# "The stuff the army issues is useless" and "no non-issue kit over seas!"



## PhilB (9 Aug 2005)

Im considering purchasing a chest rig for the TF 1-06 deployment. In talking to people from the 1st I know that their CO is fairly lax on non issue kit in the field. My question is will this policy change once overseas? Does any have any experience with the kit nazis over there. Is there a double standard i.e. if your on gate it doesnt count as the field so only issue kit etc.
Thanks very much just trying to decide if its worth the investment. Thanks in advance


----------



## Krazy-P (10 Aug 2005)

are you doin gate duty at camp mirage?


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (10 Aug 2005)

Are you reg or reserve?


----------



## Blackhorse7 (10 Aug 2005)

Not meaning to open up this can of worms, BPPC.... but what does it matter if PhilB is Regs or Reserves?  Would the standard not be the same?  I tell you this... if I went on tour as a Reservist and got held to a different standard than the Reg Force guys did (ie:  they could wear non-issue kit and I could not), I would be some pissed.


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Aug 2005)

> Not meaning to open up this can of worms, BPPC.... but what does it matter if PhilB is Regs or Reserves?  Would the standard not be the same?  I tell you this... if I went on tour as a Reservist and got held to a different standard than the Reg Force guys did (ie:  they could wear non-issue kit and I could not), I would be some pissed.



He's asking because the D&S platoon is a formed unit of reservists, with a reservist CO and CSM (or whatever the combination may be) who might feel compelled to ensure that their troops were "inspection ready", so to speak.


----------



## PhilB (10 Aug 2005)

I am a reservist, and no as far as I know we will be attached to 1 VP based out of Khandahar. There is a second D&S pl that is being stood up to go to mirage


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Aug 2005)

Oh.

Yeah, what he said.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (10 Aug 2005)

Gotcha.  Thanks for the clarification, Britney.


----------



## Bomber (10 Aug 2005)

Buy one, wear it, if you get jacked up, and told to get rid of it, advertise it for sale on Army .ca, or Ebay, put the disclaimer that it has been to Kandahar, and someone will buy it, probably for more than what you paid.  If you don;t get told to ditch it, then wear it and be happy.  Not really a situation you can lose in.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (10 Aug 2005)

Black horse, no, THE STANDARD WOULD  NOT BE THE SAME!


----------



## Sf2 (10 Aug 2005)

wear it .....what's the worst that could happen?  Someone telling you to take it off?


----------



## Krazy-P (10 Aug 2005)

i was asking because i am also a reservist with the LER, and if they ever sort my paperwork out,(long Story), then i will also be going to kandahar. Just curious what people are bringing for kit.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Aug 2005)

Going on tour just to do 6 months of gate guard?   :boring:  I'd go nuts.  I used to dread the 4 hours on - 4 hours QRF - 4 hours pers. time revolving schedule of guard rotation on the operations cycle when I was in Iraq.  Get me out of the wire anytime.

My advice would be follow Bomber's advice and take as much non-issue stuff as you want, but to have all the 'issue' stuff you were told to bring as well.  Probably better to use the issued stuff at first and gradually break in the non-issue stuff gradually.  Better to base first impressions with your leadership on you as a competent troop who can function at his job, rather than some over eager Canex-Commando all decked out in aftermarket gear.  Once your leadership knows you're a good-to-go troop, then you can start bending the rules abit by using a non-issue 3-point sling, then wearing a non-issued vest, etc.  

Play it by ear and be flexible.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Aug 2005)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> My advice would be follow Bomber's advice and take as much non-issue stuff as you want, but to have all the 'issue' stuff you were told to bring as well.   Probably better to use the issued stuff at first and gradually break in the non-issue stuff gradually.   Better to base first impressions with your leadership on you as a competent troop who can function at his job, rather than some over eager Canex-Commando all decked out in aftermarket gear.   Once your leadership knows you're a good-to-go troop, then you can start bending the rules abit by using a non-issue 3-point sling, then wearing a non-issued vest, etc.
> 
> ...



The best (and sneakiest - I knew I liked you) advice so far.


----------



## Armymedic (10 Aug 2005)

PhilB said:
			
		

> Im considering purchasing a chest rig for the TF 1-06 deployment. In talking to people from the 1st I know that their CO is fairly lax on non issue kit in the field. My question is will this policy change once overseas? Does any have any experience with the kit nazis over there. Is there a double standard i.e. if your on gate it doesnt count as the field so only issue kit etc.
> Thanks very much just trying to decide if its worth the investment. Thanks in advance



Its your money, waste it as you see fit. Just because your overseas doesn't mean the kit and clothing rules are eliminated. All it takes is a visit from one RSM or General for your "investment" (now it term of kit, and cars, money spent on it is never an "investment") to become wasted space in your UAB.


----------



## Unknown Factor (10 Aug 2005)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Better to base first impressions with your leadership on you as a competent troop who can function at his job, rather than some over eager Canex-Commando all decked out in aftermarket gear.



If you get anything out of this thread then pay close attention to what Matt states in this line.  Remember though after 16 years in the Army I've never seen a requirement for any soldier less those that operate dismounted, to wear or use half of the stuff that I see soldiers wearing overseas on gate guard.  The equipment that is supplied to you is sufficent for the task which you are being asked to fill, the wish to have anything else is mearly for LCF and not for any tactical purpose.

I'll tell you what does piss people off though and it's soldiers that show up on tour with everything but what was issued and do not fill a dismounted task.  So before you know it then the CSM's and RSM's come down hard and those that do have to leave camp and operate dismounted now have to come up with creative ways around the 'rules'.  Number one thing I look for in a soldier is his abilities, now if he isn't checked out I'll have to ask myself then why is he wearing all of that stuff? conclusion - 'he's an idiot!'


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Aug 2005)

On a "hot" tour, it is quite possible that having functional load bearing equipment will mean the difference between life and death(you know, being able to access your ammunition might come in handy). I think you can be sure that having aftermarket equipment will definetly not DETRACT from your effectiv ness. So, you decide, would you rather be alive and written up for using non-issued equipment, or dead?  I've personally wondered about this question myself, although I haven't actually had to test my resolve in this issue yet....

If the chain is making you carry extra socks and melmac plate in your vest, then chances are you're not really in that much danger anyway.


----------



## Unknown Factor (10 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> On a "hot" tour, it is quite possible that having functional load bearing equipment will mean the difference between life and death(you know, being able to access your ammunition might come in handy).



Soldiers don't die because they are unable to get the ammo out fast enough, they die because they get shot or blown up, something that could happen with or without a mag on their weapon, something out of their control unless they saw it coming and if that were the case why did he miss the first 30 times? - the whole arguement towards LBV's is their load capabilities for dismounted troops, no where would that suggest that it works better in regards to ammo access. An undisputed fact is that they look good, but walk anywhere with it fully loaded other than the front gate and you'll be cursing the weight. Dismounted solders carry the weight because they have to, that doesn't mean they like it, or it's an excuse to look cool, given the option I'd 'pack light and freeze at night' anyday.


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Aug 2005)

> the whole arguement towards LBV's is their load capabilities for dismounted troops, no where would that suggest that it works better in regards to ammo access.



Sounds like you missed that particular argument. It was really long.


----------



## Andyboy (10 Aug 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> Soldiers don't die because they are unable to get the ammo out fast enough, they die because they get shot or blown up, something that could happen with or without a mag on their weapon, something out of their control unless they saw it coming and if that were the case why did he miss the first 30 times? - the whole arguement towards LBV's is their load capabilities for dismounted troops, no where would that suggest that it works better in regards to ammo access. An undisputed fact is that they look good, but walk anywhere with it fully loaded other than the front gate and you'll be cursing the weight. Dismounted solders carry the weight because they have to, that doesn't mean they like it, or it's an excuse to look cool, given the option I'd 'pack light and freeze at night' anyday.



You had me up until this post. Could you elaborate a bit?


----------



## Blackhorse7 (10 Aug 2005)

And why is that, Mr. Bitter?  If that soldier is over there doing the same job you are for however long the tour would be, why should his kit be different than yours?  I hope you are not implying that just because The Reservist is a part-time soldier that he should have inferior gear.

Because that would just be ignorant.

But I'm sure that's not what you meant.


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Aug 2005)

Oh come now, didn't I just explain it? If you had a battalion with 2 coys of regs with reg OC and CSM, and 1 coy os reserve with reserve OC and CSM, would you be suprised if the reserve OC and CSM might have different ideas about non-issued gear than the regs? Obviously knowing where Phil stands in this respect would be helpful in answering his question. 

Yes, 1 standard would be nice, but unless the CO and RSM came down with a specific order ruling one way or the other, it might just be left to the discretion of the coy commanders.


----------



## Old Ranger (10 Aug 2005)

Phil,
You've got allot of great advice so far.
If you want it, and think you'll be able to use it, then get it.
But heed all that advice about proving yourself and feeling out the Regs there before you wear it.
Did some Reserve in-charge go out of his way to piss everyone off?
Are Reserves targets for backlash?
I'm not meaning to insult or demean anyone here,
just throwing in some extras (from experience) to concider.
What ever you do, I hope your tour goes well.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (10 Aug 2005)

Britney, read my last post.  I said *doing the same job*.  And I would like to think that there would be a Regimental standard, not different standards for each Company.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Aug 2005)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> Britney, read my last post.  I said *doing the same job*.  And I would like to think that there would be a Regimental standard, not different standards for each Company.



It all depends on the CO/RSM team.  Some impose such a Bn standard, others leave it up to Coy Comds/CSMs.  I've been in units which dictated (and inspected to ensure compliance) which ruck pocket your socks went into.  And I've been in units that don't issue a kit list - but there's hell to pay if you catch pneumonia because you didn't have your poncho.

Either way worked for me, although it IS nice to know prior to packing a bunch of kit that you won't be allowed to use.


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Aug 2005)

OK, 

1) The issue is not whether regs or reservists are issued different kit, they're not. The TV is an inferior piece of equipment no matter if you are reg or reserve.

2) I don't know Phil's exact circumstances, but it is entirely possible that the reserve subunit does have a different role than the regs, such as D&S platoon, so they would not really be doing the same job. Although this is hardly relevent to our discussion.

3) The example which I gave above is the format which reserve subunits were deployed for the last 3 or 4 runs in the Balkans. AFAIK the format for the Khandahar deployment will be similar (although I stand ready to be corrected).

4) One standard sounds good on paper, but again, Coy leaders can and often do have discretion, especially on minor issues such as this. Would you *really* be suprised if the single reserve plt or coy in a reg battalion might be a little more anal than the others?

5)I don't believe the Bitter Cpl was asking because he felt that there should be a different standard for reg and reserve, but because there often IS, and it's generally due to the reserve leadership itself. So no one is trying to start another reg vs reserve cat fight, it just helps to know, because the answer might be different. In any case, the answer has already been established, so I see no further need to split hairs over this matter.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (10 Aug 2005)

I agree.  PhilB, get the darn vest.  Because it's cool.   ;D


----------



## PhilB (11 Aug 2005)

Thank you all very much for the advice so far, as well as the lively discussion. So far all very valid pts. I agree reserves generally do have a different standard than the regs, generally due to reserve leadership. I agree reserves can quite easily become targets in the regs i.e. roto 11 D Coy

Ill give you as much info as I have at this point so we can keep this discussion going. Keep in mind that nobody really has a clue about this majical mystery tour so my info my be faulty/out of date. If others on this site have more/different info I would love to hear it;

 I am most likely going over as part of a D&S Pl made up of reserves with a reserve Lt and a reserve WO. We have been told that we will most likely be attached to Cbt Spt Coy 1 PPCLI based out of Khandahar. Our probable mission/tasks as stated at this point are gate/camp security, QRF, and local area patrols .

 I know that Col Hope (1VP CO) has made a policy that as long as kit is green, black or Cadpat it is good to go in the field. As far as the reserve chain of command for our Pl, they will let green or cadpat gear slide. Most non-issue kit is a non issue in the field (e.g. 3pt slings, smocks, stealth suits, non issue boots, assault packs, modified tac vests etc).

My plan is to wait until after the BTE to see what the reg guys are using in the field and also how well or poorly we integrate with them. If things are fine and most troops use non issue kit then good to go, if not well life sucks. As far as my own chain of command, we have been working together since May so individual skills have been established and attitudes and opinions formed. The introduction of a non issue chest rig is not going to be an issue in altering someone opinion of you.

I am concerned about two things 1.) I have heard from different people, predominantly reservists that did D&S Pl when B Coy 1 VP was over, that they were allowed to use chest rigs and the like on work up but as soon as they got in country it was strictly issue only. 2.) Although I think it is a better plan to wait to purchase/use and really gucci kit until after the BTE I would like to use it and become familiar with whatever rig I buy before deploying and trusting my life to it.

Just to clear up certain impressions before we go any further. The main reason that I am considering a new rig is because we have been told that we will be carrying 10 or so magazines with us, this basically negates the issue tac vest as a viable peice of load bearing equipment. I do not want a rig to look cool or carry tons of shit or have useless "what if" pouches. I want a streamlined chest rig that will accomodate 10 magazines plus the rest of the kit that I will be required to carry. 

Thanks again for all the help


----------



## PhilB (11 Aug 2005)

???anyone???


----------



## Britney Spears (11 Aug 2005)

I think you should do it. If it doesn't work out you can just turn around and sell it to some 3rd Bn Johnny for a slight discount and be out a few dollars.


----------



## Gunner (11 Aug 2005)

Phil,

It doesn't matter if you reg or res with this issue as TF 1-06 will no doubt have a standard kit list that you will be expected to follow.   Hence, CO 1 PPCLI may be fairly liberal, but, Comd 1 CMBG may not be.

I'll give you my 2 cents based on our experieneces on Roto 2.   

There is considerable pressure placed on deployed army elements, by the CLS/Army CWO, to wear issue kit.   We are approaching the end of a very long procurment program (Clothe the Soldier) that was designed to move our equipment from the 40s - 70s technology into the 21 st century.   A lot of time and money went into the CADPAT, ICE, gortex, etc.   It is embarrassing for some elements in the army that soldiers are still buying their own kit.   Hence, the CLS and Army CWO have been very direct in the use of non-issue kit with deployed TFs.   Right or wrong, we all salute in the end and soldier on.   But make sure you put your UCR's in.   I had a very nice $70 holster from the PPCLI kit shop and I never wore it once and lived with the issue crap.

The Load Carrying Vest is not well liked by some elements in the infantry, in that, the location of the bayonet precludes pepper potting and the feeling that 5 magazines isn't enough in a firefight.   This was B Coy, 1 PPCLI, view on the deployment and they fought very hard to be allowed to wear the one you describe (allows space for 10 magazines).   In the end, I think they were forced back into the issue LBV.

If the LBV passed infantry trials, someone in the infantry must have said it was a good piece of kit.   I would like to believe that the system trialed the LBV prior ot purchasing it.   Does an infantry soldier require 10 mags on him at all times or only 5?   My personal opinion is 5 is fine for most types of operations (vicinity of a vehicle) and the threat environment.   But I'm not an infantry soldier and many will provide excellent arguments (Kevin??) as to why the current issue LBV is not adequate.   I won't even get into the whole issue of the location of pockets on the sleeves of the CADPAT.

Finally, if you want to buy one, go ahead, but be prepared to be told that you can't wear it.   If you are still willing to part with the $, then go ahead.

Cheers,


----------



## Hatless Dancer (12 Aug 2005)

I agree with gunner. Those of you who may remember 64 pattern webbing, or even the 53 pattern(my first issue as a reservist in 1979) would truly appreciate just how far we have come along in 25 years. Make do with what you are issued, because from my vantage point, issue kit looks pretty bloody good these days!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Aug 2005)

actually HD I think that for some of it, the drive by troops to have better kit has kicked the CF's butt into gear to issue the newer stuff.  Ie civie undergarments evolve into a CF issue, bivy bags, load carriage etc.  Have the issued stuff on hand and feel the waters so to speak. I realize that it wasn't too long ago when we had the jean jacket but if we settle for what the CF gives us and don't gently push the envelope we will quickly fall behind the kit 8 ball.


----------



## MG34 (12 Aug 2005)

The issued kit clolothing wise has made leaps and bounds,the load bering equipment however has not.The TV although well intentioned is a far cry from waht was intended in the first focus groups back in the early 90's,the origional requirement from the Infantry was for a modular vest that was easily mission tailored by the user with a totally modular design. The first prototype met this requirement,unfortunately the production versions did not meet the requirements,and do not to this day. The TV while it may have worked on the low level balkan tours and other low level deployments and training it does not fit the bill for high intensity operations such as we find ourselves in Afghanistan.
   If any of my troops justifies the need for a supplemental load carriage system I support him fully,as once in country I too will be wearing a non issue LBV,a HSGI Warlord Version 1 chest rig to be exact. The CF supply system and procurement chain cannot keep pace with the current deployments much less any future operations,as such personal kit will require augumentation from other sources. 
 Uniformity is a wonderful thing on the parade square but even the most newest of the new soldier realizes that every soldier carries a different load and there is no way that everyone can be expected to carry different gear with the same kit.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (12 Aug 2005)

Hatless Dancer said:
			
		

> I agree with gunner. Those of you who may remember 64 pattern webbing, or even the 53 pattern(my first issue as a reservist in 1979) would truly appreciate just how far we have come along in 25 years. Make do with what you are issued, because from my vantage point, issue kit looks pretty bloody good these days!



And I'm sure that your set of 53 pattern was more well suited for your tasks than the white leather crossbelt and black leather haversack carried by Wellington's forces at Waterloo.   The point is that despite how bad kit the old kit was, the guys receiving the 'Clothe The Soldier' stuff are largely disapointed by the quality of the kit when compared to the money and resources put into the program, especially compared to what other NATO forces are equipping their troops with.


----------



## Andyboy (12 Aug 2005)

Having worked for a little while in the industry I can echo Gunner's comments, there is indeed a lot of political capital wrapped up in the CTS project that is going to be very difficult to work through, BUT, CFL is equally right. A large portion of what CTS produced is outdated and if you guys on the pointy end don't challenge the powers that be you'll be stuck with it and live with the consequences. 

In my opinion the attitude that you should take what you get and be happy with it doesn't help anyone, soldiers, kit makers, or the system in general. The system is supposed to be there to get you guys the kit you need rather than serve as a means to build careers. CTS was intended to do just that, Clothe the Soldier, and if you guys don't keep up the pressure then it will have served as a career buildier rather than   what it was intended to do. Part of keeping that pressure up is telling anyone who will listen why the kit is good, bad, or just plain inappropriate using reasoned arguments.

Part of the problem with the system we have for procuring kit is that there is far too much central control and no accountability for the results of the procurement process. A lot of people in the system take the attitude that they are doing you all a favor by providing you with any kit at all and that has to stop, people's lives depend on it.


----------



## Hatless Dancer (12 Aug 2005)

I suppose my point is this. Canadian soldiers have never, ever had better personal kit than they have now. We did the job(just fine, thank you very much!) with kit that does not even compare with what you have now. One also has to look at the cost of this program. My understanding is that CTS  is more or less fully implemented, or at least well on the way to being so. Do you think the taxpayer should be on the hook for a complete do over because a few troops are dissatisfied with what most people would consider to be excellent kit?


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Aug 2005)

> a few troops are dissatisfied with what most people would consider to be excellent kit?



Who are you referring to by "most people"? I've never seen a single one!


----------



## Andyboy (12 Aug 2005)

Hatless Dancer said:
			
		

> I suppose my point is this. Canadian soldiers have never, ever had better personal kit than they have now. We did the job(just fine, thank you very much!) with kit that does not even compare with what you have now. One also has to look at the cost of this program. My understanding is that CTS   is more or less fully implemented, or at least well on the way to being so. Do you think the taxpayer should be on the hook for a complete do over because a few troops are dissatisfied with what most people would consider to be excellent kit?



Well I'm not going to get in to a review of Canadian Kit through history with you,as much fun as that might be it would take too long. The real point it this, you have to compare what we have with what we COULD have, not what we did have. We COULD have kit that is second to NONE, but we don't we have kit that is not good enough. The only way we will get kit that is good enough is by changing the way we select the kit we wear. The way we select the kit we wear won't ever change if we refuse to acknowledge that the way we currently select kit is not effective, and if we refuse to acknowledge that the kit we have selected is ineffective then the system we use to select it will never change. Ever wonder why we had the craptastic rain jacket that didn't keep out the rain? No one bothered to complain (officially) and it took many years to get replaced all the while troops either bought their own or got wet. I suppose it was better than a canvas tarp though right?

You seem happy with what you are issued which is great, CTS can add your name to the "satisfied customer" list. I won't question your ability to judge kit, if you are happy then that is all that is important. For the rest of is who aren't satisfied how about allowing us the option of buying our own? Other than offending someone's ego, what difference does it make?


----------



## Hatless Dancer (12 Aug 2005)

I guess I am a little confused with all this whining. The kit you have is just fine.


----------



## Andyboy (12 Aug 2005)

What I'm confused about is why some people can't seem to make a reasoned argument without resorting to being insulting.


----------



## paracowboy (12 Aug 2005)

Hatless Dancer said:
			
		

> I guess I am a little confused with all this whining. The kit you have is just fine.


no, it isn't. It's crap. I'd prefer my web gear to this crap. By your own statement, you're no longer in, and have never used this crap. So, if those who are in, and are using this crap, are complaining about it, maybe there's a reason.


----------



## mdh (12 Aug 2005)

> For the rest of is who aren't satisfied how about allowing us the option of buying our own? Other than offending someone's ego, what difference does it make?



The subject is outside my lane, but Andyboy raises a good point - why not allocate money to each soldier and allow them to buy their own TVs? (I suppose one downside would be resupply i.e your gucci TV goes kaput and you need another one but only the issue version is available) - but the advantages would probably outweigh the disadvantages overall.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Unknown Factor (12 Aug 2005)

The real question is why did thius stuff even go into production in the first place? Being one of the lucky ones to have trialed the first version (jean jacket upgrade) we basically had nothing good to say to DLR and told them to throw it out.  Then a new version of it in OD was fasioned and thrown out to the troops to trial and it was thrown back like a three eyed fish. Suddenly they managed to come to an agreement over Cadpat and "surprise" out came the new improved version the basis of the one you see today.  Basically my jist of the whole deal is that the powers that be, and I am talking about the Officer put in charge of the project was in Bosnia in the early tours, saw what the troops were doing to their flax jackets and came to a personal conclusion that that was the way of the future.  So we have no one else to thank but him, even when he got replaced halfway throught the project so much money was spent already that the only way to justify the cost was to continue.

Long and short is that we are going to be stuck with this new piece of s@&* for no other reason other than now that it is here CSM's love it as it is near impossible to personalise it without major modifications, which of course are not authorized.  So in the army's infinate wisdom they once again ignored the soldiers that would be using the equipment and insead allowed the "Brass" to push something forward without concensus.  I'm sure those that were involved with the program got a glowing PER for their steadfast aproach to the LBV, but in reality it's just another oxymoron as it is anything but a 'LOAD BEARING VEST'.

An interm solution to the problem was brought forward allowing CBT Arms Units the option of wearing the vest, but in the end of the day that only lasted until the last soldier in the regular force was issued a vest of their own.  The push now from the CF CWO with of course the support of everyone of his Dinosaur buddies throughout the Brigades and units is uniformity amoungst all pers in the reg force regardless of their job or task, something we all know is not feasable.  We could look at this in a positive light and that is that everyone of these 'Dino's' are due to retire in the very near future - god willing.


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Aug 2005)

OK, back to Phil's question. Am I to understand that the era of CO discretion for aftermarket Load bearing equipment is now over, and that it is now TV or nothing? 

I wonder if 82 Ptn webbing is still allowed......


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Aug 2005)

The old webbing is still being used by recruits and possibly some reserve units.  I also think low priority units (ie Airforce) may still be using webbing.

The Brits are allowed to buy from certain companies.  If it craps out in an operation then QM is gonna give ya the issued stuff.  You think that if your special Danners crap out that your authorized in Canada that QM is gonna give ya new Danners your mistaken.  You'll get the standard boot until such time that you can order new Danners.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Aug 2005)

ps as long as its the same colour or pattern then I don't think its such a big deal.


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Aug 2005)

> The old webbing is still being used by recruits and possibly some reserve units.



Well I know that, because I'm still using mine! Specifically will it be allowed in Khandahar.


----------



## Unknown Factor (12 Aug 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> ps as long as its the same colour or pattern then I don't think its such a big deal.



I agree, however the next difficult task is finding Canadian companies that are willing to put products forward at a resonable price, personally if I need anything I go to the States, it's cheaper and more speciffic to my needs than some guy making it in his basement and then over charging me for the work.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Well I know that, because I'm still using mine! Specifically will it be allowed in Khandahar.



Whether or not it is allowed will be based solely on who is going to be the Camp SM, if he's a dinosaur then it's going to be a bun fight and that's where the influences of OC's come in handy.  I do know from my last tour that the difficulty we had in wearing our own rigs was not neccessarly because of the camp SM but rather our adoptive SM from another unit who had no idea what our requirments were.  You have to remember that those that are making desicions for us now are still of the 'do this, like this' leadership rather than those that use common sense, not to worry though they all have to be retiring soon.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Aug 2005)

Ah I understand your question now.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (13 Aug 2005)

I watched  a show on CBC Canada and it was dealing with the first peacekeeping mision to yougo, bonsia ( over there)the CSM ordered all non issued kit to be put away and not to be worn in the field. Not because it was better or worse then the supplied kit but because he wanted all the soldiers in the unit to look like Canadians, he did not want them to mistaken for other soldiers and targeted, or be mistaken for the guns for hire people.

I would have to agree with him on that  point. Once you start changing kit around and  wearing extras you do change the look of the soldier and that  could lead to problems at a distance identifying a soldier as a Canadian, or American, could lead to them ID'd as an unknown and could be shot by either side.  I realize that sounds stupid.  It does make sense in the big picture,  you change how a tank looks and then you think you see an ememy tank and it is your own and you fire upon it.  Chnange the look of A Canadian soldier and you shot one of your own guys or girls. 

Other side of the coin to this is.  An issused piece of equipment is tested and retested to the NATO standard, they research and collect data on kit all the time and see how it preforms and if the performance is not up to standard they recall it. Your own purchases leave you to deal with the lack of performace and if there is a break down in your personally owned kit, are you ready  to deal with it on your own. Do you want to risk your store bought vest over the army one and hope they made it to the same standards as the army verst or better?

What  would be next bring your own uniforms to war? everyone dress in what  they think they need to wear? Bring your own fire power, and bring your own comms grear?

I think own knife, under clothes, boots,  underwear, socks, a few comfort items is all you need to provide on your own and some of that is pushing it
just my  thoughts dress like your a Canadian Soldier, act like a Canadian Soldier and not a war surplus poster


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Aug 2005)

> I watched  a show on CBC Canada and it was dealing with the first peacekeeping mision to yougo, bonsia ( over there)the CSM ordered all non issued kit to be put away and not to be worn in the field. Not because it was better or worse then the supplied kit but because he wanted all the soldiers in the unit to look like Canadians, he did not want them to mistaken for other soldiers and targeted, or be mistaken for the guns for hire people.
> 
> I would have to agree with him on that  point. Once you start changing kit around and  wearing extras you do change the look of the soldier and that  could lead to problems at a distance identifying a soldier as a Canadian, or American, could lead to them ID'd as an unknown and could be shot by either side.  I realize that sounds stupid.  It does make sense in the big picture,  you change how a tank looks and then you think you see an ememy tank and it is your own and you fire upon it.  Chnange the look of A Canadian soldier and you shot one of your own guys or girls.
> 
> ...




 :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby: Oh god make it stop make it stop make it stop


----------



## devil39 (13 Aug 2005)

Well, different strokes for different folks.

Canadian soldiers will look like Canadian soldiers regardless whether I let them (and have) wear civvy hiking boots or chest rigs, etc.  We also do our level best to keep track of the location of troops under our command.  I never had any problems identifying Canadian soldiers on operations, and some of them wore very different kit.  Not to mention I have had Brits, Yanks (SOF types too), and many many journalists attached on operations I have conducted.  I didn't make them dress up like Canadians.  Didn't shoot any of them either.

Look like a Canadian soldier, dress to survive and be most effective in the field I would say.  Until the Army provides the perfect field kit for all environments (which will never happen), I'm happy to allow modifications to suit the needs.  Mindless uniformity should have gone out with the order to "Form Square" and "Form Line" while dressed in scarlets and white cross belts.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Aug 2005)

if you look at a guy in CADPAT TV or another CADPAT chest rig I doubt you'd be able to see the difference from over 20 feet away.

devil39 I hope there are more out there like you.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (13 Aug 2005)

Who ever wrote that quote is right out to lunch. First of all if you can't identify your own vehicles (there aren't too many to recognize) then you shouldn't be behind or in the turret, launcher, etc. Just because someone is wearing different combat boots, jesus, is not going to give him a 3rd head and turn him purple! Once again, SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, know your allies and your enemies. There is this thing called the Internet, and on it you can find every piece of gear that our allies (including us, who would have thought eh!) use. NATO standards? Now there is a contradiction in terms! The Canadian gov't spent almost $1 million on this tac-vest, why? And the rucksack, when are we going to see this, 2870? Look at our allies and the gear their using, a s*** load is commercially purchased and it appear's their countries are still democratic! Like I've stated once somewhere, uniformity doesn't win battles and if you want to be garrison kiss ass then join a parade unit. Professional soldiers want to do that, and that encompasses a lot (god forbid that), if soldiers want to use issued kit, fine, if they want to buy their own, it's their own $$$, no one else. And what is looking Canadian?  ​


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (13 Aug 2005)

Devil39, I stated exactly what you said, just a with a little more sarcasm!


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Aug 2005)

Devil39,

That last Post almost makes me want to re-enlist


----------



## Matt_Fisher (13 Aug 2005)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> I watched   a show on CBC Canada and it was dealing with the first peacekeeping mision to yougo, bonsia ( over there)the CSM ordered all non issued kit to be put away and not to be worn in the field. Not because it was better or worse then the supplied kit but because he wanted all the soldiers in the unit to look like Canadians, he did not want them to mistaken for other soldiers and targeted, or be mistaken for the guns for hire people.
> 
> I would have to agree with him on that   point. Once you start changing kit around and   wearing extras you do change the look of the soldier and that   could lead to problems at a distance identifying a soldier as a Canadian, or American, could lead to them ID'd as an unknown and could be shot by either side.   I realize that sounds stupid.   It does make sense in the big picture,   you change how a tank looks and then you think you see an ememy tank and it is your own and you fire upon it.   Chnange the look of A Canadian soldier and you shot one of your own guys or girls.
> 
> ...



Sorry mate, but from a previous post you made, isn't your experience pretty much limited to Reserve Finance Clerk?   
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33430/post-251500.html#msg251500
"When i was res fin clerk in the army   total course time and i was trained to a ql6a was 6 weeks of total classroom training and that was it."

Do you have any overseas tours?   If not, you might want to stay in your own lane.

From my experience, it doesn't matter what uniform/kit you're weaing overseas.   If the locals decide that they don't want you there it doesn't matter if you're wearing cadpat head to toe or a bozo the clown outfit, they're going to 'let their opinions' be known.


----------



## Unknown Factor (13 Aug 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> if you look at a guy in CADPAT TV or another CADPAT chest rig I doubt you'd be able to see the difference from over 20 feet away.



Isn't this the truth!  I'd suggest that we should test this in Basic any future Canadian soldier that is unable to recognize another at a min of 20' is booted out!  If it is green or Cadpat wear it, uniformity is to be left for the parade square not the battlefield. Besides if all the new guys are encouraged to wear their own stuff, the enemy might just think that they are in charge and shoot them first, giving the rest of us enough time to duck! - oh and get some free kit once the firefight is over!

But for all those regimental types that still insist that an effective fighting force is dictated by the uniformity of their clothing all the way up to their ability to dress off on a frontal attack I'd say get you head out of your arse and put yourself in the shoes of the soldiers posting here that are working the beat and not the desk.  Experience will always over ride TI and rank, so find some and then post, until then go home and cover off your tin soldiers! To the rest, I simpathize with your plight and encourage you to carry on the good fight - "we'll wear what you want us to on parade, but we'll wear what we want in the field and on operations."

Oh and FormerHorseGuard - there is no NATO standard, if there was we'd all be wearing the same kit and just because it is made in bulk does not guarantee it's quality either, I've seen more returns and repairs required for the new LBV than I ever did with the old webbing.


----------



## pappy (13 Aug 2005)

Matt, boy do I understand those 4/4/4's sucks....   when I was a young pup Marine I thought Guard Duty sucks as a PFC can't wait till I'm Sgt. of the Guard, wow that's the ticket....  So young so stupid....  SOG was even worse.....

Back to the original question...  some non-issue kit makes life a tad more comfy.  a nice light weight wind shirt you can wear under your issue combats is worn it's weight in gold and the good ones don't weigh much and pack the size of a wallet.

"Superfeet" inserts, Comfy non-issue socks, you only got two feet keep them happy....

Comfy shorts / briefs.... you only got two of those too so keep them comfy too Under Armor or like items

Shades, two pair at least, you got two eyes too, don't piss them off either....


----------



## pappy (13 Aug 2005)

Oh yeah, chest rigs.... hummm I haven't seen any of the HSGI chest rigs in CADPAT, but the Multicam ones I have are great.  I highly recommend Gene's work.  Nice units.
One in CADPAT way cuase less stress with the higher ups and help keep you looking like everyone else.


----------



## scm77 (13 Aug 2005)

pappy said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, chest rigs.... hummm I haven't seen any of the HSGI chest rigs in CADPAT,



http://www.davesarmysurplus.com/index.php?cPath=21

Now you have.


----------



## PhilB (13 Aug 2005)

pappy, do you have a weesatch? and if so how is it. Ive heard that it is fairly uncomfortable without the plates, fairly unstabble. Im considering one but I dont want to be restricted to only wearing it with plates in. The rigs im considering are 1) HSGI Weesatch 2) ESSTAC PMB 3) ESSTAC Bush Boar any thoughts anyone?


----------



## pappy (13 Aug 2005)

lol thanks Scm77, I think my comment should have been "I haven't had a CADPAT HSGI vest in my hands yet"    he he he wanna send me one?   lol
I did check with that site a few days ago when someone started a thread about HGSI in CADPAT, didn't have to one I wanted, on well maybe next time.

One thing sort of what someone else mentioned.... what if your supprised by some dog & pony show with the general staff showing up and eyeballing your non-issue kit...
Just grab your buddy wearing the issue gear, clamly enlighten the questioner about what you private purchase gear can do that the Issue gear won't.   Don't say "it looks cool", but stating clearly what people like Andyboy, Matt and KevinB have to say then maybe the chances of issue gear getting even better will   happen (design for and on the battlefield with input for the informed ones, not by some guy in the rear with a list of crap and the only concept of combat was the argument he had with his wife that morning)

Having the honor of chatting with Andyboy from time to time it's a shame the people signing his check didn't listen to what he was telling them.

Marines like Matt are helping the USMC get better kit too, how many changes have been made since you joined Matt? ALICE to MOLLE to MOLLE II, etc, etc. 

Kit is changing fast, some times the end user has to shove it in the face of command to make them see the light, just do it smartly and wisely, pick your battles wisly.

But bitching about kit/chow/shore leave, that's as old as camp followers, it will never end as the truth is kit is continuosly changing and adapting.


----------



## pappy (13 Aug 2005)

Phill, no Wa Wee or Wo - satch yet, looking at one though.  I've got a couple of Warlords and I like them a lot.

The Wa/Wee/Wo's where designed I believe to be plate carriers, Gene at HSGI would be the better guy to talk too about that, don't want to put words in is month or he'll put his foot up my.....

