# Winter FTX



## slowmode (22 Aug 2007)

Hello Everyone,
   Just before I start this topic, I have looked around the search function to find my answer but I was not able to get exactly what I was looking for. Any help here would be very appreciated. 

   This summer I completed my BMQ and did a 3 day FTX. When we did this the weather was clear as water. My next course following my BMQ is my Soldier Qualification. I will be conduction the weekend course. It came to my attention that my FTX for my SQ will most likely be conducted during winter. I have never done any winter training or for that matter slept outside in the winter. I've been compiling a list of extra items to bring to help me along. But my main question is, what do you all recommend I bring a long extra to help me out during winter training during my SQ FTX.

Thank-You
slowmode


----------



## mudrecceman (22 Aug 2007)

Winter Marching Order, as given out by the staff.  The unit WMO instructions will tell you what you "have" to bring.  You are responsible to make sure you have (or draw if required) the kit on the list, and that it is serviceable.

That's a start!

You will (should) also get all the "winter indoc" lectures on the winter kit, winter march discipline, etc etc before going on the FTX.  So don't worry too much about the fact you haven't done winter trng yet.  It will come.

I also took an inexpensive electric razor , extra combat glove liners (when it wasn't that cold, I used these inside the arctic mitt outer, and I then could pull my arctic mitt off and still have my claws covered), lots of batteries for my mini-mag, pencils to write with, Mr Noodles (light, they don't go bad and they are easy and fast to cook during up-pole drills, which usually followed pulling the toboggan around for some time...), those little fuel tablets and heat shield (can't remember the real name) for the canteen cup, and decent (I like the Blistex stuff in the little red tubes) lip balm.  

Aside from that, everything else that comes to mind was issued.

Make sure you get some paracord (call it 2 or 3 feet) for tying down/securing the toe portion of the issued snowshoe harness (use a reef knot if you can).  Your Crse staff will probably show you that trick.

Try searching again for "Winter Warfare". I came up with 6 pages on it when I did.


----------



## slowmode (22 Aug 2007)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Winter Marching Order, as given out by the staff.  The unit WMO instructions will tell you what you "have" to bring.  You are responsible to make sure you have (or draw if required) the kit on the list, and that it is serviceable.
> 
> That's a start!
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for your post, I will take everything you said and look into it futher. Also Do you reccomend I bring like a thermal matress to replace my issued air matress, I heard the issued airmatress is not good with keeping heat.


----------



## TikiTak (22 Aug 2007)

I am going on winter training too. I was wondering when do we do the FTX as we have school or work during the week?


----------



## slowmode (22 Aug 2007)

TikiTak said:
			
		

> I am going on winter training too. I was wondering when do we do the FTX as we have school or work during the week?


I was thinking about that to, But Then I kind of thought maybe they would do it during our Long break in december.


----------



## TikiTak (22 Aug 2007)

But shouldn't all work (including army) stop during Christmas, or atleast Boxing day? And not everyone has winter breaks like us students, most people have work.


----------



## slowmode (22 Aug 2007)

TikiTak said:
			
		

> But shouldn't all work (including army) stop during Christmas, or atleast Boxing day? And not everyone has winter breaks like us students, most people have work.


I'm not sure, Anyone know the answer to this?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2007)

Come on guys!  Use your heads!  What month is it now?  When does your unit start to Train again?  When do you think you may see a Training Schedule?  Who on this site knows what Unit you are with to begin with?  I am positive that there are lots who have read your posts and have some pretty smartass comments to post here in reply.  So.......Shake your heads.


----------



## slowmode (22 Aug 2007)

Thanks George. We should have thought of this before. My mistake.


----------



## mudrecceman (23 Aug 2007)

slowmode said:
			
		

> Do you reccomend I bring like a thermal matress to replace my issued air matress, I heard the issued airmatress is not good with keeping heat.



What I recommend and what your Course Staff and Unit will allow may be 2 different things  .

I have only used both models of the issued one, and never had a problem, as I used the kit as I was trained to.  So I recommend you attend the lectures on the winter kit, and use the kit as you are trained to.

FWIW, I have slept outside, read "not inside the 5-man tent" type outside, in the snow with my green air mattress and sleeping bag complete w/arctic hood, all inside my bivy bag and stripped down to my gitch in -20 or colder and been warm and toasty.


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2007)

All in all, the CF will provide you with everything you need to have.  Everything else that you could find and buy at Mountain Equipment COOP (or other outdoor living store), might be nicer, lighter, better BUT, all in all, you don't need it.
Listen to your NCOs instructions and do what they tell you to do & you'll be fine.

Enjoy!


----------



## mysteriousmind (23 Aug 2007)

Ill see what ever gear I need when it will need to know.


I only have a quick Question about the week end SQ training.

Do we do the Feild portion in one block or is ti put in 3 week ends (which equal to the total of days that the summer SQ pass in Feild part 5 days)???


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2007)

MM, you'll have to ask your instructor that question.
My personal opinion is that you are better served when you do it all in one block BUT, with necessity of training BQ qualified soldiers during the fall/winter/spring time frame, there is little choice.


----------



## mysteriousmind (23 Aug 2007)

Geo, 

that is what I'm thinking. but then again...I could be wrong  :warstory:


----------



## toughenough (23 Aug 2007)

I did my SQ from jan-jun on a weekend course. Basically, the first half of the course you'll be in garison, learning the new weapons systems, PT, inspections, and all of that fun stuff. The second half of the course, we were in the field every weekend. 6 weekends if I recall correctly. Depending on your trade, this is where you'll start to really love your job. Embrace the hard work.

As far as winter kit goes, in my experience doing BMQ in -25 or -30, stick to all of your issued kit. It will make you appreciate it. You can't identify a problem, or find a solution for said problem, if you've never actually used the kit. IMO, a large part of this is to build confidence in your kit, much like the gas chamber. You're not out there to be tortured with cold weather, you're out there to become confident that you can close with and destroy the enemy, by day or night, regardless of weather conditions. Be confident that liners and mortar gloves are all you need up to -10, identify the problem of wearing a balclava and BEWs, learn this stuff, appreciate the kit you have, then when you're trained you can make some modifications to make things better.


----------



## TikiTak (25 Aug 2007)

Perfect, just the answer me and slowmode needed


----------



## Bane (25 Aug 2007)

Get the a suit of the best long underwear money can buy.


----------



## mudrecceman (25 Aug 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> Get the a suit of the best long underwear money can buy.



Why?  The issued kit is fine.  Troops used it in the Arctic for years, and I am talking "pre-CTS kit"..is there something you know that we don't?

Even the "older" long underwear is worthy, if worn correctly, layered, proper march discipline, donning/doffing kit as trained troops do.

Care to share?

I have never bought long underwear for trng in winter warfare/indoc.  I am fine (well, in that sense atleast  ;D).


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (25 Aug 2007)

I've been to Norway 3 times, Churchhill Manitoba 2 times for winter warfare training in the dead of winter with 1 RCR and I can tell you without a doubt that your CF issued winter kit, is some of the best cold weather kit in the world. Once your are trained to use and care for it properly, you will have a new found respect for it. Listen carefully to your instructors. 

There is no need to go out and pay ridiculous prices for the so called civvy kit, because in most cases it doesn't hold up to the rigours and abuse of military uses and it doesn't work as claimed half the time. Save your money, draw your winter gear and learn how to use it, it's the best, no question.


