# Replacing the pack system?



## buzgo (30 May 2012)

I happened to hear that a Letter of Interest (LOI) had been posted on MERX, related to modular pack systems. It looks like what may be the beginning of the end of the small pack and the new ruck. 

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24PR-707-60507&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=0&CLOSESORT=0&IS_SME=Y&hcode=qa%2fkJfsPmRQ6G94rolKgQA%3d%3d

Thoughts? Anyone have any other info?


----------



## fraserdw (30 May 2012)

Yeah, this was discussed in a DLR road show recently.  Our equipment is all Daisy Chain webbing while the new tac vest will be MOLLE, the CF wants to move to all interchangeable MOLLE by 2016.  The often repeated favorite seems to be either UK's BERGEN 2011 system or US's Gen IV MOLLE system but in CADPAT.  This is timed with the newer lighter, less bulky -25 Celsius sleeping bags that has just come out (Nanok, as I recall).


----------



## a_majoor (30 May 2012)

So it took more than a decade to get the "new rucksack", only to replace it right away...priceless


----------



## fraserdw (30 May 2012)

True but in effect, they are listening now.  Most of the current equipment reforms are coming out of soldier feedback.  MOLLE seems to be something the troops screamed the loudest about in terms of pers kit.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So it took more than a decade to get the "new rucksack", only to replace it right away...priceless


On a bright note, if you're a fan of the new soon to be old pack.  It may hit the stores so you'd be able to get one for your personal use.  If you were so inclined.  I was issued the pack for my last trip to the sandbox, it was heads and tails above it's predecessor.  Hopefully what comes after it will be even better for the troops and what they're looking for.


----------



## fraserdw (30 May 2012)

The new old rucksack is sold in stores now.  SGS sell it through a dealer in Quebec and Manitoba.  They have changed the zipper cover around the sleep carrier to olive from CADPAT so that you cannot exchange.  Other than that it is the same with the compression sack and pouches included.  QSMILTD I think is the dealer in Mb.


----------



## MikeL (30 May 2012)

The new/current rucksacks and small packs seen in stores are a cheap copy of the CTS packs from what I've read.  On another site the packs were descibed as are poor quality, etc.

http://www.cqmsltd.com/Web_Pages/backpacks_duffle_bags_page_.htm


Looking forward to these new rucks and small packs,  be awhile though until we even see what this new ruck and small pack will be and sometime after then when they start being issued.


----------



## buzgo (30 May 2012)

It would be cool if we followed the Australian Defense Forces' lead:

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2756008371/m/43420852963


----------



## TSpoon (30 May 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> It would be cool if we followed the Australian Defense Forces' lead:
> 
> http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2756008371/m/43420852963



Can't get to the link..apparently you need an account on that site to veiw it.What exactly are the Aussies up to ?


----------



## x_para76 (30 May 2012)

I can't tell you how glad I am to hear that the CF is binning the current ruck and small pack system. I've been using a bergan and small pack from Berghaus for the last 10 years and they're so much better than the garbage that issue us. If they'd had the kit trialed and tested by the right people in the first place we probably wouldn't be in this situation. The procurement systems in the CF have to be some of the worst of any modern military. We don't seem to have figured out that buying off of the shelf is a more effective system for a small military than trying to develop kit ourselves.


----------



## my72jeep (30 May 2012)

Dam and I just got issued my small pack now its obsolete.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 May 2012)

Damn, I just got my new CTS rucksack! Now I have something else new and shiny I want.


----------



## Lerch (31 May 2012)

Mystery Ranch?

I'd love to see the SATL and Tactiplane...or the NICE frame and various packs...


----------



## fraserdw (31 May 2012)

The Aussies have MALICE or SOn of ALICE type pack with lots of MOLLE.  It kinda looks like a Bergen and an ALICE that mated!


----------



## PMedMoe (31 May 2012)

I'm keeping my old one.  Oh wait, I'll be out before it even gets in the system....   ;D


----------



## dapaterson (31 May 2012)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> I can't tell you how glad I am to hear that the CF is binning the current ruck and small pack system. I've been using a bergan and small pack from Berghaus for the last 10 years and they're so much better than the garbage that issue us. _*If they'd had the kit trialed and tested by the right people in the first place we probably wouldn't be in this situation*_. The procurement systems in the CF have to be some of the worst of any modern military. We don't seem to have figured out that buying off of the shelf is a more effective system for a small military than trying to develop kit ourselves.