The newer style dual buckel Wee's might be better fit wise.  Most people say to use the optional shoulder strap pads in no body armor. But I'm assuming your going to be wearing your kelvar.

You might want to browse the HSGI fourm and ask a few questions to WEE/WA/WO users

No experience with the ESSTAC chest rigs personally.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (13 Aug 2005)

In regards to the original question, I would suggest you mail off all your gucci kit to yourself overseas. On roto 0 we were directed that two of our barrack boxes contain a kit list verbatim leaving a box for civies etc. If you mail the stuff and can't wear it then you can always mail it back and not affect the space in your bb for pers kit.

 My next question is what kit do you expect to need over there? Will there be a need to buy a chest rig that holds eight grenades and a double load of ammo?
Worst case scenario you will be doing a dismounted patrol in section size with a quick reaction force on standby. IED's are the weapon of choice in the ghan and a full blown fire fight is unlikely.

 Allthough we would all like to have the best kit, sadly our military can hardly afford to get us enough troops to serve the CF. If you think I am singing out my A**
then please quote me one instance on any canadian tour where a piece of fabric has saved the life of a soldier.


----------



## PhilB (13 Aug 2005)

Im expecting several things. Whether or not you actually need them Ive heard that you are usually issued 10mags, where do you put them on the tacvest? I have heard, and seen (on my own vest) the substandard quality. The vest falls apart after any kind of hard use. I do not want to be in a situation where I need my equipment and it fails. Id rather spend the money on something that can be relied on


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Aug 2005)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> please quote me one instance on any Canadian tour where a piece of fabric has saved the life of a soldier.



Did a Canadian Officer wearing a Blue Beret stop a fire fight in Cyprus?

Stretching the issue, maybe.....Maybe I'll crawl into something deeper than a Shell scrape.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (13 Aug 2005)

Hey shelldrake, it's not an exercise in Canada, your not going to be carrying 5 mags and 2 t-flashes. It's an extremely dangerous theatre (Kandahar, I know I've been there!), try 10-12 mags and more than 2 grenades. When we were there, I had 3 boxes of C-9 on my webbing and one on my weapon, plus an M72 and about 4-5 grenades. There is a reason some of the troops want to purchase their own gear. The tac-vest is ok, but it can hardly hold a combat load of gear, not to mention a kit list of s*** that some garritrooper wants his troops to have!


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Aug 2005)

> Oh and FormerHorseGuard - there is no NATO standard, if there was we'd all be wearing the same kit and just because it is made in bulk does not guarantee it's quality either, I've seen more returns and repairs required for the new LBV than I ever did with the old webbing.



whoa whoa,

What about the old double double from timmy's!!  Have I am been kidding myself when I have called it a NATO standard to the gal??

dileas

tess


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2005)

I watched  a show on CBC Canada and it was dealing with the first peacekeeping mision to yougo, bonsia ( over there)the CSM ordered all non issued kit to be put away and not to be worn in the field. Not because it was better or worse then the supplied kit but because he wanted all the soldiers in the unit to look like Canadians, he did not want them to mistaken for other soldiers and targeted, or be mistaken for the guns for hire people.

I would have to agree with him on that  point. Once you start changing kit around and  wearing extras you do change the look of the soldier and that  could lead to problems at a distance identifying a soldier as a Canadian, or American, could lead to them ID'd as an unknown and could be shot by either side.  I realize that sounds stupid.  It does make sense in the big picture,  you change how a tank looks and then you think you see an ememy tank and it is your own and you fire upon it.  Chnange the look of A Canadian soldier and you shot one of your own guys or girls. 

Other side of the coin to this is.  An issused piece of equipment is tested and retested to the NATO standard, they research and collect data on kit all the time and see how it preforms and if the performance is not up to standard they recall it. Your own purchases leave you to deal with the lack of performace and if there is a break down in your personally owned kit, are you ready  to deal with it on your own. Do you want to risk your store bought vest over the army one and hope they made it to the same standards as the army verst or better?

What  would be next bring your own uniforms to war? everyone dress in what  they think they need to wear? Bring your own fire power, and bring your own comms grear?

I think own knife, under clothes, boots,  underwear, socks, a few comfort items is all you need to provide on your own and some of that is pushing it
just my  thoughts dress like your a Canadian Soldier, act like a Canadian Soldier and not a war surplus poster



> but because he wanted all the soldiers in the unit to look like Canadians


And what exactly do canadians look like? Am i any less canadian because I paid $75 out of my pocket to put vibram soles on my boots instead of wearing the mk3s? Less of a soldier because I bought knee pads. Or those guys who buy their own chest rigs to upgrade their equipment (and ability to fight)? Thats just crazy.  The peopel were worried about looking canadian too can't tell the difference.



> I would have to agree with him on that  point. Once you start changing kit around and  wearing extras you do change the look of the soldier and that  could lead to problems at a distance identifying a soldier as a Canadian, or American, could lead to them ID'd as an unknown and could be shot by either side.  I realize that sounds stupid.  It does make sense in the big picture,  you change how a tank looks and then you think you see an ememy tank and it is your own and you fire upon it.  Chnange the look of A Canadian soldier and you shot one of your own guys or girls.


  
Give our soldiers more credit. We don't shoot people because they are wearing non-issue kit.
An AK47, sandles and a robe or whatever? Ya maybe.



> Other side of the coin to this is.  An issused piece of equipment is tested and retested to the NATO standard, they research and collect data on kit all the time and see how it preforms and if the performance is not up to standard they recall it.



Like the LSVW? 
They didn't recall that sucker, they re-wrote the test until it passed.

Do  mechanics have a kitlist for their tool box?  And their not allowed to purchase or use their own tools if they can perform their job better?
Who is going to know more  what a soldier requires on the ever changing battlefield. 
Someone who buys equipment according to requirement AND political reasons (Buy something from quebec first) or a private, corporal or sergant whos face to face with the bad guys?


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (14 Aug 2005)

I think we can all agree that the T & E system needs a heck of alot of work. They are given lets say four items to chose from that are based on a set maximum price, and have to chose the best out of the four even if they are all inferior. Then usually the item is chosen based on where it will be produced (federal riding) and voila we have our "clothe the soldier" item.

 Of course this is my opinion but look at the kit track record. As for gucci kit for overseas I believe most section commanders going overseas have an idea of the kit required for the mission before ever leaving Canada, and should be given the leaway to have mission specific non issued equipment purchased for everyone requiring it. Keeping in mind not everyone on the tour will require it.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (14 Aug 2005)

Everything shelldrake is on par with my opinion, however there are section commanders (not all) that are right out of her! They are the kind that would agree with the stupid article we've been talking about in the past few days. You want to talk about federal ridings come to CFB Shilo, we are the most recent example's on how Canadian liar's, I mean politicians can out rank and over rule NDHQ any day of the week, but then the people at NDHQ might as well put on suits and ties, because they sure don't act like soldiers once they get there!   ​


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2006)

I though about posting this in Equipment but it is *news* (maybe not to those of us who are regular readers of the Army.ca  Equipment forum).  It is from today’s _National Post_ and it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9ac80bc5-13b5-42a3-8941-b396d87a19ff 


> Troops spending their own money on equipment
> *Boots, vests bought: 'The stuff the army issues is useless,' one soldier says*
> 
> Richard Foot
> ...


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2006)

Gee maybe someone will now fire the incompetant clowns in CTS now...


----------



## MG34 (20 Mar 2006)

I doubt that,there will just be new directives launched down that say "ISUUED KIT ONLY" ...sigh. At least maybe now the clowns will start to listen. I'm all for personal kit we need a system like the US military fielded and the Brit Forces,here is what you are issued,if you don't like it buy your own as long as it is OD,Cadpat TW/AR, or tan. I'll be glad when the last of the dinosaurs are gone and we can go about the business of soldiering as needed with the kit as needed.


----------



## Recce41 (20 Mar 2006)

As normal, the people that don't leave camp get the best.


----------



## Haggis (20 Mar 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> As normal, the people that don't leave camp get the best.



Why not?  If you ask them, they own it!



> And while many infantry troops say they've grown accustomed to providing their own gear, what they can't understand is why they're being treated as what they describe as "*second-class citizens*" at the base at Kandahar airfield.
> 
> Of the 2,200 Canadian military personnel in Kandahar this year, only about 500 are front line combat soldiers. The rest are support troops -- logistics, planning and transport staff, plus supply clerks and other administration workers who, unlike the infantry, rarely leave the relative safety and comfort of this base.



T'is the way of the world and it ain't gonna change.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

I fear they turned a blind eye to this stuff in the past and until policy changes they'll get draconian again with what can and can't be used.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2006)

MG34 said:
			
		

> I doubt that,there will just be new directives launched down that say "ISUUED KIT ONLY" ...sigh ...



Sadly, I'm afraid that my 35+ years of service means that I think you are spot on.


----------



## GAP (20 Mar 2006)

It was no different with USMC during Viet Nam era. Our rucks really sucked...so we "acquired" NVA rucks..they were great, until the powers to be thought it decreased the moral of the troops to be using enemy combatant equipment....they should have asked the troops. The complaints came from the REMF's who never got out into the field, but felt they were entitled to the rucks as a matter of course.

As in big corporations, in the military the "peter principal" applies. (people get promoted to their level of incompentance )


----------



## Haggis (20 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> I fear they turned a blind eye to this stuff in the past and until policy changes they'll get draconian again with what can and can't be used.



Not really. About every 18 months or so a CANFORGEN or CANLANDGEN is issued describing what to wear and how to wear it.  But, just like our PT standards, enforcement is haphazard and inconsistent. One Army - Many Standards.

The US Army recently went through a simialr issue WRT privately purchased body armour.
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpArchives&archives=defense&htmlId=4009&HtmlCategoryID=30

Stuff like the TV were desgined for the 90% solution.  One vest for all seasons and all soldiers.  If the CF supply system can stock "the best" kit for the DHTC gang, why can't it stock "simply better than average" kit for front line soldiers?


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2006)

Well I know LtCol Hope had given the guys the blessing to wear what kit they wanted and do "enhancements" to their weapons (bolt on add-ons - no permament mods) despite the CANFOR BLATHER to the contrary as he had the understanding (that a good commander has) that the kit issued did not suit the troops.

I can only hope that some of the Brass does not try to exert pressure on him or take other issues to punish him for his enlightened attitude in that respect.


* Despite my own previous personal issues with the good Col. I will praise him for his stand on the above issues.


----------



## axeman (20 Mar 2006)

i recall in bosnia in 94 the same thing happend . the troops who were always out doing the real work of keeping the population safe was also treated as 2nd class citizens in the camp...  the base wogs go t the real racks to sleep in we got the beat up cots . after much moaning i eventiully got the cot i was sleeping in exchanged because i needed my helmet that i was forced to use to prop it up ... its always been the wogs vs the pointy end .. .withthe wogs getting the best kit even though they never use it .. ive even seen it here  as a sailor [sigh ] now ...guys on the boat needing a new floater jacket yet thebase guys need them for what reason ?????


----------



## COBRA-6 (20 Mar 2006)

> Army officials here say the military is constructing better, more permanent housing for the infantry troops at Kandahar airfield, but the new accommodation isn't likely to be ready until the summer, when the 1st Battalion goes home after its six-month tour.



Why so long? I saw Supreme put up an iso barrack block for they Hungarians in Camp Warehouse in about a week, complete with plumbing...


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Mar 2006)

Mechanic's buy their own tools. Military professional's do the same. I agree I too have to scratch my head sometimes about what the procurement guys are thinking. We spent millions on a heavy rifle that required batteries and looked like something out of star wars. Then they decided to try a slimmed down version XM8, then it was canceled. They decided to go from BDU's to ACU instead of multicam. But the one good thing that PEO did was to come up with the Rapid Fielding Initiative. 

https://peosoldier.army.mil/programs.asp

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/04/mil-050426-arnews02.htm


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2006)

T6 -- CTS thinks they are the CF version of RFI  :blotto:


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Mar 2006)

I'm going to take exception to Edward's assertion that this is news.  Under the classic definition news is man bites dog, not dog bites man.

I won't argue that your kit is good, nor bad.

I just want to point out that not only were similar articles seen in American and British media in recent months and years, they were also seen in allied media in WW2.  British soldiers wanted Thompson SMGs (Tommy Guns) or German MP40s (Schmeissers or Burp Guns).  Americans and Brits wanted German tanks and Guns.  

In fact it wasn't restricted to the allies - Germans wanted Spitfires and Jeeps.

Good kit or bad kit - soldiers procure their own kit and have been doing it for a very long time.  Plundering the oppositions armour and weapons has been SOP for millenia.

Having said that, I have no doubt that there are areas where the kit needs to be modified, replaced or just supplied in order to adjust to current realities.


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2006)

Kirkhill - I cant comment on the Brit issue stuff - however I get to see the US side of the house quite a lot these days.
 At the tip of the bayonet the US Army has been pushing items out to the troops - however yes you do see personal kit in some areas -- but I have yet to see a CF unit be allowed (outside DHTC) design their own chestrig - like one of the US units has done.  Does everyone have an EOTECH yet? Other than Maj LDeS's initiative there does not seem to be ANY rapid fielding of kit.

Two guys in 1VP just had me order them S&B Short Dots due to the C79A2 ELCAN absolute suck ass ability in CQB (and lack of zero retention) and the fact they decided that due to liability reduction they required both a CQB scope and a scope that would allow detection and descrimination of tgt's better than a C79A2 -- so they got a $2,200 scope - thats a big hit on Cpl's that are married with kids...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm going to take exception to Edward's assertion that this is news.  Under the classic definition news is man bites dog, not dog bites man.
> 
> I won't argue that your kit is good, nor bad.
> 
> ...



And Sir Sam gave out lucrative Canadian military contracts to his buddies and even his secretary (inventor of the MacAdam shovel, which conveniently turned into a sniper shield due to the hole in the blade) for such dreck as the Ross Rifle (snipers swore by them; the other 99 percent of the Army cursed them), and other goodies we've all read about like cardboard soled boots that fell apart when wet, vehicles that were too wide for European roads, tight britches that were unsuitable for active service, etc.

Sending Canadian troops to war without adequate equipment (ask the Canadians in Korea why they dumped the Lee Enfield the first chance they got for an M-1 carbine - half of 2 RCR in Korea used American weapons) seems to be a tradition.

I think it goes beyond the desire of troops to use enemy stuff - which may be overstated.  During the blood feud between 3 Cdn Div and 12th SS I wonder how many Canadians would have been keen on risking capture armed with a German MP40 or Luger?  Though the examples you mention are just the tip of the iceberg - like all the Canadians in southern Italy freezing in their bush dress until they captured a truckload of black wool Fascist uniforms from the Italians - Farley Mowat tells us the shirts were worn without shame, and he personally wore German jackboots on occasion.

But there too, as you point out, this was not out of any real sense of practicality - most German veterans recall the jackboot with little fondness for its lace of ankle support, and dubbed them 'vein breakers'...

Just some further historical ramblings.  Definitely nothing new under the sun, in any event.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Two guys in 1VP just had me order them S&B Short Dots due to the C79A2 ELCAN absolute suck ass ability in CQB (and lack of zero retention) and the fact they decided that due to liability reduction they required both a CQB scope and a scope that would allow detection and descrimination of tgt's better than a C79A2 -- so they got a $2,200 scope - thats a big hit on Cpl's that are married with kids...



I guess the question is, how big a hit should there be on the taxpayers?  How much less, out of curiousity, are the C79 scopes?

And in who's riding are they being built.... ?


----------



## JasonH (20 Mar 2006)

This is news?  Throughout history it's always been the same from world war 2 and before.  Boys in the back get the better crap while the boys in the front get crapped on.


----------



## mz589 (20 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Sending Canadian troops to war without adequate equipment (ask the Canadians in Korea why they dumped the Lee Enfield the first chance they got for an M-1 carbine - half of 2 RCR in Korea used American weapons) seems to be a tradition.



I'd like to know which "half" of 2 RCR dumped their Lee Enfields for M-1 Carbines, do you have a source for this? I'm asking  because according to my old man (he was there) the only piece of equipment that was commonly jettisoned was the "trash can lid" helmet , he buried his in a rice paddy, others threw them overboard on the sea voyage over. The only American weapon he can recall being scrounged was a .50 cal Browning, everyone else used the .303, the sten gun or the 9mm Browning. 

Funny thing though, when he enlisted after Louis St.Laurent called for volunteers he and the other recruits waited months to get uniforms and other equipment. Weird that so soon after a major war that supply was such a problem.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

mz589 said:
			
		

> I'd like to know which "half" of 2 RCR dumped their Lee Enfields for M-1 Carbines, do you have a source for this? I'm asking  because according to my old man (he was there) the only piece of equipment that was commonly jettisoned was the "trash can lid" helmet , he buried his in a rice paddy, others threw them overboard on the sea voyage over. The only American weapon he can recall being scrounged was a .50 cal Browning, everyone else used the .303, the sten gun or the 9mm Browning.
> 
> Funny thing though, when he enlisted after Louis St.Laurent called for volunteers he and the other recruits waited months to get uniforms and other equipment. Weird that so soon after a major war that supply was such a problem.



An article in Infantry Journal regarding the famous photo of the soldier outside the aid station (his M1 carbine is clearly visible), and correspondence with Art Johnson, who served in both 1 and 2 RCR as a rifleman.  What was your dad's job, incidentally, if you don't mind my asking?

The artist Zuber also mentions the weapons in a CBC special on Korea IIRC.

From the CBC article (doesn't mention American weapons directly)



> Canadian soldiers
> Canadian infantry were at a tremendous disadvantage through the entire war. They were outgunned, Canadian World War II rifles needed to be re-cocked after each round. The Chinese used automatic weapons that fired as long as the trigger was pressed
> 
> "Imagine you're going up a Chinese position at night, and there's only 12 of you. You're 12 abreast. You're going up this Chinese position. There's probably 1500 Chinese up there, all equipped with 8 and 900 rounds per minute burp gun. And they open fire and you're trying to give them return fire one bloody bullet at a time? I thought it was disgusting."
> ...



http://bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net/Korea_-_Pte_Heath_Matthews_2_RCR_WIA.jpg







  Note the M1 Carbine at right.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Mar 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> "T-6"  I have to disagree with you on a couple of points.
> 
> I am speaking from an Acquisition Officer perspective and the "rifle" you speak about was not just a rifle.  It consisted of a grenade launcher with balistic computer, and a kinetic weapon (5.56 mm rifle).  Yes, it was too heavy, that is why they canned the project!  They are still working on the technology to lighten it and have longer lasting batteries.
> 
> ...



The XM29 was a dumb concept. The M16/M4 weighs in at 10 pounds maybe less with attachments. The  XM29 was 18 pounds about what an M60 weighed. The troops didnt like it. It was stupid. The XM8 is on hold primarily because there is a caliber debate and the fact that Army SOCOM bought the SCAR-L. Procurement does alot of good, but they also do stupid stuff and to make it worse they wont admit it. Not to mention waste. I spent my career as an infantryman [when I wasnt in staff/schools] and one thing you learn pretty quick" Major Baker", is that light weight is good and reliance on batteries is bad. I also spent some time as an RTO so I know all about batteries. The 25mm grenade launcher is a great idea as a stand alone crew served weapon. The ammo is a bit expensive though.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Feb/Army_Tests.htm

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Feb/Army_Tests.htm


----------



## spartan031 (20 Mar 2006)

The boots aren't so bad once you throw away the wool socks.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

Its news because the public have an attention span of 3 Seconds.  Its also news to those that aren't members of army.ca or the Forces as a whole who barely recognize our existence let alone kit deficiencies.  I would like to see some kind of reimbursement like the Americans are doing.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Mar 2006)

Reimbursement is limited to $1100 I think, for body armor or other health/safety items. Won't cover $5000 for dragon skin body armor, yet there are guys that have bought it to get that extra edge.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

Well, speaking solely as a reservist REMF and apprentice bean counter, isn't there a law of diminishing returns as far as expensive kit?

How many Canadians have engaged in Close Quarters combat in Afghanistan, and is there really a justification for 500 sets of $2200 sights?  Is anyone seriously saying we need to spend 11 million dollars on sights that in all honestly will probably never get used in anger?

Even if the price came down 50% with a government discount or somefink (though we're all familiar with the phrase "war profiteer") that's still 5.5 million bucks on kit that will never really get used.

What am I missing here?

On the one hand, you have guys complaining that 4 mags isn't enough (at least 10 mags are necessary according to one quote) in any firefight they get into, and in the next post we see that a 2200 dollar scope is necessary for pinpoint accuracy. If you're firing 3000 rounds down range, is the 2200 dollar scope really a must?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (20 Mar 2006)

You have to wonder how many black eyes the supply chain can take before someone actually fixes the damm thing.  

I always thought they were responsible for handing out the kit but I guess in the field is no different then in garrison.  They sort through the mess and take the best dishing out the rest.

I can't believe the sleeping conditions quote though that pissed me off.


----------



## buzgo (20 Mar 2006)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> You have to wonder how many black eyes the supply chain can take before someone actually fixes the damm thing.
> 
> I always thought they were responsible for handing out the kit but I guess in the field is no different then in garrison.  They sort through the mess and take the best dishing out the rest.
> 
> I can't believe the sleeping conditions quote though that pissed me off.



Its not the supply chain, its the project offices and the procurement people. The QM guys give out what they've been given... if the kit doesn't exist in the system - then it isn't issued.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

Well MD how many times have CF18's fired in anger or the C7/9 and C6 for that matter?


----------



## DG-41 (20 Mar 2006)

I like the issue boots. Once you get them broken in, they're like moccasins. It helps to put gel insoles in them too.

And after a weekend splashing around in a swamp, I'm a big fan of the new cold/wet weather boots too. Three days up to my ankles in water and mud, and my feet were dry and warm the whole time.

Ditto the Combat Sock System. I haven't had any problems with blistering or raw spots with these socks.

The CADPAD combats I really like. CADPAD works really well as a camo pattern, they don't stain or wrinkle at all, they dry out super quick, and they seem more durable than the old green pyjamas. The cut isn't all that flattering on... well.. anybody, but it's not like we go to war to be fashionable. My only real beef is that rank and names are illegible at any distance save "right up close"

The Tac Vest and the Small Pack are good ideas, indifferently executed. I prefer the Tac Vest to the 82 pattern webbing myself, because it is easier to live with in a vehicle and I (as yet) have no need for the extra mag capacity. As the aftermarket has shown, it doesn't take much to "fix" it.

The Small Pack... I'm still mixed on.

And the new issue underwear is awesome - the old tissue paper boxers didn't even make good rags.

Overall, I think the quality of issue kit is way up over what it once was, and if somebody were to implement a feedback loop between soldiers in the field and CTS, it could get better yet.

DG


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2006)

Michael - your missing the point.

 There are not enough issued CCO EOTECH's available -- then due to the wonderful MP trade wanting to investigate every shooting - troops are concerned with buying an EOTECH out of their own pocket (its just a 1x sight - while the C79 is a 3.4x) - if they misidentify a tgt with a personal scope - just imagine the feeding frenzy the red hats would have, secondly they are being employed in both moutainous areas where logner shots are needed (so the magnified scope is nice -- and in populated settings where the 1x is nice.  And of course a lot of troops hate the POS C79...

And I think you'd be surprised with how many rounds fired in anger have happened, irregardless your logic is poor - since with that logic then why have an Army - we usually dont need it.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Well MD how many times have CF18's fired in anger or the C7/9 and C6 for that matter?



I don't think that's valid.  

To answer the question, the CF18s were used in Kosovo and the Gulf IIRC, and the other small arms were used at Medak Pocket for just one...

I'm not arguing against having effective equipment, I just mean is there not a diminishing return on your investment once you've reached a certain point - ie is a 2200 dollar scope really so much better than a 500 dollar scope (for example) that you can justify spending that much more?  I mean across the board for all riflemen deployed?  These are the kinds of questions that are getting asked, rather cold-bloodedly. It will always be a trade off between what the man on the ground thinks he needs, as an individual, and what the system is willing to pay for it.

That's in response to Kevin as well - long distance shots?  The trained specialists we deployed a couple years ago made the paper with their long distance shooting.  I can see a need for expensive specialist equipment, in the hands of those specialists (we've made reference to JTF-2 once already in this thread, I'd include them here as well). 

I understand also the problems with the Elcans and why many guys prefer even iron sights (again, out of pocket).  Should it be fixed?  Yes, and with input from those on the ground.  But there will be threshhold at which it just won't be possibly to acquire kit - it not being a perfect world - and hard choices will be made.  

I understand PM Chretien really enjoyed that new lear jet, incidentally.

Anyway, I don't mean to suggest we don't need an army nor do we not need new kit on an ongoing basis - just making the point that there is a fine line between perceived extravagance and operational necessity.  Some things that may seem common sense to the soldier on the ground are obviously not seen that way universally. I don't see a way around that, frankly.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

I think part of the problem is that those on the pointy end need and should have different equipment then those in the rear or rarely deploy etc.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem is that those on the pointy end need and should have different equipment then those in the rear or rarely deploy etc.



I agree. It used to be signallers, drivers, etc. got the C1 SMG while those in rifle sections carried FNC1 and C2.  To go back farther, in 1940, riflemen in infantry battalions wore different web gear than the rest of the Army as it was recognized they had more "stuff" to carry.

Talk on this board about modular TVs would support this idea; it is indeed a shame we didn't go that route.  I will agree with you that it was a mistake.


----------



## DG-41 (20 Mar 2006)

That's a big part of it; the feedback loop between design/procurement and the guys on the ground is less effective than it could be.

That's not new; it dates back bast Sam Hughes and the Ross Rifle all the way back to the Romans and beyond.

What IS new is that troops can get their hands on alternate equipment with very little effort. I can buy a EOTech sight off the web for $360 US and have it here by the end of the week. If I decide the issue tac vest is NFG and I want one with configurable mag pouches, I can order one off the web for about a grand and have it here in a week. Etc etc.

At least this is a better state of affairs that having to source my Lee-Enfield off a dead Tommy.  

DG


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

I can imagine those in CTS are SCREAMING for blood right now because they know we can acquire kit faster and possibly cheaper then they and it may force them out of their fiefdom.  I mean come on how long does it take to get a ruck sack out to the guys and girls that need it.


----------



## COBRA-6 (20 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> I mean come on how long does it take to get a ruck sack out to the guys and girls that need it.



How long does it take to call Kifaru??


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2006)

It took me 2 weeks to get it after I ordered it  ;D

I am pretty sure they beat CTS by about 12 years


----------



## COBRA-6 (20 Mar 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> It took me 2 weeks to get it after I ordered it  ;D
> 
> I am pretty sure they beat CTS by about 12 years



But does it have daisy chains? That's the way of the future ya know...  ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

at least.


----------



## Franko (20 Mar 2006)

Nothing really to add on this but I totally agree with troops buying their own kit.

Now onto the Canadian RSOIs....or *** tents...

The reason why they are still waiting for new accomodations is KBR is the contractor...and they work slower than honey going up hill during winter.

There is limited space on camp and when it is cleared....it literally takes months to do, because it's being cleared of mines and UXOs.

Where the Canadian BG is right now was nothing back in September, it had to be cleared and built up with over a meter of gravel...all done by KBR and LEEs

As for the CSS guys getting weatherhavens....first come first serve. They arrived in theater first and got the better digs...if you call leaking tents and rats a better dig. I've seen guys bailing out their weatherhavens from a nice depth of over 2 inches after a good rain.

So they are pretty much in the same boat, just a more private one.

As for the guys complaining about their beds.... :

At least they have beds...most people on this site have gone entire tours on cots, and they were'nt in the best of conditions either.

Suck it up butter cup....the pointy end guys always get the short end of the stick, it's our lot in life.

Regards


----------



## spartan031 (20 Mar 2006)

Could you imagine having to use the webbing that they give you at BMQ.

Half of it fell off with one pass of the obstacle course.


----------



## chrisf (20 Mar 2006)

That's why most webbing was held together permanently with zap-straps and duct-tape...

I fixed some for a buddy of mine while we were in the field once and some of the plastic clips broke... it was never exchanged, right to the day he got the tac-vest, as the repair held better then the original.


----------



## globeguy (20 Mar 2006)

Is the footwear being used by soldiers in Khandahar up to snuff? 

I am a Globe and Mail reporter seeking to answer this questions, as newspaper articles have surfaced in which solidiers are buying their 
own boots, as they feel the military issues ones are not comfortable/useful. 

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm all ears. Please email me at cfreeze@globeandmail.ca or call 416-585-5385. 

Regards, 

Colin


----------



## theoldyoungguy (20 Mar 2006)

the system is f'd up and always will be.


----------



## HDE (20 Mar 2006)

Check out a book, Blood on the Hills, by David Bercuson, for more on Canadians using American weapons in Korea.  Lots of good photos/info on the issue, including officers using Yankee stuff.

ciao


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Mar 2006)

Globeguy,
Welcome to army.ca.
Thank you for being up front with the members about who you are, we appreciate the candor.


----------



## MikeL (20 Mar 2006)

spartan031 said:
			
		

> Could you imagine having to use the webbing that they give you at BMQ.
> 
> Half of it fell off with one pass of the obstacle course.



Like Just A Sig Op said there are ways of fixing that problem.  Also, troops did hump the mountains in Afghanistan with the '82 pat webbing in 2001/2002, etc.
http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/Allied_Canada
http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/Op_Apollo_C-Coy_3PPCLI
http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/TF_Rakkasan_in_Kandahar


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

loyaleddie87 said:
			
		

> Reading an article in the paper today has brought me to this thread. The article stated that the combat capable troops overseas( ie infantry) are being accomodated in the worst living quarters. tents that house hundreds of troops with gravel and dirt ground and little to no running water, and are places farthest away from the internet cafes and other recreational facilities. meanwhile service and support troops who rarely leave the base are staying in places with concrete floors with running water and ample electricity and are alot closer to recreational facilities. the article also mentioned how infantry soldiers deploying overseas are investing upwards of a thousand dollers in there own kit, stating the issued kit doesnt cut it overseas. mainly referring to the issue desert boots being to rigid and not comfortable enuf for long foot patrols extended over days, and the tac vest being insufficient due to its limited capacity to hold magazines and other equipment.
> 
> this is not a thread to bash anyone, just curious as to ur opinions as of why the infantry types are getting the worst accomodations when GENERALLY speaking they have the most dangerous and stressful job.



Well, what about the argument about the US experience in Vietnam, where troops engaged in combat operations commuted to work by APC or helicopter, did a tough job for a week at a time or so, then retreated into oases of air conditioned clubs, beer, steak dinners, electronics for cheap on demand, and eventually the rise of a drug culture, polarization along racial lines, and little in the way of shared hardships?  While GIs in Vietnam lived with all the amenities of home, their enemies were squatting in the jungle, living in holes in the ground, subsisting on fish heads and rice.

A friend of mine, now an officer and formerly a long term NCM in a GS battalion, was flabbergasted (he was originally an infantryman) at the bitching one or two of his GD comrades did at how poor conditions were when they had a "dry exercise" - in modular tents on a concrete runway(!)

I can't think of anyone more suited to hardship than an infantryman; are there really complaints about not being able to sleep in feather beds? Some of the infantrymen I know would take it as a point of pride to be living in tough conditions, and if the clerks had it cushier, well, most of them wouldn't want to be a clerk for love nor money.

You know the old joke

"Nothing is too good for our fighting troops, so nothing is just what they'll get!"

I find it hard to believe there is a conspiracy about accommodations, and didn't Franko address that point in his post?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

I'm say this and if I come across as a pussy or whiner the so be it.  Just because it has been like that doesn't mean it has to be now or in the future.  That being said if the reasoning behind building new accomidations is being held up by UXO's etc then so be it.  I'd rather use a cot anyway.


----------



## GAP (20 Mar 2006)

Gee, where were those places?? I spent 26 months incountry and the only two times I slept in anything but a cot or on the ground was when I was in the hospital for 2 days and the nights were spent in a Vietnamese Cathouse...(well, I wasn't THAT hurt). 

There probably were places like that, but none that I ran into in I Corps


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Gee, where were those places?? I spent 26 months incountry and the only two times I slept in anything but a cot or on the ground was when I was in the hospital for 2 days and the nights were spent in a Vietnamese Cathouse...(well, I wasn't THAT hurt).
> 
> There probably were places like that, but none that I ran into in I Corps



I wasn't talking about beds, sorry for the confusion.  I'd submit that a cot in a tent, with an air conditioned club, large quantities of beer and steaks, etc. constitute fairly good living compared to the Vietnamese soldiers on the other side. Not to disparage the combat experiences - as I indicated in my post, it was a rough go in the field - of those who were there.

Incidentally, which battalion/regt/div did you serve with, out of curiousity?


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Mar 2006)

Globeguy, need to keep in mind that not all purchases of non-issue gear is because a soldier doesnt like the issue gear. In the US Army for example the issue boots get very high marks, but some people have trouble breaking them in. A solution for some is to wet the boots and walk in them allowing them to conform to the foot and eliminating blisters. Other soldiers like non-issue boots and dont mind paying for it out of pocket. Like I said earlier its like a mechanic buying his own tools. While US Army issue sleeping bags are comfortable I have known soldiers to buy civilian stuff because it may be lighter. US troops that have come in contact with Canadian troops give Canadian kit high marks.


----------



## GAP (20 Mar 2006)

1st Amtrac Btn, 3rd Marine Division stationed at Cau Viet, 6 miles from DMZ and 12th Marines at Vandergrift (replaced Khe San)


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> 1st Amtrac Btn, 3rd Marine Division stationed at Cau Viet, 6 miles from DMZ and 12th Marines at Vandergrift (replaced Khe San)



See, that has nothing to do with GIs, now does it.   You won't have trouble convincing me, or anyone else, that the Marines up north had things tough.  

Welcome Home, by the way, if you didn't hear it when you should have the first time.


----------



## GAP (20 Mar 2006)

Ironically, that is the first time, since I came back that anyone said that. Thanks

Let's get back to the issue


----------



## Franko (20 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Just because it has been like that doesn't mean it has to be now or in the future.  That being said if the reasoning behind building new accomidations is being held up by UXO's etc then so be it.  I'd rather use a cot anyway.



The bigger reason behind the fact of the troops on the ground right now sleeping in the Canadian RSOIs is there wasn't a TAT in KAF before we arrived from Kabul.

That plus very limited space availiable for new accomodations hindered putting up more weatherhavens. 

Before you guys showed up the troops on the ground were putting up all the weatherhavens by Canada House (less the one's used by the PRT) and the mod tentage / RSOIs being used right now. Add onto all that we still had convoys to do plus setup a whole camp....all thanks to the fact that there was no real catch team in situ. The TAV or whatever you call it showed up after all the real work was done...they showed up to sort it out.

When it comes down to it....nothing the troops could do would have aleiviated the housing problem. We need more cleared land, plain and simple.