----------



## mudrecceman (25 Aug 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> I've been to Norway 3 times, Churchhill Manitoba 2 times for winter warfare training in the dead of winter with 1 RCR and I can tell you without a doubt that your CF issued winter kit, is some of the best cold weather kit in the world. Once your are trained to use and care for it properly, you will have a new found respect for it. Listen carefully to your instructors.
> 
> There is no need to go out and pay ridiculous prices for the so called civvy kit, because in most cases it doesn't hold up to the rigours and abuse of military uses and it doesn't work as claimed half the time. Save your money, draw your winter gear and learn how to use it, it's the best, no question.



+1.

And...good luck when you rip/tear your non-issued kit in Butt-fuck-nowheres and ask the SQ/CQ to "exchange it".  Guess what you will get??

CF, standard issued kit.


----------



## Bane (25 Aug 2007)

I've never like the issued long underwear, I got a set of drylite from MEC and it made my day.  Didn't mean to make waves over underwear  :


----------



## armyvern (25 Aug 2007)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> +1.
> 
> And...good luck when you rip/tear your non-issued kit in Butt-fuck-nowheres and ask the SQ/CQ to "exchange it".  Guess what you will get??
> 
> *CF, standard issued kit.*



And don't be so sure about that!! Sometimes the entitlement is one each. So guess what happens in butt-fuck nowhere and he's ruined his non-issued kit and comes looking to me for an issue of a replacement (heck...it's happened ...  ) ?? I say "where's the one each that you're entitled to that you've already been issued??" 

I highly recommend that the given answer is not "it's at home."  >


----------



## Bane (25 Aug 2007)

I'd have to agree with Vern there, don't expect to get anything...except perhaps a little wry smile from the supply tech.  If you use non-issue kit, you do so at your own peril, this is an important lesson. (Not to mention if you are not careful, your fancy kit could make you a liability to the team!)  The others are correct to point out the benefits of using the issued kit and should you find a deficency, use the official meathod of reporting it.   However, I bet i'm not the only guy in NATO whose ever used non-issue kit. , and some times a small piece of civy kit can make a huge difference, this is way many people use a little here and there, and using it in training conditions is important to determine if it is tough enough.  But again, use at your own risk.


----------



## armyvern (25 Aug 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> I'd have to agree with Vern there, don't expect to get anything...except perhaps a little wry smile from the supply tech.  If you use non-issue kit, you do so at your own peril, this is an important lesson.



Make no mistake; I'd never allow someone to freeze to death etc and he/she'd get one on a duplicate issue if required.

But, and it's a BIG BUT, the paperwork I'd be drafting up the CoC of the member to recover Crown costs of the duplicate issue and querying the kit inspecion would be a BIG headache that his/her superiors would not, necessarily, be happy to see or deal with. I can guarantee that most of those superiors have better things to do than deal with than a members self-caused admistrative issues like this due to a members non-compliance with the Unit authorized kit lists etc.


----------



## Stauds (25 Aug 2007)

I did my ten week BIQ in the winter, with the major field portions in December and January. You know what I bought to bring with me? A pair of gloves. The army issued kit was perfectly fine. And the only reason I bought a pair of gloves is because we don't get issued all our kit in the REG force until we arrive at battalion. 

You are going to the field for no more than 3 days, what are you worried about? You are making it into a bigger deal than it actually is. I was in the same boat as you when I started BIQ, but I listened to my instructors and got through it. EXPERIENCE will teach you what you need to know. 

A couple little tricks that I will share with you because these were told to me, are: 

-Bring several large, durable safety clips so you can secure wet gear to the tent, in case of a pull pole in the middle of the night you won't have to worry about them going missing.
-use gun tape and para cord to hang a lighter around your neck under your clothes. If you keep it in your pocket it will get too cold to use, and lighters are important to have.
-bring some food with you as well, such as cookies. There's nothing like doing a crappy hour or two of sentry in the middle of the night when it's -30C out, and having something tasty to munch on. It really brings morale up.

Other than that everything else was taught to me, or issued to me.


----------



## Fusaki (26 Aug 2007)

I'll agree that issued winter gear is pretty good, but like hell am I going to give up my Softie and my Sungpak sleeping bag!!

Its important to build confidance in your issued gear during BMQ, SQ, and BIQ. But once you get to your unit ask the guys who've been around awhile what they consider to be a worthwhile investment. These guys have probably ruined gucci gloves on hot C9 barrels but kept warm in the rain with goretex stealth suits. The fact is that some gear is worth the money, and some just doesn't hack it for what we do.



> But, and it's a BIG BUT, the paperwork I'd be drafting up the CoC of the member to recover Crown costs of the duplicate issue and querying the kit inspecion would be a BIG headache that his/her superiors would not, necessarily, be happy to see or deal with. I can guarantee that most of those superiors have better things to do than deal with than a members self-caused admistrative issues like this due to a members non-compliance with the Unit authorized kit lists etc.



My CSM wears a softie too... I'm not too worried.


----------



## slowmode (26 Aug 2007)

Thanks a lot for your posts everyone. I guess its most important I use the CF issued gear. ALso thats a good point, they wouldn't issue it if it did not get the job done. Thanks a lot!!!


----------



## armyvern (26 Aug 2007)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> My CSM wears a softie too... I'm not too worried.



Are his odds of ruining it the same as yours while working?? Hope so ...


----------



## Fusaki (26 Aug 2007)

> they wouldn't issue it if it did not get the job done.



Heh... yeah, right... :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23363.0.html

That's 21 pages of why issued gear sometimes just doesn't cut it... that's one snafu that's been beat to death on these forums.

There's no question that you can get by in the army with issued cold weather gear. My point is that you can get by more comfortably with non-issue gear. Yes, you run the risk of ruining something you spent alot of money on. But IMHO, the benefits outweigh the risks. 

The whole thing about not being able to have gear replaced in the field is a moot point. If you can get to CQ to have issued stuff exchanged, then you can also get to your follow up kitbag where you can swap out your N/S non-issued stuff for your issued stuff. I've never had a problem, and I have alot of gucci kit.

There's no question in my mind about what is more practical in the field. The deciding factor is what your CoC and your wallet have to say about non-issue kit.


----------



## armyvern (27 Aug 2007)

And there's one more thing that gets beat to death on these forums ... the Supply Techs.  :

Gear contracted = gear trialled by first line users ... hmmmm. Funny that.  :

You don't like the boots, someone else does. You don't like the gloves, someone else does.


----------



## Shamrock (27 Aug 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You don't like the boots, someone else does. You don't like the gloves, someone else does.



I love my boots.  But I buy my own.
As for gloves... well, I'm pretty impressed by some of the new kit we're getting.  But I still wear my own purchased ones.


----------



## armyvern (27 Aug 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> I love my boots.  But I buy my own.
> As for gloves... well, I'm pretty impressed by some of the new kit we're getting.  But I still wear my own purchased ones.



Good for you.

Like I said, some people do, some people don't; and some people ... will just never be happy.


----------



## Bomber (27 Aug 2007)

Tipperary said:
			
		

> I did my ten week BIQ in the winter, with the major field portions in December and January. You know what I bought to bring with me? A pair of gloves. The army issued kit was perfectly fine. And the only reason I bought a pair of gloves is because we don't get issued all our kit in the REG force until we arrive at battalion.
> 
> You are going to the field for no more than 3 days, what are you worried about? You are making it into a bigger deal than it actually is. I was in the same boat as you when I started BIQ, but I listened to my instructors and got through it. EXPERIENCE will teach you what you need to know.
> 
> ...