Do you know who trials kit?  Hint:  It's CF members, in field units, who are given samples to try and assess and identify strengths and weaknesses.  That feedback goes back to those developing requirements.

So, if I read you right, we shouldn't do trials with users, but instead we should let the big headed guys in Ottawa decide everything.



I assume your knowledge of military procurement is as limited as your knowledge of the development process, and just as unsupported by fact.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 May 2012)

We were issued the "new" pack during workup training for Roto 7.  IIRC they said that there were at least 60 modifications made during the trial process that was described as exhaustive.

I had an old friend who was part of trials  in the 90's for some gear the Army was investigating.  They were sent to Alert for about a month to test the different pieces of kit.  He said that it did take up to 15 years in some cases for the gear to make it through the identification of need/conception/design/protype/test & trial/adoption/production and lastly issue to the troops.  The back room boys, he said, go to great lengths to get the best gear they can.

Sometimes the system lets you down, such as the Canadian Tire campat Elmer Fudd Garrison Dress fiasco of the 90's.  But the difference in gear I saw between the early 90's when I was in a field unit, to 15 years later for Roto 7 was astounding.  Much of it was from crap to Cadillac in my estimation.  Someone, somewhere, must be doing things right.


----------



## fraserdw (31 May 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Do you know who trials kit?  Hint:  It's CF members, in field units, who are given samples to try and assess and identify strengths and weaknesses.  That feedback goes back to those developing requirements.
> 
> So, if I read you right, we shouldn't do trials with users, but instead we should let the big headed guys in Ottawa decide everything.
> 
> ...



Roger that, there are some CA CWOs and Capts at LFTEU who work very hard at getting trial kit into the hands of the users to abuse


----------



## Loachman (31 May 2012)

From what I have seen since the 1970s, the general pattern is that whatever is issued for trial purposes is accepted by those wearing/using it because it is better than what they already had and that they know full well that if they reject it for whatever reason, they won't see the improved/corrected version for at least five years.

That happened with the trial webbing that came out in 1977, and subsequently evolved into the 1982 Pattern webbing. Those doing the 82 Pattern trials "liked" it, but complaints were voiced as soon as it became general issue.

Similarly, the Tac Vest was better than the 82 Pattern webbing until it was actually issued and taken to war.

Trial troops generally only have two things to compare - existing kit and the trial kit. They have little or no knowledge of anything else.

Commercial manufacturers, real war, and the internet seem to have changed that somewhat, and I think that the CF has learned a little as a result. I remain somewhat skeptical, however, based upon past observations.

Those observations include trials done by candidates on courses, because that was "convenient" for those conducting the trial. The "right people" concern is a valid one.


----------



## fraserdw (31 May 2012)

Now is an excellent time to trial new kit, we got a combat experienced Army who has used a variety of GUCCI kit in a war zone instead of or in addition to the issued kit.  The only issue is that we may get new kit based on the needs of the last war we fought and the next war has never been like the last war for any Army in history.


----------



## buzgo (31 May 2012)

Sorry about that LF link.

Basically the ADF is getting a mix of Mystery Ranch and other kit to fill out their various identified needs. So they will have a modular system from assault pack up to full on alpine ruck. With a mix in between.

Regarding trials, from my perspective, the CTS project was a homegrown solution to the clothing and equipment issues we were having. There didn't seem to be a lot of input from industry but... when CTS started prior to 9/11, there weren't a lot of options from industry. So 'we' decided to come up with our own solution and the project got rolling. Once a project gains momentum, its hard to change or stop it. So we end up with a 'so-so' ruck, raingear with reflectors etc etc. The rucksack was designed in the 90s...

They are now looking to industry and using spiral development practices to get stuff out to us quicker and cheaper.


----------



## TN2IC (31 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Damn, I just got my new CTS rucksack! Now I have something else new and shiny I want.




Still waiting for mine..................


----------



## R031button (31 May 2012)

The Australians have also adopted / are adopting a policy of tearing their issue (ie Infantry and Cooks are not issued the same load bearing equipment) as well as a philosophy of buying less more often, with an aim of cycling kit every couple of years. Source here http://www.defenceandindustry.gov.au/presentations/pdf/presentations/thursday/1520_Blain.pdf


----------



## Tank Troll (31 May 2012)

I still have the old 64 pattern ruck just kept up dating it. The last one was junk and this one is to friggen big. Hopefully the next one will be better seeing as I still have 10 more BFTs to go.