I'm surprised they haven't started to move guys into the Yank RSOIs yet....or start building over by the incoming vehicle park on the other side of the RSOI line (by the old poo pond in area 9)

Regards


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2006)

OK, here we go.  No flames intended from my end, but as I recall some of the points, here are mine:
One guy complained about having "only" four magazines.  That count may be innaccurate: four in the TV, one on rifle makes five.  Five times thirty equals 150.  Suppose the section is full up.  He mentions getting out of a LAV.  There are 440 in the coax, and 210 25mm in the main.  7 guys get out, 2 have LMGs (three belts each?  If so, that's 600 rounds each). 5 guys have rifles (each with 150 rounds) for a total of 750 rounds in magazines for the riflemen.  Oh, and two M203 grenade launchers.   ;D That's 1950 rounds for seven guys on the ground.  The LAV crew has access to a coaxially mounted, fully stabilised C6 MG with 440 rounds of 4B1T, and 210 rounds of 25mm "just in case".  That is one hell of a lot of firepower.  And don't forget the pintle mount!  
One word: *fire discipline.  * .  Suppose "normal rate" of fire, by all at once.  What is that: 10 rounds per minute?  Even with 150 rounds per soldier, that's 15 minutes!  Rapid rate is what: 20 rounds per minute?  That's 7.5 minutes of fire.  "Mad Minutes" only waste rounds, and are a pet peeve of mine!
IF they are in a sustained firefight (not up against some dude with an old, rusting Mosin Nagant, but a bunch of dudes with a bunch of semi-modern rifles), then I can only imagine that the LAV III alone would win the firefight.  If not, the 2 LMGs would be able to help out.  And don't forget the M777s!  You stand alone, but you're never alone, to quote an old recruiting pamphlet.  As well, when I was "over there", we carried ten magazines each, doubling the riflemen 300 rounds each, or 2100 rounds of 5.56mm ball per five dismounted riflemen: not in bandoliers, but in magazines.  And the extra five mags were in an _issued_ piece of kit housed in the side pouch of the TV: the pouch in which the LMG gunners are "supposed" to keep a belt-box.
I hate to say it, but the issued gear is "pretty good", In my professional opinion.  Yes, troops may want "more", but they will ALWAYS want more.  Sometimes with good reason: imagine the 60's pattern Y Strap webbing!  You know those pockets on your combats?  They were designed to hold magazines!  Remember the "sock pouch"?  You think the 82 pattern is junk?  You should see that really old stuff 
Anyway, the idea of the supply system is to be able to sustain the pointy end.  If everyone goes off and buys the "cool stuff" (sights that bleep and paint the target, GARMIN GPS because the PLGR +96 is "too big", even though they can be encrypted: GARMINs can't, etc), well, then the system cannot keep up.  Yes, some of the issue stuff may not be the best possible, but with _any_ army, what you get is good enough, again, in my professional opinion AND experience.  Carry too much stuff, and you no longer will be able to do your job: you are part of a team, each soldier, sailor, airman and airwoman a cog, and, here comes a buzz word, but the synergy created from such a team is why we have what we have.  
Now, about the boots  :-X
(OK, I've said enough, but there you go)

Hauptmann out


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

take the LAV out of the statement (see mountains), sustained firefight (see Falklands)
bare minimum (see dead)


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> take the LAV out of the statement (see mountains), sustained firefight (see Falklands)
> bare minimum (see dead)


The guy mentions getting out of his LAV with "only" four magazines.  
This ain't the Falklands: the Taliban/Al Qaeda don't like sticking around for firefights: the Argies did.
Re: "bare minimum": I agree to a certain extent; however, remember that by definition, "minimum" entails that which is the least acceptable, _acceptable_ being the operative word here.  
In other words, it must pass a standard, it must meet the rigours of combat.  It doesn't *have* to be the very very best (coolest?) in the world, it has to be able to do it's just, _to at least the very minimal acceptable_ requirement.  It is *not* subpar by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> The guy mentions getting out of his LAV with "only" four magazines.
> This ain't the Falklands: the Taliban/Al Qaeda don't like sticking around for firefights: the Argies did.
> Re: "bare minimum": I agree to a certain extent; however, remember that by definition, "minimum" entails that which is the least acceptable, _acceptable_ being the operative word here.
> In other words, it must pass a standard, it must meet the rigours of combat.  It doesn't *have* to be the very very best (coolest?) in the world, it has to be able to do its job, _to at least the very minimal acceptable_ requirement.  It is *not* subpar by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2006)

OK, my bad: I meant to modify (grammatically) my post; however, I guess I just quoted it.  The second post as it stands was sent in that format in error; however, 2 points to pointing out my misuse of "it's" vice "its" 
Sorry about that.


Hauptmann


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

It seems like your presuming something that may or may not happen.  They seemed to stick around long enough in Tora Bora.  I don't believe in planning for best case scenario's.  Besides on ex we always got boxed ammo in addition to our 5 mags.  Is it not better to have 10 mags ready to go without having to reload?  As far as C9 gunners I may be wrong but if they take 2 boxes on their TV there isn't room for a water bottle.  The vest sucks.  You can't place the pouches where they fit best.  The mag puches are too high.  There is no vision for M203 gunners etc.  I'll let guys like Kevin B elaborate more.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

The TV is great for Bosnia but we aren't there.  As with changes in intensity and mission, so to does the equipment change (unfortunatly slowly).  I don't think that your really thinking outside the conventional box.  This is unconventional combat in ardous terrain with a determined enemy who believes in his cause.  If you firmly believe 5 mags per rifleman is adequate in A Stan then no offence but I hope your not in charge of me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2006)

What is the basic load for a rifleman in a section in 2001?

It *was* (waaaaay back when Gordon O'Connor knew and cared) 200 rounds: 80 in four magazines and 120 in a cloth bandoleer on Day 1 of the war.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> The TV is great for Bosnia but we aren't there.  As with changes in intensity and mission, so to does the equipment change (unfortunatly slowly).  I don't think that your really thinking outside the conventional box.  This is unconventional combat in ardous terrain with a determined enemy who believes in his cause.  If you firmly believe 5 mags per rifleman is adequate in A Stan then no offence but I hope your not in charge of me.


Well, not "firmly" thinking that, just stating that "when I was there" we had ten each, in an issued piece of kit.  "just in case".  
Now, consider the TV: you're right, this ain't Bosnia (late Bosnia, at that: closer to 92?  That's another thread).  Also, the TV ain't the LBV.
Now, there are greater issues than just having all the cool stuff on you.  Greater loads means greater water consumption, as just one example.  Suppose you need 5 litres/day with all this stuff vice say 4 litres (again, just numbers pulled from thin air: to make a point).  That one extra litre, weighing in at 1 kg (don't you love the metric system?  ;D), amounts to "roughly" 150 litres/day per company.  That's just over 7 jerry cans: every day.  What's the standard load?  1 day in the "F" echelon, 2 days in the A1?  Or is it reversed?  Either way, that's three days.  That's over 21 jerry cans.  Over 21 jerry cans MORE.  The point is: for each and every widget you put on, you have to weigh a ton of factors: sustainment.  Not just the sustainment of those widgets, but of the men carrying said widgets.  By the way, 150 litres/day, times three days is 450 EXTRA kilos of "stuff" with the company all the time.  Times 3 companies is what: 1350 kilos?  Plus TFHQ?  We're close to an _extra_ 2 tons just at the TF level.
So, to sum up, it may be "nice" to have all those widgets, but is it "necessary?"  In my professional opinion, we are not selling the troops short.  This ain't Tora Bora in 02 either, this is Tora Bora in 06.  Times have changed (a bit), and with each rifleman carrying *70 kilos of "stuff", it's hard to justify adding "just one more" piece of kit.
If there are problems with the TV (eg: if they truly "suck"), then assume nothing: put in an UCR on them: that's why we had cruddy rainjackets for so long: everyone complained, but not through the proper channels.  Let's face it, if Ottawa hears nothing, then they assume "no news is good news".  And I don't mean a few soldiers talking to the press.  The system may take time, but given proper support, they can even buy stuff COT if there is an _urgent_ operational requirement to do so.  I mean, where were the complaints in 03?  In 04? In 05?  If the TV truly sucked, then I'm sure we would have heard about it before now (I don't mention 02, because from the photos of APOLLO, looks like they had LBVs on)

*that's ten magazines, water, TV, body armour, helmet, rifle, etc.  GPMG gunners, LMG gunners and M203 gunners carry more, naturally.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> What is the basic load for a rifleman in a section in 2001?
> It *was* (waaaaay back when Gordon O'Connor knew and cared) 200 rounds: 80 in four magazines and 120 in a cloth bandoleer on Day 1 of the war.


Today (and in 2001), a rifleman carries 5 magazines and a 100 round bandoleer, for a total of 250 rounds.  Having said that, see my earlier post re: Afghanistan 2003: we had 10 mags and a 100 round bandoleer, for a total of 400 rounds.  (300 "ready", 100 able to reload "with difficulty"  )


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> If you firmly believe 5 mags per rifleman is adequate in A Stan then no offence but I hope your not in charge of me.


None taken.


----------



## Armymedic (20 Mar 2006)

Irregardless of my personal opinions, or anyones else's of the kit, etc.

I would bet good money that at 0805 hrs Eastern time, the TF RSM got a phone call from NDHQ.


			
				MG34 said:
			
		

> there will just be new directives launched down that say "ISUUED KIT ONLY" ...



Exactly....thanks boys, you just screwed anyone coming into theater behind you. Troops here in Petawawa are just shaking their heads at that article. Thank you very much.

The "No civy chest rigs, or tac vests" order is no doubt being drawn up as we debate this here.

As for the accommodations....Whaa freaking Whaa. What did you expect for your Level 5 hardship? The Hilton, with pool. Anyone remember the articles a year ago where they said that Camp Julien was "luxurious"? Well, guess what, boys, don't expect it to be quite as nice as that once it is built. And KAF ain't quite built up yet. 



> "The boys were asking Hillier, 'Why do the support people get the good shacks and we get the BATs'," Master Cpl. Prodonick said. "We don't want better, we want the same as everyone else."


Cause you are supposed to be tough infantry soldiers who can handle a bit of temporary discomfort. Suppose we could give you all cots, an pair you up in 4 man tents instead. Would that be better?

This article just pisses me off.
If you want to whine about your kit, your accommodations, anything....never, not ever, whine to persons outside the military. All it does is make us all look bad, and pisses off people who might just be trying their best to bring about change.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Ironically, that is the first time, since I came back that anyone said that. Thanks
> 
> Let's get back to the issue



You should have heard it then; I'm truly sorry you didn't.

Back on topic, and tying in with earlier discussion - 

The Marines had the right idea, if Caputo's book A RUMOUR OF WAR is any indication.  They began to live like the enemy, and they started to understand him.  The only really great example that jumps to mind is that many of the Marines (this was early on around Da Nang in 65-66, a different war than later on I think) suffered dysentery. They solved the problem by incorporating rice into their diets.

It seems to me that the guys in Vietnam who got the best results were the Marine CAP units and the Special Forces guys, who went out into the villages and lived with the people. A google search on Combined Action Platoons yields some interesting statistics.

I have no idea if that applies to Afghanistan or not, but it seems that the question of cots in 4 man tents vs cots in 100 man tents may be evading bigger issues. How comfortable can one expect combat arms soldiers to be in order to do their jobs?  Are fortified camps with a 6:1 tail to tooth ratio really the answer? And are these public complaints not just a little unseemly given that?


----------



## Franko (20 Mar 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I would bet good money that at 0805 hrs Eastern time, the TF RSM got a phone call from NDHQ.
> Exactly....thanks boys, you just screwed anyone coming into theater behind you. Troops here in Petawawa are just shaking their heads at that article. Thank you very much.
> 
> The "No civy chest rigs, or tac vests" order is no doubt being drawn up as we debate this here.



Thanks for pointing that out....my sentiments exactly, forgot to post it during my ramblings.

Regards


----------



## HItorMiss (20 Mar 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> The "No civy chest rigs, or tac vests" order is no doubt being drawn up as we debate this here.



Doc you forget this is a 1 RCR lead TF...that rule was stressed on day 1 stand up parade... RSM 1 RCR has passed on that no Aftermarket TAV Vest or Chest Rigs will be worn by anyone in the TF. Much to the chagrin of some (myself included) However his policy on boots seems very liberal, if they look like boots and are the colour of the environment your working (black or tan) then your good to go.

I feel bad for the 2VP boys that have been dropping money on after market kit, seems our RSM doesn't want to play, the VP CSM is less then impressed if rumors are to be believed but what can he do this falls under the TF RSM's domain and for right now if it's not given to you from CQ or QM your not wearing it period.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the guys in Vietnam who got the best results were the Marine CAP units and the Special Forces guys, who went out into the villages and lived with the people. A google search on Combined Action Platoons yields some interesting statistics.


Reminds me of a "fourth generation warfare" article I read recently.  The guy with the helmet, MNVG on top, "after-market" chest rigs, bombs, grenades, body armour, rifles that look like they're out of some "B" futuristic war movie, all send a message (according to the author) that we are there to kill, not to help.  There are times for looking like that, but when dealing with Mr and Mrs. Afghani (and kids), the softer touch probably yields far greater fruit than the "vinegar" tree.
Just my opinion.  It was free, and worth every penny


----------



## Grunt_031 (20 Mar 2006)

> "The boys were asking Hillier, 'Why do the support people get the good shacks and we get the BATs'," Master Cpl. Prodonick said. "We don't want better, we want the same as everyone else."



Yes, the infantry are suppose to be a hardy bunch but it still sucks when there are other people living better than you and you are on the same team. We lived in tents/holes in the ground for 6 months and it sucked too and we bitch about it. The same type questions were asked in 2002 to the CDS and CLS when the REMF's in UAE were in 5 star hotels. Soldier bitch no matter what the situations. Ironically the pers in the UAE were bitching about conditions of things there i.e. lack of air condition work area (Ha-Ha). 

As for the TV, 3 PPCLI has been constanting submitting UCR since the TV hit the Bn. After each exercise, the companies sat down and submitted UCR's in reference all equipment and they were submitted up the chain. 3 VP were even one of the trial units from 1997-2001 time period at various times. Majority of suggestions where ignored. I spend some time with the CLS staff and it enlighten me on some of the programs problems, mainly the 80% solution. 

-80% of all Regular/Reserve, all trades, all ranks gave the thumbs up. The pointy end is a small percentage in that 80%. 

-Directed from consultation with i.e. units RSM and other SM for REG/Res was that everybody had to be the same, hence the lacking in modular design. 

-the design had to be current with doctrines at the time (90's) IE 5 mags, 4 in pouches and one on rifle. Remember we only had the webbing 2 mag pouches.

Once the program had been completed, with millions spent in development and trialling, it will be near impossible to change the TV without major redesigning and complete re-manufacturing. You can't simply pull apart the TV and resew it. Is this right, NO! but it is the reality, to try to come up with a new TV/LBV that intergrates in to the whole loading carrying system is not going to happen or will take another 12 years. The major problem with the CLS program is inability to keep up with change of the Army needs and the lack of new doctrine for the army in years. I still think that the cbt load for an infantryman as not change since the 80/90's.

Most RSMs and COs out west identify with this and have allowed the troops to use other equipment that is more effective. We the west have heard the cries of no unauthorized kit for the last 10 years but yet it still is here and will be for the future, especially when the leaders at the pointy end agree.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2006)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> -the design had to be current with doctrines at the time (90's) IE 5 mags, 4 in pouches and one on rifle. Remember we only had the webbing 2 mag pouches.


I really dont' see a difference between jumping out of a M113 in Fulda and jumping out of a LAV III in Khandahar.  If anything, you'd need about 50 magazines in Fulda (assuming you survived the Regimental Fire Plan before the deliberate attack by 40+ T 80s and a boatload of BMP 2s).


			
				Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> Once the program had been completed, with millions spent in development and trialling, it will be near impossible to change the TV without major redesigning and complete re-manufacturing. You can't simply pull apart the TV and resew it. Is this right, NO! but it is the reality, to try to come up with a new TV/LBV that intergrates in to the whole loading carrying system is not going to happen or will take another 12 years. The major problem with the CLS program is inability to keep up with change of the Army needs and the lack of new doctrine for the army in years. I still think that the cbt load for an infantryman as not change since the 80/90's.


Agreed.  Not really that much since we first got the C7/C9 family in the sections.


			
				Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> Most RSMs and COs out west identify with this and have allowed the troops to use other equipment that is more effective. We the west have heard the cries of no unauthorized kit for the last 10 years but yet it still is here and will be for the future, especially when the leaders at the pointy end agree.


There is a point to the madness; however, we're not talking about rainjackets that don't stop the wind (let alone the rain) or other relatively minor stuff.  The article in question makes it sound (again!) that we are a rag-tag army, patched together with little or no thought.  In my dealings with LFTEU, they bend over backwards to trial the stuff, yet stuff happens.  Take the LUVW "uparmoured" turret thingy.  LFTEU trialed a variety of weapons and mounts on those things.  They found that the .50 up there just wasn't good, due to the weight of the system.  Then some guys over "there" put a MATTECH made turret on there, complete with .50.  Even made the Maple Leaf!  Innovative, they said.  Then the LUVWs started to fail under the added stress.  Don't know where it stands now, but if there is a need for it, identify it, and get the word out.


----------



## Grunt_031 (20 Mar 2006)

> The article in question makes it sound (again!) that we are a rag-tag army, patched together with little or no thought.



We had the same articles in 2002 in regards on painting our webbing and weapons with tan paint and using LBV's. As for the up armoured turret i was there when they were measuring and making a wood mock up. I though they were out of their minds and NEVER though it would actually happen because of the weight issue and from the failed 50 trial they did, without the turret.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2006)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> We had the same articles in 2002 in regards on painting our webbing and weapons with tan paint and using LBV's. As for the up armoured turret i was there when they were measuring and making a wood mock up. I though they were out of their minds and NEVER though it would actually happen because of the weight issue and from the failed 50 trial they did, without the turret.


My point exactly.  The guys in LFTEU aren't a bunch of dummies.  Senior Captains and CWOs all.  Very experienced.  Very bright, too, mostly tech trained and combine that with field experience, and a wad of cash, and you get a fairly good group.  

Having said that, once they make a recommendation (observation?), it's up to Ottawa to make the final decision on things.


----------



## GAP (20 Mar 2006)

What I have preceived throughout this thread is that there has been outsourced equipment used where needed, the onsite commanders have obviously taken note as to whether the standards are met/exceeded and not made an issue out of it, or , I daresay, ruled it out where applicable. what's the problem?

Others have pointed out the procurement profiles/procedures. Put yourself in the same position and I suspect the end result wouldn't be too different.

There is not an armed force that wouldn't like this or that to do their mission better, but they all seem to get it done with what they have, so I guess the total composite wasn't that far off target.

Flexability seems to be one word not used here. It obviously is being employed and is successful. I for one am pretty proud to the troops and the job they do


----------



## GO!!! (20 Mar 2006)

GAP,

The problem is that we the soldiers are almost expected to make up for the ineptitude of the DND in the area of kit acquisitions. 

We are then supposed to be greatful when permitted to do the life threatening job we are mandated to with a piece of kit that may save our lives.

Perhaps the last civvie shot in Kandahar would have lived if the shooter had had a laser indicator, better scope etc. Perhaps not. The point is, that the contract we sign stipulates that we bring the body and mind, they bring the kit and orders. Right now, we have to bring the kit to carry out the orders.

CTS and DLR have been broken for a long time, I would suggest doing what the US and UK did, take their budget and break it up among the 031s in theatre, and tell them to buy what they want, as long as it is CADPAT. Simple, effective, cheap.


----------



## GAP (20 Mar 2006)

> We are then supposed to be greatful when permitted to do the life threatening job we are mandated to with a piece of kit that may save our lives


Without trying to sound disparaging or for flaming anyone...yeah, that's part of the flexability and it sounds like it is appreciated, even if the original reasoning for getting it is not. 


> CTS and DLR have been broken for a long time


It would be interesting to find out if the procurers have any field experience. 

I think I am out of my depth and am serverly dated. I think I will excercise your motto 





> Often have I regretted my speech, never my silence


 and butt out


----------



## Armymedic (20 Mar 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to find out if the procurers have any field experience.



All the CTS pers I have dealt with over the last 8 yrs were mostly Cbt Arms Officers and Sr NCOs, with a good chunk of civilian specialists for the scientific testing.


----------



## HDE (20 Mar 2006)

GO!

    I agree with you  In my job I'm allowed x hundred dollars per year for "professional advancement", basically money I can use as I see fit to keep on top of what I need to do my job.  Classes, membership fees for my profession, journals, etc.  I could certainly see a case made that, depending on the trade, there's a need for various pieces of kit chosen by the people who'll be using it.   I like the idea of the enduser dealing directly with the supplier; less money spent on "process" ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

Someone said what will 2VP do.  Well once out the gate some have told me that they will ditch their authorized kit and go with what works.
God bless the RCR hierarchy.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

Has there been a Roto that stuck to the authorized chest rig rule?


----------



## GINge! (21 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Having said that, once they make a recommendation (observation?), it's up to Ottawa to make the final decision on things.



Actually, we did both. There are paras on the Trial Report for recommendations and for TO Comments (observations). On completion, the report becomes the property of the PM, not LFTEU (though copies are retained at the unit). I'd love to see greater dissemination of trial results so that LUVW+50cal incidents are reduced; I imagine the Armd CWO who ran that trial was less than impressed to see his hard work ignored. Hmm, ignored is the wrong word, the Mattechs probably had zero idea a trial had even been conducted, nevermind knowing what the results were. Before I left LFTEU, I proposed to the CO to create a Trial Team on standby to deploy & conduct in-theatre user trials...yeah, it was my selfish way of trying to sneak in a few weeks overseas  :-[ I'm not sure if that idea was ever implemented though, but I think it has merit especially given UOR purchases. 

The current policy is that trial reports are classified, which makes sense for a number of reason, however that blanket policy could perhaps be examined on a case-by-case basis where the normal reasons for security do not apply & the PM ok's the release of the information.


----------



## GO!!! (21 Mar 2006)

GINge,

NO NO NO!!

Endless trials, reports that no - one reads, CWO and captains generating paper and employment - BS, all of it.

The LUVW turret was an example of how to do business. Cut all of the HQ naus out of the loop and *link the end user directly to the producer*.

If you had been allowed to do your trials (taking years) the LUV turret would not be deployed and at least 2 men would be dead or seriously injured. They are not perfect, but they are better than the nothing we had before. Even worse, once you did get us something, it would be akin to the TV, utterly useless, incredibly expensive and with a bunch of HQ zealots demanding that it be used, even though the requirement for it was 5-10 years previously.

No thanks.

I know what kit I need. Ask any infanteer, we are not shy.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Mar 2006)

Just don't ask the RSM.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Mar 2006)

Even if it does seem to be tradition that the shit end of the stick is the pointy one, there are two things which occur to me.

1) Someone must be present who is senior staff or command and able to observe differences.

2) There must be hardly a senior officer in the western tradition who, in the course of staff training or higher education, hasn't heard the tale of General Slim putting his staff on half rations.

It is strange that the two are so seldom connected with what might be the expected result.


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2006)

Someone should dig up the threads we had on the TV etc from 2004...

 Fact the basicload is 10mags, add in frags, smoke, water, medical kit, batteries for your NV, IRlaser and flashlight the TV is way out of room.  C9 Gunners and M203 Grandiers are doubley hooped.

 Don't winge that the troops on the ground brought up issues that defended their gear choices.


----------



## Big Red (21 Mar 2006)

"Suppose "normal rate" of fire, by all at once.  What is that: 10 rounds per minute?  Even with 150 rounds per soldier, that's 15 minutes!  Rapid rate is what: 20 rounds per minute?  That's 7.5 minutes of fire.  "Mad Minutes" only waste rounds, and are a pet peeve of mine!"

You think in a contact your guys are only going to be firing 20 rounds per minute?

"You stand alone, but you're never alone, to quote an old recruiting pamphlet. "

I am certain that soldiers in Iraq and Afghan have at some point found themselves "alone" even if only for a few minutes.

"And the extra five mags were in an _issued_ piece of kit housed in the side pouch of the TV: the pouch in which the LMG gunners are "supposed" to keep a belt-box."

And where riflemen should also be carrying kit and extra ammo for the beltfeds, not magazines.

I hate to say it, but the issued gear is "pretty good", In my professional opinion.  

Time reloads wearing my pers kit vs a tacvest. Mine are faster.  Time my draws vs a draw from a flapped Bianchi holster. Reloads from that snap close pouch.

"even though they can be encrypted: GARMINs can't"

Are the sandpeople intercepting GPS now?


----------



## TCBF (21 Mar 2006)

Good thread - thanks to all.

"That's why most webbing was held together permanently with zap-straps and duct-tape..."

- The grass is always greener...  I was issued 1951 pattern. We were a bunch of mostly skinny sixteen year olds, and the metal hooks that went through the belt holes dug into our hip bones.  The only part we liked was the basic ('Bren Gun') pouches.  You could stow a lot of Ration RP-4 tins of Jambalaya in a Bren pouch..

The worst was always re-rigging it for patrols and such

- Then we bought (was not issued to the Mo) 1964 pattern.  Fine, but no Mag pouches for FN C1, and the C2 Bra's (Case Ammo Mag 1964) were rare... Still, upon going Regular in 76, I found that there was one thing 64 pattern was good for - it took up very little space in a Lynx.  

Large pack 1951 was replaces by Cargo Pack 1964, c/w tumpline.  Better than the 51 pat large pack, but the SB carrier built into the bottom would not hold an arctic SB, so...

Rucksack, Universal, C1 (cotton duck bag) then C2 (rubberized bag) with alice type frame, c/w bottle opener (for SMG users  ;D).  But the lower back strap was too thin and loosened, allowing the bar to bust your kidney bones - or whatever, so..

Meanwhile, tired of the velcro giving way and leaving a Brigades worth of 64 pattern web littering Bavaria..

1982 pattern webbing and pack.

The webbing: not too bad, considering it's forebears, but should have had metal fastenings instead of plastic.  The 82 ruck was a far better ruck to carry than the C2 FOR SOME BODY TYPES, but did not do well with short people, and it put the weight back on the shoulders (bad) instead of the hips (good)..  A better ruck to carry than a 'stock' C2, but a lousy one to stow or live out of.

Then, the OG TV:  So, where do we put all of our stuff?  Kandahar 2002, I ask some Patricias why they are wearing 82 pattern webbing "The TV doesn't hold enough kit." they say.  They lesson the weight of their loads by cutting brim rings from their relish hats... 

Good point.  Ten mags, plus...  Not enough pouches.  Cutting shirt pockets from the chest and sewing them on the arms elicits a wave of outrage from millions watching from their living rooms...

But surely the NEW TV...?   No?

And what's this new pack they gave me?  Which pack does it replace?  How many packs are we expected to carry at once?

How are we supposed to carry 'mags, frags and water' if they fill our kit lists with camping gear? 

 When is 'good' , good enough?

And to think I was once 17 years old, wearing FSOD pants and shirt, pisspot helmet, 25 set on my back, FN C1, four 20 rd mags full, FIVE 60 rd rubber bandoleers of 'DA 67'  Ball, walking across Wainwright, wondering if there was some better kit out there...

The more things change...

Tom


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Someone said what will 2VP do.  Well once out the gate some have told me that they will ditch their authorized kit and go with what works.
> God bless the RCR hierarchy.


God Bless the QR and O's


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Big Red said:
			
		

> You think in a contact your guys are only going to be firing 20 rounds per minute?


They better be.


			
				Big Red said:
			
		

> I am certain that soldiers in Iraq and Afghan have at some point found themselves "alone" even if only for a few minutes.


Probably.  Even if only for a few minutes, are all the chest rigs and laser pointers going to save you?  I cannot imagine the utter horror our lads felt in Normandy, what with 60 rounds each?  How the hell did they put up with that, facing off against MG 42s spewing out rounds at well over 1000 rounds/minute? :


			
				Big Red said:
			
		

> Time reloads wearing my pers kit vs a tacvest. Mine are faster.  Time my draws vs a draw from a flapped Bianchi holster. Reloads from that snap close pouch.


If I had the time (as you apparently have) for reloads, well.  Lets say you and me have platoons squaring off.  You've got them lasers and all that.  I've got fire discipline and musketry skills.  After about 2 minutes, you are out of ammo, we're just warming up.


			
				Big Red said:
			
		

> Are the sandpeople intercepting GPS now?


If by "sandpeople" you mean those dudes in Star Wars, I doubt it.  GPS can and has been encrypted.  Not sure if it is today, though.  With my "jalopy" PLGR +96 in early 2001 (when they were encrypted for some reason), I knew I was at grid "x".  The candidates around me thought they were at grid "y".  Not off by much, but enough to make a difference.


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin - from an operation experience and individual skill level you are wee bit behind Big Red.
  GPS is no longer encrypted - the CF issued the Garmin in Afghan - PLGR 96+ is scheduled to be replaced in short order.

Keep in mind the EN here tends to like ambushes - and hit and run - in order to fix them you need a large volume of fire.  Once you fix them you may destroy them.


If your such a lover of the TV etc - please give us your idea of a proper loadout?

IR lasers and NODS allow us to turn day to night - taking the fight to the enemy when they are hindered, a friend of mine took down 30+ taliban with a suppressed SPR/Mk12 rifle using a PEQ-2A and PVS-14 - inside 400m and they never knew where he was -- line up in a formed column and beat bush if ou wish but I prefer to minimise firendly exposure if we can.

It appears you have a VERY poor background in dynamic shooting - in CQB you shoot till the threat ends - that can be at a VERY high rate of fire - (semi) - We have long left the plains of Europe and Napolean behind.


----------



## couchcommander (21 Mar 2006)

Them's be fight'en words.....

*gets out popcorn*


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> vonGarvin - from an operation experience and individual skill level you are wee bit behind Big Red.
> GPS is no longer encrypted - the CF issued the Garmin in Afghan - PLGR 96+ is scheduled to be replaced in short order.
> Keep in mind the EN here tends to like ambushes - and hit and run - in order to fix them you need a large volume of fire.  Once you fix them you may destroy them.
> If your such a lover of the TV etc - please give us your idea of a proper loadout?
> ...


The news re: GPS is indeed that for me.  
As for "individual skill level" lacking behind Big Red: I don't know him, and he doesn't know me: sounds like a generalisation on someone's part.  Let's keep it on track
As for the TV: nothing is ever going to please everyone.  But let's get serious: do we REALLY need all those chest rigs, etc?  Some may need them, but I highly doubt that your run of the mill soldier "over there" is gonna need all that crap.  My load for it?  Depends on the job at hand.  The TV is an improvement over the LBV, and certainly over previous versions of webbing, load bearing gear, whatever.  
You have to ask the question: what do I need?  Determine the need on what's most likely to happen, NOT every eventuality.  This whole thing reminds me of a guy who was apparently a POW in WWII.  He escaped, came across an aircraft "just sitting there", and used that as an argument that everyone should learn to fly a plane "just in case".  Or the other fellow who said we should all carry ladders so that we can enter into the upper floor of buildings "just in case".  If you cover every eventuality, you'll soon find yourself bogged down with unnecessary crap.  You can only fit so much meat into a sandwich.
The solution?  Everyone has their role.  Take the bare minimum: the rifle section, with or without LAV.  Some have LMGs.  Some have Rifles.  Some have M203s.  And on and on.
As for your friend and 30+ Taliban: nice on him.  I know all about IR lasers, MNVGs etc etc turning night into day for us.  It's great.  I've used them and they rock.  They were all issue.  
Now, assume the ambush scenario.  An IED goes off, triggering the whole thing.  Shocked, our troops are now being fired on with small arms at whatever range.  We shoot back.  If our guys go full auto: they hit squat.  Well, bullets have to hit something, but I doubt it's what they are aiming at.  Perhaps your whole sunglasses-wearing, backwards baseball cap sporting "dynamic shooting" is what it's all about.  Maybe its the whole Shoot to Live programme implemented *correctly*.  The point is: it's not the tool, it's the person using the tool.  Skillsets are what sets the conditions for success.  We may not be engaging at 300m +, and that's fine.  You're right about large amount of _effective_ fire fixing the enemy, but once they are pinned (assuming you are successful in that), your volume of fire can be reduced in order to manoeuvre to finish them off.  Assuming that they actually stick around.  
Now, I realise that this is not Europe (see my earlier post).  If this were, then the troops would have 30 magazines each to fight off the hordes.
I doubt that there have been many sustained battles throughout history in which those in contact didn't have to go back to the Q and get more ammo.  It may be true that we don't carry enough, but let's face it, do you _really_ need all that crap?  I mean, really.  To say that the TV is utterly useless is, in my professional opinion, unprofessional.  It wasn't developed in a vacuum.  The troops with whom I've served found it to serve their needs.  Is there better stuff out there?  Certainly!  Will we get better stuff?  You betcha.  Is the situation so bad that troops _must_ go out and buy their own?  I highly doubt it.


----------



## DBA (21 Mar 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> vonGarvin - from an operation experience and individual skill level you are wee bit behind Big Red.
> GPS is no longer encrypted - the CF issued the Garmin in Afghan - PLGR 96+ is scheduled to be replaced in short order.



The main GPS signal isn't degraded anymore (SA or Selective Availability was turned off or set to zero) so receivers don't need access to the encrypted signal channel data to get full accuracy. However that encrypted data also provides anti-spoofing protection which is not in these civilian devices. The US has already stated they may degrade GPS on a regional basis so having military GPS units available that will still function properly in such a situation would be disireable.


----------



## Recce41 (21 Mar 2006)

Christ Fellas
 Soldiers have been complaining about kit since Hannibal. It's nothing new. Yes the old desert boots don't cut it. But the new one are much better. They are made by Corran and look like the blk ones, but tan. As for chest rigs remember, we buy kit that is suitable for our all round needs. NATO issue is 5 Mags and before that, It was 5 in WW1 for my Grandfathers, and 5 in WW2/Korea for my Father/Uncles and F in L . I phoned my Uncles just to ask him. He told me, the SSM/SM would issue you 5 mags. And If you waited more you just stole, found, or asked. You had to carry them in your pockets, bag, etc. 
He said only the Sten/Bren gunners got more. But If you were a Enfield guy. You had to do what you had. So it's nothing new as stated. I'll will not buy my own kit. I have pockets, a Army GPS that is great (learn how to use it, if you don't), Have walked many a mile on the old Desert and Juggle boot, and the old Mk3s. I do have Danners/ Matterhorns that were issued, they were to be issued to all. The problem is Afghanistan is a low tech country, fought with high tech soldiers.
I read a book from the Afghan War. It had a Russian soldier state. The Afghans can march a 100 miles with sandals and wooden packs, and fight us all day. We cannot march 20 miles with our boots and rucks sacks and fight.  We are fighting a modern battle on the ground of the caveman.
They were there under the same conditions. Must tell you something.


----------



## mz589 (21 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> An article in Infantry Journal regarding the famous photo of the soldier outside the aid station (his M1 carbine is clearly visible), and correspondence with Art Johnson, who served in both 1 and 2 RCR as a rifleman.  What was your dad's job, incidentally, if you don't mind my asking?



Sure, no problem Michael.

He was a rifleman and a section leader first with 9 and then I believe 8 platoon, after his year was up he and a few other NCOs remained behind for an extra month to help 1 RCR get acclimated. 

In reference to this I just got off the phone with him and he can recall a M-1 Carbine being "scrounged" with a night vision scope on it. He also mentioned 30 calibre Brownings and Bazookas being scavenged, American 45s were also a popular item. At any rate he said that he doesn't recall anyone using them (M-1s) but that it was certainly possible, he did say that the guys from 1RCR seemed to like the US weapons.

Since he is going by memories from 50+ years its hard to say how accurate any of this is.

I went through his photo albums to see if I could shed some light on things but I don't see any weapons in the photos except for a .30 cal Browning. 

Thanks for bringing this point up Michael, its an interesting footnote. I'd love to know just how common "scrounging" when it came to the .303, my father was/is a die-hard Lee Enfield guy.


----------



## mz589 (21 Mar 2006)

HDE said:
			
		

> Check out a book, Blood on the Hills, by David Bercuson, for more on Canadians using American weapons in Korea.  Lots of good photos/info on the issue, including officers using Yankee stuff.
> 
> ciao



Thank you for that, I will do so.


----------



## DG-41 (21 Mar 2006)

> You can't simply pull apart the TV and resew it.



Isn't that what one of the aftermarket guys did?