Don;t wear things around your neck, unless they are on break away chains.  Paracord will hold a para trooper, jumping from the back of a truck, it will hold you as well, by the neck.  In the dark, or on the move, your buddies may not realize until to late that you are "hanging around" the truck.  Grab a bath tub chain like your dog tags come on if you need to wear stuff around your neck.  Carry a Zippo or a cheaper Ronson if you need fire and can't work matches.  Butane freezes, but lighter fluid keeps on ticking.

All your other points are good.


----------



## Stauds (27 Aug 2007)

I've never had a problem with the paracord around the neck. It was securely held down underneath layers of clothing, flak vest and tac vest.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Aug 2007)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Don;t wear things around your neck, ....................



Now that caught my eye, and I had to take a double take of what was posted.  I agree with the statements that paracord is not a good thing to use around your neck for hanging lighters, dog tags, and such, but there are other instances that you should use para cord that have been overlooked in this Winter FTX thread.  

It is a good idea to use paracord to tie your Artic Mittens together and string it up your arms and across you neck......just like those mitten strings that your Mom used to tie on you when you were a kid.  There is nothing worse than loosing mitts and gloves in the cold and in the dark on EX under Contact.


----------



## Bomber (27 Aug 2007)

Totally argee with the mitten strings, but mine are run through my parka, and the cord runs along my back, inside the outfit.  I have also seen people remove the threads in the old white cord and run the dog tag chain through it, but leaving it untied, keeping the chilly metal of the skin.  I still have to stand by my earlier statement, though, don't do the mazarian's job for them and tie stuff around your neck.


----------



## mudrecceman (27 Aug 2007)

Ref the paracord around the neck, there is one thing I did with it ref my dog tags:

I stripped the guts out of a portion just alittle bit shorter than my dogtag chain.  I slide my dogtag chain thru it, then used a lighter to stop the paracord from fraying.  There is about 1/2 inch or so on each side of the actually dogtag where you can see the chain, but the part around my neck is covered with paracord "outer". 

Works great for me and from the safety perspective, the chain will break as intended if for some reason it gets hooked on something (which it has...).


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Aug 2007)

At least you guys got issued winter kit...


----------



## geo (27 Aug 2007)

If you are expected to go outdoors in winter, they must provide you with the necessary equipment to do it with.  It might not be the very best, gee whiz top of the line gucci kit you see at MEC but, they will provide you with the basic of what you need.


----------



## armyvern (27 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> If you are expected to go outdoors in winter, they must provide you with the necessary equipment to do it with.  It might not be the very best, gee whiz top of the line gucci kit you see at MEC but, they will provide you with the basic of what you need.



Heck, we "old guys" certainly didn't freeze to death with that kit.


----------



## geo (27 Aug 2007)

When they started to issue the SAVA and ICE kit, I just maveled at what they were piling in front of me.

Is tehre better out there? yup, no question BUT, I see no point in spending my hard earned $$$ on kit that, If I damage or lose or have stolen, I have to replace on my nickle.


----------



## Fusaki (27 Aug 2007)

> And there's one more thing that gets beat to death on these forums ... the Supply Techs.



Who mentioned supply techs? A little sensitive about something?



> Gear contracted = gear trialled by first line users ... hmmmm. Funny that.



Just because the gear is trailed doesn't mean that the best stuff got the contract. Its no secret that DND is always trying to balance cost with effectiveness when buying kit. The army just doesn't have a blank cheque for outfitting everyone with the latest and greatest gear. There is always better stuff out there. I don't see the point you're trying to make here...



> You don't like the boots, someone else does. You don't like the gloves, someone else does.



My point exactly. Issued MK3s and Desert Altimas with vibram soles are my favourite boots. But on some guys these boots were horrible for their bodies. They started thinking outside the bin, went out and bought Magnums and SWATs and eventually the army caught up with the first line user. These boots are now part of the system. It is current policy in 1RCR that you can wear whatever boot you want, as long as it is a black military combat boot. Our former RSM made the call that the troops should be wearing the boots that suit their feet before they're broken and need medical chits. Its about time the dog wagged the tail...


----------



## armyvern (27 Aug 2007)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Who mentioned supply techs? A little sensitive about something?
> 
> Just because the gear is trailed doesn't mean that the best stuff got the contract. Its no secret that DND is always trying to balance cost with effectiveness when buying kit. The army just doesn't have a blank cheque for outfitting everyone with the latest and greatest gear. There is always better stuff out there. I don't see the point you're trying to make here...
> 
> My point exactly. Issued MK3s and Desert Altimas with vibram soles are my favourite boots. But on some guys these boots were horrible for their bodies. They started thinking outside the bin, went out and bought Magnums and SWATs and eventually the army caught up with the first line user. These boots are now part of the system.* It is current policy in 1RCR that you can wear whatever boot you want, as long as it is a black military combat boot. Our former RSM made the call that the troops should be wearing the boots that suit their feet before they're broken and need medical chits. Its about time the dog wagged the tail...*



If you think I'm sensitive, you've obviously mistaken me with someone else.  

And my point is, for everyone who likes a certain type of boot ... someone else hates them. Including your beloved Danners and Swats. That's the point. What you LIKE and consider great and "outside the box" ... you think as such only because you happen to be someone that they work for. You are not everyone else. I guess I should have kept stats on all the LPO boots (not contracted BTW ... just SO'd) ... turned in because the troop that picked them out hated them. It's _very_ common. Magnums and Swats ... are NOT part of the system. They may be LPOd in special cases by your Base, but they are NOT part of the system.

Enough with the myths.

Policy has always stated that any LPOd boots be black, what's new here?? BTW, if you search through this site, and even go back through my posts...you'll find that the tail was wagging the dog WRT soldiers wearing the footwear that bests suits them ... years ago. That's right, ... at LF WGs, Clothing WGs, and CTS WGs ... it's certainly not some new idea. It's years and years old. I can email you the powerpoint from 2002 where that's on the agenda if you wish ...


----------



## Fusaki (27 Aug 2007)

> And my point is, for everyone who likes a certain type of boot ... someone else hates them. Including your beloved Danners and Swats. That's the point. *What you LIKE and consider great and "outside the box" ... you think as such only because you happen to be someone that they work for.* You are not everyone else.



huh?

*My whole point is that its alright if guys at the bottom use non-issue gear if it works better for them.* Like I said in my above post, I LOVE the ISSUED MK3s but I think its important that guys have the freedom to find boots that work for them. I'll be honest with you, I have no idea what an LPO is. I drew two pairs of tan SWAT boots from base supply, without putting in any sort of request... I figured that meant they were in the system. But besides that, the RSM directed that the troops can BUY their own boots OUTSIDE of military channels, provided those boots are black (or tan, for deployment) combat boots. Does that fall under an LPO?