----------



## Old and Tired (31 May 2012)

TT:

You know how I feel about that train wreck of a Ruck we're issued now and why.  That's why I use either my 64 pattern or the one that Brian and I worked on about 6 years ago.

 One of the things about the Cloth the Soldier kit in general is who SOME stress SOME of the people that were used for the trials.  There is something fundamentally wrong when an Air Force Photo Tech working a Fort Ridiculous on the Rideau is pulled out of a dark room and placed in the trial pool.

The other thing that I find amusing is that, because so many people have invested a great deal of personal reputation on some items that trned out to be junk, any complaints either fall on deaf ears, or get blamed on the end user because we don't understand the "Philosophy" behind the design.

Besides Andy I thought you had a tank (Gwagon these days) to carry your kit.  What ever happened to Death Before Dismount.

DARO


----------



## Tank Troll (1 Jun 2012)

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> TT:
> 
> Besides Andy I thought you had a tank (Gwagon these days) to carry your kit.  What ever happened to Death Before Dismount.
> 
> DARO



Still got to do the BFT once a year. Last year there was a comment about why I had a different ruck than everyone else. it use to just get passed of as "Cause he is old." How ever it has been mentioned that as the RSM, acting or not I should have the same ruck as the troops.


----------



## R031button (1 Jun 2012)

Well it would put a sour taste in the mouths of some had they been jacked up for wearing non issued kit and the RSM is wearing a 64 pattern.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jun 2012)

Big fan of the Lowe Alpine Saracen and Eberstock Operator.

I'm not going to complain that the new CTS ruck is being replaced already- it's a kitbag with shoulder straps.

While were at it a new small pack would be nice too.


----------



## Lerch (1 Jun 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> While were at it a new small pack would be nice too.



I read the Merx request as a complete replacement for the Small Pack and Rucksack.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jun 2012)

Lerch said:
			
		

> I read the Merx request as a complete replacement for the Small Pack and Rucksack.



Luckily we've already got a war winning model tested in battle over several years by millions:

1-37 Pattern Belt- for battle webbing, see below picture. Blancoed with KG3

2-37 Pattern Utitlity Pouches Mk2, Pair- for battle webbing, see picture below. Blancoed with KG3 (Mk1 pouches are acceptable, Mk3 pouches are not)

3-37 Pattern Intrenching tool, cover and handle- for battle webbing, see below picture. Blancoed with KG3

4-37 Pattern Cross Straps, pair- for battle webbing, see below picture. Blancoed with KG3

5-37 Pattern Small Pack- for battle webbing, see bottom pictures. Blancoed with KG3

6-Tan Rain Cape (mentioned at the bottom of this page) 

7-Gas Cape held in place with Utility straps

8-No4 Spike Bayonet with Scabbard in 37 Pattern Frog- for battle webbing, see picture below. Frog blancoed with KG3

9-37 Pattern Water Bottle Cradle and Water Bottle with cork- for battle webbing, all types of cradle and all types of water bottle are accebtable, see below picture. Cradle blancoed with KG3

10-Hawkins Mine (detailed in weapons section)

-37 Pattern L Straps, Pair- for battle webbing, see bottom pictures. Blancoed with KG3


----------



## buzgo (2 Jun 2012)

The Mystery Ranch NICE frame system is already in use, in CADPAT TW,  with the AGL project. CANSOF is using some MR pack variants as well. It wouldn't be a huge leap to assume that MR would be interested in further CF business. They are experienced with large scale production of their gear - ADF and USMC both use MR packs.

It would be pretty sweet to turn in the book bag and get issued an MR 3 day assault pack...


----------



## MikeL (2 Jun 2012)

MR 3DAP would be better then our current small pack  but IMO if they bring it in they would also need to bring in a larger day pack for certain pers like those carrying radios.  If they keep the "small pack" is for 24hrs and less then the 3DAP would not meet that,  at least not for Pl Signallers, etc

Also,  I don't believe the USMC is currently using any Mystery Ranch packs.  The current USMC ruck and their equiv to the smallpack is designed by Arc'teryx,  I believe the new ruck they are bringing in has had input/improvements by MR though.  The upcoming USMC Ruck( FILBE(?)) does look pretty good,  as it was supposed to overcome issues their last ruck had which is similar to the same ones we have with ours.