I don't remember what the name of the company is (I'm sure one of the Gucci Gods here will) but it seems to me that at least one of the aftermarket rigs is the issue tac vest design fitted with a standard modular attachment system like MOLLE.

DG


----------



## buzgo (21 Mar 2006)

I think that Dropzone makes a MOLLE panel that fits onto the Tacvest. Also, there are photos of people with modded tv's, with DZ pouches attached on the combat camera site... It was mentioned here before.


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2006)

sigh - It really is not worth my time.  Keep toeing the oarty line I'm sure your career will flourish while your subordinates pay for it in blood.


----------



## Kal (21 Mar 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> IR lasers and NODS allow us to turn day to night - taking the fight to the enemy when they are hindered, a friend of mine took down 30+ taliban with a suppressed SPR/Mk12 rifle using a PEQ-2A and PVS-14 - inside 400m and they never knew where he was



Dude, I told you that in confidence and asked you not to tell that story...  You're out of my trust tree. ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> sigh - It really is not worth my time.  Keep toeing the oarty line I'm sure your career will flourish while your subordinates pay for it in blood.


Get real.  Troops will not live (when they would otherwise die) because they have some jammy MOLLE vest on.


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2006)

Have you tried to speed load out of the TV -- MJP had some nice video - same with getting frags out, and yes when your are underfire seconds can and do count.

I understand you have a very closed mind based on your "experience" -   Unlike you, the guys in question are putting it on the line - try for once to stop the "painting the rock's cuz" mentality.  


Kal -- unless your a bearded 6'4" former 18B that I work with I doubt it...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Mar 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> NATO issue is 5 Mags and before that, It was 5 in WW1 for my Grandfathers, and 5 in WW2/Korea for my Father/Uncles and F in L . I phoned my Uncles just to ask him. He told me, the SSM/SM would issue you 5 mags. And If you waited more you just stole, found, or asked. You had to carry them in your pockets, bag, etc.
> He said only the Sten/Bren gunners got more. But If you were a Enfield guy. You had to do what you had. So it's nothing new as stated.



Lee Enfield users got ONE mag each - they reloaded from 5 round chargers. G1098 allotment was 60 rounds per rifleman - 6 mags, in other words.

Doctrine has changed since then, so its a bit irrelevant recce; most riflemen didn't fire their weapons in WW II during combat - with the increase in firepower afforded by semi-autos and full-autos, that has changed.  A WW II rifle section relied on the Bren Gun. The Enfield guys probably didn't shoot much.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> most riflemen didn't fire their weapons in WW II during combat - with the increase in firepower afforded by semi-autos and full-autos, that has changed.  A WW II rifle section relied on the Bren Gun. The Enfield guys probably didn't shoot much.


You are referring to a study done after WWII.  That study involved US infantrymen only.  The remedy wasn't an increase in firepower (tools), but a different approach to marksmanship training (skills).
As for Enfields not firing, some German sources credit the british (and probably Canadians by default) with overwhelmingly effective fire discipline.  With bolt-action rifles, the Brits were more effective than some other armies.


----------



## Kal (21 Mar 2006)

Kevin, you got me.  I don't have a beard.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> You are referring to a study done after WWII.  That study involved US infantrymen only.  The remedy wasn't an increase in firepower (tools), but a different approach to marksmanship training (skills).
> As for Enfields not firing, some German sources credit the british (and probably Canadians by default) with overwhelmingly effective fire discipline.  With bolt-action rifles, the Brits were more effective than some other armies.



No, I'm referring to the acting CO of the Royal Canadian Regiment reporting on his experiences in Italy.  You are thinking of SLA Marshall.  He cooked his figures.  Galloway did not.

I'd like to see your source for your last para.  Galloway's books  and articles in Legion Magazine are well known.

"The majority of men in fighting platoons could have fought to and arrived on the objective carrying pitchforks instead of rifles for all the difference it would have made."


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Have you tried to speed load out of the TV -- MJP had some nice video - same with getting frags out, and yes when your are underfire seconds can and do count.
> I understand you have a very closed mind based on your "experience" -   Unlike you, the guys in question are putting it on the line - try for once to stop the "painting the rock's cuz" mentality.


OK, enough of the ad hominem attacks.  Prove me wrong or move along.  My point is that though there are situations in which jammy MOLLE vests are what's required, there are only so many layers you can give a fella before he stops being effective.  The TV, as issued, is effective.  Full stop.  Is there room for improvement?  Perhaps.  
As for my so-called "experience", well, it is probably more extensive than you know or realise.  I've put it on the line, several times.  The TV is, in my professional opinion, LIGHT YEARS ahead of what we last had (82 pattern webbing) and effective.  It gets the job done.  THAT opinion comes from TWO tours wearing it.  And I'm not alone. 
So put that in your pipe and smoke it ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> No, I'm referring to the acting CO of the Royal Canadian Regiment reporting on his experiences in Italy.  You are thinking of SLA Marshall.  He cooked his figures.  Galloway did not.
> I'd like to see your source for your last para.  Galloway's books  and articles in Legion Magazine are well known.
> "The majority of men in fighting platoons could have fought to and arrived on the objective carrying pitchforks instead of rifles for all the difference it would have made."


OK, my bad.  I was thinking of Marshall, never thought of Strome  :-[
I have no source on me, but as I think of it, I think it was WWI, not WWII in which the UK marksmanship surprised the Germans....
Your last sentence is brilliant.  The bad guys are suppressed by Brens and the like, allowing the decisive action (manoeuvre) destroy the enemy.


----------



## buzgo (21 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> OK, my bad.  I was thinking of Marshall, never thought of Strome  :-[
> I have no source on me, but as I think of it, I think it was WWI, not WWII in which the UK marksmanship surprised the Germans....
> Your last sentence is brilliant.  The bad guys are suppressed by Brens and the like, allowing the decisive action (manoeuvre) destroy the enemy.



Or it just didn't matter what they were carrying since they weren't going to fire/use it anyway...


----------



## GINge! (21 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> NO NO NO!!
> Endless trials, reports that no - one reads, CWO and captains generating paper and employment - BS, all of it.
> 
> I know what kit I need. Ask any infanteer, we are not shy.



We do ask infanteers. We have Inf Capt & CWO who run the trials with Inf soldiers (and other MOC when applicable), and we get great feedback. Sometime the kit you think you need is simply not available for trials. I can't get more specific, but a recent trial was planned for 6 competitors. Before the trial even started, 5 of them were ruled out for non-compliance with the specs. That left one trial item which failed. If we didn't have LFTEU test & fail that item, guess what, you would have been issued another faulty bit 'o kit that you'd be stuck with for 20 years. 

I'll take the BS comment as tongue in cheek by someone who has not been involved in a scientific trial. You are somewhat correct about the fact that no-one reads trial reports, and that was a point in my original post; better dissemination of trial results.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> OK, my bad.  I was thinking of Marshall, never thought of Strome  :-[
> I have no source on me, but as I think of it, I think it was WWI, not WWII in which the UK marksmanship surprised the Germans....
> Your last sentence is brilliant.  The bad guys are suppressed by Brens and the like, allowing the decisive action (manoeuvre) destroy the enemy.



Yep, that was a paraphrase of Galloway, but he did use the word "pitchfork".  He went on to suggest the pitchfork would be "three times" as good as a bayonet, but I'm sure by that point he was firmly tongue in cheek.

The marksmanship mystique started at Mons and the Ypres Kindermorden I believe. Galloway reminds us that in the Second World War, there weren't enough rifle ranges to go around and that individual musketry in the Canadian Army was not to a high standard.


----------



## Recce41 (21 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Lee Enfield users got ONE mag each - they reloaded from 5 round chargers. G1098 allotment was 60 rounds per rifleman - 6 mags, in other words.
> 
> Doctrine has changed since then, so its a bit irrelevant recce; most riflemen didn't fire their weapons in WW II during combat - with the increase in firepower afforded by semi-autos and full-autos, that has changed.  A WW II rifle section relied on the Bren Gun. The Enfield guys probably didn't shoot much.


So Mike
 My uncle is wrong? Essex Scot 1941-46. then Guard,then Royal. So NATO Standard is wrong also? So most rifle men didn't fire their rifles, what did they use them for then? And now your getting double the rds. 
Semi Auto and Auto does not mean anything. All it means is your throwing away rds.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Yep, that was a paraphrase of Galloway, but he did use the word "pitchfork".  He went on to suggest the pitchfork would be "three times" as good as a bayonet, but I'm sure by that point he was firmly tongue in cheek.


Of course it was three times as good: three times as many "pointy ends"


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Mar 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> So Mike
> My uncle is wrong? Essex Scot 1941-46. then Guard,then Royal. So NATO Standard is wrong also? So most rifle men didn't fire their rifles, what did they use them for then? And now your getting double the rds.
> Semi Auto and Auto does not mean anything. All it means is your throwing away rds.



You probably heard wrong.  Lee Enfield users didn't change mags, they used chargers.  Ask him again.

Don't take my word on the rifles, read Galloway.  What did the riflemen use? 25-pdrs usually; nothing like a good "Mike Target" to get you on the objective.


----------



## GINge! (21 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Of course it was three times as good: three times as many "pointy ends"



Or was that Three "tines" as good.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

GINge! said:
			
		

> Or was that Three "tines" as good.


BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :fifty:


----------



## COBRA-6 (21 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> OK, enough of the ad hominem attacks.  Prove me wrong or move along.  My point is that though there are situations in which jammy MOLLE vests are what's required, there are only so many layers you can give a fella before he stops being effective.  The TV, as issued, is effective.  Full stop.  Is there room for improvement?  Perhaps.
> As for my so-called "experience", well, it is probably more extensive than you know or realise.  I've put it on the line, several times.  The TV is, in my professional opinion, LIGHT YEARS ahead of what we last had (82 pattern webbing) and effective.  It gets the job done.  THAT opinion comes from TWO tours wearing it.  And I'm not alone.
> So put that in your pipe and smoke it ;D



wow... well I guess to each his own... wearing it outside the wire every day, I found the TV to be absolutely terrible, and bought a modular chest rig as soon as I got back, which truly is light years ahead... trying to reload quickly with the TV is almost impossible, and that's using magpul ranger plates! I would have rather had my old webbing to tell you the truth...


----------



## Big Red (21 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> OK, enough of the ad hominem attacks.  Prove me wrong or move along.  My point is that though there are situations in which jammy MOLLE vests are what's required, there are only so many layers you can give a fella before he stops being effective.  The TV, as issued, is effective.  Full stop.  Is there room for improvement?  Perhaps.



Time your reloads from a TV. They are slow. An empty weapon can get you killed. Your TV cannot hold as much equipment as it needs to hold properly.

If the TV is such a great piece of kit why are SOF units not emulating it?  Surely there isn't anything better out there :


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Tell ya what, Big Red, you can take your old webbing.  Good on you.  Why don't SOF units use it?  Well, ask them.  They do a different (though similar) job to you and me.  So, I guess you've reloaded, _in contact_ with your Jammy kit.  Nice.  Funny how the entire media missed it.
Timing reloads from the TV.  I've never actually sat there and timed it, but I haven't really noticed.  Now, I'm not practicing going in some room after absailing out of a Blackhawk, but it was in the field, live fire, at night.  (I know, I know, "big frigging deal").  
Since the TV is killing so many of our guys over there, I suppose that we had better go get us some of them gucci modular chest rigs.
As for why the SOF don't use it?  Who friggin' knows.  Hell, they have longer hair and Oakleys, does that mean we should use them?  They have a job to do, and they do it well, using what they need.  You, however, unless you're part of JTF 2 (and JTF 3 dont' exist!), are part of a rifle COMPANY, complete with over a hundred soldiers, all armed, all fighting the same fight.  
My question to you: with all that crap you can now carry, do you feel any better?
Oh, by the way, you're the first I've heard of calling the TV "absolute garbage".  Some have said "not bad" or "could be better", but all agree: its sufficient for what's needed.
I guess the stacks of bodybags coming home, all TV related deaths, have clouded my judgement


It's the total ignorance and LCF that really makes my blood boil.  Look at what that guy said about the Turret of the LUVW "saving lives" so far (regarding the suicide attack).  IGNORANCE!  The turret on the LUVW does NOTHING for blast effects: they only help stop kinetic attacks.  

OK, I'm going for a smoke.  With my TV and helmet ON 

(Don't take anything I say too personally: I too have thick skin, and one failing I have is assuming that others do too)


Garvin out.


----------



## buzgo (21 Mar 2006)

I don't think that Big Red is in the CF...


----------



## DG-41 (21 Mar 2006)

OK, just outta curiosity, what exactly is wrong with the TV as issued?

The only complaint I've seen that really rings home is mag capacity - and yes, from talking to those who have seen the elephant, it seems that daily carry of 10-15 C7 mags is the norm these days. OK, so it could use more mag pouches.

But is that it?

It just strikes me that if the aftermarket is selling the same design, but with MOLLE so you can reconfigure the pouches, that the basic design really isn't all that horrible. Conversely, it seems that the substitution of MOLLE pouches for static sewn-on pouches isn't that big of a deal, and could be incorporated into a future design revision.

This looks to me like a perfect case for a design iteration process. CTS comes up with a piece of kit, the soldiers try it out, "whoops, not enough mag pouches" and then re-issue with MOLLE (etc) instead of the sewn-on pouches. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Kit is like plans - no first version, no matter how well researched, is going to be perfect. So rapid feedback and incremental redesign to meet the needs of the pointy end needs to be part of the process. 

DG


----------



## Bzzliteyr (21 Mar 2006)

Are "blast effects" not "kinetic attacks"??  Anything moving at high velocity toward you is using kinetic energy to try to kill you, correct?  The turrets would then be effective against suicide bombing type attacks, right?


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Mar 2006)

Gentlemen, (if the shoe fits ...) before your next posts, may I suggest re-examining your approach in this thread.  Each person's experiences and preferences for the kit they wear will differ - that is a given.  Equipment programs do the best they can with available information and having to work with the bureaucracy that dictates the process (much of which originates outside DND).  As soon as anyone takes a thread of this potential importance, i.e., discussing operational kit in use in current operations, and turns it into a personal slagging match, the value of the thread is quickly degraded into worthlessness.

May I suggest that the time and energy is best put forth into rational arguments for improving the kit in question, coupled with detailed explanations of what would be recommended - not just by brand name, but by individual functional characteristic.  Build a document and interested obeservers in the right places may be able to forward your information to the right people - insults and rhetoric do not achieve that.

That way you make your case, educate the rest of us and provide a detailed justification for preferring one equipment approach over another.


Thank you

Mike


----------



## COBRA-6 (21 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Oh, by the way, you're the first I've heard of calling the TV "absolute garbage".  Some have said "not bad" or "could be better", but all agree: its sufficient for what's needed.



Do a search for Tac Vests... this had been discussed before extensively...


----------



## Gunnar (21 Mar 2006)

Speaking as a civilian, I think the best TV is one with cable.  However, any TV in the field is going to be heavy, and I don't know if there are current bushes over in the sandbox to plug one into.... :dontpanic:


----------



## buzgo (21 Mar 2006)

I think that the Army (CF?) needs to modernize the way we think about things. Test a bunch of gear, come up with a list of stuff that is acceptable and if someone wants to buy it, they are good to go and can do that without running afoul of the c of c. 

If we issued everyone Hanwag boots, RAID packs and a RAV, then they would probably all want to get Oakley boots, Eagle packs and 1982 pattern webbing or something! There will always be something 'better' than what we're issued. Although in this situation I agree with the guys on the ground, and the guys like KevinB and Big Red. The issue stuff has a long way to go to be considered 'good kit.'

What troubles me most of all is MND's lack of knowledge about 5 years of UCRs, and the usual CF 'develop in a vacuum' philosophy that CTS is operating on.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Are "blast effects" not "kinetic attacks"??  Anything moving at high velocity toward you is using kinetic energy to try to kill you, correct?  The turrets would then be effective against suicide bombing type attacks, right?


No, they are quite different.  Take a LAV III for example.  It can stop calibre "x" fired from "y" metres.  As for blast, remember it can bypass armour, taking the path of least resistance.  Remember that bullets are kinetic energy projectiles.  If I am in a LAV III turret, for example, and a bomb goes off next to the vehicle.  Say it's an AT mine, so it goes off underneath.  Suppose that the hull integrity isn't compromised, so fine.  Having said that, the shock wave of the blast would go around the vehicle and slam into my ears: overpressure, underpressure and the like.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> May I suggest that the time and energy is best put forth into rational arguments for improving the kit in question, coupled with detailed explanations of what would be recommended - not just by brand name, but by individual functional characteristic.  Build a document and interested obeservers in the right places may be able to forward your information to the right people - insults and rhetoric do not achieve that.
> Mike


The sober thought.  Thank you.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> OK, just outta curiosity, what exactly is wrong with the TV as issued?
> 
> The only complaint I've seen that really rings home is mag capacity - and yes, from talking to those who have seen the elephant, it seems that daily carry of 10-15 C7 mags is the norm these days. OK, so it could use more mag pouches.


One can carry 10 mags with the TV as issued.  There is a magazine slot insert that can be put into a side pouch.


			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> But is that it?


I doubt it.  As I've said, it may not be perfect, but in my professional opinion, it is very good in its performing what it's needed to do: give an infantryman (not a SOF soldier or anything like that) enough carriage to take with him/her into battle for a 24 hour period, or so.  There are add-on pouches, and if you wish to carry more, there is the "day pack", or whatever it's called.  And it has add on pouches as well.


			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> It just strikes me that if the aftermarket is selling the same design, but with MOLLE so you can reconfigure the pouches, that the basic design really isn't all that horrible. Conversely, it seems that the substitution of MOLLE pouches for static sewn-on pouches isn't that big of a deal, and could be incorporated into a future design revision.


Yes, maybe that could be done.  The rifle has evolved since we bought it, so why not the TV?  Having said that, is it necessary?  Desirable, maybe, but necessary?


			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> This looks to me like a perfect case for a design iteration process. CTS comes up with a piece of kit, the soldiers try it out, "whoops, not enough mag pouches" and then re-issue with MOLLE (etc) instead of the sewn-on pouches. Lather, rinse, repeat.


"repeat.  Always repeat" .  With any kit procurement, I don't think there is an end state, but rather a continuing process whereby the kit improves over time as the needs dictate.


			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> Kit is like plans - no first version, no matter how well researched, is going to be perfect. So rapid feedback and incremental redesign to meet the needs of the pointy end needs to be part of the process.


Well said.  LFTEU does incorporate an exhaustive scientfic process to trial "stuff", from gloves and boots to weapons and the like.  There is extensive user feedback, but being human, they don't always get it right.  They do most of the time, but not always.  I think that the TV was a success story, however.


----------



## DG-41 (21 Mar 2006)

Given that you like the TV as issued, this question wasn't aimed at you; rather, at those who think the TV is garbage.

But I can note that:



> One can carry 10 mags with the TV as issued.  There is a magazine slot insert that can be put into a side pouch.



At the cost of losing either the C9 box or the 2qt canteen that normally rides there....

I've got the canteen in there with an aftermarket hydration adaptor that turns this into a Camelback - and hydration, especially when laden up with all the extra stuff (particularly armour) that we wear these days, is very very important. I wouldn't want to give up that water to carry mags in that pouch.



> There are add-on pouches, and if you wish to carry more, there is the "day pack", or whatever it's called.  And it has add on pouches as well.



I've yet to see any add-on mag pouches for the issue TV - where would they fit? The only provision for extra pouches is on the back, and I hope you aren't advocating carrying ready ammo on one's back....

Don't get me started on the "day pack" either....



> Yes, maybe that could be done.  The rifle has evolved since we bought it, so why not the TV?  Having said that, is it necessary?  Desirable, maybe, but necessary?



Aren't those one and the same? Isn't anything "desirable" by the guys on the pointy end an extension of combat capacity? Especially when they are already voting with that most precious of votes, their wallets?

Have you seen how much some of this Gucci stuff costs? When the boys are spending their Queen's Coin on upgraded personal military kit, that speaks pretty strongly to me about how they feel about the extra capability it adds. All the soldiers I've ever known have been a pretty thrifty bunch.



> "repeat.  Always repeat" Cheesy.  With any kit procurement, I don't think there is an end state, but rather a continuing process whereby the kit improves over time as the needs dictate.



I agree - and it would seem that the needs of the pointy end are dictating that it may be time to add capability to the issue TV.

It works just fine for **my** needs - but to date, I haven't had a need to carry more than three mags of ammunition. I certainly would NOT, however, extrapolate that into claiming that the issue TV has a 20% overcapacity in magazine stowage.



> Well said.  LFTEU does incorporate an exhaustive scientific process to trial "stuff", from gloves and boots to weapons and the like.  There is extensive user feedback, but being human, they don't always get it right.  They do most of the time, but not always.



Nobody ever will. It's like developing computer software: you do the best you can, you be as rigorous and professional as lies within your capability, and as soon as the software is released into the wild, a ton of bugs will show up as people actually use the stuff.

Does that mean the programmers are idiots, or incompetent, or negligent? No, not at all - as long as they fix the bugs and release the fixes in a timely manner.

The danger sign is when your programmers start claiming that bugs aren't serious, or that the users aren't using it properly, or otherwise rationalize away the need to fix bugs. The End User Is Always Right.

That's a lot easier to do in software, where you just shunt some electrons around, than in the material world - them protons and neutrons are a bitch. But any project that doesn't have baked into it a user-feedback and rapid improvement process is doing everybody a disservice.



> I think that the TV was a success story, however.



Overall, I tend to agree with you - but one can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by failing to adapt to changing circumstances, and it sounds like the TV has a set of changing circumstances to deal with here. Why be so hostile to that?

DG


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Mar 2006)

You know I really don't care what the troops did in WW1 or 2 or Korea or Bosnia for that matter.  The kit out there is better because it is more comfortable,holds more of everything, and is modular.  Did those in previous engagements have the money and resources to get something more suitable and quickly?  I don't think so.  These days you can get a chest rig in tan, olive drab, CADPAT in weeks.  As long as we all look like we are on the same team who cares. I'd hate to be ambushed in an alley cut off from my platoon with no immediate support and only 5 mags a man to hold them off because that's all I could carry.  Or I carry ten mags and no C9 or C6 or grenades etc because there is no room.


----------



## rifleman (21 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> You know I really don't care what the troops did in WW1 or 2 or Korea or Bosnia for that matter.  The kit out there is better because it is more comfortable,holds more of everything, and is modular.  Did those in previous engagements have the money and resources to get something more suitable and quickly?  I don't think so.  These days you can get a chest rig in tan, olive drab, CADPAT in weeks.  As long as we all look like we are on the same team who cares. I'd hate to be ambushed in an alley cut off from my platoon with no immediate support and only 5 mags a man to hold them off because that's all I could carry.  Or I carry ten mags and no C9 or C6 or grenades etc because there is no room.



I agree that the stuff we have now is more comfortable, however with all the neat little pockets it's hard to get at, and all the neat pouches you can have, You've got to tape it up so it doesn't fall off or rattle around Give me sewn on pouches anyday. Even with the old webbing pouches I liked keeping the C2 pouch around for extra mags.

As aside , I'd hate being ambushed cut off with even 10 mags when I needed 11 but when is enough?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Mar 2006)

True you can get into some circular logic as to whats enough's enough.  That said the troops have 10 mags and 4 mag pouches.


----------



## rifleman (21 Mar 2006)

Better than 4 mags and a bandolier


----------



## Recce41 (21 Mar 2006)

VonG
 I have to say it. It's the Look cool thing.  If someone wants to pay 500-1000$ on a vest you may wear for 6 months OK. But I have better things to do with my money. I have pockets, extra pouches that will do the same thing. We both remember the old 54/64 Pat webbing, it was good then as now. The Brits still use it in the Jungle. Its easy to fix and to add to. 
Too many movie watchers. I don't allow any of my soldiers to wear any none Canadian Kit. Maybe gloves, if blk. 
As Stated, YES I'm a prick. What about it.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Mar 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> VonG
> I have to say it. It's the Look cool thing.  If someone wants to pay 500-1000$ on a vest you may wear for 6 months OK. But I have better things to do with my money. I have pockets, extra pouches that will do the same thing. We both remember the old 54/64 Pat webbing, it was good then as now. The Brits still use it in the Jungle. Its easy to fix and to add to.
> Too many movie watchers. I don't allow any of my soldiers to wear any none Canadian Kit. Maybe gloves, if blk.
> As Stated, YES I'm a prick. What about it.



This is the same 64 Pattern webbing THAT DIDN'T HAVE AMMUNITION POUCHES because it was expected a soldier could carry a full basic load in his shirt pockets?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Mar 2006)

Recce41 you will allow different gloves.  Why is that?  I don't see how you can allow non-issue gloves but not non-issue chest rigs or boots.  Some may think its LCF then so be it.  Others feel that given the amount of kit they must take to get the job done now feel otherwise.  Either all or none.  Its called evolution and just because it doesn't come from the top don't dismiss it.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> At the cost of losing either the C9 box or the 2qt canteen that normally rides there....
> I've got the canteen in there with an aftermarket hydration adaptor that turns this into a Camelback - and hydration, especially when laden up with all the extra stuff (particularly armour) that we wear these days, is very very important. I wouldn't want to give up that water to carry mags in that pouch.
> I've yet to see any add-on mag pouches for the issue TV - where would they fit? The only provision for extra pouches is on the back, and I hope you aren't advocating carrying ready ammo on one's back....


No, certainly not; however, perhaps that extra C9 belt box could be there?  I dunno.  But personal ammo (less the bandoleer, maybe) should be easily accessible.  It all depends on the situation, naturally.  Maybe extra water could be there?  Again, situation depends, and you're absolutely right: water, and lots of it, is a must.


			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> Don't get me started on the "day pack" either....


I won't 


			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> Aren't those one and the same? Isn't anything "desirable" by the guys on the pointy end an extension of combat capacity? Especially when they are already voting with that most precious of votes, their wallets?


No, desirable and needed are two different things.  The only example I can think of is sex (desirable) and air (needed).  And I mean this in a serious way.  You can get by without the desirable things, but you cannot get by without the needed things.  Sorta like the difference between vital ground and key terrain, I suppose.


			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> Overall, I tend to agree with you - but one can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by failing to adapt to changing circumstances, and it sounds like the TV has a set of changing circumstances to deal with here. Why be so hostile to that?


I'm not hostile to change: the opposite is quite true.  Change can be a good thing; however, it must be for the better, and it cannot be for the sake of change itself.  The TV, as it is, is good, In my professional opinion.  
The thing I'm hostile to is the slagging "You don't agree with me, therefore you are inexperienced/a desk jockey/a parade ground soldier", whatever.  I admit, I've handled it poorly.  Mea culpa.

Garvin out


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Mar 2006)

"But personal ammo (less the bandoleer, maybe) should be easily accessible."
Its not easy to get to.  The pouches are too high on the chest.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> "But personal ammo (less the bandoleer, maybe) should be easily accessible."
> Its not easy to get to.  The pouches are too high on the chest.


It can be adjusted, though perhaps not enough.  And there are different sizes.  If that doesn't remedy it, then submit a UCR stating so
(And remember: "it inhales fecal matter through a straw" doesn't cut it")  
In my experience, the pouches are fine like they are on my TV.  I can reach them when prone and I can reach them when standing (such as in a turret even, though that isn't exactly that comfortable)


As an aside, someone earlier mentioned "The SOF doesn't use the TV, why should we?"  An analogy occured to me earlier tonight.  Consider police units.  The SWAT teams (ERT?  SERT?) have black uniforms, helmets, SMGs, various types of rigging, etc, but the cop on the beat has a completely different set of gear.  Is it funding?  Certainly not.  It's all about function.  The cop on the beat, though carrying a weapon because he/she may have to use it, has more "mundane" tasks with which to contend (on a regular basis, that is).  Having said that, the cop on the beat has to be ready for anything, such as a domestic dispute gone bad as an example.

The main point is functionality.  If you are in a mech platoon, for example, there are close to 40 guys with you.  Normally you operate more or less in the same grid square (or even closer in urban areas).  Your LAV is close by (complete with boiling vessal!), and you will normally be away from the LAV for shorter (relatively speaking) periods of time.  You don't need as much stuff on you to survive.

If you are on a long range recce patrol, well, the situation is completely different.  You don't have the magical CQ "a tactical bound" behind you, so the three days of food, water and rations are on your back.  With the mech dudes, the CQ can afford to load up the LAVs with more stuff with less effect on the soldiers, but with dismounted dudes, well, it just ain't that easy.

Again, it's all about function.


Garvin out.


----------



## Grunt_031 (21 Mar 2006)

> I've yet to see any add-on mag pouches for the issue TV - where would they fit? The only provision for extra pouches is on the back, and I hope you aren't advocating carrying ready ammo on one's back....



The extra pouches are the add-ons that come with the small pack and more with the new ruck wheneverit arrives on the scene.



> The pouches are too high on the chest.



The TV is adjustable and you can lower your 4 mags pouches. But they are hard to get into when the vest is new.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Mar 2006)

1) UCR's have been submitted by others that have been there done that.
2)  You love that LAV don't you.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> 1) UCR's have been submitted by others that have been there done that.
> 2)  You love that LAV don't you.


Re: UCRs: keep sending them up: they do work, believe it or not
Re: LAVs: God damned right I do: how can you not?  Regarding the five combat functions, consider:
COMMAND: with the IRIS suite of gear, you can direct the actions of others from great distances, maintain comms on the move, etc and so on
SENSE: Thermal and II sights, combined with the x power Day sight, laser warning receiver, GPS, Lasers, etc, you can know not only where you are, but where "they" are, you can see them, you can "own the night"
ACT: 25mm fully stablised auto-cannon.  Need I say more?  OK, I will.  Coaxially mounted, fully stabilised 7.62mm MG.  Pintle mounted 7.62 or 5.56 mm MG, 8 76mm Grenade launchers.  7 soldiers armed to the teeth in the back.  Ability to hit what you want to hit when its moving, while you're on the move, at ranges exceeding a kilometre, day or night.
SHIELD: Without getting into OPSEC, it can stop x calibre at y metres, no friendly KIA due to enemy action (same with the STRYKER in Iraq as of a few months ago: I don't have the latest stats), ability to withstand great amounts of punishment.
SUSTAIN: with a LAV in your back pocket, able to bring supply up, or back, CASEVAC, whatever.  

As I said, how could you not love it?


----------



## Troopasaurus (21 Mar 2006)

I think that the best solution is one like the Brits have. The Brits i worked with last week had 3 options for their ammo carrying needs, PLCE webbing, a chest rig, or an assult vest... all were in DPM and it was obvious what team their on. Even for their boots their rule was as long as it looked military they could wear them in the field.

I figured it out in SQ that 5 mags does not cut it; this point keeps being demonstrated for example last week doing live fire attacks and finishing with 1 mag left... and now I'm supposed to prepare for a counterattack. Sure the idea is you reload your mags but i don't think that its a good idea to put down your rifle, pull out your mag charger and box of ammo and proceed to reload that magazine while the enemy advances.

The tacvest works for many people in the army but for someone who is going to end up on a foot patrol in Afghanistan's its better to be safe then sorry in my opinion.


----------



## sapper07 (21 Mar 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Why not?  If you ask them, they own it!
> 
> T'is the way of the world and it ain't gonna change.


  And replies like this one is why it needs to change.


----------



## Haggis (21 Mar 2006)

sapper07 said:
			
		

> And replies like this one is why it needs to change.



Don't be quoting me out of context.  The thread has evolved since then.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Troopasaurus said:
			
		

> I figured it out in SQ that 5 mags does not cut it; this point keeps being demonstrated for example last week doing live fire attacks and finishing with 1 mag left... and now I'm supposed to prepare for a counterattack. Sure the idea is you reload your mags but i don't think that its a good idea to put down your rifle, pull out your mag charger and box of ammo and proceed to reload that magazine while the enemy advances.


Not enough info to make a complete comment; however, even in the "Fulda" context you'd find on such an attack, as you get ready for the bad guys to come at you in a counter attack: chances are you'll have time to ready your stuff.  The LMGs will of course get priority, and they can reload a belt in a matter of seconds.  At platoon level its the GPMG.  But at least you had ammo left in a mag: 30 rounds is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## chrisf (21 Mar 2006)

Of course, if you had 10 mags, 180 rounds is nothing to sneeze at either...


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Now I'm no expert, but I would pipe in here to say...having the LAV is all fine and good when your fighting an enemy who does not hide on streets too narrow for a LAV to go down or in terrain where a LAV cannot go.
> Then you have a problem.


See my earlier post: re non LAV dudes


			
				Piper said:
			
		

> Again, no expert here. But the US has been fighting a war since 2001 (in A-stan) and 2003 (in Iraq) where troops are carrying 10+ mags, grenades, extra 203 rounds, machine gun ammo, rockets etc etc. And they have that MOLLE stuff on their frag vests and the ability to strap on sufficient pouches. Also, they are allowed to use whatever vests they see fit to carry all that stuff.


This ain't Iraq.  That being said, it's all about priorty and function.  With the TV, you can carry 10 magazines (yes, at an expense to something else, but you can only put so much meat in a sandwich before it falls apart)  It all depends on the situation.


			
				Piper said:
			
		

> Are you going to sit there and tell me that we, Canada, have a 'fine' system for the soldier while ignoring a country to the south that has vastly more military experience then us, and maybe we should consider adopting some of their better practices? Or are we smarter then them by desiging a vest that we based on our vaste experience in....Bosina (not to degrade that mission or what happened there, but lets be honest, it was no A-stan or Iraq, especially the later years which seems to be the design period for the vest), and then continuing to ignore the reality that we are now fighting a war in which the individual soldier does not always have a LAV to back him up and must carry enough ammo and other 'stuff' to keep himself alive against an enemy whom you must kill, and kill all of them, because they won't stop coming?


Again, good points, but consider what I posted earlier.  Perhaps a modular system of the TV (removable mag pouches?  adjustable to height depending on needs?)  It's a good system: perhaps not the best, but one hell of a lot better than what we used to have.  ANd you can't poo poo Bosnia, because a soldier does what a soldier does no matter where he/she is.  Some situations warrant more of "x", whatever "x" is, be it ammo, water, batteries, pamphlets, whatever.  The point is: you can only carry so much before it becomes an issue.  Those without the LAV in their back pocket will of course need to carry more UNLESS the A1 comes along, but that's highly unlikely in the COE, so....what about a ruck sack to carry extra stuff?  Helium filled packs to reduce the weight?  Caseless ammo?  Whatever: don't focus on the kit, focus on the desired effect.
Consider the Space Race in the 60's.  NASA spent a Brazilian dollars developing a pen that would function in a zero-G environment.  The Soviets used pencils.  THAT was innovative!

And as for comparing US with the U.S., well, they are the big kids on the block, and yes I have been on operations with US forces.  Now, get this: they commented positively on our kit, including the much maligned C79 optical sight and , *shudder* the TV.  Imagine that 
Doesn't mean that what we have is perfect, but compared to some, it's gucci, to others, it's Toyota.  In the end, it fills the function.  We will not win or lose this war because we have TVs vice modular MOLLE packs.  If the current TV can be adapted to suit the needs of "those without LAVs", then that would rock, really.  But as for a "TV for us, a TV for the so-called REMFs", may I remind all that there is no more "Rear", so to speak. As someone suggested to me: this ain't battlin' on the old Rhine Line 



Garvin out


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Of course, if you had 10 mags, 180 rounds is nothing to sneeze at either...


I had ten mags.  So did all with rifles.  So, I'm not sneezing   The TV "can" carry ten mags: as issued.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again: FIRE DISCIPLINE


*ducking*





Garvin out


----------



## Armymedic (21 Mar 2006)

If a C7 rifleman is only alloted to carry 250 rds in 5 mags and a 100 rd bandoleer, how is there a problem with the Tac Vest as it was designed?


