mind for now, but if an issued rig isn't in my hands by mid January I'll have to start looking for something else. If nothing else is concrete, this is: I am not going to Afghanistan with the Tac-Vest!!

As for what rig we can be expected to have in our hot little hands for deployment, I've heard of a few different models so I won't bother to speculate.


----------



## westie47 (23 Nov 2006)

I have heard that you guys are getting the Arktis Sigma vest. As well as a C9 and M203 version, I believe. On their website they have a Minimi vest and the Sigma. Looks ok, probably better than the TV that's for sure.


----------



## Grunt (23 Nov 2006)

An improvement but it's still legacy kit as its not Molle compatible.  Why not just buy a molle compatible chest rig system and molle C9 pouches/TT M203 Bandolier, instead of buying 3 different vest systems, of course that might make sense.


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2006)

Common sence would have them talk to Pacific Safety Products....

A Canadian company.


----------



## riggermade (23 Nov 2006)

What gets me with all this discussion is everybody wants to pay the big bucks to have something they think is the best out there.  There is alot of us little guys who can make a comparible piece of kit for alot better price than what is being paid.  My buddy and I made lots of chest rigs and pouches for the guys currently on tour for alot less than what others would charge them.  Here in Petawawa we are known to the troops but some of the units still insist on paying the big bucks to American companies.


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2006)

-- the problem with the little guy is deliverability for larger scale purchases...'


----------



## Synthos (23 Nov 2006)

MOC 606 - Sewing!!

Grannies unite and fight the good fight!

Sewing Machine inspections at 07:00! Murder She Wrote viewing at 20:00. Don't miss your timings!

Recruiting numbers starting at around 500.


----------



## riggermade (23 Nov 2006)

True

part of the problem as well is the leadership really doesn't know what they want and the troops are spending their own money... we outfitted a good 75 people with chest rigs and all the pouches in about two months and are still sending stuff over as they call back for it or come see us on leave...even the big guys are have a harder time providing as with iraq in full swing they do not have stock and are manufacturing as quick as they can


----------



## Bomber (23 Nov 2006)

westie47 said:
			
		

> I have heard that you guys are getting the Arktis Sigma vest. As well as a C9 and M203 version, I believe. On their website they have a Minimi vest and the Sigma. Looks ok, probably better than the TV that's for sure.



That is what was asked for....



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Common sence would have them talk to Pacific Safety Products....
> 
> A Canadian company.



Got some of their products around the office now, pretty friggin swanky.  But from the people that trialed it, it isn't the end all in Load Carriage options.  Still light years ahead of current, imagine, two seprerate systems, that mesh perectly into one.

I doubt anyone will ever be completely happy until every troop is issued thier own LAV 3 augmented with a CV90 (all variants), and a potato sack to carry any extra ammo that doesn't fit in those Load Carrying items.


----------



## riggermade (23 Nov 2006)

Nobody will ever be completely satisfied and I am still getting requests to make different stuff.  All great if I can make 20 or 30 but really not worth my while to make 1 of something and spend 20 hours trying to design somebody's idea of the perfect rig.

Saying that I look at some of the stuff out there and you need a degree to figurew out what all the straps and buckles are for...better to keep it simple and functional


----------



## paracowboy (23 Nov 2006)

Greg,

I ran down to your Coy lines with the latest poop. It should have trickled to you by now. If not, come on up to my Office.

Botom line, DLR is being stupid (as DLR is known to do). Figure 5 - 7 weeks from today for delivery. (I'd say more like 6 - 12, personally, knowing DLR as I do.) So, do the math, and figure out for yourself what you want to do.


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2006)

PSP -- needs to make a MOLLE version of the Chest Rig and Patrol Vest.
  I found the GenIV DHTC CR needed a larger gap between the rifle mag pouches - and the multi pouches above.
My comment was more for working with a Cdn Co. to produce gear - rather than looking to Artkis and their legacy gear (if we wanted Legacy gear we could stay with Cdn made legacy gear...)


riggermade -- T up with Bomber made DLR can be of use


----------



## riggermade (23 Nov 2006)

I don't have alot of confidence in DLR

1 RCR was looking to buy drop legs for the troops to carry extra mags and we were prepared to make them and they were shut down because it was part of a weapons system and not authorized or so they were told

Troops being troops just went and bought what they wanted anyways


----------



## paracowboy (23 Nov 2006)

what's really pissin' me off about DLR this time is, the CLS himself said he wants these pieces of kit in the troops' hands before they get on the plane. The Brigade Comd told DLR to cut through the tape. CO 2 RCR wants this kit for all his infantrymen.