----------



## fraserdw (2 Jun 2012)

FILBE is correct, it is very MR inspired, seen one on EBAY for 900 bucks.  I so wanted it.  It is an incredible design better than an average MR pack.

Here's a link:

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/GENUINE-RARE-EAGLE-FILBE-NEWEST-USMC-ALL-BACKPACKS-SYSTEM-COYOTE-BROWN-NEW-/230800510240?pt=UK_Collectables_Militaria_LE&hash=item35bcc84d20


----------



## buzgo (2 Jun 2012)

MR was brought in a sub-contractor by Eagle to 'tweak' the design.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2012)

Not ever trade needs a rucksack capable of humping 90 pounds comfortably or a small pack (assault pack) they can live out of for 1 to 3 days.

I think the problem with the CF is that we try and reach a 70% solution with our kit.  A clerk doesn't need a high end chest rig.

What if we had 2 scales of issue.  Standard and <Insert clever catch word>.

Many trades can get by with the CTS rucksack for the occasional BFT,  tacvest for the PWT2 each year small pack filled with rain jacket, gloves and a lunch.

For other field uints that spend time really using this shit they get issued an intelligently designed assault bag. Instead of going through the bullshit finding companies to manufacture it to some weirdo mythical standard and fighting over who gets dibs on designing the buckles, buy some off the shealf bags.  Same with the rucksack.  3PPCLI is light infantry? Buy a bunch of bags from eberstock. Give the members of 1 Cdn Dental unit the CTS ruck.
Know what I mean?
Having a one size fits all approach just doesn't work.    At work I sit on a ratty chair that's missing a wheel and every time I lean back I almost fall. I've seen other chairs in places that probably cost have half of what I make in a month or pretty close.  We don't buy $1200 chairs for everyone in the CF, why would we buy $900 rucksack/assault bag packages for all?


----------



## fraserdw (2 Jun 2012)

In effect, we have done that, Pattern 82 is for us "WOGs" and HQ types and CTS is for the light infantry.  CTS has issues but it's carrying capacity is what is needed to go foot mobile for 2 weeks.  What would be nice is a pack system designed on the same frame, where you can change out 1 Day pack; 25 Litres, 3 Day Pack; 65 Litres, 7 Day Pack; 90 Litres and Long Range Recon "hide in the bush for a month"; 140 litres Pack.  everyone would get the 1 and 3 Day packs with a frame but only infantry would receive the 7 day and only recce units would receive the Recon Pack.  All common frame all with interchangeable pouches that also interchange with a tac vest (for others) and chest rig (for infantry).  Also the 1 day pack would be functionally fittable to the larger packs.  The packs and vests should have a common hydration system as well.


----------



## buzgo (2 Jun 2012)

Great idea but the only way to do it, is to continue on the current path and wipe the slate clean as if CTS never issued packs and tacvest. The current pouches won't work with MOLLE based systems and vice versa.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> In effect, we have done that, Pattern 82 is for us "WOGs" and HQ types and CTS is for the light infantry.  CTS has issues but it's carrying capacity is what is needed to go foot mobile for 2 weeks.  What would be nice is a pack system designed on the same frame, where you can change out 1 Day pack; 25 Litres, 3 Day Pack; 65 Litres, 7 Day Pack; 90 Litres and Long Range Recon "hide in the bush for a month"; 140 litres Pack.  everyone would get the 1 and 3 Day packs with a frame but only infantry would receive the 7 day and only recce units would receive the Recon Pack.  All common frame all with interchangeable pouches that also interchange with a tac vest (for others) and chest rig (for infantry).  Also the 1 day pack would be functionally fittable to the larger packs.  The packs and vests should have a common hydration system as well.



Interesting idea.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jun 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> In effect, we have done that, Pattern 82 is for us "WOGs" and HQ types and CTS is for the light infantry.  CTS has issues but it's carrying capacity is what is needed to go foot mobile for 2 weeks.  What would be nice is a pack system designed on the same frame, where you can change out 1 Day pack; 25 Litres, 3 Day Pack; 65 Litres, 7 Day Pack; 90 Litres and Long Range Recon "hide in the bush for a month"; 140 litres Pack.  everyone would get the 1 and 3 Day packs with a frame but only infantry would receive the 7 day and only recce units would receive the Recon Pack.  All common frame all with interchangeable pouches that also interchange with a tac vest (for others) and chest rig (for infantry).  Also the 1 day pack would be functionally fittable to the larger packs.  The packs and vests should have a common hydration system as well.