----------



## GO!!! (21 Mar 2006)

Because C7 riflemen are not allotted 250 rounds. They are allotted 300 rounds, and bandoleers, in my experience, are rarely seen or used.

This could be remedied by allowing only light infanteers/assault troop/light engineers etc to use alternate equipment, and leave the REMF types with the TV.

3VP has sent more UCRs up than you can shake a stick at. The only answer we get is the same as the Maj from DLR who presented it. "the RCR loved it, you must not like it just on principle" In my experience, the RCR will "toe the line" on these sorts of things (like the eryx) and should never be used for trials.


----------



## Armymedic (21 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Because C7 riflemen are not allotted 250 rounds. They are allotted 300 rounds, and bandoleers, in my experience, are rarely seen or used.


In my experience as well.  250 is the text book (as far as I know) allotment for 5.56 ammo. The only time I have ever seen 300 issued was in Afghanistan.

....but the original question stands. 


			
				Armymedic said:
			
		

> If a C7 rifleman is only alloted to carry 250 rds in 5 mags and a 100 rd bandoleer, how is there a problem with the Tac Vest as it was designed?


----------



## Haggis (21 Mar 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> If a C7 rifleman is only alloted to carry 250 rds in 5 mags and a 100 rd bandoleer, how is there a problem with the Tac Vest as it was designed?



It lacks the LCF of the kit used by the US, the squirrels and the PMCs. 

I'm not a big guy but I can find a place to stuff 10 mags in my TV, still have a water bottle and CamelBack and most of an IMP.  Everything else goes in the remaining pouches, pockets or (shudder) a small pack.

I've lived through 3 generations of webbing, the LBV and the TV.  Each was better than the previous and I'm sure Mk 2 TV will be better yet.  But I'll be damned if I'll spend $500+ on a piece of kit that I can't have replaced by the public purse if it gets burned/shot-up/run over/stolen.

... and now back to my beer.


----------



## starlight (21 Mar 2006)

Everything we have is an improvement over the last. but I do think we should do things like the Americans..........if its our cam pattern ..... we should be allowed to wear it .......it can't look any sillyer than the "cad pat Fleece" ....I am suprised we just didn't contract Harris to make cad pat assault vests though.....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Mar 2006)

WHEN was the PAM (or whatever its called) written to state 5 mags and please provide a link.  Also in what context was it written.

As far as the LAV is concerned.  I like it too.  Lots of firepower, fast, some protection.  That said I don't put all my eggs in my LAV basket.  

In this 360 multifaceted war fighting the troops must be as self sufficient for as long as possible.  No one knows if or when the cavalry will arrive.  I for one would rather have more loaded mags then less.  More C9 more 40mm, more grenades. etc.
Where does the C9 gunner put his socks, field dressings, IMP's etc when his 2 utility C9 boxes are full with ammo.   No one is saying you should spend the money.  Just allow those that do to use the kit not for LCF reasons but for load carriage, easy of use, and faster/more rounds down range.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Mar 2006)

OR make a generic platform that a rifleman, C9 gunner, medic, wpns det would modify to suit their PRIAMRY job.  Whether they sign for certain pouches and pockets or what have you.  Or is that what you meant by modular.


----------



## Farmboy (21 Mar 2006)

It's funny how you get guys on here saying our TVs are good to go...   and yet day after day I continue to receive emails that say just the opposite.

No place for 40mm 

No place for my other C7 mags (if I want to carry effectively)

No place for pistol mags

No place for .308 mags

No place for .50 mags

"I can put two frags in my vest but then they are stuck and I have to pull them out by the fuse"

"My issued vest is falling apart"

"The vest does not fit over the bomb suit...."    "...... I can't carry any tools"

 Let's not even go into the other kit  :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Mar 2006)

"I can put two frags in my vest but then they are stuck and I have to pull them out by the fuse"

Too true.  Forgot about that one.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> ... and now back to my beer.


Cheers!
 :cheers:


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> It's funny how you get guys on here saying our TVs are good to go...   and yet day after day I continue to receive emails that say just the opposite.
> No place for 40mm
> No place for my other C7 mags (if I want to carry effectively)
> No place for pistol mags
> ...


Now, forgetting for a moment that you have a vested (pun intended) interest.....
The big one is this: "My issued vest falls apart": solution: get a new one from the CQ.  "My store bought vest fell apart": solution: shell out another 500 bucks (or more) and maybe, JUST MAYBE, it'll be shipped by end tour.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Good points. And as a vest goes, the TV is good....for a rifleman.
> What about the C9 gunner? With those four useless pockets on his chest and only two to hold ammo....and then nowhere else for his canteen etc?
> What about the 203 man? Where does he put his 40mm grenades, and enough of them to make himself usefull?
> C6 gunner? Medic?
> Get my drift? I'm no expert and I'm sure everyone has made do and my ideas are just coming from inexperience. The TV seems to be a good platform. Make it modular (can make it a 'rifleman' vest, a 'machine gunner' vest, a 'grenadier' vest etc) and voila....the perfect system, IMHO of course.


VERY good points.  Perhaps removable mag pouches would solve it?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Mar 2006)

"and maybe, JUST MAYBE, it'll be shipped by end tour."
Perhaps but those that choose to go that route live with that risk.  Or they find someone else working there for a different organization that can get a package in about 8 days.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Mar 2006)

"Perhaps removable mag pouches would solve it?"
Exactly which is what most good chest rigs are, modular.  Many pouches to choose from with a vest that has points all over it for these pouches to be attached at different heights and postions.


----------



## GO!!! (21 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Now, forgetting for a moment that you have a vested (pun intended) interest.....
> The big one is this: "My issued vest falls apart": solution: get a new one from the CQ.  "My store bought vest fell apart": solution: shell out another 500 bucks (or more) and maybe, JUST MAYBE, it'll be shipped by end tour.



Negative.

Most of the more reputable retailers (Kifaru, Arktis, Blackhawk, HSG) have overnight shipping, and I personally know of one company that shipped a replacement (holster) without recieving the damaged one first! Customer support is pretty good with these types of things.

The weak link is the Trenton-KAF leg (hehe, leg), and this can be circumvented by having the item shipped to someone on HLTA, and carried back. 

Of course, the overly paranoid, like me, would just buy two, keep one in the wrapping and return it if all went well. I could always sell it on e-bay later .


----------



## Britney Spears (21 Mar 2006)

> The big one is this: "My issued vest falls apart": solution: get a new one from the CQ.  "My store bought vest fell apart": solution: shell out another 500 bucks (or more) and maybe, JUST MAYBE, it'll be shipped by end tour.



I just can't understand this. If I have to buy my own vest, why does that automatically mean I leave the issued one at home? Can't I bring both of them?


----------



## TCBF (21 Mar 2006)

Sure, 

If it falls apart on top of 'The Whale' or whatever, they can resupply you an Army one to get by on, too.

I am waiting for someone to get hurt wearing non-issued kit, and DVA to say "Not ours chum, have you tried suing the manufacturer?   Sure, everyone poo-poos that now, but times change.  Remember all of our guys who were bouncers in Lahr?  After they were told that any resulting injuries were not covered by the Canadian taxpayers, they went to the German bar owners to talk about medical coverage.

The Germans fired them.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Mar 2006)

TCBF I'll take my chances with a aftermarket rig which isn't providing protection per se like the helmet or plates (then I could see them pulling that shit).


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Negative.
> 
> Most of the more reputable retailers (Kifaru, Arktis, Blackhawk, HSG) have overnight shipping, and I personally know of one company that shipped a replacement (holster) without recieving the damaged one first! Customer support is pretty good with these types of things.
> 
> ...



Not to mention the quality is usualy MUCH better with aftermarket kit manufacturers... and of course you'd bring the issued kit just in case...

Don't get me started on the CF postal service    sometimes 6-8 weeks for a package... but when I went through the German mil-post it was about a week from Ottawa to my desk in Kabul, but way more expensive as you had to pay postage to Germany... using a US APO takes about 10 days as well I heard...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Mar 2006)

From GO!!! in a split topic (this portion at least belongs here)
"TCBF,

I'd love to see that one duked out in the court of public opinion, especially with our media sensitive military. Besides, DVA can't help me if I run out of ammo and wind up dead, now can they?

Besides, no one is recommending aftermarket helmets or body armour. (at least not yet)"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Don't get me started on the CF postal service    sometimes 6-8 weeks for a package... but when I went through the German mil-post it was about a week from Ottawa to my desk in Kabul, but way more expensive as you had to pay postage to Germany... using a US APO takes about 10 days as well I heard...



Had the same thing when I was over there. Ship it via CanPost from Julien, and it took forever, 11/2 - 2 months, from theatre to Canada. A package sent from the Deutche Bundespost in Warehouse took about 7-10 days to go from A'ghan to Germany to my door in Canada.


----------



## Recce41 (22 Mar 2006)

VonG
 I have to say it. It's the Look cool thing.  If someone wants to pay 500-1000$ on a vest you may wear for 6 months OK. But I have better things to do with my money. I have pockets, extra pouches that will do the same thing. We both remember the old 54/64 Pat webbing, it was good then as now. The Brits still use it in the Jungle. Its easy to fix and to add to. 
Too many movie watchers. I don't allow any of my soldiers to wear any none Canadian Kit. Maybe gloves, if blk. 
As Stated, YES I'm a prick. What about it.


----------



## Dissident (22 Mar 2006)

I was told the story of an MP who got some nerve damage on the job. The story said that he never could get compensated, because it could not get establishes if he fell on his issued or non issued pair of handcuff, one of which was resposible for the nerve damage. The sgt who told me this made it clear that he would only let his troops wear the issued kit, and only in the one accepted standard, with the patrol dress. The only deviation was if you were left handed.

I don't agree, but I understand.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (22 Mar 2006)

i am over here , and yes i am one of those who spent about 250 dollars on a chest rig and attachments. The issued stuff just doesn't cut it out here period. The yankees started out with issued gear a yr ago and about a mth into the tour they let there guys buy there own and most of it was chest rigs. Meaning more room for mags and ammo. This is not Bosnia! If we had the issued stuff back in Kosovo it would have been great!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Mar 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> VonG
> I have to say it. It's the Look cool thing.  If someone wants to pay 500-1000$ on a vest you may wear for 6 months OK. But I have better things to do with my money. I have pockets, extra pouches that will do the same thing. We both remember the old 54/64 Pat webbing, it was good then as now. The Brits still use it in the Jungle. Its easy to fix and to add to.
> Too many movie watchers. I don't allow any of my soldiers to wear any none Canadian Kit. Maybe gloves, if blk.
> As Stated, YES I'm a prick. What about it.



This is the same 64 Pattern webbing THAT DIDN'T HAVE AMMUNITION POUCHES because it was expected a soldier could carry a full basic load in his shirt pockets?


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Mar 2006)

silentbutdeadly! said:
			
		

> i am over here , and yes i am one of those who spent about 250 dollars on a chest rig and attachments. The issued stuff just doesn't cut it out here period. The yankees started out with issued gear a yr ago and about a mth into the tour they let there guys buy there own and most of it was chest rigs. Meaning more room for mags and ammo. This is not Bosnia! *If we had the issued stuff back in Kosovo it would have been great!*



This, I would suggest, is the most significant observation made in this thread.

What works "best" is dependent on the time, place and the operations being conducted.  It is modified by the experiences of those conducting operations, and by the availability of equipment options, both within the system and the commercial options available for individual purchases.

What worked yesterday may not be good enough for today.

What works today may not be considered ideal tomorrow.

Shall we watch for the observations posted by soldiers on Roto 20 wondering why they have a vest with an outrageous basic load of 15 magazines in a relatively peaceful nation we're thinking about leaving?  Will it happen, will we be there long enough - who knows?  Perhaps "fixing" a new basic load standard that fits Afghanistan in 2006 will be considered extreme and a burden when 'inflicted' on troops deploying to our the next mission somewhere else.

We need to recognize the transitory nature of what's "good enough" or "best" in terms of both basic load and the equipment to carry it, and the many operational, experiential and kit availability factors that affect those opinions in order to ensure that we can adjust accordingly.

What we need is a system sufficiently responsive to soldiers' needs for this type of equipment that can adjust to the fact that even within a single mission manadate the requirements and options can change quickly.  And that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.


----------



## MdB (22 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> We need to recognize the transitory nature of what's "good enough" or "best" in terms of both basic load and the equipment to carry it, and the many operational, experiential and kit availability factors that affect those opinions in order to ensure that we can adjust accordingly.
> 
> What we need is a system sufficiently responsive to soldiers' needs for this type of equipment that can adjust to the fact that even within a single mission manadate the requirements and options can change quickly.  And that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.



Well, I guess the Army, BG or TF should be a flexible entity adapting to the situation or mission. Isn't that a successful way to approach a mission in order to be successful?

Now, does the CofC in theater recognize this equipment need? If yes, do they have the latitude to address this kind of problem? Is it a matter of leadership? Could it be that the soldier always want the best rig and if you give a hand, they'll take an arm, and so on?

Could the CofC allow money to buy off-the-shelf equipment when needed as part of operation money allocation?

And, why isn't the TV modular?? Is it? Even me, without any military experience, or clothes design experience , can see that it's common sense...


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Mar 2006)

> What we need is a system sufficiently responsive to soldiers' needs for this type of equipment that can adjust to the fact that even within a single mission manadate the requirements and options can change quickly.



You mean a modular one? 



> If we had the issued stuff back in Kosovo it would have been great!



To the credit of the naysayers, i must admit that the technological and engineering advances in personal load bearing equipment has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last few years, witness what the Americans were wearing in Afghan in 2001/2(not too different from us), vs what they are wearing in Iraq now: Night and day. The product lifecyle has changed from decades (82 pttn) to a few years. 

The reason for this was somewhat alluded to by the Fulda comparisons. The difference between 1985 and now is that in 1985 the infantryman's webbing simply wasn't a particularly important priority for planners. When one expects the war to be fought with thousands of tanks, Apache brigades, and tactical nukes, who really cared how many rifle mags the infantry carried? It didn't matter in the big scheme of things. WELL, IT DOES NOW. That whole strategic coporal thing means the infantry is now the arm of decision and he needs to have the best stuff out there. It's the same thing with all the other infantry kit: Modular rifles, thousand dollar rifle sights for every soldier, ballistic eyewear.... all of this stuff existed in 1985, it just wasn't important enough back then for the big army to notice.


----------



## Recce41 (22 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> This is the same 64 Pattern webbing THAT DIDN'T HAVE AMMUNITION POUCHES because it was expected a soldier could carry a full basic load in his shirt pockets?


 Mike
 Yes, but the 64 Pat webbing, which was a US design did have ammo pouches. But we could not use them, remember FN -Cdn,  M14/M16- US. I had a set I sold, they were rubber covered, just like the genade pouch was. I still have the rest of the set. In Cornwalls it was used, for many yrs.

 It is like, wearing your uniform. Some fellas like to look cool, with their floppies curve up like Gunny Hwy. Or the sun glass thing, Gucci gloves, etc. I had one yng fella, showup for the CLC. He had all this fine looking kit. But  his gloves fell apart, and his Hi Tech boot soles fell off. He had no extra kit, no gloves and boots. He had to get them sent out, but he did look cool. When he had them to wear. 
 I still wear the old 52 PaT green mittins, that my father wore in Korea. We all know the Blk and wht ones. Stiil use my trusty ground sheet, and old blk betty air matress. No stelth suit, no fancy gloves and do just fine. RAIN SNOW AND SHINE. 
 Because I view it as If a piece of kit has been around that long, it can be that bad. 
But I'm an old 5hit, and still love the Lynx.
 :evil: :tank:


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Mar 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> You mean a modular one?



I was not refering to any particular load carrying system, but rather to the "system" which identifies requirements, selects suitable kit and puts it into the hands of soldiers.


----------



## DG-41 (22 Mar 2006)

But the "modular" point is well taken, and should, I think, be a major design requirement.

The biggest downside to rapid prototyping and rapid revision is the generation of lots of obsolete kit and the reduction of economies of scale. Modularity - TRUE modularity, not the faux modularity that the the current state of the TV and the small pack, insulates kit against obsolesces.

We've determined that load-bearing vests greatly trump the old style yokes-and-straps web gear, so it seems appropriate that the base of any load bearing system be vest-based. Then comes the selection of the attachment style for the base unit, and then the different kinds of pouches to fulfill mission requirements.

I would offer that adopting a standard already in use by another, large country be used so we can leverage economies of scale (*cough* MOLLE *cough*)  - unless there is a design flaw in the standard, in which case it may be a good idea to develop our own.

Oddly enough, one can, right this second, buy off-the-shelf Canadian-style Tac Vests fitted with MOLLE loops - the only question is if this kit is manufactured to the appropriate quality standard. Doing a MOLLE-based (or other modular system) TV seems like such a no-brainer I'm genuinely surprised that CTS isn't already moving in this direction.

Same deal with the small pack. A good, basic backpack frame, with a decent-sized central compartment, with the exterior surface fitted with MOLLE loops (again, I'm not married to MOLLE - any truly modular system would do it) seems like a no-brainer. And given the popularity of the "jump ruck", why the base of the system wasn't the 64 pattern frame (perhaps updated with modern ergonomics and materials) is again, completely beyond me.

And - suprise suprise - the aftermarket is chock ablock with 64-rucks-plus-MOLLE systems.

Am I alone in thinking all this is obvious?

DG


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Mar 2006)

Quote from _Recce41,
I still wear the old 52 PaT green mittins, that my father wore in Korea._

I'm assuming these were *issued to you* otherwise the standards would be unauthorized issue kit is OK for you but not those below you?

Quote from Recce41,
_I had one yng fella, showup for the CLC. He had all this fine looking kit. But  his gloves fell apart, and his Hi Tech boot soles fell off. He had no extra kit, no gloves and boots. He had to get them sent out, but he did look cool. When he had them to wear_. 

...and the course standards the instructors issued was so low that the personal did not have to bring their issued kit to ensure a course uniformity during inspections? Surely not the CLC I did a long time ago.....


----------



## combat_medic (22 Mar 2006)

RecceDG: No, you're certainly not alone. Just about everyone I know, upon seeing the current TV for the first time were pretty much gobsmacked. "What, it's NOT modular?!" Seemed to be the pervasive attitude.

While I prefer a vest system by far, at least with the old webbing you could add or remove pouches, make it left or right handed, and the like. The MOLLE system would have been an ideal choice for the CF, and it's so pervasive that it couldn't have possibly been that expensive to acquire.


----------



## Recce41 (22 Mar 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from _Recce41,
> I still wear the old 52 PaT green mittins, that my father wore in Korea._
> 
> I'm assuming these were *issued to you* otherwise the standards would be unauthorized issue kit is OK for you but not those below you?
> ...



 Bruce
 If you were in the Military, you would have known about those green mittins. 1234 head.

And how could we prevented him from wearing his gucci boots and gloves. If that is all he has with him. Maybe go inspect him at his house or we could have had all the course wear their barefeet, they would have been the same then? Twit

 :evil: :tank:


----------



## mudgunner49 (22 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Now, forgetting for a moment that you have a vested (pun intended) interest.....
> The big one is this: "My issued vest falls apart": solution: get a new one from the CQ.  "My store bought vest fell apart": solution: shell out another 500 bucks (or more) and maybe, JUST MAYBE, it'll be shipped by end tour.



Have you ever even compared the quality of the issue TV to SOTech/HSGI/Paraclete/Eagle???  The issue vest is a piece of crap (I am speaking only of construction - the functionality of it is a whole other matter), that can't even begin to compare to the private market.  I have pretty much destroyed 2 of them, as a reservist, hammering them on a part-time basis.  Granted I'm 250 pounds, and unusually hard on kit, but I do have vests/rigs from Eagle and SOTech that I've had for 2-3 years of frequent course/range work that are unmarred (dirty yes, broken/ripped/unserviceable - no...).  

There is a drag handle on the back that is "supposed" to be an aid in extrcting you buddy from the line of fire, that is barely suitable for picking up the vest when loaded.  The first one that I broke tore off when slinging mine into the back of the CP (4 mags of blank, canteen, trauma kit, rainjacket, mini-Maglite - hardly close to an operational load), so I would surmise that unless your fireteam partner is a garden gnome, you won't be dragging him'her anywhere, but will be un-assing the area with a chunk of nylon in your hand while your buddy bleeds to death.  You can comfort yourself and his/her NOK with the fact that at least he/she had not violated some marginally useful CANFORGEN...


be safe

blake


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Mar 2006)

I thought that handle was to hang it up in my locker with.

I suppose I'll be content with the new snowshoes as well.  They were ISSUED after all so they must be the best.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Mar 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Bruce
> If you were in the Military, you would have known about those green mittins. 1234 head.
> 
> And how could we prevented him from wearing his gucci boots and gloves. If that is all he has with him. Maybe go inspect him at his house or we could have had all the course wear their barefeet, they would have been the same then? Twit
> ...



recce, ...your comments on kit seem seriously out of whack (though I think many agree with your assertion that issued kit is for the most part serviceable if not luxurious).  So far, you've stated that Lee-Enfield users changed magazines (they didn't, they used chargers), that you use Korean War era gloves (possible, I was issued a 1952 dated balaclava in 1991, though i don't think the black leather and green inner combo was Korean era, I stand to be corrected but I thought we still used brown khaki wool gloves then), and declared that Canadian Pattern 64 webbing was a US design that was the cat's meow that would hold up today despite the fact it didn't have any ammunition pouches (!).

I don't think we're going to ask you for advice on what kind of mess tins to use because I think I know what your recommendation would be. 

Though I am sure they would be "just as good now as then."  Which when you think about it is not necessarily an endorsement....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Mar 2006)

Quote,
_ Bruce
 If you were in the Military, you would have known about those green mittins. 1234 head._

Well I was, and I don't. Sorry.


----------



## mudgunner49 (22 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> VERY good points.  Perhaps removable mag pouches would solve it?



...but according to CTS, MOLLE is on the way out - I know, let's come up with our own half-assed incarnation for *"modular" * that doesn't integrate with anyone else's (making it ridiculously expensive and proprietary - and 4 generations behind everyone else in the universe with the exception of a bunch of aboriginals in New Guinea...) and we'll call it "daisy-chain" and we'll orient it 90-degrees from everybody else's!!!

In the time that it has taken us to *"develop" * this albatross, not only has the U.S. been through SPEAR/FSBE/PALS/MOLLE, but the whole concept of fixed pocket design has died like the dinosaurs (and justifiabley so), and the concept of modularity has flourished.  I wonder why that is??  Oh, I know - we don't all do the same job!!  Would it not be easier and less complicated for the rear-echelon types to carry less in their rig purpose-designed to carry 10-12 mags than to have pointy-end guys searching for room in what you have defined as a "just fine as it is" vest designed around 4 mags for a place to put another 6-8 mags + frags + smoke + NVG's + trauma kit + batteries for everything imagineable + water ('cause that's not really vital) + a Power Bar or 3 + bayonet + whatever else the chain-of-command decides you should carry.

And whose idea was it to put mag pouches there in the 1st place, thereby guaranteeing that whether you are right or left-handed, 50% of your ammo will be on the wrong side of your body (I know, I know - it's only 2 fricking mags)!!!

Someone needs to pull their head from their 3rd point of contact - oxygen is essential...


blake


----------



## TCBF (22 Mar 2006)

" Yes, but the 64 Pat webbing, which was a US design did have ammo pouches. But we could not use them, remember FN -Cdn,  M14/M16- US. I had a set I sold, they were rubber covered, just like the genade pouch was. I still have the rest of the set. In Cornwalls it was used, for many yrs."

- 64 patt (velcro) was a US design?  News...

Terminology:

1.  1937 Pattern ?
2.  1951 Pattern (Cdn, Brits used 1954) metal hooke and holes in belt, metal buckles.
3.  1964 Pattern (Cdn, US used LBE, w metal tabs and buckles). Velcro and plastic,  mag pouches rare.
4.  1982 pattern.
5.  LCV
6.  TV

So far, so good?

1.  1937 Large, Medium, and Small packs.
2.  1951 Large and Small Packs.  Metal fittings - plastic buckles on late production Small Pack for PRes.
3.  Cargo Pack 1964.  Plastic fittings, zippers, tump line, padded shoulder straps (finally!).
4.  Rucksack, Universal, C1 (cotton duck bag - rare) and C2 (rubber bag).  On alice type frame, c/w "Bottle opener."  Often erroneously called "64 pattern  jump ruck." Plastic fittings.
5.  Large Pack 1982.  external wire frame, plastic fittings.

Comments?

"Someone needs to pull their head from their 3rd point of contact - oxygen is essential..."

- Third Point of Contact was "Thighs" way back when I first learned about extreme gravitational pull.
(BOTF, Calves, Thighs, Buttocks, DATB.  Has it changed?)

Modular:  Modular was being told to fight the metal hooks on your 51 pattern in freezing rain with bare hands, because they wanted your cross straps and basic (Bren Gun) pouches off for the patrol, then being told to put them back on (now it is snowing...) because you aren't going on the patrol, then to take them off again (back to freezing rain...) because you are...


----------



## mudgunner49 (22 Mar 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> " Yes, but the 64 Pat webbing, which was a US design did have ammo pouches. But we could not use them, remember FN -Cdn,  M14/M16- US. I had a set I sold, they were rubber covered, just like the genade pouch was. I still have the rest of the set. In Cornwalls it was used, for many yrs."
> 
> - 64 patt (velcro) was a US design?  News...
> 
> ...



Remarkably informative!!

3rd point of contact I guess depends upon your frame of reference - we always referred to it as "where you sit"...


be safe,

blake


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Mar 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> " Yes, but the 64 Pat webbing, which was a US design did have ammo pouches. But we could not use them, remember FN -Cdn,  M14/M16- US. I had a set I sold, they were rubber covered, just like the genade pouch was. I still have the rest of the set. In Cornwalls it was used, for many yrs."
> 
> Terminology:
> 
> ...



Web Equipment, 1937 Pattern
Web Equipment, 1951 Pattern
Web Equipment, 1964 Pattern
1982 Pattern Webbing

You've gotten the list correct, the above are, I think, the official designations.  Still working on putting the pertinent info on my site on all these.

64 Pattern belts had crappy plastic buckles and a narrow yoke without ammo pouches, the idea being to fight from your shirt pockets (though with the waist belt riding at the same level as the lower pockets, that can't have been great for reload times, which seem to be a concern in this thread. As for it being US designed, I'd have to check Summers' book, but the concept of the webbing was done around the Canadian combat dress and carriage of FN mags in the shirt or combat coat. Pretty sure the US never adopted it - their gear had ammo pouches, and holes in the belt (the 64 Cdn pattern used web loops and a plain web belt with no holes).

51 Pattern stuff was a marginal improvement over 37 pattern gear, but was only briefly in service; despite the name no one used it til after the Korean War, and to my knowledge never operationally (?) in any large quantities.  It had a US style water bottle (no more cork stoppers!) and benefited primarily from being green and not tan. It also had a folding e-tool (not the useless helve and head style we laughinly issued from 1908 to 1951 or thereabouts) and a web carrier for the vaunted metal mess tin (in WW II we were supposed to carry the water bottle in the haversack along with the mess tin, but most guys suspended them from the brace ends, looking like gypsies in the process).


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Mar 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Modular:  Modular was being told to fight the metal hooks on your 51 pattern in freezing rain with bare hands, because they wanted your cross straps and basic (Bren Gun) pouches off for the patrol, then being told to put them back on (now it is snowing...) because you aren't going on the patrol, then to take them off again (back to freezing rain...) because you are...



LOL.  Here is another example of modularity, from the 1937 Pattern, told by Don Chittenden in LEGION magazine.  And yes, this is THE Aubrey Cosens he is talking about.



> I was a teenage rifleman in 16 Platoon...Sergeant Aubrey Cosens came frequently to each slit trench; I think he was trying to lift our spirits. We were two men to a trench, but there was little talk. There was too much on our minds, and we were wet and cold. Most were probably too nervous to be hungry - not that we would get any food right then anyway. When Cosens finally came to tell us that we were starting our assault in a few minutes, we got out of the trenches and started fussing with our equipment. We took off our gas capes and rolled them up tightly. My buddy and I helped each other strap gas capes to the centre of our web belts, in the small of our backs. This kept the cape out of the way. A rifleman wanted as low a profile as possible when he had to drive to the ground under sudden fire
> 
> Every lad in our outfit agreed that the most important piece of equipment an infantryman had was his short, D-handled shovel. We helped each other with these, too. The handle had to be inserted through the cross-straps on our backs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Recce41 (22 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> recce, ...your comments on kit seem seriously out of whack (though I think many agree with your assertion that issued kit is for the most part serviceable if not luxurious).  So far, you've stated that Lee-Enfield users changed magazines (they didn't, they used chargers), that you use Korean War era gloves (possible, I was issued a 1952 dated balaclava in 1991, though i don't think the black leather and green inner combo was Korean era, I stand to be corrected but I thought we still used brown khaki wool gloves then), and declared that Canadian Pattern 64 webbing was a US design that was the cat's meow that would hold up today despite the fact it didn't have any ammunition pouches (!).
> 
> I don't think we're going to ask you for advice on what kind of mess tins to use because I think I know what your recommendation would be.
> 
> Though I am sure they would be "just as good now as then."  Which when you think about it is not necessarily an endorsement....



Mike
 Not the Blk and green gloves fella, I know reserves don't get the same kit, but. *You as a history buff should know*. They were Blk and wht liners, and green outer. As for the 64 Pat webbing, It was a US design. Check out the Y straps, butt pack and Genade pouches. They were issued to US Marines in 63. As you should know. I have not contacted my uncle as of yet, to confirm. 

For the webbing been better, it maybe better for some tours. IE the Jungle Warfare. Its easy to fix, no buckles to rust, and you can add extra pouches. I had spoke to a fella that was on the course. He and others were knocked, to see some of the instructors wearing old Brit webbing. And that was the reason, cheap and easy.
 As for the mess tins HAHA. 
Your knowledge of uniforms and kit is not as deep as you think.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Mar 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Mike
> Not the Blk and green gloves fella, I know reserves don't get the same kit, but. *You as a history buff should know*. They were Blk and wht liners, and green outer. As for the 64 Pat webbing, It was a US design. Check out the Y straps, butt pack and Genade pouches. They were issued to US Marines in 63. As you should know. I have not contacted my uncle as of yet, to confirm.
> 
> For the webbing been better, it maybe better for some tours. IE the Jungle Warfare. Its easy to fix, no buckles to rust, and you can add extra pouches. I had spoke to a fella that was on the course. He and others were knocked, to see some of the instructors wearing old Brit webbing. And that was the reason, cheap and easy.
> ...



Well, my access to sources while at work is certainly limited, I'll give you that.  And I'll say that you're right about plastic buckles not rusting.  I'd rather have a rusty buckle than a broken one though - a broken waistbelt buckle is about as useful as those soleless boots your private was walking about in. 

But as for the gloves - as Bruce pointed out, that isn't what is issued to your troops, so why is it ok for you to wear them?


----------



## TCBF (22 Mar 2006)

Aubrey Cosens has a bridge named after him on Highway 11, at Latchford, I think.  They had a hard time getting 'Toronto' to approve the naming, as naming things after 'combat' soldiers who were KIA and never had the chance to contribute to our country in other less violent ways can be VERY political.

Did "Case, Ammunition, Magazine, 1964" (C2 Bra) have any contemporaries in the 1964 mag pouch department - officially?  We used a 1951 basic pouch as an SMG pouch for the 3x30 and 1x10 round mags, plastic box cleaning kit, and BFA.

"Your knowledge of uniforms and kit is not as deep as you think." - Recce 41

- How do we KNOW what he THINKS?  ESP?  I ain't Kreskin.  We can only go by what he TYPES. Thus far, I have detected no boasting.

 ;D


----------



## Recce41 (22 Mar 2006)

TOM
 Yes we added the velcro. It was the design, ie Yoke, pouches, ie. I am saying is an US design. I have 3 old canteen carriers.  1 hook 2 velcro. One velcro is Cdn, NSN and all. The other rubber NSN issued with a big US on the side and a genade pouch that is rubber and velcro, with a US marking. I thought it was wierd but, I only found this out, by going to a Militaria show in Detroit, Mich. One vendor had alot of early 60s US kit. The old guy, was a VN Vet. I recieved some very good info from him. 
 The different US manufactures, and what they made.


----------



## Recce41 (22 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Well, my access to sources while at work is certainly limited, I'll give you that.  And I'll say that you're right about plastic buckles not rusting.  I'd rather have a rusty buckle than a broken one though - a broken waistbelt buckle is about as useful as those soleless boots your private was walking about in.
> 
> But as for the gloves - as Bruce pointed out, that isn't what is issued to your troops, so why is it ok for you to wear them?


Yes the plastic sucks, it is a point, that some old kit is better than the new. 

There are many of my soldiers that have them.  Some of my soldiers have the new crew gloves, but some don't. Some have old gumbies, and yng fellas don't. IF IT'S ISSUED IT'S OK. I still have the old blk gloves, new soldiers are not issued them. So maybe think of us old fellas having some kit that is not issued anymore.


----------



## ImanIdiot (22 Mar 2006)

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=2206544

I stumbled upon this...hopefully I have posted the link properly. Apparently the Defense Minister thinks that a vest capable of holding 10 mags is "excessive".


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Mar 2006)

Wednesday, Mar 22, 2006  
Defence minister says troops buying their own equipment "unconscionable" 

EDMONTON (CP) - Canada's defence minister said Wednesday he won't condone for one second soldiers putting up their own cash for upgraded equipment. 
Gordon O'Connor, a former brigadier general, is investigating media reports that some soldiers in Afghanistan have spent hundreds to thousands of dollars on everything from desert boots to ammunition vests because the current military issue is inadequate or unsafe. 

"If the equipment the Armed Forces is providing for military operations is not adequate then it is up to us in the military to provide adequate equipment," O'Connor said during a tour of the Edmonton Garrison - the home base for most of the 2,200 troops serving in Afghanistan. 

"There should be no case where any soldier pays out of his own pocket to buy equipment for military operations. It's unconscionable." 

O'Connor said he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke to hundreds of troops on a tour of the Middle Eastern country last week. 

"Nobody complained about equipment to us. In fact they were giving us the opposite story." 

He said the critical question to his review is whether the complaints are isolated or widespread.


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Mar 2006)

> "If the equipment the Armed Forces is providing for military operations is not adequate then it is up to us in the military to provide adequate equipment," O'Connor said during a tour of the Edmonton Garrison.



So this means chest-rigs by LPO right??  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Mar 2006)

Quote,
"Nobody complained about equipment to us."

Well, just the fact he can say that confirms he is either out to lunch or a 100% politician and either way should have an opportunity to serve the people of Canada in another capacity.


----------



## Kal (22 Mar 2006)

As some have stated, the wearing of rigs other than the TV is only for the look cool factor.  I'm left wondering that if the TV is so great, why don't the JTF2 use it, or any other SF unit for that matter?  When these world-class fighters buy their own RAVs, CIRAS, or quality made rig, they're doing it for LCF?  

Cheers


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Mar 2006)

Kal said:
			
		

> As some have stated, the wearing of rigs other than the TV is only for the look cool factor.  I'm left wondering that if the TV is so great, why don't the JTF2 use it, or any other SF unit for that matter?  When these world-class fighters buy their own RAVs, CIRAS, or quality made rig, they're doing it for LCF?
> Cheers


The JTF-2, and other SF units have other needs that the TV doesn't meet.  They do a different job than an infantryman "of the line".  Take the example I gave earlier: why don't all cops have the stuff that the SERT teams have?  Remember that the cop on the beat has more "mundane" tasks to do, yet all of them can potentially lead to a gunfight.  The SERT guys are going in doors with a specific job in mind. 
Our JTF 2 guys don't have LAVs to jump out of, or LUVWs for that matter: they have (according to their ads) Hummers and the like.  (Hum-Vees?)  Whatever.  Heck, they don't even use GPMGs in the SF role for what I can figure.
So, don't compare apples and oranges.