I'm not saying that my way is the be all and end all. I'm saying give the boys on the ground a bit of credit when it comes to what works and what doesn't. Give them the freedom (within reason - a CADPAT outer layer would be a good stipulation) to find gear that works for them. *On the other hand you seem pretty firm on issued kit being the only way to go. But just because it works for you, it doesn't mean that there arn't other guys who are willing to do better.*


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Aug 2007)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> huh?
> 
> *My whole point is that its alright if guys at the bottom use non-issue gear if it works better for them.* Like I said in my above post, I LOVE the ISSUED MK3s but I think its important that guys have the freedom to find boots that work for them. I'll be honest with you, I have no idea what an LPO is. I drew two pairs of tan SWAT boots from base supply, without putting in any sort of request... I figured that meant they were in the system. But besides that, the RSM directed that the troops can BUY their own boots OUTSIDE of military channels, provided those boots are black (or tan, for deployment) combat boots. Does that fall under an LPO?
> 
> I'm not saying that my way is the be all and end all. I'm saying give the boys on the ground a bit of credit when it comes to what works and what doesn't. Give them the freedom (within reason - a CADPAT outer layer would be a good stipulation) to find gear that works for them. *On the other hand you seem pretty firm on issued kit being the only way to go. But just because it works for you, it doesn't mean that there arn't other guys who are willing to do better.*



LPO = Local Purchase Order (Vern can correct if I'm wrong)


----------



## armyvern (27 Aug 2007)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> huh?
> *On the other hand you seem pretty firm on issued kit being the only way to go. But just because it works for you, it doesn't mean that there arn't other guys who are willing to do better.*



Obviously, you know not my posting history. I am one of the strongest advocates of personnel getting an annual boot allowance etc to buy what suits them for kit that you'll happen to come across.

What I am against, is personnel who are new to the CF being misled to think that their issue gear will not work for them, put them at risk, or fail them. That's 110% absolutely not the case, but you'd never know it from posts around here.

If something happens to their Gucci kit in an austere location and it needs to be replaced with "system stuff," they'd better damn well know how to use it, and be confident with it. It too, could save their lives.

Once they are confident in that, if they want to spend their money buying kit, that's up to them. I have zero problems with that ... as long as they pack what's on their kit list and bring it with them into theatre or on sov op etc. Why's that?? Because the Crown (ie the taxpayer) shouldn't have to pay to reissue shit the guys already got but left at home ... because he chose to bring Gucci gear and ruined it. 

Clear enough for you?


----------



## armyvern (27 Aug 2007)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I drew two pairs of tan SWAT boots from base supply, without putting in any sort of request... I figured that meant they were in the system. But besides that, the RSM directed that the troops can BUY their own boots OUTSIDE of military channels, provided those boots are black (or tan, for deployment) combat boots. Does that fall under an LPO?



Ahhh the Pet desert boot purchase. Yes, most clothing stores supervisiors in the nation heard about that, and not in a nice way. Wander up and ask how that went over.


----------



## Fusaki (27 Aug 2007)

> What I am against, is personnel who are new to the CF being misled to think that their issue gear will not work for them, put them at risk, or fail them. That's 110% absolutely not the case, but you'd never know it from posts around here.



With the notable exceptions of the CWW boots, the TacVest, those new leather gloves, the SOG multitool, hockey puck Mk3s...



> If something happens to their Gucci kit in an austere location and it needs to be replaced with "system stuff," they'd better damn well know how to use it, and be confident with it. It too, could save their lives.



We're talking about non-issue winter clothes!!! I don't think my issued toque wearing ability has suffered any skill fade since battleschool!!



> Once they are confident in that, if they want to spend their money buying kit, that's up to them. I have zero problems with that ... as long as they pack what's on their kit list and bring it with them into theatre or on sov op etc. Why's that?? Because the Crown (ie the taxpayer) shouldn't have to pay to reissue crap the guys already got but left at home ... because he chose to bring Gucci gear and ruined it.



I agree, In theatre you should have everything back at KAF or wherever the rear is. But out at the FOBs when space is tight, or on EX when you carry it all on your back is another story. Everything is a calculated risk.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Aug 2007)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I agree, In theatre you should have everything back at KAF or wherever the rear is. But out at the FOBs when space is tight, or on EX when you carry it all on your back is another story. Everything is a calculated risk.



Yes, everything is a calculated risk.  And when you use kit which may not be tested and approved by the system, you risk being unable to do your job with maximum effectiveness if it fails.  Your superiors, however, are taking the risk that your inability to do your job effectively may undermine your fire team or section or platoon at a critical moment.  Levels of risk change with the item under discussion and with the perspective of the person making the decision to allow or disallow a modification or replacement. Talking about your toque is a red herring, failed boots or load carrying equipment can be quite another matter.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Aug 2007)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> .......... Everything is a calculated risk.



Hypothermia is not a calculated risk.  It is a mistake on your part for not wearing the proper kit and following your training.  Your 'initiative' not to bring the proper kit on an EX can cost you your life.  Quite a few people may have second thoughts on that subject after Maple Defender.



Mother Nature is sometimes very unforgiving.


----------



## Bomber (28 Aug 2007)

There is always two sides to a story, non issued kit can be great, think stealth suits, and bivy bags back in the day, even boots.  BUt the problem arises when people have no concept of what they require, and buy stuff off the cuff, through hear say, or because of glossy magazines.  Everyone says things like, "well, I'll just take that risk".  But when it comes down to it, can you afford to take the risk?  People on Sov Ops have brought mec goose down parka's, gutted the old parka of its liner, and worn the down, works great until the level of exertion you are doing excedes the moisture management of the down jacket.  Then it turns into a cold, wet, thin, and potentially deadly item.  Or, the people that were into the dragon skin armour, I don't know the full story on it, but it seems that someone in the US is answering a lot of important questions about that body armour.  I am in no way defending one side or the other, but, the issued stuff of this generation has been trialled by the end user, and most items require 80 percent acceptance by the end user before it is put in service.  You may not agree, but that is the way it is.  On top of this, items are subjected to wear in trials, they are burned, washed many times, worked to the point of failure, and trialed by users around the CF to ensure there is no one group boning another by giving it 100 percent while anothergroup says 10 percent.  And anyone on here that is arguing that a troop should first, be competent and confident in the use of his basic issue kit has something wrong.  The tac vest may not cary ten mags comfortably, but it will carry them, in the C9 pouch, stuffed in the map pocket, or any where else you can stuff it, and at the expense of the issued canteen, but it will carry them.  A non issue rig may be more comfortable, but if it craps out Beyond Gun Tap Repair (BGTR), then you must know how to use what you will be issued in its stead.  A guy covered in Snugpak must understand that if that stuff is burned in a tent fire, he can put the innner and outer issued sleeping bag together, place them inside a bivy bag,  use the issued sleeping pad, and he will still get a good nights sleep. 

Complaints about kit will carry on forever.  Even if the army completely re-issued everything that is on the aftermarket right now, a year from now, guys would see "better" things, and want them.  This doesn't mean that the issued stuff is junk, just means that time marches on.  There once was a time that Danner's were the only good aftermarket boot, now look at the market, Swat's, Magnum, Bates, Haix, Hanwag, Lowa, and the list goes on.


----------



## Fusaki (28 Aug 2007)

> But when it comes down to it, can you afford to take the risk?  People on Sov Ops have brought mec goose down parka's, gutted the old parka of its liner, and worn the down, works great until the level of exertion you are doing excedes the moisture management of the down jacket.  Then it turns into a cold, wet, thin, and potentially deadly item.





> Hypothermia is not a calculated risk.  It is a mistake on your part for not wearing the proper kit and following your training.  Your 'initiative' not to bring the proper kit on an EX can cost you your life.  Quite a few people may have second thoughts on that subject after Maple Defender.





> And when you use kit which may not be tested and approved by the system, you risk being unable to do your job with maximum effectiveness if it fails.  Your superiors, however, are taking the risk that your inability to do your job effectively may undermine your fire team or section or platoon at a critical moment.  Levels of risk change with the item under discussion and with the perspective of the person making the decision to allow or disallow a modification or replacement.