But DLR is pissy because it's all going to one supplier, instead of a 10 year project, with study groups and cometing bids. Never miond getting troops the kit to complete the mission and stay alive, it's all about the bean-counting. Makes me wanna vomit. Or punch someone. Maybe a combo...


----------



## riggermade (23 Nov 2006)

Para
I see you are still as opinionated as you were when you left 3 RCR but I agree

It is almost impossible to get a contract from Ottawa unless you are big

Being here in Pet and doing 5 years withe 3Rd as the SPR I know alot of the guys and custom make their kit and I do it as cheap as i can but they shouldn't have to pay out of pocket


----------



## Andyboy (23 Nov 2006)

Interesting thread.


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2006)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> Interesting thread.



HE LIVES...


----------



## riggermade (23 Nov 2006)

Not much use getting the kit if you can't train with it....be nice to see the troops have something that works when they start the training so when they are over there they are used to the kit they are wearing


----------



## paracowboy (23 Nov 2006)

riggermade said:
			
		

> Not much use getting the kit if you can't train with it....be nice to see the troops have something that works when they start the training so when they are over there they are used to the kit they are wearing


no doubt. Instead, they're gonna be in theatre before they see this shit. Stupid. Me, I'd buy my own, practice with it now, and keep the new one in the kitbag to replace if I break my own. Then sell the purchased one to my replacement at cost when I rotate out.

Not that I'm advocating any troopie go spend his own cash. Seriously. Actually, I'd probably just go with my webgear, since I've got so much more experience with it, and it's all broken in and comfy.


----------



## GregC (24 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Greg,
> 
> I ran down to your Coy lines with the latest poop. It should have trickled to you by now. If not, come on up to my Office.
> 
> Botom line, DLR is being stupid (as DLR is known to do). Figure 5 - 7 weeks from today for delivery. (I'd say more like 6 - 12, personally, knowing DLR as I do.) So, do the math, and figure out for yourself what you want to do.



Nope, as usual the no hook private is the last to know ??? 

I'd come up for the low down if I knew who you were Para and where you worked! Drop me a PM if you wouldn't mind, as I know there are alot of us in the lines very curious about this gear, and we've been told very, very little as of late. Hopefully whatever you passed on today will indeed trickle down, but with the sheer amount of courses and work  going on, sometimes it gets rather chaotic.


----------



## Farmboy (24 Nov 2006)

> Quote from: Andyboy on Yesterday at 21:50:32
> Interesting thread.
> 
> 
> HE LIVES




 Hope all is well!!


----------



## Sapper24 (28 Nov 2006)

A few questions, if its your first tour do they care if you use the issued tac vest? last more directed to engineers, what type of chest rigs/vests are you using in afganistan? any answers welcome, sorry if this has already been asked, no time to do a search...
Sapper24  CHIMO!


----------



## Andyboy (16 Dec 2006)

Hey guys, yes all is well. Busy, busy, busy is all. Who isn't though?  

Interesting comments with respect to DLR Etc. I had kind of an odd experience with some folk there recently in regards to some contract work. From what I saw of the system they are operating under, and the capabilities they have available to them, I'm kind of surprised that the issued equipment is as good as it is. And that isn't a shot at anyone there, from what I could tell the people I met with were frustrated and disappointed as well.  The plain fact is that the skills and experience necessary to design and construct decent individual equipment is in short supply and it must be exceedingly difficult to attract good people to a dysfunctional organization. That being said the products still need to be fielded so while it might not he optimal it ends up falling to whomever happens to be available at the time to get it done. A carpenter might not be the best guy to fit a leaky pipe but if he is the only one available and he says he can fix it what are you going to do? 

A


----------



## KevinB (16 Dec 2006)

Andy - excellent to see you around here again.  You and "another" should get the good stuff rolling out again.