----------



## Kal (22 Mar 2006)

I'm speaking way outta' my lane here, so please forgive me.  Do most SF guys first and second line gear differ that much from a light infantry soldier?  Rifle mags, pistol mags, smoke, frags, 40mm, LMG ammo, GPS, water, personal med kit, personal radio, strobe, chem lights, writing material, flashlight, NVGs, gummy bears ;D etc.  Sure they'll have a extra things that go in their third line, but is their first and second line load-out so different?  I may be wrong, but GO!!, CFL, KevinB, Mike_R23A, BigRed, I'm sure they can correct me.

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Mar 2006)

So what about those that do have our needs in other militaries.  I don't see our vest being copied by them.
"Heck, they don't even use GPMGs in the SF role for what I can figure."
I don't think you can back that up.  The JTF are more functionally then door kickers.  They do what's called Green ops as well which is similar to what we do.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Mar 2006)

Not door kicking in this role either.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Mar 2006)

Von Garvin,

You are obviously of the "old school, because I said so" crew.

YOU ARE WRONG. 

If everyone thought like you we would still be forming squares in puttees and kilts while officers rode on horseback.

<nasal british accent>

"Hogwash, I do say Higgins, these troops only want breech loading rifles because they would look more dashing, and be equipped like the imperial guard"

"We shall overcome the enemy with fire discipline and marching in ranks - it worked for my father, and it will work for your son"

The reason advances in military technology were made in the first place was that dinosaurs were told to sum up and the new kit was adopted. The militaries that adapted the fastest and best were the most successful.

Remember the Poles charging German tanks on horseback? 
Iraqi Republican Guard tank units being destroyed at range by US armour with superior weaponry?
Russian t-34 rounds bouncing off Panzer tanks?
Toothless, luddite taliban helplessly shaking their fists at US fast air right before being incinerated?

We have superior technology available, we are a wealthy nation with vast resources and relatively few soldiers to kit. You are arguing just for the sake of doing so, and attitudes like yours will require the dying words of a section of Privates to be "if only we had a few more mags" before being changed.

Give it up.


----------



## Troopasaurus (22 Mar 2006)

I think the overall outcome of this discussion is that modular kit would be the best for the job. That is the reason why i would still rather use the 82 pattern webbing over the tacvest... i can actually carry all the kit i need to get the job done on with that kit, not to mention my tacvest is already ripping after 1 year of reserve use.

MOLLE would work best in my mind because it is already a well known way of creating a stable modular platform and is used by many different allied countries, ie Germany, US, Dutch, Polish are getting it, heck the Iraqi army is using molle. I'm sure there are more but that's just from a quick scan of pictures i have.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Remember the Poles charging German tanks on horseback?



Never happened. And the Poles had the most professional army in Europe, probably the world, in 1939.

Bad example.


----------



## Britney Spears (23 Mar 2006)

Come along now vonGarvin, you know as well as the rest of us that JTF-2 can and often do operate as essentially light infantry with beards and long hair, and they sure as heck would not use something as silly as our issued TV. If JTF-2 is too high speed for you, try the 75th Ranger Rgmt, or any half modern light infantry outfit.  The "LCF" argument is ass-backwards. I have much more important things to do that "look cool". The only person who is out for LCF is the guy who wants his entire unit kitted out like the clone army so they "look cool" on the parade square.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh I'm fairly sure I was told in high school history that Poland tried to defend itself against the Blitzkrieg with horse Calvary amoungst other outdated equipment (compared to Germany).


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Michael Dorosh I'm fairly sure I was told in high school history that Poland tried to defend itself against the Blitzkrieg with horse Calvary amoungst other outdated equipment (compared to Germany).



CFL,  see "Tank" by Patrick Wright, Viking 2000 (ISBN 0-670-03070-8).

The author describes the evolution of the Polish Lancers vs. German tank myth, and based on interviews with Polish cavalrymen of the 1939 period and Polish historian, found no sunstantive evidence to uphold the story.


----------



## MJP (23 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> O'Connor said he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke to hundreds of troops on a tour of the Middle Eastern country last week.
> 
> "Nobody complained about equipment to us. In fact they were giving us the opposite story."
> 
> He said the critical question to his review is whether the complaints are isolated or widespread.


Nobody complained to him about the equipment because we were told point blank that it wasn't the time nor the place to do so.  We (as a TF) launched on the CDS when he came to town about issued kit among a thousand other things.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Michael Dorosh I'm fairly sure I was told in high school history that Poland tried to defend itself against the Blitzkrieg with horse Calvary amoungst other outdated equipment (compared to Germany).



It's a myth, as Michael O'Leary points out. Check out Polish September Campaign on wikipedia also, one of the best military articles on that site.  It's also a myth that the Germans used their armour every effectively in Poland; they were mostly relegated to infantry support rather than shock action.

The Poles had a first rate army; being stabbed in the back by the Russians didn't help, nor did their geography which meant they had to defend their borders instead of pulling back to easily defended river lines.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Not door kicking in this role either.


So, you want NIKE hats too?  
"Door kicking" is an idiom for what they do.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Von Garvin,
> You are obviously of the "old school, because I said so" crew.
> YOU ARE WRONG.
> If everyone thought like you we would still be forming squares in puttees and kilts while officers rode on horseback.
> ...


Thank you, "Go!", because you've just displayed your ignorance.
Ever hear of a place called Koresten?  Probably not (hint: a very successful Russian Cavalry attack in WWII)
As for the T-34 rounds "bouncing" off of "Panzer tanks" (sic), well, let me tell you something about the T34.  When the Germans first encountered it in July, 1941, they were shocked.  Along with the KV tanks.  The result?  In mid 1943, the germans fielded the Panzerkampfwagen V, also known as the Panther.  Very similar lines to the T34.  Better 75mm gun, but until then, various versions of the Mk IV Panzerkampfwagen had to "make do".
How's about YOU giving it up, or provide sound arguments why we need something other than the TV.  And, how it could be improved.  Some arguments have made sense (eg: GPMG gunners don't need mag pouches, roger that).  Don't just offer a problem, offer a solution.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Mar 2006)

I guess I'll go back and bitch slap my history teacher.  Thanks I had no idea.
Nike hats sure I'll take one if your buying.
P.S.  I have already stated that I don't want a chest rig to look different or for the LCF.  
You can call them pizza pie men for all I care you implied that they do different jobs and therefore have different kit.  I have showed in 2 different pictures that they also do similar jobs to us as well.  (and there not using the TV in those situations)


----------



## KevinB (23 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> .  Some arguments have made sense (eg: GPMG gunners don't need mag pouches, roger that).  Don't just offer a problem, offer a solution.



C9 gunners dont either  

 We have offered a number of solutions - so far you've alluded to them being impractical.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> I guess I'll go back and ***** slap my history teacher.  Thanks I had no idea.
> Nike hats sure I'll take one if your buying.
> P.S.  I have already stated that I don't want a chest rig to look different or for the LCF.
> You can call them pizza pie men for all I care you implied that they do different jobs and therefore have different kit.  I have showed in 2 different pictures that they also do similar jobs to us as well.  (and there not using the TV in those situations)


You'll have to buy your own hat   
Point taken re: similar jobs, however, consider the first.  Circa 2002.  It's hard to tell what they're wearing (other than CADPAT), and IIRC, the TV was issued late 2002/early 2003. I first got mine in April or May 2003.  Incidentally, I wore it on two deployments, and numerous FTXs, and it was "undamaged" when I turned it in upon posting. (This is in regards to others who have had theirs fall apart after two or three exercises).
As for the second shot, that guy is doing a definately different role that you or I would do (unless you're on a close protection detail, perhaps). 
In order to elaborate on the differences, one argument stated the need for 10+ magazines (plus other stuff, naturally).  That's fine, and the TV can accomodate it.   Also consider that the guy in the second picture probably doesn't have a CQ/SQ/BQ readily available to resupply him as required.  He is a more "stand alone, because you are alone" type of guy.  An infantryman in a rifle company isn't.  He/she is part of a larger group of people, and yes I understand that there are times when they could be alone.
But one point not brought up (just thought of it) is regarding the old-school "raids" we used to do.  Remember how we dumped this, brought extra that?  VERY specialised.  We weren't like that all the time, just for those "mission specific" operations, lasting a few hours or so.  
But for the run-of-the-mill guy out there, the kit we have is actually pretty good: it ain't junk.
Besides, it's not about the kit.  If it were, the German "Panzer Tanks" would never have defeated the French in WWII.  The French had better tanks, with much more armour protection  than the Panzer Mk II and Mk III (which made up the majority of the German Panzerwaffe in 1940).  It was the application of the tools at hand, ALL available tools (STUKAs, local air supremacy, concentration of force, surprise, etc etc) that won the battle for the Germans.  Same in Poland.  Same in Russia (for the most part).
The T 34 was mentioned earlier.  It outclassed ALL German armour in terms of Firepower, Mobility and Protection (the three key characteristics of tanks anywhere).  Yet the Germans destroyed a brazilian of them.  How?  Through the application of that which they had (think of the Anti Aircraft gun, the 88, which turned out to be the most effective tank destroying weapon they had)
So, anyway, these are just my opinions.  It was free, and IMHO, worth every penny 

Garvin out

Now, on to more important topics: will the Leafs or Habs emerge victorious tonight and Saturday?


----------



## DG-41 (23 Mar 2006)

> Besides, it's not about the kit.  If it were, the German "Panzer Tanks" would never have defeated the French in WWII.



But that being said, if I was going to send you back in time to fight in WW2, would you want a Sherman or a Panther?

I know I'd want a Leopard....

And while the Canadian Corps was arguably the best fighting force in Europe in 1918, and unarguably amongst the top 5, they were only able to achieve that level of success - almost all of which was driven by training and doctrine - after they had ditched the Ross, and replaced it with the Lee-Enfield.

Kit doesn't win wars by itself, but those who want to win wars are better served by having the best kit. And seriously poor kit can undermine the best soldiers.

Now I don't think the TV is anywhere near as bad as the Ross Rifle was, so don't accuse me of hyperbole.  But if shortfalls have been identified with the current kit, and if replacements that don't suffer from the same shortfalls are readily available, why not address the shortfalls?

DG


----------



## mudgunner49 (23 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> But that being said, if I was going to send you back in time to fight in WW2, would you want a Sherman or a Panther?
> 
> I know I'd want a Leopard....
> 
> ...



a. *EXACTLY*; and

b. Because the replacements don't come from the fevered, self-aggrandizing minds at CTS, and would (therefore) reflect poorly on them...


blake


----------



## Recce41 (23 Mar 2006)

Fellas
 When I was at selection in 93 and called in 98 for a position. You had a chose what to wear. IE issued, or loc purch. So unless that has changed, what would you take. Remember they have a Loc Purch budget. 
 You cannot compare regular units with JTF. They are tasked with different tasks as we all know. Even their green tasks could be different as in Bosnia. 
 Who knows, the CSOR may soon be different just as the Rangers have some different kit issued.


----------



## COBRA-6 (23 Mar 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> The only person who is out for LCF is the guy who wants his entire unit kitted out like the clone army so they "look cool" on the parade square.



Yes! 100% true....


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Mar 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Yes! 100% true....



I thought uniformity was about being able to make sure you had batteries for your flashlights and radios, rounds and spare furniture for your rifles and clean pants when yours got dirty.  I also thought that it eased training so that your government supplied buddy was as well trained and capable as you with your natural talents.  I was also under the impression that uniformity reduced the difficulty of inspecting kit thereby reducing inspection times and prep times for missions and allowing more time for you to engage in ...... whatever you engage in when you are not training or engaging the enemy.

That was certainly the intent of those that introduced the Regimental system as a counter to all the PSC/Ds (Contractors or Deliverers? - Hard to keep up with the buzz) that used to dominate the battlefields.

Logistics trumps everything.   It delivers the rifle in your hands, the eleventh magazine when your tenth is empty (or your 99th if its your 98th), the section that ensures you are not alone in an alley, the LAV IIIs of the Quick Reaction Force that can extract you.

Can I ask this?  Can all infanteers in a Platoon agree on what a well designed TV should look like and what their ideal loadout would be?  How about by Coy/Bn/Rgt or Corps?  Lt/Mech? Inf/Armd/Arty/SOFs?  Or is the requirement to supply each individual with a budget to buy what they like in CadPat?  When it breaks who is to supply the replacement?  How soon do you need it? In the absence of your first choice could you suggest an acceptable alternate supplier that the QM can call?


----------



## DG-41 (23 Mar 2006)

I'd be lying if I told you that those specific examples don't give me heartache. To that, I'll add the unease I have over the idea that soldiers with access to money might have better kit than soldiers who are forced by personal poverty to rely on issue kit.

But it also seems silly to force soldiers to use substandard kit when better alternatives are so readily available.

The best solution is to ensure that the issue kit is of sufficient quality that there is no need to go to the aftermarket.

And if there is no single configuration that is a best fit for everybody, then a modular solution is required.

And if you'll excuse me, I left the Obviousmobile double-parked out front, and I have to move it....

DG


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Mar 2006)

1. "Can all infanteers in a Platoon agree on what a well designed TV should look like and what their ideal loadout would be?"
-No they can't.  So you make a modular system that will provide a better choice for the individual.
2. "Or is the requirement to supply each individual with a budget to buy what they like in CadPat?"  
-Seems to work for the Americans and Brits who have seen a lot more combat then we have.
3.  "When it breaks who is to supply the replacement?"  
-You would either use your army issued vest or sign for another one from QM (like you would when your original broke).  Then you have another one sent out if you wanted to or buy one off the vendors in the region.  QM will unlikely have aftermarket boots for those that have chits for them.  The troops will simply have to use what that have until an adequate replacement can be sent.
4.  "How soon do you need it?"
-Well if your on a mountain I suppose you'll just have to make do.  Otherwise you would get a replacement as soon as you got back.
5.  "In the absence of your first choice could you suggest an acceptable alternate supplier that the QM can call?"
-Its not QM's responsibility to find a dealer of aftermarket kit.  Its up to the soldier who choose that road.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> But that being said, if I was going to send you back in time to fight in WW2, would you want a Sherman or a Panther?
> I know I'd want a Leopard....


You've made my point: exactly.  I'd take the Sherman over your Panther  and ESPECIALLY over your leopard.
First of all, the Panther, though good, didn't win the war.  The Sherman did.  (I'll come back to this)
You've sent me back: where will you get the 105mm rounds for the Leopard?  Or the 120mm rounds for the Leo 2 (I assume A6).  Spare Parts?  
LOGISTICS IS KEY.  The Shermans won the WAR (certainly not every battle, but you've sent me to war, a long, protracted thing that isn't won or lost because of a piece of kit).
If you were to send me back in time with a logistical and production tail able to sustain a single regiment's worth of Leo 2 A6s, and tell me to fight a BATTLE (not the whole war, but one battle, say Kursk), then away I go.  I'm pretty sure the lads, if properly trained (can I bring crewmen back in time with me?), we'll kick ass.
Kit is nothing without knowledge.  Some have reverted to hyperbole and said "the blood of the dying" and how they would not be able to drag their wounded buddy out of the line of fire with the TV.  Well, "duh", of course not!  In fact, you shouldn't be doing that (unless you are a medic or other non-combatant).  If you are a combatant (infantry, RMS clerk, whatever), the best thing to do for your buddy lying in the line of fire is to remove him from the line of fire by killing those shooting at him.  THEN do buddy aid/first aid/whatever aid.


Man, this ain't no movie, this ain't Iraq, we are not JTF2, and if you cannot wear what you are told to wear, what will you say when they send you out to possibly die?

The TV ain't the ross rifle.  The Candian Corps didn't win Vimy because of it or in spite of it (or any other weapon for that matter).  The Germans had cool tanks, but they were logistical nightmares (re: Panther).  Logistical nightmare: check out the Panther D (?) at Kursk: failing transmissions, lack of MG power, etc.  Not till about 1944 were they good enough.  By then it was about 18 months too late.  But, oh, their kit was better!  Big friggin' deal: we won, not because of or in spite of any piece of kit.  Kit is a tool.  If it's broken, fix it.  If it could be better, improve it.  Otherwise, shut up and watch your arcs


----------



## rifleman (23 Mar 2006)

How about go one step further and just give every soldier a cap badge and some money. They can buy what ever they feel they may need when launched into battle. That way time can be spent wondering if everyone bought kit that will work, whether they bought enough of it. Heck, we can just get more trucks and personnel to keep track of the buckles, and caliber of ammo that each individual section decided to use.

I guess I'm a little old school too.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Mar 2006)

> -No they can't.  So you make a modular system that will provide a better choice for the individual.



CFL I am not in your shoes and a long time ago, back in the age of the dinosaurs, I wasn't faced by being in your shoes so I don't want to get into a slanging match with someone I respect but....

While I understand the value of a modular system I don't entirely understand how much of the kit you carry is your personal decision when it comes to the needs of the mission.  If you are the only cargo carrying capability available to your commander doesn't he or she decide on whether you are going to carry a spare Jerry of water for the section, or an extra box of 7.62 link, or a couple of 60mm HE, or spare batteries for the radio?  Back in the days of tyrannosaurus rex that was certainly true.  As a platoon commander I was informed by the OC whether my weapons det was carrying the 60mm or the CG or the Browning GPMG.  Ammunition, water, batteries etc were to be dispersed around the platoon.  

Perhaps things have changed that much that the OC doesn't need your back to carry cargo and you are at liberty to decide for yourself how much load you can carry,  what you can carry and how far you can march carrying it.  If that is the current situation it must make for some interesting planning sessions and O Groups.

Cheers.


----------



## rifleman (23 Mar 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> How about go one step further and just give every soldier a cap badge and some money. They can buy what ever they feel they may need when launched into battle. That way time can be spent wondering if everyone bought kit that will work, whether they bought enough of it. Heck, we can just get more trucks and personnel to keep track of the buckles, and caliber of ammo that each individual section decided to use.
> 
> I guess I'm a little old school too.



Wait showing up with whatever you want.........that's old school


----------



## combat_medic (23 Mar 2006)

A modular system wouldn't be as logistically cumbersone as people here seem to be making it out to be. Each soldier would get issued a vest, and the pouches that go with it (standard set to start off with... just like the old webbing). The soldier would configure it to comply with their own comfort, left or right-handedness, and other preferences. If someone gets tasked as, say, a C9 gunner, they would hand in their mag pouches, and get issued extra C9 pouches, or 203 pouches, or whatever it is you need to do your job. If a pouch breaks (which, in my experience it's more likely for a single pouch to break or tear than the entire vest), it's a relatively simple matter of exchanging a single pouch, rather than the entire vest. There's only a half dozen or so pouches that would need to be created, the only real changes would be the quantity of each that are issued. 

Also, if someone wants something more gucci, they can invest in a couple specialty pouches, rather than having to buy an entire vest themselves.

It's pretty simple, and god knows there are other (clearer thinking) militaries who have done exactly this. Everyone would still be wearing the same thing, but they could wear it the way they want it. It will work for people who are left and right handed, for all different jobs, and, in the long run, would probably SAVE money on replacement pouches. 

However, it would require some intelligent and forward thinking... of which we seem to have a lack.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2006)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> A modular system wouldn't be as logistically cumbersone as people here seem to be making it out to be. Each soldier would get issued a vest, and the pouches that go with it (standard set to start off with... just like the old webbing). The soldier would configure it to comply with their own comfort, left or right-handedness, and other preferences. If someone gets tasked as, say, a C9 gunner, they would hand in their mag pouches, and get issued extra C9 pouches, or 203 pouches, or whatever it is you need to do your job. If a pouch breaks (which, in my experience it's more likely for a single pouch to break or tear than the entire vest), it's a relatively simple matter of exchanging a single pouch, rather than the entire vest. There's only a half dozen or so pouches that would need to be created, the only real changes would be the quantity of each that are issued.
> 
> Also, if someone wants something more gucci, they can invest in a couple specialty pouches, rather than having to buy an entire vest themselves.
> 
> ...


Pretty reasonable argument.  As I said, the TV certainly isn't the "be all, end all" to combat load bearing equipment.  NOTHING is.  Heck, in ten, twenty or thirty years they will be arguing over what kind of hovertank is the best, I suppose.  It's all an evolution.


----------



## DG-41 (23 Mar 2006)

> LOGISTICS IS KEY.



Logistics of CONSUMABLES is key.

Fuel, ammunition, food, water - and yes, to a certain extent, tanks.



> The Shermans won the WAR (certainly not every battle, but you've sent me to war, a long, protracted thing that isn't won or lost because of a piece of kit).



But they did it because of superior logistics, right? The issue here is that while the Panther was the superior tank in every possible QUALITATIVE way, (once the early-run transmission problems had been fixed) there was a lack of production QUANTITY.

Here's the important part - had the Panther been available in similar numbers as the Sherman, thus taking the logistics aspect out of the equation, we might very well have seen a different result.

And the other aspect to this is that there is NO logistics part of this argument. NONE. There is no production penalty associated with switching the current TV to a (say) MOLLE-based modular one. I'm sure we could draw up a Request for Tender for the (say) DropZone vest design and a selection of pouches, send it out for bid, and have enough to equip everybody currently on tour or slated for the next roto in VERY short order - if there was the money and will to do so.

This isn't a question of superior quality vs superior numbers. We can have both.

(Never mind the fact that the whole defence-of-Germany thing in the Cold War was a quality-vs-numbers contest, with NATO holding the "quality" position and the Soviets holding the "numbers" position. Good thing that never made it to a shooting war, huh?)



> Man, this ain't no movie, this ain't Iraq, we are not JTF2, and if you cannot wear what you are told to wear, what will you say when they send you out to possibly die?



Who is indulging in hyperbole now?

By that argument, Arther Currie should have taken Vimy with the Ross and the original issue "paper" boots and all the other deficient kit the Canadian Army started out with, instead of scrounging Lee-Enfields and local purchasing boots.



> Kit is a tool.  If it's broken, fix it.  If it could be better, improve it.  Otherwise, shut up and watch your arcs



Would you like to borrow the Obviousmobile for a while?

Isn't this what we have been saying all along?

1) The guys on the ground have been finding certain items of issue kit are suboptimal for the current mission.

2) They have been addressing this situation by purchasing replacement kit

3) This, in turn, is a suboptimal solution.

4) The answer is to fix the issue kit so that it meets current requirements.

5) And the real problem appears to be with Step 4 - either there is no commitment to do this, or no money, or some other problem, and the Minister (one hopes) will be unsticking this process after his investigation.

DG


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Mar 2006)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> A modular system wouldn't be as logistically cumbersone as people here seem to be making it out to be. Each soldier would get issued a vest, and the pouches that go with it (standard set to start off with... just like the old webbing). The soldier would configure it to comply with their own comfort, left or right-handedness, and other preferences. If someone gets tasked as, say, a C9 gunner, they would hand in their mag pouches, and get issued extra C9 pouches, or 203 pouches, or whatever it is you need to do your job. If a pouch breaks (which, in my experience it's more likely for a single pouch to break or tear than the entire vest), it's a relatively simple matter of exchanging a single pouch, rather than the entire vest. There's only a half dozen or so pouches that would need to be created, the only real changes would be the quantity of each that are issued.
> 
> Also, if someone wants something more gucci, they can invest in a couple specialty pouches, rather than having to buy an entire vest themselves.
> 
> ...



And if the RSM wanted everyone dressed the same for parade : , you keep rifle pouches in stores and everyone changes for the parade.


----------



## combat_medic (23 Mar 2006)

For a course, or if the RSM wanted a parade, you just move the pouches back. I had to do that with the old webbing all the time, nothing new there.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2006)

Somebody once asked in this thread what/where it said what do we carry for a "basic load".  This is from B/GL/300-004 FP 001 "Land Force Sustainment":
In the Army,despite the merits of total asset visibility, units will continue to carry a basic load spread out through its F, A1, A2 and B echelons while the formation will hold the maintenance load in CS units. The basic load equates to the scale of material carried by units to assure a limited degree of selfsufficiency. The basic load generally amounts to three days of combat supplies. It is calculated on an estimated daily usage basis. The size of the basic load can be altered by the commander."
So, there is no "magic number" as such (eg: 250 rounds, 400 rounds, whatever).  It's all situationally dependant.  I can't remember who asked this, but they can find this on the army electronic library site, available on the internet.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Mar 2006)

> Logistics of CONSUMABLES is key.



RecceDG:  At the risk of being facetious - High Explosives have a tendency to render an awful lot of stuff "consumable".


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Mar 2006)

"I don't entirely understand how much of the kit you carry is your personal decision when it comes to the needs of the mission.  If you are the only cargo carrying capability available to your commander doesn't he or she decide on whether you are going to carry a spare Jerry of water for the section, or an extra box of 7.62 link, or a couple of 60mm HE, or spare batteries for the radio?  Back in the days of tyrannosaurus rex that was certainly true.  As a platoon commander I was informed by the OC whether my weapons det was carrying the 60mm or the CG or the Browning GPMG.  Ammunition, water, batteries etc were to be dispersed around the platoon."

No you are right in the respect that someone above my pay grade will tell me what extra things I need to carry (ie C6 ammo, water etc).  That being said if I can get my "personal" equipment all on my chest rig that leaves room for an empty ruck to but water, ammo etc in.  Where as if I have a chest rig that can't hold nearly as much I will have to use that ruck or patrol pack to also carry those things.  By having a chest rig that is comfortable, made well, changeable, upgradeable you are allowing yourself to be a more efficient pack mule by having that ruck or patrol pack empty for all the other things.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Mar 2006)

We are no longer in the postion to be wishfully thinking of better things but in the postion to make a descion to have the best we can afford.  I haven't seen any TF commanders complain about their troops who have opted to use aftermarket equipment.  As long as we appear to seem uniform why does about wha I wear?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Mar 2006)

P.S. Kirkhill I don't believe we are in a slanging match are we?


----------



## DG-41 (23 Mar 2006)

> High Explosives have a tendency to render an awful lot of stuff "consumable".



If my tac vest has been consumed by high explosives, I have bigger problems than "if it is replaceable by the RQ or not".

DG


----------



## dapaterson (23 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Pretty reasonable argument.  As I said, the TV certainly isn't the "be all, end all" to combat load bearing equipment.  NOTHING is.  Heck, in ten, twenty or thirty years they will be arguing over what kind of hovertank is the best, I suppose.  It's all an evolution.


Please.  Hovertanks?  Give me an OGRE any day...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Mar 2006)

"How about go one step further and just give every soldier a cap badge and some money. They can buy what ever they feel they may need when launched into battle. That way time can be spent wondering if everyone bought kit that will work, whether they bought enough of it. Heck, we can just get more trucks and personnel to keep track of the buckles, and caliber of ammo that each individual section decided to use."

I don't recall anyone saying they'd bring their own wpns.  I believe the American system is they issue an intial issue and keep that issued stuff on the shelves (like us).  They also allow soldiers to buy from AUTHORIZED dealers.  I haven't heard of much of a problem with that system.
If the troops had the ability to use aftermarket kit during training then they would know what worked and what didn't.
There is also a vast amount of knowledge out there on which companies are good and which suck.
I don't believe the army should look after different buckles and whatever else, only what they issue intially.  I also think we all know that issued kit fails as well.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> As long as we appear to seem uniform why does about wha I wear?


Contrary to popular belief, I say "uniform schmuniform".  Someone mentioned a parade where everyone looks the same.  Isn't that was DEUs are for? 
You make an interesting suggestion in your other post re: "authorised" dealers.  Perhaps that is a solution for those who may, as you say, need to carry "more" (for whatever reason, such as a raid, long range dismounted recce patrol, whatever).  Maybe even in conjunction with the kit shop system (vice supply system), with the understanding that its your own to buy (much as the US rainjacket I bought and was allowed to wear back in the 80s and 90s: yeah, I'm *that* old), or maybe even costing "points" off of the new clothing system?

Of course, having said that, I don't think that our stuff is junk, but neither is it the best out there.  From my personal experience with some Germans in Kabul, I noted that I liked the idea of their modular vest system.  They weren't too fond of it, as they found it broke easily, and they liked our stuff.  Grass is greener?  I dunno.  Perhaps it is all perspective.  Perhaps they trialed a modular system when developing the TV and found that it failed too often?  I dunno.



My point throught


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Mar 2006)

CFL - No we are not in a slanging match.  I just didn't want to start one.

Cheers.

PS I can see your point wrt arranging your personal kit.

However you have to know that as someone that damnear neutered himself going to ground carrying 4x20 rounds in C1 mags in his shirt pockets; spent 5 minutes trying to unbutton, extract full mag from said pocket, change mags, replace empty mag in shirt pocket, rebutton, restart firing while prone I have difficulty believing that your situation is materially worse than it used to was.

Not to mention the glories of dissolving velcro that resulted in massive unit expenditures of gun tape to prevent pouches, frogs, yokes and belts floating away in swamps, or the unauthorized acquisition and wear of mixed Canadian, American, Brit and the ever popular Rhodesian/South African web gear.

I think the nature of the beast is that no matter how good your kit somebody will always find an improvement - even yourself, I don't doubt that as you select your own kit and try it out you occasionally go back to the store and buy something new and different because your first selection turned up something  that didn't meet your requirements.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> Logistics of CONSUMABLES is key.
> Here's the important part - had the Panther been available in similar numbers as the Sherman, thus taking the logistics aspect out of the equation, we might very well have seen a different result.


Logistics of EVERYTHING is the key.
Now, with regards to the Panther, even with your point, the key thing I take from it is "had the panther been available in similar numbers as the Sherman"...well, that is logistics!  But even when faced with superior tanks, the Germans were able to defeat the French in 1940.  Even when faced with superior tanks in Russia, the Germans continually gave better than they got, right up to the end of the war.  The only tank that was a real match for the best that the Russians had was indeed the improved Panther (virtually identical in the three key elements: mobility, firepower, protection).  Though tanks like the Tiger and Tiger II were superior in firepower and protection, they lagged in mobility.  And if you take logistics out of the equation, we may as well argue whether plasma rifles in the 40 Watt range are better than phasers.


----------



## Trinity (23 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Logistics of EVERYTHING is the key.
> , we may as well argue whether plasma rifles in the 40 Watt range are better than phasers.



DUH

The phase modulars in the plama rifles pwn the flux capacitors in the standard hand phaser.

Although the upgrades in the 2.01 v phaser rifle is better than the hand phaser which
can't store the required power to properly use the new fire and forget targeting sytem!  :


----------



## Gunnar (23 Mar 2006)

Still, for permanence, and just plain vapourizing the target, nothing beats the traditional Klingon disruptor.  Not a finesse weapon, but permanent, anyway.  ;-)


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2006)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> Still, for permanence, and just plain vapourizing the target, nothing beats the traditional Klingon disruptor.  Not a finesse weapon, but permanent, anyway.  ;-)


Klingon disruptor?  Are you nuts?  They suck.  ROMULAN or nothing, baby!


----------



## Troopasaurus (23 Mar 2006)

A solution that i have seen that I think would work just fine is to take all the pouches off the issued tacvest and replace with MOLLE then get some CADPAT pouches. CTS can still have the feeling that they designed a great vest i would Have the same look to it... CTS can keep their "daisy chain" for the yoke and smallpack and we would get a modular vest. If we cant officially do this i would like to see a quality aftermarket manufacturer (dropzone/ICE) produce some MOLLE front panels in CADPAT for the tacvest that would be approved for wear.


----------



## ZipperHead (23 Mar 2006)

After talking with vonGarvin at work today, I had to keep reading this thread to see where I would jump in: now is as good a time as any, I guess.

I suppose when people are as passionate about something (such as their hatred of the TV) there has to be something behind it. I myself am a School weenie, and have only worn the TV while instructing courses here in Gagetown and to do ruckmarches. Other than getting the wrong size (typical, ain't it) I don't mind it (once I figure out where the optimal place for everything is), but I have never had to use it "in the shit". Having said that, I think it is leaps and bounds better than the webbing it replaces, and the LBV/LCV it replaced on operations (that I wore for 2 tours in Bosnia). My opinion is this: it fit's the 80% solution (as mentioned by somebody in regards to how trials work). Perhaps the Infantry Corps should look at developing something for themselves, separate from the TV, much the same that the Armour Corps has C8's for vehicle crews (yes, I know other arms (and the squirrels) carry them, but I am speaking in general terms).

So, rather than venting spleens here (though getting valuable feedback from people after the rant's have cooled down) approach the powers-that-be at the Infantry School (or Corps headquarters, which I assume is one and the same). MAYBE, something along the lines of an IOR (or at least high priority T&E process) could be done with current OTS gear (I don't follow the "Gear Whore" scene, so won't embarass myself by naming the "wrong" company), and have reps from ALL the battalions rather than whomever happens to end up always trialling the gear (if you know what I'm getting at.....), from the crusty career Cpl's on up, rather than just the aging MWO or CWO who's last operation was for his hip replacement after falling off his M548 in REFORGER '83  >. It needs to be done quickly, I would say, but efficiently (remembering to cover the 80% solution), because it always seems that once we pass the point of no return (picking one "winner" and then not turning back even after everyone realizes they backed the wrong horse (LSVW, TCCCS, old rain jacket (the one with detachable hood, and that was more effective (which didn't amount to much of an improvement) when worn inside out), new combat belt (which, BTW, can no doubt be used to mount a saddle on an elephant based on the length of it)), something better comes out, and we always seem to end up with "buyers regret".

Personally, I really like the idea of being able to buy things through authorized dealers, but that opens up a can of worms. Places like Edmonton and Valcartier would be laughing, but the more backwater bases (yes, I mean Gagetown) would be screwed (has anybody here ever tried to find decent kit - that has to be tried on, like boots - here? Yes the internet, eBay, etc is wonderful, but I am NOT going to buy a pair of boots or gloves (been there......) over the internet unless I can be sure that it is going to fit (a size 11.5 by Matterhorn isn't the same as 11.5 by Corcoran, etc, etc). And as for "authorized": who is going to be the approving authority??? CTS pers? Supply pers? Medical pers (for boots, etc)? RSM's??? Soldiers (in other words, people who vote with their wallets)? Wouldn't this just cry out for cronie-ism (you have to buy from retired RSM Bloggins' store..... or company). I heard a story (which I related in one of the "Mk III combat boots suck" posts) at one of the local outfitters (the only one, so do the math) that the Base RSM had say in what boots were authorized for LPO (when they ran out of MkIII's on base, I was authorized to LPO boots), and he had decreed that there would be no canvas sided boots allowed. Was this based on safety? Aesthetics? Ergonomics? I don't know if anybody truly knows (BTW, I bought the Model 1944 Corcorans (canvas sided) with money out of my own pocket, and don't regret a penny spent).

Anyway, I have to admit that we have come a loooonnnnngggg way from the bad old days, and yes, it has taken an inordinately lengthy period of time to get even what I consider the "basics" out to the troops, but I'm not sure what is accomplished by people "whining" in the media that "this sucks, and that sucks, and I HAD to buy a civvie GPS because they wouldn't give me one [so says the Pte rifleman, who doesn't really NEED one, but Joe Sixpack in Canmore doesn't know that, but writes his MP complaining about it anyway 'cause he feels sorry for the youngster, and causes a shitstorm at NDHQ for no real reason]". There is some truth to the complaints, but there is a much better means to get what one needs than to cry to the media (sorry Globe and Mail reporter....). It might not have the immediacy that we would all like, but it prevents knee jerk reactions made by politicians (or politicians in uniform) such as "buy the first chest-rig that the first soldier you see suggests!!" and then that lackey  bumps into, say, me, and I say "Go to Wheeler's, dude!!!" and then EVERYBODY will want to kill me. Or the dreaded "No chest rigs will be worn on this TF!!!!" because the TF commander (or the CLS) has egg on his face, and shit rolls down hill. Life is like chess: always be thinking more than one move ahead. I'm sure that more than a few blind eye's would have turned, but the glare of the media that this has brought will likely result in nothing good due to the pressures felt or forced by commanders.