Well,

You can just as easily overheat in the issued stuff too if you're not carefull. If the user fails to thin out for exertion in cold weather then blame the operator, not the kit. And isn't there a risk that the issued kit will fail too? In fact, the major players in the aftermarket gear industry are intent on OVERBUILDING their stuff. Just looking at the stitching on my Eagle Indistries chest rig I can tell you its a hell of alot more durable then the issued tacvest. Eagle is the same company that provides the US Army SF with their standard issue CIRAS systems. And what about Softies? Tested and proven by the British military for years. These companies are always looking for big government contracts and they build their gear to Mil-Spec. We're not talking about your son's school backpack, here. We're talking about gear specifically designed for the abuse of deployments and then some.

Just look at the gear used on OP Archer ROTO 1 and ROTO 2. As soon as the troops are put into a position where they'll actually need to fight, large numbers of them went to non-issue gear. This was not limited to JTF wannabes and guys going for the LCF. This was all up and down the rank structure: Pte/Cpls, Jr NCOs, Sr NCOs, and Officers. Off the top of my head some of the stuff that was used in my own company (including PL Comds, CQ, and CSM): Softies (the Brit Army standard), fleece toques, converse boots, ESS goggles, Hatch gloves, Cobra bivi bags (you know you've been around awhile when), tactikka headlamps, Civi GPS, snugpak sleeping bags, MEC ridgerests, camelback 3 day packs, HSGI/Eagle/TT/ect chest rigs, KAC rails, aimpoints, ACOGs, tangodown foregrips, BFG slings, wigwam socks, SOTech riggers belts, magpuls, aero helmet pads, safariland holsters, compression sacks, stealth suits, ect ect ect...

In the RCR no less!! Talk about a unit that prides itself in parade square uniformity!!

This is NOT the gear of some weird army fringe group. This is THE STANDARD for units deployed on combat operations. Say what you will about the decision to issue SWAT boots to TF 3-06 en masse. Most of the guys I talked to LOVED them!!! The fact that it didn't jive with the rest of the army says something about the state of the system...

The troops will always take the path of least resistance. If it didn't work better, they'd be doing something else!!


----------



## armyvern (28 Aug 2007)

In the RCR no less. Yes, I know them well, I'm married to one.  

Your arguments about after-market kit are nothing new. 2 years from now, your after-market kit will be irrelevant and replaceable with something which is, no doubt, more expensive yet again. The fact is, new troops need to learn how to use their issued gear. While they are in the pipe-line, that is all they should be allowed. Because, if one day that's all they've got, they need to know how to use it properly. You may not think personnaly that your kit would be capable of saving your life if used properly ... but I'd think there's some survivors of Boxtop 22 who'd argue that point with you. They managed to scrounge up what little of their arctic gear managed to survive the crash ... and it indeed saved lives. They used their initiative, and that was long before the days of Gucci aftermarket kit becoming the norm. As I said before, once the troops are out of the trg pipeline ... fill 'yer boots. But, they must be confident with the issued gear. Oh, and "yes they can just as easily overheat in the issued gear" ... and your comment about that does nothing except highlight exactly WHY the new troops need to learn how to use their gear properly, because overheating can (and has) caused deaths of soldiers. Thanks for bringing it up. If they ever are "stuck" in a situation where issued gear is all that's available... they need to know how to use it properly. It really is that simple.  And, I do not condone anyone advising those in the training pipeline that it is not important to learn to be confident with their issued gear, lest one day that's all they have to depend upon.

The system could bring in today the chest rigs etc being used by pers overseas right now. But, the system can't bring in every type of aftermarket rig out there now can it?? The system needs to bring in items which do the job they are intended to do, in the conditions it was intended for.

We won't get into the TacVest, it's useless. No one argues with that. But, the fact of the matter is, when it was trialled by first line Units in field conditions etc ... it passed. Ergo, we have it now. Of course, Afghanistan has changed all that. But, the facts are ... it was brought in to the system long before that op ...

War changes many things. If we had a big US budget ... we'd be able to afford to bring in all the top-notch after-market Gucci gear there is out there right now. But, we don't have that kind of money, and it'll be outdated next year anyways. So those who complain now, will still complain next year if the item the Gucci item they are using now is brought into the system next year ... why?? Because something better still will be available by then, and they'll be yelling at the system for not buying that better-still item. The overwhelming majority of the issued kit ... does the job perfectly fine though.


----------



## rosco (28 Aug 2007)

A good set of wicking underwear is key for winter (or summer)!
I agree fully with the "learn to use your issued kit" school but...
the generally accepted rule of many small layers seems lost when wearing the winter parka.
At least start with a good synthetic under-layer to keep moisture off the skin.
It doesn't matter if it's cheap poli-pro work cloths or expensive Lycra blend sports gear.
For $25 at Walmart, Workwear World or whereever you can set your self up.
You will be working hard and you will be sweating. Think about some synthetic under socks as well.
Worry about the rest of your kit after you have more experience to draw on.


----------



## footsoldier32 (28 Aug 2007)

So, was just skimming over some of the issue brought up in this thread and while I am sure that the once Winter FTX forum will either be shifted or locked out soon, I thought that I would put my 2 cents in.  I have 7 years experience...four at the great institution of RMC (so what did I learn Army wise...4 summers of some great Infantry trg) and 3 years in the RCR, one tour and my first Bde Staff posn.  So, I understand that I do not know all, but I have seen a few things. For the most part, I have to agree with most of the latest replies on issued kit and non issued kit.

First, I will be the first to say that we have some of the best kit in the world, right down from the Leopard 2 and LAV III to the tac vest. The boots...not so much. The issued boots are junk, period. While they are superb for robustness in material (old Mark 3's), they left a lot to be desired in the way of comfort, functionality across the board and good for your body. While it is not scientific fact, there are a lot of army types who have 20 + years in and their lower bodies and backs are shot because of boots, hard (not smart) trg and wear and tear.  I went to all kinds of length's to get issued a pair of SWAT's but I came back to the "if your feet physically fit into the Mk 3's then that is what you wear". Yes, you can talk about ease of replacement, and maybe robustness, but I can promise you that the new issued boots will fall apart (they are only double stitched vice quadruple) and they tear your feet apart because of the design. Essentially they took the CWW boot and took the lining out. And any pers that I talk to that was part of the trials for these Boulet boots said that they were no good, but for some reason, that is what we have.

The TV is great for leaders and riflemen (other than the mag issue) which is easily remedied with a non issued backpack that you will almost always be carrying. For the rest, it needs to be modular. My C6 Gnrs (I had 4 on patrol once) all wore a Predator pack, camel bak, first aide pouch and backpack stuffed with extra ammo...no TV.

As to all of the other kit issues, Wonderbread has a huge point. The manufacturers of most of the "Gucci" kit that soldiers are buying do put in a lot more effort to make the best product possible and while Under Armour will melt to your skin it comes down to this...some soldiers are not smart enough to buy good kit, so it becomes a CofC issue.  90 % of the soldiers that I have trained, led and fought beside are pretty damn smart and they easily and quickly see good vs bad. It's the LCF/Wannabe SF guys that you have to watch as a leader and then guide in the fine arts of what works vs what looks good. 

As to the "pipeline" issue, issued kit is all that should be used until they reach a point where they are competent.  But, I have yet to see any soldiers, if trained properly in Battle School who could not properly use the issued kit that we all have so many issues with.  We're not talking about LAV III's and high tech thermal eqpt...we're talking about clothes.  If there are pers out there like that, then they should be binned quickly.  While Gucci kit will always keep changing, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't use it.  It just goes to show that our kit, while very "good" is not the best.  And if anyone wants to argue that, try it over seas...it will work...but it isn't the most comfortable and there is much more that will do the same only better.   Take the BEW for instance, the issued ones vs ESS BEW.  They both do the same thing (I have seen it), yet with the issued ones, many soldiers get headaches because of the way they are constructed...the helmet sits on the top of the glasses and digs into your nose.  The ESS ones don't.  And at the end of the day, comfort is a huge factor.