Are you saying there is one common frame that you can mount all 4 packs to? So you'd have to disassemble your ruck to move down into a smaller pack, and reassemble later? That would have to be one heck of a system.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2012)

I'd suggest;

Day pack- backpack for every day use across the CF. Much like our schoolbag smallpack.
Assault pack- members who require it and would use it in the field. Probably be used in place of the rucksack in many cases. 

Standard rucksack-CTS type rucksack across the CF (if it's deemed even required, which it probably even isn't considering how many units use smallpacks for the BFT)
Enhanced rucksack- for members/units identified as requiring a more field appropriate ruck.

TV type issue for the masses and higher end modular chest rig for where it's appropriate.

ability to attach (empty) assault pack and camelbak to the ruck.
We experimented with putting a kitted out smallpack inside the CTS ruck to just pull it out and go but we lost a lot of space doing that.  And the smallpack is build stupid.


----------



## MikeL (2 Jun 2012)

Camelbak HAWG IMO is a good size for an "assault" pack.  Fits easily in a ruck,  and it's just big enough to hold what you need for short duration.  I've used it to carry a radio, bladder and some other small items.  I'm sure it would work well to carry some boxes of C9 or belts of 7.62, and/or other mission essential kit.    



> Probably be used in place of the rucksack in many cases.


IMO something that is an "assault" pack shouldn't be large enough to replace the ruck.  Assault pack to me is something you'd want to carry in the ruck,  and when you drop your ruck in the PB you take the assault pack for patrols,  raids, etc.  Pack would only be meant to carry what you need for a short patrol,  assaulting a position, etc.  Ammo, water bladder, radio, and whatever else is needed.

Something to replace the ruck in certain situation would be something more like a 24hr+ pack similar to what the small pack is designed for.  Just need something better then the current small pack for the role though.


----------



## Lerch (2 Jun 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> In effect, we have done that, Pattern 82 is for us "WOGs" and HQ types and CTS is for the light infantry.  CTS has issues but it's carrying capacity is what is needed to go foot mobile for 2 weeks.  What would be nice is a pack system designed on the same frame, where you can change out 1 Day pack; 25 Litres, 3 Day Pack; 65 Litres, 7 Day Pack; 90 Litres and Long Range Recon "hide in the bush for a month"; 140 litres Pack.  everyone would get the 1 and 3 Day packs with a frame but only infantry would receive the 7 day and only recce units would receive the Recon Pack.  All common frame all with interchangeable pouches that also interchange with a tac vest (for others) and chest rig (for infantry).  Also the 1 day pack would be functionally fittable to the larger packs.  The packs and vests should have a common hydration system as well.



Mystery Ranch NICE Frame with BVS?

I'd say keep the day pack (3DAP?) seperate, because there's lots of us who bring a day pack and ruck to the field. The MR Wolf Pack fits the bill for the 3 day pack (Wolf Alpha holds 69L), and 7 day pack (add the Pup for a whole 100L capacity). For Recce guys and attached you can issue out the MR 7500 (123L) and we can either use sustainment pouches (20L each) or the MR side pouches (varying sizes).

Going with the NICE Frame with BVS on a widescale issue would mean EVERYONE gets issued the same frame, sized to their bodies (S, M, L yokes and S, M, L belts), and EVERYONE can be issued the appropriate pack for their own job. On top of this, all the packs have a radio harness inside, and the MR lids have ports to put hydration inside and feed it out. Further, it's designed for wear with AND without body armour, you can remove the bolsters from the newer frames if you don't need them.


----------



## Tank Troll (3 Jun 2012)

R031button said:
			
		

> Well it would put a sour taste in the mouths of some had they been jacked up for wearing non issued kit and the RSM is wearing a 64 pattern.




I would concur............... how ever I didn't jack anyone up for non issued kit. I  let my guys wear whatever kind of boots they want as long as they come above the ankle and are black. I all so let them wear shemaghs and being an ex Strat I don't really say much about their sideburns either  ;D


----------



## R031button (3 Jun 2012)

Well that is commendable of you sir.


----------



## Tank Troll (3 Jun 2012)

How ever you are corect that I should be wearing at least the 82 patteren ruck (haven't been fitted for the other one)


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jun 2012)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> How ever you are corect that I should be wearing at least the 82 patteren ruck (haven't been fitted for the other one)



Why can't you wear the issued 64 pattern rucksack?