Anyway, fight the good fight, and hopefully, someday, someway, everybody will be happy with the equipment we have (bloody unlikely, but one can dream, no!?!?)

Al

Editted for clarity


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Mar 2006)

Kirkhill that's what a drop pouch is for.  So you don't need to fumble with getting your spent mags back in your pocket. ;D
As far as back water units buying kit. They have to know with the point system which gets the kit there in about 3 days.  If its the wrong size a means to send it back is provided.  Its not as if your doing with out either as you would have the intial issue that clothing stores sent you.


----------



## KevinB (24 Mar 2006)

Okay - perhaps useless used originally was inflamitory.

 I will know try to start a list of issues I had with the TV.

 Mag Pouch placement
  With the GenIV (or v) PBA the vest sits very awkwardly and is not easy to access the rifle/carbine mags - I found to access them I had to keep them undone - as it was next to impossible to undo the fastex and flip the flap using flight gloves - addition the pouch is cut to hig so not enough of the mag is exposed for a decent grip - ensuring that you need to use a Magpul - and due to the tight construction the Magpul Ranger plate is the only one that really fits.  Add in it is only 4 mags...

 Grenade Pouch -- does not fit the M67/C13 - 
   MJP did a good video of attempting to use it, the pouch is too tight - requiring you to pull dramaticalyl on the grenades fuze to extract it from the pouch.  - plus with grenades in it - it makes the vest very awkward to use in the prone.

 Small "Accessory" pouches 
   Too small for a medkit of any use - seem to be placed as an afterthought 

 Utility Pouches 
  They hang over the body quite awkwardly 

 MiniMag Light pouch
   Wont fit a SureFire light - and the Minimag is crap.

At the same time as the TV was undergoing design - a member from DHTC and a designer from PacSafety where roamign around looking at kit designs for Greenside ops - coming up with the Chest rig and Patrol Vest - vests that cost less than the TV - are more modular, and provide much more capacity.   Having used both, and knowing both designers I can say that while I still feel they leave a lot of room for improvement - they are miles ahead of the TV for Infantry usage.

 IMHO a "next" gen system of the PV and CR could be done in MOLLE and issued to the Infantry units.


Some people (like me  ) will never be satified - I have spend a fair amount of money on custom sewing to my Paraclete RAV since I think the based design has some flaws.  



BTW - I had understood that a certain PPCLI Capt had done a POR on the TV...


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> As far as back water units buying kit. They have to know with the point system which gets the kit there in about 3 days.  If its the wrong size a means to send it back is provided.


But that would also have to be part of any solution: perhaps some sort of sizing indicator and industrial standards with which the manufacturers would have to adhere?  Remember, it's not just about the kit: the delivery, EFFECTIVE delivery that would also have to part of any solution.


----------



## Big Red (24 Mar 2006)

"Tell ya what, Big Red, you can take your old webbing.  Good on you.  "

Nah, I'll just use my CIRAS.

"Why don't SOF units use it? "

Because its a POS.

"They do a different (though similar) job to you and me. "

Our jobs are not even remotely similar.

"Hell, they have longer hair and Oakleys, does that mean we should use them? "

*Checks mirror*...Yes. ;D

"Man, this ain't no movie, this ain't Iraq, we are not JTF2,"

So what are the troops going to wear if they happen to find themselves in a theatre like Iraq?  Right now the guys in Afghan are wearing a poorly designed 'peackeeping' vest in an active warzone.

CTS should be disbanded. They are not listening to the troops. Going on 4 years of complaints and the TV hasn't changed.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Mar 2006)

Big Red said:
			
		

> So what are the troops going to wear if they happen to find themselves in a theatre like Iraq?  Right now the guys in Afghan are wearing a poorly designed 'peackeeping' vest in an active warzone.


It wasn't designed for peacekeeping.  And we could "what if" this to death.


----------



## DG-41 (24 Mar 2006)

> Now, with regards to the Panther, even with your point, the key thing I take from it is "had the panther been available in similar numbers as the Sherman"...well, that is logistics!  But even when faced with superior tanks, the Germans were able to defeat the French in 1940.  Even when faced with superior tanks in Russia, the Germans continually gave better than they got, right up to the end of the war.  The only tank that was a real match for the best that the Russians had was indeed the improved Panther (virtually identical in the three key elements: mobility, firepower, protection).  Though tanks like the Tiger and Tiger II were superior in firepower and protection, they lagged in mobility.  And if you take logistics out of the equation, we may as well argue whether plasma rifles in the 40 Watt range are better than phasers.



Oi.

Logistics - of the type you are talking about - was an issue in WW2 because German production capacity was limited, and while the Panther and Tiger were markedly superior in quality to anything else being fielded, they could not be produced in sufficient numbers to replace losses; never mind support a build-up of forces.

The Sherman and the T84, while inferior in quality to the German tanks (although with T34-85, that quality gap is pretty narrow) could be produced in large enough volumes that, even though they were taking higher losses than the Germans, losses were always made good and then some.

"The three best American generals were General Foods, General Motors, and General Electric".

So in this, we agree.

BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUITABILITY OF THE TAC VEST FOR OPERATIONS. 

We are NOT in a situation where web gear production is limited, and where we are forced to choose between a substandard (but readily producible) version and a high quality (but limited availability) version. We CAN have both. We CAN have the analogue to having a fully developed Panther, available in quantity, in 1943.

If we choose to.

DG


----------



## The Six (24 Mar 2006)

:tank:

Is there a civilian organization that can speak up for our troops and their needs?  My boy is buying stuff because of the crap he is being issued.  Yes, as usual, the grunts get last pick.


----------



## GO!!! (24 Mar 2006)

The Six said:
			
		

> :tank:
> 
> Is there a civilian organization that can speak up for our troops and their needs?  My boy is buying stuff because of the crap he is being issued.  Yes, as usual, the grunts get last pick.



No.

Troops are not permitted to publicly criticise the DND or it's policies. There are also laws against forming unions as they are classified as "mutinous" activities. I don't believe that there is a civilian organisation that represents troops, but you can be guaranteed that anyone caught talking to them would be "dealt with".


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Mar 2006)

He didn't say "represent" the troops, as in actually involving currently serving members, although I can see how it might be interpreted as such. I think Espririt De Corps magazine would be along the lines of what he means.

What good would civillian organizations do as long as vonGarvin/Gordon O'Connor are the ones in charge?


----------



## dapaterson (24 Mar 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> What good would civillian organizations do as long as vonGarvin/Gordon O'Connor are the ones in charge?



I wasn't aware that vonGarvin had been named CDS.  However, it has been a while since I checked the CANFORGENs.


----------



## McG (24 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> The best solution is to ensure that the issue kit is of sufficient quality that there is no need to go to the aftermarket.


That sounds like the MND’s direction.

Did this thread really happen?  Does everyone in the CF fall into either a group that emotionally believe the clothing & eqpt pers are inept morons, or a group that emotionally believe the only people interested in improving on existing kit are doing it simply for LCF?

I now have pockets on my sleeves.  My CoC made this happen.  It seems there is room for improvements but that things can get better.


----------



## NL_engineer (24 Mar 2006)

Al,
I know of people that have gotten in s***, by some Sr. NCO's from a cretin unit on base, for wearing non issued kit, wile on the base portion of Gagetown.

As for the Tac Vest, why not try this:
1. Issue everyone the existing one ;D
2. Issue everyone a mole vest with pouches designed for there job, or give everyone the same pouches and let them decide what to use.

Then for an RSM parade everyone can were #1 :crybaby:, and for the field they have the choice what vest to were :threat:.

Just my 2 cents
 :


----------



## TCBF (24 Mar 2006)

"What good would civilian organizations do as long as vonGarvin/Gordon O'Connor are the ones in charge?"

- I don't believe you are being fair to either one of them.  You could have made your point in another fashion, methinks.

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Mar 2006)

Oh you know me. Thread like this are like machine gun ranges: The most important thing is to have fun.


----------



## TCBF (24 Mar 2006)

Okay.  Just that normally, you are a bit more scientific and surgical in your targetting: 5 kilotons on the action, rather than 7 megatons on the individual.


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Mar 2006)

Would you believe that I have honestly run out of original material on the subject of Tac vests?


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Mar 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that vonGarvin had been named CDS.  However, it has been a while since I checked the CANFORGENs.


WooHoo! I'm CDS!  OK, here are my IMMEDIATE orders
1.  No more name calling behind my back.  Call me "Freddie Mercury" one more time and I'm gonna snap!
2.  The Leopard C2 Main Battle Tank will now be known as the "Interim MGS"
3.  Anything to do with MGS is forever banned.  Also, all Interim MGS will be relegated to museums and AFV ranges.
4.  We will buy three regiments' worth of Leopard 2A6s, reinstate A Sqn, 8 CH, give them a squadron for Gagetown, and also give the Armour School a squadron
5.  Like I said, no more name calling!  I'll lose it!!!!!
6.  Arty gets Arty.  Inf get mortars.
7.  DFS Regiment?  What's that?
8.  Airborne REGIMENT.  That's right, THREE battalions, all "CSOR-ish" in nature.
9.  DHTC will now offically be known as "The Hill"
10.  Parliament hill will no longer be known as "The Hill"
11.  To placate the masses, all RSMs with MTS will be summarily shot at dawn.  Well, not with real ammo, but with paintball guns.
12.  TVs will be issued to all troops (and I don't mean "Tactical vests", I mean "Televisions")
13.  That's it, who called me Freddie!!!!!!!!!!!
14.  That's it, I quit.  Gen Hillier can have his old job back 


Garvin out


Now, back to your regularly scheduled rant


----------



## GO!!! (24 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> 11.  To placate the masses, all RSMs with MTS will be summarily shot at dawn.  Well, not with real ammo, but with paintball guns.



What's "MTS"?

Is it similar to "APS"?


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Mar 2006)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Al,
> I know of people that have gotten in s***, by some Sr. NCO's from a cretin unit on base, for wearing non issued kit, wile on the base portion of Gagetown.
> As for the Tac Vest, why not try this:
> 1. Issue everyone the existing one ;D
> ...


To be fair, parades should be done in DEU if you want uniformity.  
Pockets on sleeves make sense.  I mean, how can I reach my smokes with my tac vest/plate vest on?


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> What's "MTS"?
> 
> Is it similar to "APS"?


"Mess Tin Syndrome", similar to "Aluminum Pot Syndrome", I suppose


----------



## spartan031 (25 Mar 2006)

> First Battalion soldiers grilled Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's chief of defence staff, about the BAT controversy during his surprise visit with the troops in the field earlier this month.
> 
> "The boys were asking Hillier, 'Why do the support people get the good shacks and we get the BATs,' " Master Cpl. Prodonick says. "We don't want better, we want the same as everyone else."



 :rofl:

Infantry soldiers complaining about the accomodations  :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Mar 2006)

I suppose we are all dummies too. :


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Mar 2006)

> Infantry soldiers complaining about the accomodations



Spartan - any damfool can be uncomfortable.  It is one thing to be able to tolerate discomfort when there are no other options.  It takes a particular type of masochist that chooses to be uncomfortable when they don't have to be. 

I think it was in Jim Davis's book, The Sharp End, that I remember an anecdote about a subaltern being laughed at when he deployed from Germany to Yugoslavia for the first Roto carrying a nice fluffy pillow.   It wasn't long before the snickerers were thinking that pillow looked pretty good.  On similar grounds I much prefer blow up mattresses, or self-inflating these days, over the foam pads.

Why would you choose to be uncomfortable when it isn't required?


----------



## GO!!! (25 Mar 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Spartan - any damfool can be uncomfortable.  It is one thing to be able to tolerate discomfort when there are no other options.  It takes a particular type
> Why would you choose to be uncomfortable when it isn't required?



Exactly. 

Troops that are well rested are far more effective than ones that are sleeping poorly or not enough. The effects of fatigue are well documented.

I would expect that the troops with the more dangerous and demanding jobs would get the better accomodations, but there may be a "bigger picture" here that we are unaware of.


----------



## TCBF (25 Mar 2006)

"I would expect that the troops with the more dangerous and demanding jobs would get the better accomodations, but there may be a "bigger picture" here that we are unaware of."

- Precisely: The bigger picture is:  We don't.

Tom


----------



## axeman (25 Mar 2006)

i agree with the anti spartan comments . why is it only the pointy end has to be unconfortable . why does the pointy  end have to be left out of confort? obiously  he hasnt spent an extended stay on the ground then when you get to the rear  to rest  sleeping on the floor ...jees thanks for thinkig that your here to support us and give us what WE need not left overs after your req are filled ...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (25 Mar 2006)

Say again all after "i agree".. I am not sure what that last statement says.  I see only two capital letters, in the same word.  Thanks.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Mar 2006)

Why is it that only the pointy end has to be uncomfortable. Why does the pointy  end have to be left out of comfort?  Obviously he hasn't spent an extended stay on the ground then when you get to the rear  to rest  sleeping on the floor.  Jeez thanks for thinking that your here to support us and give us what WE need not left overs after your req are filled.


----------



## spartan031 (26 Mar 2006)

So the infantry wants special treatment?

Take it as a compliment that you get the crappiest set up.

The officer cadets get better stuff too and they also get made fun of the most.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Mar 2006)

Spartan - you're an idiot.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Mar 2006)

Special no.  Fair when possible yes.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Mar 2006)

His name is spartan 031.. I am assuming he is an infantryman and trolling right now..do NOT feed the trolls.


----------



## GO!!! (26 Mar 2006)

spartan031 said:
			
		

> The officer cadets get better stuff too and they also get made fun of the most.



Officer cadets are often issued the most heavily worn and oldest equipment available, due to the fact that they are not part of a formed unit. 

It's pretty hard to make fun of someone you have to salute.


----------



## DG-41 (26 Mar 2006)

I hope you aren't saluting officer cadets - giving that they are not (yet) commissioned.

But yes, successful officer cadets will one day be actual officers, and so "making fun of them", outside of properly applied corrective training for observed faults, is perhaps not wise.

It is also true that officer cadets in the CMC system are at the bottom of the totem pole as far as kit goes. They are the last to get anything new.

DG


----------



## GO!!! (26 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> I hope you aren't saluting officer cadets - giving that they are not (yet) commissioned.



Yes, I know that, I was trying to make a point.


----------



## TCBF (26 Mar 2006)

"It is also true that officer cadets in the CMC system are at the bottom of the totem pole as far as kit goes. They are the last to get anything new."

- Well, no wonder.  In the old days, the chances of  Officer Cadets actually making it all of the way to a Phase IV Combat Arms Grad Parade were NOT in their favour.  Why waste good kit on a transient?

Cooler heads prevail now.


----------



## Dissident (27 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> "Mess Tin Syndrome", similar to "Aluminum Pot Syndrome", I suppose



Thank God, I thought you meant the french acronym for :"Maladies transmises sexuellement".


----------



## spartan031 (27 Mar 2006)

I thought we were talking about living quarters?

i.e. basic training, officer cadets have better living quarters than ncms yet amazingly they are both able to get the job done.  


I would expect that the infantry would be able to handle sleeping in a tent in the middle of a war.


----------



## lawandorder (27 Mar 2006)

I'm sure they can handle it, but when they do return to main camp after being stuck outside of it for X number of days doing God knows what, wouldn't it be nice if they had a nice hot shower and a proper bed to sleep in.  I'm not saying they should have special treatment or anything,  but they should have acceptable sleeping accomidations.  Leaky tents doesn't sound like acceptable sleeping accomidations to me.

As for the tac vest, I guess whatever works for the guys over there.  Maybe a new rig could be fast tracked and made available for the troops deployed, and returned for the next guy when they return to Canada.  Right now there's a bunch of kit thats issued only to deployed troops, can't they make somthing like that work?


----------



## Thompson_JM (27 Mar 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Spartan - you're an idiot.



+1

Spartan, No offense but you sound like youre trying way to hard to sound hardcore...

hell im a REMF and Im the 1st one to say give the grunts the good stuff.. they need it more. my job is service. or as I see it, make sure the Cbt Arms guys can fight, since if I get bumped on the Road its gonna be them comming out to save me... I want them to have the best equipment possible so that when they get there they can blow the hell out of the enemy. and long as my equipment is good enough to hold off an attack and keep me alive until they get there, Im happy....

the TV is good for a trucker, not so good for an 031


----------



## silentbutdeadly (27 Mar 2006)

We need more like you on KAF! hahaa


----------



## KevinB (27 Mar 2006)

Rob - go private -- we have real beds and ensuite bathrooms with Hi-spped net in every room  ;D









Seriously though -- I saw your digs - and compared to the wogs shacks - you guys are getting shafted...


----------



## GO!!! (27 Mar 2006)

spartan031 said:
			
		

> i.e. basic training, officer cadets have better living quarters than ncms yet amazingly they are both able to get the job done.



OCdts can be in St. Jean for a year or more when you factor in SLT, so what if they get a room? 

Your comparisons between CFLRS and KAF are pretty weak - lack of experience or just trolling?



> I would expect that the infantry would be able to handle sleeping in a tent in the middle of a war.


Handle it? You bet - but why should they? Our federal surplus was what - 9 billion last year? 

Your continued BS in terms of statements like the above is beginning to grow tiresome - do you have any relevant experience or statements to add, or are you going to continue making statements that I would attribute to a cadet, or very junior reservist?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2006)

Spartan031,

Your trolling, contrary to the guidelines. You won't be warned again.


----------



## DG-41 (27 Mar 2006)

> Well, no wonder.  In the old days, the chances of  Officer Cadets actually making it all of the way to a Phase IV Combat Arms Grad Parade were NOT in their favour.  Why waste good kit on a transient?



Agreed completely. And back when I was a young and stupid OCdt, I remember us discussing this subject and coming to the same conclusion.



> Cooler heads prevail now.



How do you mean? 

Has the phase training gotten significantly easier?

The Recce Troop Leader's Course was the single most difficult thing I've ever done in my entire life, and by an order of magnitude. I'd hate to think they've softened it up....

DG


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Mar 2006)

Folks, please remember when responding to a certain persons posts that there is a "Spartan" and a "Spartan031" and they post quite differently.....


----------



## silentbutdeadly (28 Mar 2006)

Kev, 

Its starting to look good everyday i am here ! trust me! i have 4  mths left ! help me! hahaha


----------



## KevinB (29 Mar 2006)

I got a large pile of stuff in a care package if I can get a Herc flight -- needs to go off this week or its a 5 week wait though.

Stay Safe.   and give them hell


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Mar 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> while I was travelling around the Afghan countryside in a civy-pattern Land Cruiser, that I wished that there was a nice tactical vest that would allow me to carry all my ammo without having to use the FN C1A1 mag pockets on my CADPAT(AR) shirt that are conveniently hidden under my TBC.



Just as a point of order, as dramatic as the statement is, or how much it tickled me to read it, it's not accurate.  The chest pockets on the CADPAT are, if memory serves (haven't gotten a ruler out) slightly bigger than the breast pockets on the olive green Combat Dress shirt-coat (its official name, sorta makes one think of that SNL skit where the old lady on Weekend Update talks about her "jean-pants" and "baseball cap hat").  The intent AIUI was simply to provide some continuity in design - or in other words, create some sort of "tradition" for the angled pockets.  As little as some may think of uniform design in the Canadian military, a careful look at all the different patterns developed over time will reveal some consistent strains throughout.  Tropical Worsted came directly from officers' uniforms of the Second World War, colour, material and all, the DEU is an obvious descendant of the CF Uniform, etc.  Given that the FN was firmly replaced more than a decade before the introduction of CADPAT, rest assured no one expects anyone to carry magazines in the shirt pockets. Just some small way of keeping us connected to our own past - something we haven't been really all that great at doing in some areas.

FWIW.

(Edited to change title)


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Just as a point of order, as dramatic as the statement is, or how much it tickled me to read it, it's not accurate.  The chest pockets on the CADPAT are, if memory serves (haven't gotten a ruler out) slightly bigger than the breast pockets on the olive green Combat Dress shirt-coat (its official name, sorta makes one think of that SNL skit where the old lady on Weekend Update talks about her "jean-pants" and "baseball cap hat").  The intent AIUI was simply to provide some continuity in design - or in other words, create some sort of "tradition" for the angled pockets.  As little as some may think of uniform design in the Canadian military, a careful look at all the different patterns developed over time will reveal some consistent strains throughout.  Tropical Worsted came directly from officers' uniforms of the Second World War, colour, material and all, the DEU is an obvious descendant of the CF Uniform, etc.  Given that the FN was firmly replaced more than a decade before the introduction of CADPAT, rest assured no one expects anyone to carry magazines in the shirt pockets. Just some small way of keeping us connected to our own past - something we haven't been really all that great at doing in some areas.
> 
> FWIW.



[OT-ish alert]

Pocket measurements:

  CADPAT (AR)     - 90mm x 155mm
  Old Style OG107 - 88mm x 152mm

They look pretty close to me, measure out pretty close too...but yes, they are different, I'll give you that.  Anyone have the dimensions of the C7/C8 mags vs. the C1 mags?

More to the point, if no one is expected to put a mag in the shirt pocket, then why not replace the pockets with a more useful design...I like the slanted pocket the American's put on the new ACU's.  Personally, I think keeping pockets dimension/shape/orientation for the sake of tradition/comfort shows a severe inability to deal with change, but perhaps that's just me?

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Mar 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> [OT-ish alert]
> 
> Pocket measurements:
> 
> ...



I told you they were bigger.   I think the pockets stayed the same size on the ODs regardless of size of shirt (to keep the mag in) but may be proportional to size on the CADPATS, so they may vary more than that on different size CADPAT. Yes, this is off topic but interesting to me, anyway.

As for "inability" (or unwillingness) to change; they could have retained the Mk III combat shirt style (the so-called tuck-in) but didn't. They probably should have put pockets on the sleeves, though. Unwillingness maybe, but I suppose the TV was seen as the be-all, end all, so keep the shirt the same for some continuity. Who knows.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Mar 2006)

Duey:

IIRC - and ancient memory cells at work here - the upper, slanted pockets in the old combats were not used for carrying magazines.  Magazines were carried in the lower cargo pockets of the shirt or jacket, each equipped with a couple of loops that were just big enough to secure a magazine and just small enough to prevent you easily extracting said magazine.  At least that was the DS solution at Gagetown and elsewhere that I recall.

Cheers. 

PS in addition to smokes and one Silva Ranger compass the upper pockets were used to carry one white plastic spoon.


----------



## McG (30 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I would expect that the troops with the more dangerous and demanding jobs would get the better accomodations, but there may be a "bigger picture" here that we are unaware of.


Rgr.  The end-state will have the NCE, NSE, & Bde staff living where they are now.  The BG will live in buildings that are still being constructed.  Because the BG's home is not yet built, most of it is living in temporary accomodations (the BATs & RSOI tents).  In the end, the BG will have the more comfortable home.  


. . . and I've started to find BAT living to be reasonably comfortable (good thing because I'll be staying in one for a while longer still).


----------



## Bartok5 (30 Mar 2006)

Michael is correct in noting that the upper, slanted pockets of the various marks of OG Combat Shirt (less the ill-fated Mk III) were designed specifically to carry FN C1 magazines.  That is precisely why they were so expensively lined with durable cordura nylon.

Now, before anyone asks how a uniform designer and the approving-authority "powers that be" could be so utterly stupid as to design shirt pockets specifically for the carriage of 6 x fully-loaded 20-rd 7.62x51mm rifle magazines, lets recall the times.  It was the Cold War in Germany.  We had no frag vests, so access to said pockets was not an issue.  What we had was the 54 pattern and (later) the 64 pattern web-gear.  The latter of which was intended solely for dismounting from the APC for a "quick scrap" before re-mounting and bombing back up from the "mother ship".  It may seem ludicrous in today's context, but it made emminent sense at the time.  Versatility of the web-gear (through velcro attachments) was deemed to be more important than carrying capacity.

Times have certainly changed, with the basic rifleman's load having grown to a minimum of 10 x 30-round magazines.  A fact that seems to have clearly escaped the current CTS types.  But I digress.  There is little to be gained from "pooh-poohing" the kit designers of the late 1950s and early 1960's.  They designed and fielded load-carriage gear that was both timely and consistent with perceived requirements.  MUCH unlike today, where our designs and fielding lag at least 10 years behind reality.  We have badly pooched the "end-user" versus "supplier/contractor" relationship.  And then the CTS people have the utter gall to question why soldiers are wearing after-market gear?  Give me a frigging break.  If they weren't personally wedded to their inferior product and had some current field-time they would know why the CTS gear is viewed as utterly inadequate crap by those who are supposed to use it....  

Thank goodness that common sense still reigns in "most" of the field force and soldiers are therefore permitted by their immediate chain of command to use personal gear (albeit purchased at their own expense) which actually does the job.  The CTS staff, with their repeated "job-protection" denials of design inadequacy have long since lost ALL credibility with the field force.  And that is a fact.  By all means, please bring on my 25-lbs (empty) new rucksack in two (or is it another four?) years from now.  In the mean time, please continue to deny me the 64-pattern ruck-frames that are required to actually do my job because some numpty sold them all off as crown surplus several years ago.  

The current CTS item managers are eminently suspect apologists with an external excuse for every single one of their failings.  Not all, but far, FAR too many.  "Serve the field force"?  Yeah, right.  All I see is a self-defeating combination of repeated obstruction and denial.   

But hey - that's just me.....

_Edited for a typo_


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Mar 2006)

Yeah you tell them.


----------



## probum non poenitet (1 Apr 2006)

Going back to answer some trivia waaaayyyy back in this thread from VonGarvin about the Germans being shocked by British fire discipline:

You are indeed thinking about WWI.
It was after the first engagments near Mons in 1914. The British Expeditionary Force from that time has sometimes been called "The best trained army to ever take the field."
The Brits had learned from the Boer War that long-range marksmanship was really important.  Every soldier trained to ridiculously impressive ranges ... 1,000 yards and more was expected.
Their fire was so accurate and controlled that the German intelligence overestimated the number of machine-guns issued to British units. They didn't realize it was just well aimed rifle fire.

The irony was, they Brits had less machine-guns (and artillery shells) than the Jerries, and it took them a long time to sort that logistic nightmare out.

The B.E.F. was superbly trained but relatively tiny ... and by Christmas 90% of those who had been at Mons were casualties. 90 freakin' percent!

After that, British marksmanship came down to the level of mere mortals, because the pre-war army was practically annihilated.

They reckon the Germans would have almost certainly been in Paris if not for the Old Contempibles, though.

All right, back to this century ...


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2006)

"was the 54 pattern and (later) the 64 pattern web"

51 pattern: 54 pattern was Brit, 51 was Canadian.


----------



## Bartok5 (1 Apr 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> 51 pattern: 54 pattern was Brit, 51 was Canadian.



My mistake - thanks for the nomenclature correction.  

I suppose I should have known better, having been issued and required to wear the '51 Pattern web gear as a young Res F NCM back in the early 1980s....


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Apr 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> Going back to answer some trivia waaaayyyy back in this thread from VonGarvin about the Germans being shocked by British fire discipline:
> You are indeed thinking about WWI.
> It was after the first engagments near Mons in 1914. The British Expeditionary Force from that time has sometimes been called "The best trained army to ever take the field."
> The Brits had learned from the Boer War that long-range marksmanship was really important.  Every soldier trained to ridiculously impressive ranges ... 1,000 yards and more was expected.
> ...



Thanks: I indeed was thinking of WWI.  My point (in order to keep this OT) is that skill is superior in relative worth to kit.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Thanks: I indeed was thinking of WWI.  My point (in order to keep this OT) is that skill is superior in relative worth to kit.



You mean like the naked Picts were able to hold off the Romans, by staining themselves with vitrum, which produced the dark blue colour, and carrying sharp sticks? :


----------



## KevinB (2 Apr 2006)

Mindset, tactics, and skill are more important over kit.

However there is no intelligent reason to hamper yourself with substandard kit.

Unlike civilians who have to spread their training/equipment budget out over items - the army should be striving to achieve the best in all.

I spent about 20k in training this year - I bought about 4k in kit - however for the most of it my kit are "captial" items that will last for a long time.  I spent an additional 5+k in ammo (but I also hoard for the end of the world..)


----------



## HItorMiss (2 Apr 2006)

This fight has been raging for as long as I have been in...not as long as some but long enough I suppose, It finlay came to a head for me when on Roto 0 we had to fight with the NSE contingent to get pistols for our drivers, gunners, crew commanders... you see they "needed" them because having a rifle in their offices while using their computers and doing paper work was inconvenient and it was too big so it got in the way... I crap you not on that little argument... We were the last to move from Mod tentage that blew over in the sand storms with gravel floor a cot and our air mattress to the proper weather havens...3 months or close to we lived like that... I'm not bragging I'm bringing it up that it always seems that the support guys get things better and you know they probably do nothing I can do about it, I just do my job and they do theirs.


However when it comes to my safety and ability to do my job the 80% rule is just total BS! just because our forces are made up of 80% support trades who think the TV is good enough does not mean it should be issued to combat arms forces, If the Support trades like the vest and it does the job well enough for them should DND buy that vest for them yes, should it then issue it to me??? NO! let me and mine ( as in all the combat arms trades ) field test a vest then use your 80% solution on that if 80% of the pointy end finds the vest acceptabler I would hazard to guess then that the vest would be good to go.

Kev I so often think of going private that I started investigating companies....I really am getting sick of somethings..


----------



## Unknown C/S (2 Apr 2006)

Seems as though this thread has headed off in a different direction.

Having said that; How long does anyone think that allowing soldiers to purchase their own kit will last? The soldiers protection is at stake here. If DND cannot confirm the individuals safety associated with substandard or non issued kit. How long before there is a pension issue when someone is refused compensation due to the fact the kit that was worn (and deemed to contribute to the injury) was not "officially" authorized, and there is a directive to stop.

The U.S Forces have already put a stop to this practice to a certain degree.


"Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor"
The Associated Press News Agency

WASHINGTON -" Just six months after the Pentagon agreed to reimburse soldiers who bought their own protective gear, the Army has banned the use of any body armor that is not issued by the military. 
In a new directive, effective immediately, the Army said it cannot guarantee the quality of commercially bought armor, and any soldier wearing it will have to turn it in and have it replaced with authorized gear."

(Taken from 
The Canadian News Digest, RCAC Association) 

This will leave the soldiers out hundreds of dollars in purchased kit, and a lot of grumbling.
On the plus side, soldiers will not have to look like some third world army where everyone is wearing different kit.
I guess someone, in Ottawa, is going to have to get off their butt and start looking at an expedited mass purchase of "real" gear.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Apr 2006)

Somehow I doubt the support trades would appreciate the infantry picking out their computers, desks, vehicles and other trade orientated equipment.

"Well it's good enough for us" wouldn't go over well.

Spartan031 are you the same fellow who was on here a few months back? quit the canadian infantry up in pet becaue it was too boring and had designs of joining the foreign legion?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Apr 2006)

"The soldiers protection is at stake here. If DND cannot confirm the individuals safety associated with substandard or non issued kit."

Are you for real.  No one here has EVER suggested that we buy our own armour although many of us know there is better stuff out there.  No one is suggested we buy our own helmets either.
You are aware the US army is giving soldiers money to buy aftermarket kit.  You are aware the soldiers in the US are authorized to shop around legitimately from certain aftermarket shops.

If you can tell me how buying ballistic goggles (no not like ours but actual goggles) which keeps out the sand much better then we have from our eyes therefore allowing soldiers to keep their eyes wide open and scanning is risky I'd like to here it.  
If you can tell me how aftermarket gloves and can be fire resistant, knife resistant, or having more dexterity is dangerous I'd love to here it.
If you can tell me how a chest rig with easier access to its mags, more room for kit such as medic kits and easier access to grenades of the thrown and launched type will risk my safety I'm all ears.
Critics that are stuck in the dark ages will argue about build quality and uniformity.  Well a lot of the stuff in the CF sucks build quality wise.  If your TV blows up in the field you exchange it.  If your using aftermarket stuff you go back to your shitty TV until you can order a new one (smart people will research the good companies first).  If you don't have access to your TV back in your barrack box in the rear you simply sign for a new TV and return it when you get back.  As far as uniformity goes.  If you look around you can get rigs in both relish and desert CADPAT now.
So please tell me how if any of this stuff fails I won't be covered.  I would love to explain to them at the press conference why me and the majority of troops felt it necessary to buy aftermarket kit.  P.S.  If we were allowed to train with it at home we would know if it was practical or shitty quality.
Its people in the stoneage of thinking that almost, ALMOST, make me think about travelling up the leadership ladder so I can start having things run with a little more common sense.


----------



## GO!!! (2 Apr 2006)

Unknown C/S said:
			
		

> *On the plus side, soldiers will not have to look like some third world army where everyone is wearing different kit.*



ARRRRGH!!

Since when did esthetics become part of our job description??

Stop trying to apply parade square logic to fighting troops. Uniformity has got to be the weakest argument yet against personal kit, and reeks of desperation from the "old army" camp. 

Why not get rid of radios, support weapons and pistols too? After all, these make us look like a third world army with everyone carrying different weapons and kit?  :


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Apr 2006)

> Its people in the stoneage of thinking that almost, ALMOST, make me think about travelling up the leadership ladder so I can start having things run with a little more common sense.



Marvelous thing about leadership - along with the authority to make decisions, and if you're lucky an appropriate budget, comes responsibility for the decisions you make. In the military you also take responsibility for the lives of the people you lead.

Your words and decisions matter.  They have consequences. And they can be scrutinized and criticized.

My father's advice still seems appropriate: Seek out opportunities to accept responsibility.

Cheers.


----------



## Unknown C/S (2 Apr 2006)

I see...................

Have a couple of old toyota pickups shipped over, load up the back with Earl, Billy Bob, and Elmer. (much faster to travel) Your John Deere ball caps (keeps the sun out of your eyes) no hair cuts and six days facial growth. A a Carhartt barn jacket (warm on those cool mountain nights)
As y'all know Gov'mint issue stuff was made to git us fellers kilt

ROE? ROE??..............We don't need no stink'n ROE's

The only thing worse than the old dinosaurs from the cold war era and their acceptance of conformity , are the new generation of Mountain Equipment CO-OP wear'in, designer boot buy'n, Camel pack tot'n non conformists That have all the answers and are willing to kit thenselves out in the latest Gucci brand name field wear because they can.

"Since when did esthetics become part of our job description??"
It is not about esthetics, it's about quartermasters being able to keep the machine running with stocked kit.


"So please tell me how if any of this stuff fails I won't be covered.  I would love to explain to them at the press conference"

There will not be a press conference years after you return from theatre and you apply for that pension. 

I can see your VAC letter now, "Dear Sir, the medical report indicates that the blindness to your left eye you suffered in theatre (200?) was caused by plastic infiltration by the "Terminator"  eye protection you chose to wear and the fact that they were not issued. As well, the back problems you suffered and the associated claim, is not being accepted. It is a result of the design of the "Bounty Hunter" tactical vest you were wearing. (Bounty Hunter went bankrupt due to lawsuits from this flaw) 
We are sorry. 