----------



## armyvern (28 Aug 2007)

Actually, to clarify on the Old issued MkIIIs ...

The thing is the overwhelming and vast majority of soldiers who wore nothing but this footwear through their careers don't have foot, knee, back problems to show for it. Some do, but by far they are very few compared to the numbers of pers who wore these boots and suffered no ill-effects.

This has also been discussed on this forum before. In the past 10 years or so, there has been a HUGE increase in the numbers of soldiers (young, new soldiers < 10 service) experiencing problems with the MkIIIs. The reasoning for that increase is that this new generation of soldiers has never worn what my grandmother would call "sturdy shoes" in their lives. This new generation is used to 4 oz running shoes etc, and whenever anything weighted (ie sturdy) is put onto their feet ... it's all new to them and causes problems.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2007)

I knew all those years of wearing Grebb Kodiaks in University (the Extended Version) would pay off.   ;D


----------



## Sig_Des (28 Aug 2007)

I dunno, HoM wore Doc Martin's for years, and he complains about boots all the time  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> I dunno, HoM wore Doc Martin's for years, and he complains about boots all the time  ;D



Those aren't 'real' boots......but it may indicate why he likes the gucci kit.   ;D


----------



## HItorMiss (28 Aug 2007)

You know you try and stay out of kit threads, not like my opinion on issue kit in general isn't well known.....

Boots...ahh Boots like the Tac Vest argument wont ever go away and the usual suspect are lined up on their usual sides. Nothing new here is there. Wonderbread wants the freedom to buy his kit (within reason) and  perhaps change what is issued and Vern as part of the system that looks at $$$ and such with many many years experience is on the side that what we have is good enough for the vast majority. I think the biggest difference is that many people on the pointy end are saying the mentality of forces wide good enough just isn't. I happen to fall into that camp but I do try and see the other side of coin. I wear non issue boots for deployment and now will wear them at work ( I have a medical chit for them) I truly believe that a soldier any soldier once he has left the training system (BMQ,SQ,BIQ) should if he has the money to spend be allowed to buy kit he would like too use. What I think is the best compromise is a list of allowable non issue kit for purchase put out by Units and carried by the Unit Kit shop. The likely hood of some new guy going of and spending thousands of dollars on useless kit is eliminated or I should say mitigated by the kit shops keeping the list and carrying the kit most bought by the older guys.

Meh what do I know, I don't wear the issue kit anyway, not going to start now ether.


----------



## footsoldier32 (28 Aug 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...there has been a HUGE increase in the numbers of soldiers (young, new soldiers < 10 service) experiencing problems with the MkIIIs. The reasoning for that increase is that this new generation of soldiers has never worn what my grandmother would call "sturdy shoes" in their lives. This new generation is used to 4 oz running shoes etc, and whenever anything weighted (ie sturdy) is put onto their feet ... it's all new to them and causes problems.



Roger, I'll be first to admit, we aren't as "tough" as they were back in the day, but we are in tough in our own right.  It is a newer more modern world that has developed many things that are better (more that are worse).  I have a lot of respect for those guys but why would I wear something "sturdier" now when I have something comfortable that achieves the same job?  It's time that the CF moves on and gives the soldier several boot options, as every soldier is different and some are not as tough as others.


----------



## armyvern (29 Aug 2007)

footsoldier32 said:
			
		

> Roger, I'll be first to admit, we aren't as "tough" as they were back in the day, but we are in tough in our own right.  It is a newer more modern world that has developed many things that are better (more that are worse).  I have a lot of respect for those guys but why would I wear something "sturdier" now when I have something comfortable that achieves the same job?  It's time that the CF moves on and gives the soldier several boot options, as every soldier is different and some are not as tough as others.



It's got nothing to do with being tougher than another, but as you've mentioned it twice in your post above, I'll have to ask if you are insinuating that's what I believe?? It isn't. No where in any of my posts have I said anything contrary either. 

You won't get any arguements from me on footwear. None at all. I've been one of the ones who's been arguing on the Supply side for years that the troops should get a boot allowance every year (like the BTU allowance) to purchase whatever footwear WORKS for them. I can assure you that I may be a mere Supply Tech, but the nature of my job has allowed me first hand experience to witness just how many people need so many different types of footwear for their own comfort and ease. I get to see many different types of LPOd boots every day. No soldier is the same.

Please, enough with posts that insinuate that I believe anything different. I do not. The proof is in my posting history.


----------



## armyvern (29 Aug 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> You know you try and stay out of kit threads, not like my opinion on issue kit in general isn't well known.....
> 
> Boots...ahh Boots like the Tac Vest argument wont ever go away and the usual suspect are lined up on their usual sides. Nothing new here is there. Wonderbread wants the freedom to buy his kit (within reason) and  perhaps change what is issued and Vern as part of the system that looks at $$$ and such with many many years experience is on the side that what we have is good enough for the vast majority. I think the biggest difference is that many people on the pointy end are saying the mentality of forces wide good enough just isn't. I happen to fall into that camp but I do try and see the other side of coin. I wear non issue boots for deployment and now will wear them at work ( I have a medical chit for them) I truly believe that a soldier any soldier once he has left the training system (BMQ,SQ,BIQ) should if he has the money to spend be allowed to buy kit he would like too use. What I think is the best compromise is a list of allowable non issue kit for purchase put out by Units and carried by the Unit Kit shop. The likely hood of some new guy going of and spending thousands of dollars on useless kit is eliminated or I should say mitigated by the kit shops keeping the list and carrying the kit most bought by the older guys.
> 
> Meh what do I know, I don't wear the issue kit anyway, not going to start now ether.



HorM,

As for costs ... budgets are a fact of life. I wish they weren't but they are; if budgets weren't an issue of course we'd all have the latest, greatest Gucci kit. But that's not the way any federal entity works (the RCMP is the same, Canada Post etc etc), not just the CF. It's really got nothing to do with us non-pointy end "usual suspects" taking sides ... it's got to do with federal entities obeying the Treasury Board and PWGSC Acts which limit us with budgets. They are Law.They are Acts that govern each federal department the very same as the CF. We may not like them, but we have to follow them, and the law says we stay within budget.

Boots?? Tac Vests?? The usual suspects on the same side?? Me on the systems side for the items you've mentioned?? I think not. And, you've been here long enough to know different. I am not a usual suspect and am firmly on the soldier's side (ie yours) for those items as my posting history indicates. You should hear my mouth going at WGs ... I'm famous for it.     
And, as I've already said below ... I have ZERO problems with people using after market kit ... once they are out of the training pipeline and are comfortable with that issued gear that they may have to use properly one day for whatever reason because their Gucci kit gets trashed and the issued kit is all there is for them to use. Making them train with that issued gear ... is just smart ... just in case.

What seems to be the problem??

Besides my Oakleys being cooler and a different colour than yours??  ;D

Vern


----------



## footsoldier32 (29 Aug 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Please, enough with posts that insinuate that I believe anything different. I do not. The proof is in my posting history.