----------



## COBRA-6 (16 Dec 2006)

DLR is actively searching out Tech Staff qual officers to fill vacant positions, I could see myself there sometime down the road, but not quite yet  ;D


----------



## KevinB (16 Dec 2006)

I'd rather see a few of the injured and pensioned off JTF guys working in DLR.
  One of the guys who designed the PV and CR got medically released -- instead of the harnessing the knowledge and experience - both at the cutting edge of soldiering and kit designs...

yeah have another staff boob - or Retired on Active Duty SGM...
[/rant]


----------



## Matt_Fisher (16 Dec 2006)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> Hey guys, yes all is well. Busy, busy, busy is all. Who isn't though?
> 
> Interesting comments with respect to DLR Etc. I had kind of an odd experience with some folk there recently in regards to some contract work. From what I saw of the system they are operating under, and the capabilities they have available to them, I'm kind of surprised that the issued equipment is as good as it is. And that isn't a shot at anyone there, from what I could tell the people I met with were frustrated and disappointed as well.  The plain fact is that the skills and experience necessary to design and construct decent individual equipment is in short supply and it must be exceedingly difficult to attract good people to a dysfunctional organization. That being said the products still need to be fielded so while it might not he optimal it ends up falling to whomever happens to be available at the time to get it done. A carpenter might not be the best guy to fit a leaky pipe but if he is the only one available and he says he can fix it what are you going to do?
> 
> A



Such is the nature of the best whose staff (military) are sourced relatively arbitrarily as to what stage in their career they are at.  IE, if the career manager decides that said individual is going to do their turn outside of their primary MOS/MOC so-be-it, whether it's doing RSO at CMTC, working at DLR, etc.

From my experience with both Canada's DLR and the US' Natick Soldier Center and MarCorSysCom, Natick stands out as having a group of permanent civilian R&D engineers who are doing the work on individual equipment, whereas the Canadian and Marine models tend to employ more military pers. who are plugged in and out as part of their career cycle, rather than their expertise in said areas.


----------



## Andyboy (17 Dec 2006)

I should add that I've only really dealt with the civilian side of that particular organization. 

Generally speaking, my experience has been that the user half of the user-designer relationship is rarely to blame for a poor final product. Just like there are Carpenters and people who do carpentry, there are designers and people who do design work. Added bureaucracy and organizational interference never help either. Too many cooks spoil a broth, but you need at least one good one on the job if you want a decent meal.


----------



## KevinB (17 Dec 2006)

I was woefully underwhelmed by the Military side.

 Show me a recent (10years time) DLR item that has worked.


----------



## Andyboy (17 Dec 2006)

Yeah but you're easily underwhelmed.  

Well according to the people I've talked too everything is fine.  : That's a tough one though...the helmet? I'm reaching.


----------



## KevinB (17 Dec 2006)

I'd claim the helmet was from previous than 10years 
I can bitch about the helmets suspension system though  ;D -- but at the time I will grant it was cutting edge.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (17 Dec 2006)

And that's why I have an Oregon Aero BLSS in mine..I will never look back (until my RSM forces me to)


----------



## KevinB (18 Dec 2006)

I heard a rumour that one or two of the forward thinkers in DLR are trying to get those to be issued for the helmet.  A bunch of folk posting here have them Jay4th and some of the other guys on TF1-06 maybe be able to shed light.  My TC 2002 had then from factory -- but my CF Gallet has them (now) - its just still in Afghan with a buddy.

I guess I should not be so hard on DLR -- predominately they mean well.  However I beleive the CF needs a RFI system for units to IOR purchase items prior to deployment -- and NOT to keep handing them off so they only have them in theatre -- not only is that a steep learnign curve - but kit is not designed to spend 24months+ in theatre -- it just wont last -- it like troops need a break


----------



## chriscalow (18 Dec 2006)

With these BLSS kits, what is the amercian equivalent to our helmet for ordering purposes?  Methinks I needs that very much.  Thanks guys.


----------



## KevinB (18 Dec 2006)

The systems that fits the USGI Kevlar will work -- for the suspension system you can either zap strap the system together (since the CF one is a 3 pt screw setup as opposed to the 4 on the USGI)  - or drill a hole in the front of the helmet for a NVG plate (I decided that the continual falling off of the helmet mount was more dangerous to me than the odds of a round coming thru the 4mm hole.)


----------



## Bzzliteyr (18 Dec 2006)

Do a search for BLSS, you'll find some pics I put up to demonstrate.


----------



## chriscalow (18 Dec 2006)

Gracias lads, much appreciated.


----------



## Andyboy (19 Dec 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> However I beleive the CF needs a RFI system for units to IOR purchase items prior to deployment -- and NOT to keep handing them off so they only have them in theatre -- not only is that a steep learnign curve - but kit is not designed to spend 24months+ in theatre -- it just wont last -- it like troops need a break



Yup. DND can't really compete with the private sector except maybe in materials R&D, which is where they should  be spending their (our) money.


----------