----------



## R031button (3 Jun 2012)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> How ever you are corect that I should be wearing at least the 82 patteren ruck (haven't been fitted for the other one)



Good lord why? The new ruck might not be the best thing in the world, I like it because I have a long torso and it works for me, but it's a shit ton better then that sack of shit. I can't imagine anyone wearing that over the new ruck.


----------



## Tank Troll (3 Jun 2012)

R031button said:
			
		

> Good lord why? The new ruck might not be the best thing in the world, I like it because I have a long torso and it works for me, but it's a crap ton better then that sack of crap. I can't imagine anyone wearing that over the new ruck.



We just stood up as a unit in 09 I have no one qualified to fit us for the new ruck. and it doesn't fit in a G wagon any way and I would only us it once a year for the BFT. Far better to let it get issued to troops that will use it/ need it more than I.



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Why can't you wear the issued 64 pattern rucksack?




Some of my troops were vocalizing about why I was wearing a 64 pattern ruck that looked way more comfortable and cooler than theirs. As the acting RSM I need to set an example and share their miseries.


----------



## R031button (3 Jun 2012)

Rodger that sir, commendable attitude.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jun 2012)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Some of my troops were vocalizing about why I was wearing a 64 pattern ruck that looked way more comfortable and cooler than theirs. As the acting RSM I need to set an example and share their miseries.



Right TT but why not authorize the 64 pattern ruck along side with 82 pattern and CTS ruck?  As far as I see it, they're all issued and the 64 is a good ruck and not some weird harold thing from the great war.


----------



## TN2IC (4 Jun 2012)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Some of my troops were vocalizing about why I was wearing a 64 pattern ruck that looked way more comfortable and cooler than theirs. As the acting RSM I need to set an example and share their miseries.



As an RSM, you should tell them it's garbage. And invest in the 64 ruck. Lead by example. 
"Only an idiot makes themself uncomfortable in the field." Use that term.

Regards,
Macey


----------



## Tank Troll (4 Jun 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Right TT but why not authorize the 64 pattern ruck along side with 82 pattern and CTS ruck?  As far as I see it, they're all issued and the 64 is a good ruck and not some weird harold thing from the great war.





			
				Macey said:
			
		

> As an RSM, you should tell them it's garbage. And invest in the 64 ruck. Lead by example.



The problem is that it isn't issued any more at least not to Armour Reservist. Mine was issued to me many years ago and to my young soldiers it was as far back as the Great War. How ever I told them where they could get one if they wanted to buy one. So the next exercise we had one of them shows up with this civi ruck that he got online. I asked why he was using it he told me the one I recommended was too expensive and this on was cheaper. This is what I have to deal with so it is just easier to where the 82 pattern ruck for 1 Day a year.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jun 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Are you saying there is one common frame that you can mount all 4 packs to? So you'd have to disassemble your ruck to move down into a smaller pack, and reassemble later? That would have to be one heck of a system.



I did a thought experiment and sent it up the food chain many years ago with a slightly different twist to the idea. There would be a "core" bag which would be the assault bag carrying the ammo, rations and extra socks you should never be without (or alternatively a 522 or 117 type radio). Surrounding that with a quick release system would be three large "pockets" which all the snivel kit goes into. On contact you pull the quick release and they fall free (along with the valise and sleeping bag) so you can carry out the assault; but more importantly still have your ammunition and food with you. You might have to remain in place for quite some time before releif appears (or if things go poorly you might have to bug out), so you don't want to do without your ammo and food.

At the time, I had never heard of a Camelback, so there is no built in hydration system with this version of the idea, there is no reason why it could not be incorporated.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I did a thought experiment and sent it up the food chain many years ago with a slightly different twist to the idea. There would be a "core" bag which would be the assault bag carrying the ammo, rations and extra socks you should never be without (or alternatively a 522 or 117 type radio). Surrounding that with a quick release system would be three large "pockets" which all the snivel kit goes into. On contact you pull the quick release and they fall free (along with the valise and sleeping bag) so you can carry out the assault; but more importantly still have your ammunition and food with you. You might have to remain in place for quite some time before releif appears (or if things go poorly you might have to bug out), so you don't want to do without your ammo and food.
> 
> At the time, I had never heard of a Camelback, so there is no built in hydration system with this version of the idea, there is no reason why it could not be incorporated.



So... kind of like this then: http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/The_Basics

Plus a bergen?


----------