Army Vern, while I love coming on to other trades, please understand that I do not think that any one person is tougher than any other.  We all have a job to do and mine is Infantry, yours is supply.  I can't do my job with out you guys and you can't do yours without the crazys like us.  I apologize if that is what you thought...I was implying to the older, more experienced generations that I have a lot of time for.  I, as an Infantry Officer would never do as good a job as I do without the help.  Have a great night and Pro Patria!


----------



## armyvern (29 Aug 2007)

footsoldier32 said:
			
		

> Army Vern, while I love coming on to other trades, please understand that I do not think that any one person is tougher than any other.  We all have a job to do and mine is Infantry, yours is supply.  I can't do my job with out you guys and you can't do yours without the crazys like us.  I apologize if that is what you thought...I was implying to the older, more experienced generations that I have a lot of time for.  I, as an Infantry Officer would never do as good a job as I do without the help.  Have a great night and Pro Patria!



Pas de problemo, and I hope that you have a good night too.

Pro Patria


----------



## Sig_Des (29 Aug 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I have ZERO problems with people using after market kit ... once they are out of the training pipeline and are comfortable with that issued gear that they may have to use properly one day for whatever reason because their Gucci kit gets trashed and the issued kit is all there is for them to use. Making them train with that issued gear ... is just smart ... just in case.



On the danger of sidetracking more, I'll say this. The thing to recognize is what training pipeline.

Everyone training with the issued gear IS smart, just in case. But when the Pipeline spreads out to predeployment training, individual soldiers should be training with the kit they will be using IN theater.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Aug 2007)

One thing we have to realize is that those promoting the idea of after-market kit are lobbying for those items with which they have personal experience, or know about through first-hand accounts from others they trust.  They have achieved this state after what has been, in effect, an unofficial trails and evaluation process on isolated items, which has reduced the list of preferred and accepted non-issue options to a rather limited list of all those items and manufacturers available.  Extrapolating this opinion to a general "troops should be allowed to use what they want" is an erroneous conclusion.

It remains to be seen how this generation will react, in a few years when they are the WOs and CSMs, when a new troop shows up wearing a piece of gear they don't have a personal classification of "Good To Go" for.  Will they sit back and say, "yeah, whatever you want troop, because I believe in complete freedom of choice", or will they critically examine that item, and the troop's experience and knowledge base to select that item, before they accept it in their platoon or company? Or will that demand for freedom of choice we hear now be tempered, supporting familiar items, but waiting to see if new items work before allowing them in operational situations? 

In the end, the final question will be who's at fault when a non-issue piece of kit does fail and someone dies, either the soldier himself, or one of the soldiers his actions were supposed to be protecting?  True, the "failure" of a toque or some other minor item may never cause a death, but when this attitude extends to equipment like boots, weapon modifications, etc., there remains a reason for caution within the chain of command.


----------



## Stauds (30 Aug 2007)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> One thing we have to realize is that those promoting the idea of after-market kit are lobbying for those items with which they have personal experience, or know about through first-hand accounts from others they trust.  They have achieved this state after what has been, in effect, an unofficial trails and evaluation process on isolated items, which has reduced the list of preferred and accepted non-issue options to a rather limited list of all those items and manufacturers available.  Extrapolating this opinion to a general "troops should be allowed to use what they want" is an erroneous conclusion.
> 
> It remains to be seen how this generation will react, in a few years when they are the WOs and CSMs, when a new troop shows up wearing a piece of gear they don't have a personal classification of "Good To Go" for.  Will they sit back and say, "yeah, whatever you want troop, because I believe in complete freedom of choice", or will they critically examine that item, and the troop's experience and knowledge base to select that item, before they accept it in their platoon or company? Or will that demand for freedom of choice we hear now be tempered, supporting familiar items, but waiting to see if new items work before allowing them in operational situations?
> 
> In the end, the final question will be who's at fault when a non-issue piece of kit does fail and someone dies, either the soldier himself, or one of the soldiers his actions were supposed to be protecting?  True, the "failure" of a toque or some other minor item may never cause a death, but when this attitude extends to equipment like boots, weapon modifications, etc., there remains a reason for caution within the chain of command.



If it's an issue of a soldier's experience and ability to judge what a reliable piece of kit is, then is it possible to get the section commander's to inspect any personal items that the soldier wants to use? Surely Sgt's have enough time in and operational experience to know what works and what doesn't.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Aug 2007)

Tipperary said:
			
		

> If it's an issue of a soldier's experience and ability to judge what a reliable piece of kit is, then is it possible to get the section commander's to inspect any personal items that the soldier wants to use? Surely Sgt's have enough time in and operational experience to know what works and what doesn't.



Not necessarily, when it may actually be a question of textile, plastics or metalurgical technology rather than perceived utility of the item's purpose.


(Edit to add "plastics")


----------



## armyvern (30 Aug 2007)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Not necessarily, when it may actually be a question of textile or metalurgical technology rather than perceived utility of the item's purpose.



Quite true.

A couple years ago, I had purchased some 'fire-retardent' items on behalf of a school here that was travelling about setting up & running a  new course to the system.  In consult with the course staff, we purchased quite a few aftermarket Gucci items (flash hoods, undies, etc) of different varieties from many manufacturer's. The cocktails pretty much proved that most didn't live up to the standards the sellers had advertised, nor the mil specs. But troops were are actually using some of this crap. After all was said and done, the stocked items actually lived up to their purpose and were still recognizable for what they were. No more LPOd for the course, it stayed with the stocked system items which met the mil specs (that is why they ended up being the stocked item in the first place after all) ... for the soldiers protection. 

Mil specs, and the suitability of an after-market item to perform properly in an austere location (ie when you are wearing it during an IED strike) really can't be judged by anyone ... unless they are putting it through the appropriate ballistic trials etc. Some Gucci suppliers do this, some do not. Some items would meet the mil specs, and some would not. Some say they meet the mil specs, but do not. 

There really is no easy solution to Gucci kit. If you want to see it on a list as "authorized for wear" then the CF would have to officially certify that it met the MilSpecs, ballistic specs etc. Why's that?? Because once it becomes "authorized" and officially sanctioned, the CF is responsible to ensure that you are protected and not put at undue risk of injury/death due to kit performance. They need to properly WRT safety etc. It's called due diligence. As a soldier, you are already at high risk, the system is just trying to mitigate that risk. Some of you would be surprised at what Gucci kit hasn't lived up to the ballistic standards etc of the stocked item even though the Company's own trials etc says it does. 

That's why you'll never see a random listing of after-market items authorized (but not milspec certified) for wear by individual soldiers. The items which do become officially "allowable," become so because the mil specs have been certified as being met. To go on any officially "sanctioned" list each individual item by each individual supplier would have to be run through DRDC etc, and this Nation simply doesn't have the budget for that. And some of those milspecs regarding combustability, ballistic level etc just can't be at the user level, unless of course, you're willing to let that section commander "blow your shit up."

Although, I know a great many section commanders who'd probably love to be authorized to do just that.   

It's not just an Army issue either. Roper gloves are an LPOd item now, but in order to be used by us ... they can't come from just any supplier because they simply do not meet the milspecs for conditions they'd be used for and in by soldiers. We LPOd 5 types, they all looked pretty much identical and then sent them off to be tested and "certified" as authorized ... 2 pairs passed (and neither were the cheapest pairs although one was the most expensive pair).


----------



## Stauds (30 Aug 2007)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Not necessarily, when it may actually be a question of textile, plastics or metalurgical technology rather than perceived utility of the item's purpose.



I am specifically talking about items such as Chest Rigs. For example, I have a chest rig from High Speed Gear Inc, and I know it is a quality rig and will not fall apart at the worst times. The company's products are tried, tested, and passed with amazing results. They are recommended from soldiers who have actually used them in theatre. 

Now is my judgement and research sound? From a higher up point of view, a private may not be able to be trusted, but I have done my research and purchased a quality product. So, to confirm this, would it not be possible for my Section Commander to check my rig over and make sure it's not a piece of crap that will break?After veryifying this, I should be allowed to wear the vest. I think this would be a acceptable comprimise.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2007)

Tipperary said:
			
		

> I am specifically talking about items such as Chest Rigs. For example, I have a chest rig from High Speed Gear Inc, and I know it is a quality rig and will not fall apart at the worst times. The company's products are tried, tested, and passed with amazing results. They are recommended from soldiers who have actually used them in theatre.
> 
> Now is my judgement and research sound? From a higher up point of view, a private may not be able to be trusted, but I have done my research and purchased a quality product. So, to confirm this, would it not be possible for my Section Commander to check my rig over and make sure it's not a piece of crap that will break?After veryifying this, I should be allowed to wear the vest. I think this would be a acceptable comprimise.



Interesting.  Your judgement has nothing to do with this.  Your research may.  Your Section Commander has no authority to OK any piece of kit that you may want to utilize.  Your Sergeant Major may.  You are trying to circumvent the 'System'.  Have you thought about processing your 'research' through the System, using the proper formats and channels?  If you haven't, as a no hook Pte you are going to loose.

If you do use the proper procedures to put forward a suggestion/recommendation, then many will benefit from your work.  If you don't you either benefit only yourself if you are allowed to utilize a particular piece of kit, or you make many enemies in the higher ranks who will look at you as not being a 'Team Player'.

Submit the proper paperwork through the proper channels.  Everyone will be happier  (Remember - the system is very s  l   o   w.......)


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Aug 2007)

Tipperary said:
			
		

> I am specifically talking about items such as Chest Rigs. For example, I have a chest rig from High Speed Gear Inc, and I know it is a quality rig and will not fall apart at the worst times. The company's products are tried, tested, and passed with amazing results. They are recommended from soldiers who have actually used them in theatre.
> 
> Now is my judgement and research sound? From a higher up point of view, a private may not be able to be trusted, but I have done my research and purchased a quality product. So, to confirm this, would it not be possible for my Section Commander to check my rig over and make sure it's not a piece of crap that will break?After veryifying this, I should be allowed to wear the vest. I think this would be a acceptable comprimise.



You have just described the process that sets the scene for this comment:



			
				Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> One thing we have to realize is that those promoting the idea of after-market kit are lobbying for those items with which they have personal experience, or know about through first-hand accounts from others they trust.  They have achieved this state after what has been, in effect, an unofficial trails and evaluation process on isolated items, which has reduced the list of preferred and accepted non-issue options to a rather limited list of all those items and manufacturers available.  Extrapolating this opinion to a general "troops should be allowed to use what they want" is an erroneous conclusion.
> 
> It remains to be seen how this generation will react, in a few years when they are the WOs and CSMs, when a new troop shows up wearing a piece of gear they don't have a personal classification of "Good To Go" for.  Will they sit back and say, "yeah, whatever you want troop, because I believe in complete freedom of choice", or will they critically examine that item, and the troop's experience and knowledge base to select that item, before they accept it in their platoon or company? Or will that demand for freedom of choice we hear now be tempered, supporting familiar items, but waiting to see if new items work before allowing them in operational situations?
> 
> In the end, the final question will be who's at fault when a non-issue piece of kit does fail and someone dies, either the soldier himself, or one of the soldiers his actions were supposed to be protecting?  True, the "failure" of a toque or some other minor item may never cause a death, but when this attitude extends to equipment like boots, weapon modifications, etc., there remains a reason for caution within the chain of command.



So you researched one chest rig, does that make you an expert on every chest rig that any soldier wants to use during the rest of your career?  What about weapon mods?  What about boots?  You made yourself knowledgeable about one item as described in your example, that does not an make you a qualified expert able to "authorize" any after-market kit a soldier under your command would want to use in future.

And what happens when a soldier shows up in your section wearing something from a manufacturer you wrote off during your research?  What will your response be?  Probably, a very strong "no fucking way!"  But maybe he did the research and their quality is better at that point; could be, but still OUTSIDE your "expertise." 

The point being made was that limited experience with select kit DOES NOT make any of us experts on all after-market options.


----------



## Fusaki (31 Aug 2007)

> Interesting.  Your judgement has nothing to do with this.  Your research may.  Your Section Commander has no authority to OK any piece of kit that you may want to utilize.  Your Sergeant Major may.  You are trying to circumvent the 'System'.  Have you thought about processing your 'research' through the System, using the proper formats and channels?  If you haven't, as a no hook Pte you are going to loose.
> 
> If you do use the proper procedures to put forward a suggestion/recommendation, then many will benefit from your work.  If you don't you either benefit only yourself if you are allowed to utilize a particular piece of kit, or you make many enemies in the higher ranks who will look at you as not being a 'Team Player'.
> 
> Submit the proper paperwork through the proper channels.  Everyone will be happier  (Remember - the system is very s  l   o   w.......)



Thats interesting...

Is there an official form for this? Is it submitted in memo format? what is required? I know I could always ask at work, but for the benefit of everyone else here...



> So you researched one chest rig, does that make you an expert on every chest rig that any soldier wants to use during the rest of your career?  What about weapon mods?  What about boots?  You made yourself knowledgeable about one item as described in your example, that does not an make you a qualified expert able to "authorize" any after-market kit a soldier under your command would want to use in future.
> 
> And what happens when a soldier shows up in your section wearing something from a manufacturer you wrote off during your research?  What will your response be?  Probably, a very strong "no ******* way!"  But maybe he did the research and their quality is better at that point; could be, but still OUTSIDE your "expertise."
> 
> The point being made was that limited experience with select kit DOES NOT make any of us experts on all after-market options.



I agree, there are so many expensive options out there that no one person could possibly be an expert on everythng. One thing I have seen done is a stern warning from the CSM: "You're big boys, so bring what you want on this ex as long as you look like a (Canadian) soldier. But if you don't bring enough warm kit or your gucci ******* mitts fail and you go down in the field, you'll be fucking charged. I'll ******* hammer ya."

This has been enough for most troops to err on the side of caution, and encouraged them to do their research. I don't know if this is an official rule, but in my own unit its commonly held that if you can't do your job because you've swapped out your issued gear with non-issue stuff you'll be up in front of the CO doing the hatless dance the minute you're out of the base hospital. I can't think of any instances where this has actually happened, but the threat is always there.

This system might not work as well overseas, but I think we're hoping that by that time the troops have gained the experience required.


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2007)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Thats interesting...
> 
> Is there an official form for this? Is it submitted in memo format? what is required? I know I could always ask at work, but for the benefit of everyone else here...



There most certainly is. It's called the UCR. You write up the shitty piece of kit (ie the issued one you choose NOT to use and state the reasons why) and in the "Suggestions/Recommendations" block (which asks for specific examples/samples etc) you insert the name of the supplier, manufacturer part # etc, of the Gucci kit item that you choose to use instead and state your reasons why that particular piece of kit would be a better item to hold or utilize within the system than the one that is issued. Include a sample of it, as it will have to undergo MilSpec testing etc ... and it's got to pass that testing to be authorized for use/issue.

I won't get into the UCR process...the SOPs for them and how to submit them (and to whom) are already posted on this site.


----------