The benefit of doubt I'm sure will side with the insurance / payor.............................that's life


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Apr 2006)

"Dear Sir/Madam we regret to inform you that your son is dead because he ran out of ammunition and couldn't get out the grenade that was stuck in his issued TacVest"

Discussion of haircuts and ROE's was brought up by you for some unknown reason.

Never once did I say I was getting substandard kit.  You are aware of product technical sheets that tell you product X sustained a shot gun blast from distance Z with 0 penetration right.  I suppose all the SF guys wearing certain kit do it just to look cool too.  Jackass.

P.S. you do know that Camel Packs are issued now for operations right.  Of course you did.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Apr 2006)

"It is not about esthetics, it's about quartermasters being able to keep the machine running with stocked kit."

I guess you haven't payed attention to the models presented here where by the QM would cont.. to hold its issued stock and all troops would be issued all standard army kit.  I guess the APS is rotten your brain.


----------



## Unknown C/S (2 Apr 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> "Dear Sir/Madam we regret to inform you that your son is dead because he ran out of ammunition and couldn't get out the grenade that was stuck in his issued TacVest"
> 
> Discussion of haircuts and ROE's was brought up by you for some unknown reason.
> 
> ...



Haircuts ? .........esthetics not important to todays fighting soldiers (apparently)

Product Technical sheets? Companies never doctor them up right? Long term test? Durability testing specs?
perhaps you suffered a head injury falling off the turnip truck, it is making you lash out.........

Now when you bring up SF guys you hit the nail on the head. If you want to act like SF..........go SF

No one brings their own camel packs? I believe you are mistaken

You also chose not to address the resupply issues. perhaps later in your career (if you get there since you seem to have a problem getting grenades tangled up in your equipment?) you will have a better appreciation for the finer details of the supply chain.

Goes something like this:

CQ, " Give me the n/s kit (TV) on the resupply and I'll exchange it one for one

Gucci Soldier,  "I don't have it WO. I left it back on base and was using my own version"

"CQ. That's alright, I have nothing better to do than make the trip back to base, cut the lock off your locker dig through your kit till I find it. make the return trip, and bring your issue one out, and while I'm at it I will mail that old one with the warranty card back to the manufacturer for you when I get back to the CFPO. 
No problem, that other section anticipating an attack can wait until tommorow I guess.......an ammo drop is not that important

(Please no name calling)


----------



## Unknown C/S (2 Apr 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> "It is not about esthetics, it's about quartermasters being able to keep the machine running with stocked kit."
> 
> I guess you haven't payed attention to the models presented here where by the QM would cont.. to hold its issued stock and all troops would be issued all standard army kit.  I guess the APS is rotten your brain.



There you go again lashing out (passive aggresion??)

The QM does not have room to stock double issues.
Hear me out.......................
He/She must hold replacements for kit that represents a 24hr turnaround. If the soldier decides he does'nt "feel" like wearing the issue vest (or whatever) the CQ will have to hold the initial issue and the replacement............... (double issues) But not for everyone. just for those that decide not to take it.
One would need an awful lot of room to be warehousing all that stuff with no way of controlling inventory.
Your CQ would be the busiest man in theatre, and the most pissed.

Models presented by some guy with a couple of years exp? Of course your idea will work

Go for it.



Modified to keep topic flowing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Apr 2006)

Haircuts ? .........esthetics not important to todays fighting soldiers (apparently)

*Right 'cause haircuts are going to win the battles.  I suppose you want them saving when in the mountains too.

Product Technical sheets? Companies never doctor them up right? Long term test? Durability testing specs?
perhaps you suffered a head injury falling off the turnip truck, it is making you lash out.........

*CF products are generally built by the lowest bidder and those technical sheets can be fabricated as well.  Thanks for coming out.

Now when you bring up SF guys you hit the nail on the head. If you want to act like SF..........go SF

*I bring up the SF because they are using a lot of the kit the general soldier wants to use and I'm not talking about rifles.  I suppose DVA won't cover them then when their Oakley Ballistic Goggles fail them.  If the SF is using it I would dare say that its passed the durability test.

No one brings their own camel packs? I believe you are mistaken

*I believe I said the troops were issued camel packs (or is it backs) now which is in reference to your rant about MEC wearing soldiers.

You also choose not to address the resupply issues. perhaps later in your career (if you get there since you seem to have a problem getting grenades tangled up in your equipment?) you will have a better appreciation for the finer details of the supply chain.
*I'm not the only one that has trouble getting the grenade out of the TV.  Have you ever had a TV?
*And I did address the equipment issue.  The army would give an initial issue that is exchangeable just as it is now.  If the user chooses to upgrade AT HIS OWN COST then so be it.  If the issued stuff fails or the aftermarket fails s/he would simply get another issue from QM.  Your telling me that QM stocks all the aftermarket medically issued footwear?  I didn't think so.  The smart troops take both vests as something to fall back on.  Perhaps your fall clouded your mind when you glossed over that part were I already discussed this issue.

Goes something like this:

CQ, " Give me the n/s kit (TV) on the resupply and I'll exchange it one for one

Gucci Soldier, "I don't have it WO. I left it back on base and was using my own version"

"CQ. That's alright, I have nothing better to do than make the trip back to base, cut the lock off your locker dig through your kit till I find it. make the return trip, and bring your issue one out, and while I'm at it I will mail that old one with the warranty card back to the manufacturer for you when I get back to the CFPO. 
No problem, that other section anticipating an attack can wait until tomorrow I guess.......an ammo drop is not that important

There you go again lashing out (passive aggression??)

*Your right I apologize for name calling.

The QM does not have room to stock double issues.
Hear me out.......................
He/She must hold replacements for kit that represents a 24hr turnaround. If the soldier decides he doesn't "feel" like wearing the issue vest (or whatever) the CQ will have to hold the initial issue and the replacement............... (double issues) But not for everyone. just for those that decide not to take it.
One would need an awful lot of room to be warehousing all that stuff with no way of controlling inventory.
Your CQ would be the busiest man in theater, and the most pissed.

*I disagree.  As I already said the soldier would have brought his crappy TV in ADDITION to his other chest rig.  What about the boot issue I have brought up?

Models presented by some guy with a couple of years exp? Of course your idea will work

Go for it.

*No models that have been discussed throughly by people that have been there and that have more then a couple of years in.

Perhaps a Mod should look at locking this thread (it is no longer about the MND) 
Or switch it to a more appropriate topic = "Stop the kit issue and let soldiers buy their own with funds provided by the tax payer"
I find it ludicrous that someone will tell me that I can't carry more water, can't stay warmer, can't stay dryer, or can't stay cooler because the CF hasn't gotten around to issuing it.


----------



## GO!!! (3 Apr 2006)

Or this thread could be split again;

Dinosaurs advocate the re-purchase of horses and the Maxim Machine Gun, claim fire discipline and movement will conquer all...

                                                                  or;

APS NCOs still fighting through Fulda Gap as troops patrol Afghan mountains...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Apr 2006)

Just because YOU did it in Cornwallis cripplers and a FN doesn't negate the fact that it can be done better now given the technology growth in fabrics and online kit suppliers whom many have input from battle tested soldiers.
Is there crap out there.  You bet there is.  But there is also kit 10 years ahead of what the CF is using.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (3 Apr 2006)

> Seems as though this thread has headed off in a different direction.
> 
> Having said that; How long does anyone think that allowing soldiers to purchase their own kit will last? The soldiers protection is at stake here. If DND cannot confirm the individuals safety associated with substandard or non issued kit. How long before there is a pension issue when someone is refused compensation due to the fact the kit that was worn (and deemed to contribute to the injury) was not "officially" authorized, and there is a directive to stop.
> 
> ...



I've read the article, and the reason for this is that Dragon skin, a popular armour among US soldiers, claims to provide better protection than that which the US issues. These claims could not be confirmed, however, and USAF tests seem to indicate otherwise. It makes perfect sense, in this case.



> It is not about esthetics, it's about quartermasters being able to keep the machine running with stocked kit.



No, its about the soldiers being able to keep themselves running. If the quartermasters had kit that fit the needs of the soldiers, they wouldnt be willing to go out and spend their money on non military issued kit, would they?



> I can see your VAC letter now, "Dear Sir, the medical report indicates that the blindness to your left eye you suffered in theatre (200?) was caused by plastic infiltration by the "Terminator"  eye protection you chose to wear and the fact that they were not issued. As well, the back problems you suffered and the associated claim, is not being accepted. It is a result of the design of the "Bounty Hunter" tactical vest you were wearing. (Bounty Hunter went bankrupt due to lawsuits from this flaw)
> We are sorry.



Well, at least he was able to write that letter, as opposed to maybe having lost an eye because the issued eye protection, say... fogged up and he couldnt fight with them, or any other injury having to do with, oh, say, not having a 6th magazine easily accessible...



> Haircuts ? .........esthetics not important to todays fighting soldiers (apparently)



"No combat-ready unit ever passed inspection."

Esthetics ISNT the most important thing in the middle of a firefight. 



> Product Technical sheets? Companies never doctor them up right?



I fail to see how the technical sheets of a load carrying rig will really change anything... 



> You also chose not to address the resupply issues. perhaps later in your career (if you get there since you seem to have a problem getting grenades tangled up in your equipment?) you will have a better appreciation for the finer details of the supply chain.



You say in your profile that you are retired... Did you retire before trying out the new tacvest? Its an alright vest, IMO... but its too much of a "jack of all trades" that its the "master of none". The grenade pouches on it are small, it takes quite an effort just to get a grenade in there. I can certainly see how a grenade can be a pain in the ass to take out of its pouch.



> CQ, " Give me the n/s kit (TV) on the resupply and I'll exchange it one for one
> 
> Gucci Soldier,  "I don't have it WO. I left it back on base and was using my own version"
> 
> ...



Please, when would this ever happen? Gee, you're right though... doing a 1 on 1 exchange and pleasing a quartermaster is much more important than winning a firefight. 



> Your CQ would be the busiest man in theatre, and the most pissed.



Good. Let him be, if thats what it takes for the troops to be able to do their job better. Gee... I guess the tacvest should never have been issued, because it may have made CQs job of replacing the webbing a bit difficult. Of course, somehow other militaries are managing just fine with a system that permits their troops to buy and use their own kit (and encourages it!)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Apr 2006)

I suppose Unknown C/S only used the ISSUED running shoes, socks, shorts, underwear, and PT shirt/regimental shirt as well for pt.  If you didn't then your a hypocrite.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Apr 2006)

Meanwhile the MGS units stand ready to repel a Soviet style mechanized regiment.   
It’s good to concentrate on our current missions, however don’t forget that there are three heavily armed nations which we could be fighting in 10 years depending how the world goes. Not to mention India, Iran, etc.
The West including Canada needs to keep a light expeditionary arm and a more traditional heavy arm. People say we can’t afford it, but if things go south, then you won’t have the time to build up that heavy force. You may be fighting a new war with the “old Afghanistan” attitude and the newer soldiers coming up will look at you as the dinosaur with outdated ideas, such is the way of the world. 

Back to uniforms, perhaps I can now sue for back problems caused by the useless (even then) 64 pattern and neck problems from the steel pot helmets, not to mention inadequate hearing protection,etc,etc  :

I am amazed at the quality of the gear that soldiers receive now, it’s light years ahead of what we used. By the way running with those loaded mags in your breast pockets was really hard on the nipples!!!! Although I suspect a few guys liked it.  :-X

I think the proper solution is for feedback from the troops is taken by HQ, who quickly reviews it and then posts a list of accepted gear. Give Company or Platoon leaders a certain latitude in experimenting with new gear, which then goes through the process. Military procurements are almost always flawed and slow to react, this balances out the strengths and the weakness of both systems.


----------



## DG-41 (3 Apr 2006)

The only reason why you'd let an MGS unit anywhere near a Soviet-era mechanised regiment is if you wanted to disassemble a whole bunch of MGS-es without doing the labour yourself.

MGS is a "new army" system. It's a grudging nod towards the fact that sometimes it is good to shoot the infantry onto the objective, coupled to the idea that we cannot afford the armour package that normally encloses such a weapon - the assumption being, of course, that none of our future adversaries will have access to weapons that could penetrate a LAVIII-class vehicle.

If the MGS were a tac vest, it would have two mag pouches and zip up the back.

DG


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2006)

>Dear Sir, the medical report....

How the times change.  I wonder how many WWII armoured crew were denied compensation because they used unauthorized mods to the armour on their Shermans?


----------



## GO!!! (3 Apr 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> If the MGS were a tac vest, it would have two mag pouches and zip up the back.
> 
> DG



BAHAHAHA!

Seriously though, as has been alluded to, the most effective method of kit procurement would be to expediently test say, 12 different load carriage systems, accross the spectrum from the cook/clerk TV to the 10 mags/6L of water light fighter, with modular systems in between for crewmen and others who rarely are away from their vehicles. 

Give each soldier a uniform amount, and have him purchase the approved item which suits his current employment best. He would still have a TV in case his new rig thundered in, but would have the ideal solution the rest of the time. Certain items (helmet, body armour) would continue to be "non - negotiable" while allowing a measure of customisation for the troops in the field. 

AND, when someone with a big fat stripe on his sleeve came to visit, we could all dust off the TV and have a nice, uniform parade for him. 

All requirements met - kit for the troops that need it, uniformity for the CSM, and very cost effective - if cost was the biggest factor, simply classify the new rigs as "equipment required for employment" on the troop's tax return - the same as a mechanic's tools or a postman's shoes. Cost to the crown - less than $500 for each front line soldier - alot less than the TV, and a drop in the bucket when spread over the six months of the tour and the several deployments that top shelf, lifetime warranty gear like drop zone, Arktis or Kifaru manufactures.


----------



## fourninerzero (3 Apr 2006)

Just a question for those who may be more financially inclined than I, if one were to purchase an aftermarket Rig of sorts, would they be able to put in on their tax return as a "work expenditure?" is it possible to claim these sorts of things as necessary for our job and get the money back when we file our taxes?

Edit: My apologies for the thread hijack, but It seemed like the likely spot to post this question.


----------



## Centurian1985 (3 Apr 2006)

I like the different supporting argments, but must protest over the term dinosaurs being used to describe 'cold war' old farts like myself; 

However, to the point; 

Some of our stuff is crap - given.  The current cadpad issues and associated purchases have helped (i.e. metal magazines, proper wirecutters, an actual poncho liner) but it took over fifteen years for some of this equipment to be recognized as essential for soldiers, and thus 'authorized'.  The same will be true of current needs. The situation wont improve until current users get promoted to a level where thay can have some influence on the supply chain (i.e. CWO's and Colonel's).  

on the other hand, some of our stuff is really good.  The gortex boots and parkas are nice when its -40 out. The fleece sweaters were fantastic, I wish I could have kept them when I retired.  But those are only a few examples.   

In the meantime, if you want to go play with the big dogs, expect to purchase some of your own gear.  If that means a custom pair of police special Vipers (those are so sweet, I own two pairs), to make your running through the hills and valleys more comfortable, so be it.  And thats the key - what makes you comfortable?  Issued grey socks? Hell I havent worn grey wool socks since 1988 (well, ok a few winter warfare jobs in mukluks, but thats it).  Need a quality watch? Buy one. If I was going back out on tour again I would definately be buying a 'second chance' vest that a Marine pal of mine I worked with wore during operations just for that 'extra underarm protection'.  For myself, I happily shelled out cash for a custom rifle-carrying bag (in a fashionable plain green canvas with black zipper), an Italian velcro-belt pistol and mag carrier (recommended for those who work in CI or CT, handcuff pouch nicely fits a utility butterfly knife), my own shooting scope (back when I was still doing long-range work) and my own personal compass (just beacuse i wanted to), and other small joys.  There is always something non-regulation that a soldier wants to have but doesnt get issued, and any serving member who denies they take 'unauthorized' items with them on deployments is quite likely a hippocrite!         

Overall, I hate to tell you guys but having to buy extra gear has been a problem since I got in in '85 and will always be a problem because there will always be sweet gear out there better than what we are currentlyl using.  Like it or lump it.


----------



## NL_engineer (3 Apr 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Give each soldier a uniform amount, and have him purchase the approved item which suits his current employment best. He would still have a TV in case his new rig thundered in, but would have the ideal solution the rest of the time. Certain items (helmet, body armour) would continue to be "non - negotiable" while allowing a measure of customisation for the troops in the field.
> 
> AND, when someone with a big fat stripe on his sleeve came to visit, we could all dust off the TV and have a nice, uniform parade for him.
> 
> All requirements met - kit for the troops that need it, uniformity for the CSM, and very cost effective - if cost was the biggest factor, simply classify the new rigs as "equipment required for employment" on the troop's tax return - the same as a mechanic's tools or a postman's shoes. Cost to the crown - less than $500 for each front line soldier - alot less than the TV, and a drop in the bucket when spread over the six months of the tour and the several deployments that top shelf, lifetime warranty gear like drop zone, Arktis or Kifaru manufactures.



Or give a contract to a company like Drop Zone, for there ModCan vest, and different pouches, issue what is needed to the troop for his/her job or issue everyone all the pouches. Let them lay it out the way they want; and God forbid purchase other pouches if they choose. ;D

Then if the CSM comes around, there could be a standard layout, or use the old TV  .

Unknown C/S can you tell me were I am able to put mission essential kit like C4 (dets/detcord/etc.), mine stores (mine tape, flags, proder trip wire feeler, safety pins/clips for mines, etc.) and any thing else required in the TacVest?


----------



## Bartok5 (3 Apr 2006)

Centurian 1985,

The problem is that the vast majority of soldiers currently serving on operations have to "lump it" thanks to the manifest inadequacy of the issued kit vis-a-vis the job that needs to be done.  

"Like it or lump it" is all well and good if the basic issued kit cuts the mustard for the majority of soldiers performing the task at hand.  When it doesn't (and it currently DOESN'T), then we have a fundamental disconnect.  Which is exacerbated when the staff officers responsible for said kit can't apparently be bothered to listen to their end-users.

I am sure that no offence was meant by the term "Dinosaur".  Everyone here respects your former service.  Having said that, you are now out WAY of touch with current operations.  Thanks for your former service and current participation in this forum, but you really ought to avoid voicing your personal opinions regarding ongoing operations and associated kit requirements.  If you are not deployed on operations, preparing for operations, or returning from same?  Then your opinion is just that - an opinion.  Unfortunately, such opinions are dime-a-dozen and manifestly lacking in first-hand credibility.  

Again, no offence intended.  I also served during the Cold War, having been a fly-over Jr NCO for the 1983 Reforger exercise in Germany.  The point is that those were very different days.  I recall from my brief Reforger experience that the "non-issued kit" affectation of the day was a thigh-holster (a-la Han Solo) for the C1 SMG.  That, and perhaps a U.S. rain jacket.  

What we're talking about these days is nothing nearly so trivial.  We are discussing the carriage and management of a soldier's basic load in a combat environment.  Your experience and that of our soldiers today bear little relevant comparison.  

I offer the above having bridged both your time and theirs.  Sorry, but with a retirement in 1985 your operational experience is somewhat outdated.

Sorry to sound harsh, but that's a fact.  FWIW.


----------



## Centurian1985 (3 Apr 2006)

There seems to be some confusion here. 

I didnt retire in 1985, I joined in 1985! I retired last year!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Apr 2006)

I'm not on the same page as Mark on this one.  Your post (to me at least) seemed appropriate.


----------



## Centurian1985 (3 Apr 2006)

Wow! Two years since my last deployment and Im outdated! Technology must be moving faster than I thought!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Apr 2006)

P.S. When I think of dinosaur I am referring to someone that isn't flexible.


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Apr 2006)

> Wow! Two years since my last deployment and Im outdated! Technology must be moving faster than I thought!



This is not at all your fault. Look at what the Americans are using today vs. what they were using in 2001. Night and day. Shooting wars combined with troops sending up to the MINUTE lessons learned back to their buds via the internet will do that.

Also, let's be clear here. The TV is not just crap, it is a major step backwards from the 82 ptn webbing. The 82 pattern could be made adequate, with enough work and resourcefullness on the soldier's part - I can carry 15 mags easily on my 82 and stil have room for a few other things.  This was covered at some length in one of the other threads. According to forum SOP, there must always be at least 2 concurrent "Tacvest sucks" threads at any one point in time, so these things are sometimes hard to find.


----------



## Haggis (4 Apr 2006)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Then if the CSM comes around, there could be a standard layout, or use the old TV  .



Not all CSM's are APS suffering anal retentive pricks (but we can switch it on and off at will, which makes us sort of schizophrenic).  Some of us are forward thinking and innovative and receptive to new ideas, properly presented of course.


----------



## GO!!! (4 Apr 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Not all CSM's are APS suffering anal retentive pricks (but we can switch it on and off at will, which makes us sort of schizophrenic).  Some of us are forward thinking and innovative and receptive to new ideas, properly presented of course.



While I agree with you, there are certain people on this site **cough unknown c/s cough** who slavishly cling to the status quo as if it was their dying breath. 

This capacity for forward thinking has been demonstrated in my unit, (where the leadership has extensively documented the failures of the TV, as identified by the users, and presented it to higher) and in deployed units, by the fact that permission was granted to troops in theatre to use aftermarket kit because the issued kit was woefully inadequate. There is indeed some light in the otherwise dark history of the TV!!

The problem arises when individuals like the abovementioned, in defiance of logic, reason and common sense continue to defend the use of a piece of equipment "because that's the way it is". This was always a poor response, and the weak defences for it come out in open forum (like this)where they are required to substantiate their opinions against the arguments of end - users, who are more than willing to make themselves heard.

In terms of "proper presentation" ideally, I think DLR should be staffed with Cpls, from the Cbt arms, with a maximum tenure of 6-8 months, with a MWO and Maj. for administrative purposes. Let the end users determine the kit to be purchased - we would undoubtedly end up with a superior product and extremely compressed timelines, in addition to lower costs. This would also enable the users to speak with the designers on a one to one basis, instead of the DLR staff saying "this is what you're getting, we have ascertained what you need".

Even better, if they did foist some POS on us - those Cpls have to come back to a unit sometime and face the music!!


----------



## ZipperHead (4 Apr 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> In terms of "proper presentation" ideally, *I think DLR should be staffed with Cpls, from the Cbt arms*, with a maximum tenure of 6-8 months, with a MWO and Maj. for administrative purposes. Let the end users determine the kit to be purchased - we would undoubtedly end up with a superior product and extremely compressed timelines, in addition to lower costs. This would also enable the users to speak with the designers on a one to one basis, instead of the DLR staff saying "this is what you're getting, we have ascertained what you need".
> 
> Even better, if they did foist some POS on us - *those Cpls have to come back to a unit sometime and face the music!! *



Man, you've been listening to the voices in my head!!! I have said this very thing for a long time. And not just DLR, but career shops, and every other place where ridiculous decisions seem to get made. But let me put on my Devil's Advocate/cynic hat: the people "they" would send would be the rough equivalent of the people already there (in some, not all cases - ass coverage on my part, there): Yes-men who have little or no current operational experience, who will say anything to advance their careers. Or they would send a guy who always DAGs red, just to get rid of them. 

I do like the short term approach. Let's say 12 months, because it would probably take 6 months just to figure things out, another 6 months to get things to happen, and then you would have to pull pole, because the system would drive you over the brink with the inanities of procurement, cost-management, and all the other catch-phrases and buzzwords (I live a tiny portion of that life, and couldn't imagine being in it fully completely). And barring being a complete genius, nobody, I say again nobody, should make their career there. Complacency, and thinking that you are the One, the person who has all the answers and can make all the right decisions, without fail, is what got us to where we are in so many instances: Schools, Headquarters and any other ERE (Extra-Regimentally Employed) positions should NOT be a place where people spend any more than 1/4 of their careers (in my estimate). You have to spend your time in the trenches, so to speak, to have an appreciation for what the soldiers/sailors/airmen (not end-users, or other corporate mumbo-jumbo that is used) need now (or in the near future), not 20 years ago when said decision-maker did their "time".

And people do need to be held accountable for the decisions that they made. Who wouldn't want to beat the people responsible for the old style rain-jacket (w/ detachable hood), the LSVW (Low Stealth Vehicle, Wheeled), or any other piece of kit that should have stayed on the drawing board????

Al


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Apr 2006)

US approach and everyone is happy.
The CSM's get unity on the parade square, CTS keeps their fiefdom and the combat troops get kit that is better suited to the job at hand.


----------



## Unknown C/S (5 Apr 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> While I agree with you, there are certain people on this site **cough unknown c/s cough** who slavishly cling to the status quo as if it was their dying breath.
> 
> The problem arises when individuals like the abovementioned, in defiance of logic, reason and common sense continue to defend the use of a piece of equipment "because that's the way it is". This was always a poor response, and the weak defences for it come out in open forum (like this)where they are required to substantiate their opinions against the arguments of end - users, who are more than willing to make themselves heard.
> 
> In terms of "proper presentation" ideally, I think DLR should be staffed with Cpls, from the Cbt arms, with a maximum tenure of 6-8 months,



GO,

Does this mean that I will not receive an invite to your place for a beer   :crybaby:

So you don't agree with me. I am not surprised. I was a jr nco at one point and I know the jr ranks mess is filled with people who have all the answers. (this can also be applied to the other two messes)
If you noticed I have made my statements based on the logistical (and tactical) problems with soldiers "doing their own thing" I am not critical of the equipment, more to the point, I am critical of the herd mentalitilty. The troops have decided that aftermarket kit is the way to go. (to the point that if a soldier likes the issue stuff he/she is somekind of goof and therfore "uncool"

Put yourself in the Pl WO's position, trying to divide up the mission load but having to sit down with the knowledge that everyone is wearing different kit and trying to figure out what each is capable of carrying.
(Your assumption is that Pte's and Cpl's know what they need, so don't hassle them)
Giving "carte blanche" to bring your own kit opens up a can of worms.

I think it stems from a generation of young people that grew up with the mentality of " mom, just give me the money and I will buy my own clothes, I have to look like my friends, and you don't understand."

And where does it stop? boots, TV, eyewear will quickly move to sidearms, shotguns, personal thermal image sights........................

Perhaps I can move a bit on this one, If the CSM issued a list of approved (limited) kit that may be purchased that way a standard is maintained. "However the troops no doubt would quickly claim that this list was junk"

"DLR should be staffed with Cpl's"
Jeez don't stop there, Career shop, CDS etc. nobody in most positions of authority know what they're doing.

I shall probably never agree with you. Is that bad? nope If everyone just agreed here, who would you debate with.
Yes I am old school. this is an age old argument. WWl, ll, Korea all had examples of soldiers not being happy with the kit. It is impossible to make everyone happy.
Can our govt do a better job of supplying the soldiers on the ground? certainly. 
Does rejecting the issue kit prove anything? Who knows, it does make for soldiers who are lighter in the pocket though.

Now you and CFL will pick this apart, tell me I know nothing and privatly hope my computer implodes. Leaves me wondering about who is not flexible here.  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2006)

But that [mail system]is NOT going to change anytime soon.......

I think we can agree on one thing.........its not the kit issue that is the problem, its the issued kit.
Fix that up and this arguement [ and thread] are farts in a windstorm......


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (5 Apr 2006)

> Put yourself in the Pl WO's position, trying to divide up the mission load but having to sit down with the knowledge that everyone is wearing different kit and trying to figure out what each is capable of carrying.



Whats the big deal? The US manages to do it. Whether you change the jobs of the individual soldiers, ie: switch a guy from assault to weapons det, you've still got the same amount of equipment. The soldier can simply switch his kit with someone elses. I dont see the big problem, especially since the Pl WOs already have to sit down with the knowledge that the TV cant possibly cope with carrying all the possible equipment assigned. It would be much easier, IMO, to give permission to soldiers to buy their own kit for overseas duty, as long as it has a certain load capacity OR its modular. It doesnt take much space to carry around extra pouches now, does it?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Apr 2006)

Unknown C/S the majority of front line units in the CF have at least offered the option for troops to use better kit.  Now if these WO and CSM's can work around this issue why can't the rest?  As mentioned the US gives an intial issue like our military but also allows for troops to get other kit from authorized dealers.  Will the troops push the limit on what companies they want included.  Of course they will.  The point is that the troops will have their standard issue stuff to fall back on if needed.  The QM shouldn't be held accountable for stocking stuff from these authorized companies only the stuff they issue.  I don't see anyone arguing different with that.  You are right the kit has made vast improvements in the past years and some of the kit is good.  That said the procurment of the kit is terrible.  It sound not take 10 years to come up with kit that is outdated when it makes it debut.  No army will stay ahead of the kit curve, just like computers.  However some of this can be negated by allowing authorized dealers that stay up to the curve.  As far as kit loads and WO's not knowing what their troops can carry most aftermarket rigs can carry more and I thought the WO told each section what they were responsible for and to handle it.
I don't have a problem looking exactly like the next guy.  What I have a problem with is not being allowed to better myself and potential save my own life and my fire team partners.  That's how I look at aftermarket rig.  As a potential life saver because it can hold more essential kit, more ammo, and quicker draws with that ammo getting the rounds down range quicker. 
No one here is saying the want to do permanent mods to their wpns or helmets or flak vests, or carry side arms etc.  Do I want better body armour.  Sure do but 1, I can't afford it and 2, I'm trying to pick my battles.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Apr 2006)

One last point (for now I suppose).  Most soldiers who buy kit don't do it for change sake but it makes them more comfortable, safier, or that much better with their kit.


----------



## Unknown C/S (5 Apr 2006)

CFL

Point taken, My concern would be the soldier who bought the wrong kit, ie: an old C2 vest and then went to wal-mart and picked up some boots (just for example) The soldier does not have the money for the Gucci Kit but tries anyway....................
Or the young soldier with 5 kids and a spouse that does not work, just scraping by as it is, he can't afford all the high tech stuff. Is he now a liability?

Does the unit kit shop stock the equipment that is "unofficially" authorized? would they have a deferred payment plan?

Just my view


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2006)

I think what the problem that some have [ myself included] is that how can we be sure some 19 year old first tour guy isn't going to be thinking LCF before personal safety?

..and the arguement about "authorized" dealers/ kit is not a strong one either. I walked down Canal street in Chinatown about 3 weeks ago.....who knew Oakley glasses,Rolex watches and Gucci purses could cost so little......

EDIT: Unknown C/S posted it before I did however......


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2006)

Quote from Unknown C/S,
_Does the unit kit shop stock the equipment that is "unofficially" authorized? would they have a deferred payment plan?_

Now, this is the kind of thinking that might help.............


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Apr 2006)

Our kit shop as sold stuff such as Magpul Ranger Tabs and their standard pulls.  (helps get the mag out quicker).  I also don't think they would not stock other kit if the need presented itself.
Your right a new soldier may screw himself intially that's why I personally think the troops should use the kit in Canada first.  That said he would have his intial issue as back up.  (make it an SOP to have your issued stuff on standby as it were).  Also by having select aftermarket companies you would hope they would be held to a higher standard.
The troop without the aftermarket kit may be more uncomfortable then the next guy.  Liability comes into play when he has to go to his patrol pack to get more ammo or can't get his grenade out quick enough.  I suppose then he would be a liablity.  Bottom line is that you can squeak by as a front line troop with the issued gear but have options available.


----------



## spartan031 (5 Apr 2006)

The TV only holds 4 mags and that isn't very much.

If you run out of ammo a knife isn't going to be much help in a gunfight no matter what kit your wearing.


----------



## COBRA-6 (5 Apr 2006)

Unknown C/S said:
			
		

> Point taken, My concern would be the soldier who bought the wrong kit, ie: an old C2 vest and then went to wal-mart and picked up some boots (just for example) The soldier does not have the money for the Gucci Kit but tries anyway....................



That's where the section and platoon leadership should come into play, making sure the soldier is using *high-quality * and *functional* kit, and that the gear is tested and the bumps worked out *before* they hit the sandbox...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Apr 2006)

As far as chest rigs go, I'm not sure there is much LCF there.
You are right, one can buy knock off Oakleys or whatever but if I knew someone in my section was using crap I'd sort him out quick fast and in a hurry.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2006)

But again CFL, and I do agree with soldiers being able to have an ability to "go with what works", just how does one find out he/she bought a knock-off pair of Oakleys? Well its usually when needed most...........untill then they don't look like " someone in my section was using crap "...........I go back to Unknown C/S's idea about the QM's having the "right" stuff to sell as a great idea.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Apr 2006)

Simple remidy would be to use the kit in Canada first.


----------



## DG-41 (5 Apr 2006)

I can almost envision a unit-run CTS-esque cell, where kit is tested, and goes onto an "approved" list or not.....


DG


----------



## Daidalous (5 Apr 2006)

Just to add to this discussion.  On the Ticker on CNN, All US military personal heading to Iraq or Afghanistan will no longer be allowed to use there own Body armor.  Seems a new company has won a contract to supply cutting edge body armor.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Apr 2006)

Well isn't that nice.  We'll have to wait and see how cutting edge it is.


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Apr 2006)

I think CFL's earlier post (#46) is the most logical and reasonable of the many that I have read so far. I have taken a "sit on the fence" approach so far, in that I like a lot of the kit we have been issued (in that I would use it no questions asked, and not think about replacing it with aftermarket/non-issue stuff), but I hate some, and have gone the aftermarket route for a lot of items: boots, gloves, eyewear (before the Ballistic Glasses, but I would prefer to see a Ballistic Dust Goggle that is better than what I have seen issued in the past), knee-pads and elbow-pads (before they were issued), toques, etc, etc. I don't think that there is room for either A) NO NON-ISSUED KIT, PERIOD!!!!! or B) a kit free for all (anything goes). Aesthetics doesn't keep soldiers warm, dry, comfortable, effective and/or safe, but LCF doesn't guarantee protection or effectiveness. There has to be a middle-road, and perhaps a certain amount of blind-eyes turned in some regards (commanders accept that the issue kit may suck mad ass, and allow their soldiers to adapt as neccesary, spending the unit's budget is required, or allowing soldiers to replace CERTAIN pieces of kit out of their own pocket). 

When we have soldiers on the ground overseas (or training for overseas deployment), we have to lose the Garrison mentality. But when a soldier is in Garrison, accept that you will wear what you are bloody well told. If think we CAN have it both ways: uniformity/conformity when in the public eye (DEU parades, dress of the day at work), but the ability to allow commanders on the ground the leeway to dictate what their soldiers wear/use to perform their tasks. That requires a change in attitude (from our Garrison-style mentality), but also a willingness to understand that there are reasons (how valid could be argued until the cows come home) that any given piece of gear is the way it is, just BECAUSE. 

One last note: when I was a young soldier in Petawawa, I really, really wanted to buy a pair of Matterhorns, because I recognized that the issue boots sucked ass. This was before Goretex socks were issued (I'm not saying they didn't exist in the civilian marketplace, I'm just saying they weren't issue - if you follow my drift). Anyway, non-issue boots were a somewhat grey-area, with the SSM having final say, and I didn't like the prospect of dropping ~$250 on boots I *might* be able to wear. Anyway, when I asked if we could wear them, I was told no. When I asked why, here is the explanation I was given: "Well, if you are in a trench with your buddy, and he has wet boots because he has Mk III's and can't afford Matterhorns, his morale will drop [because I would be warm, dry and most likely alert]". THAT type of mentality is what has got us to the point where we are. Yes it would suck if Pte Bloggins can't afford/doesn't want to buy the "Gucci" gear, but should that stop Cpl Snrub from buying it? Well, depending on your viewpoint is what will effect whether you answer "Hell, no!!!" or "Well, yeah, cuz that ain't fair for Pte Bloggins". 

Al


----------



## GO!!! (6 Apr 2006)

To echo CFL, we are not insufferable individualists that will purchase every available piece of kit in existence to satiate our desire to be different. I find it personally insulting to imply otherwise.

I purchase kit when I find that the army stuff does not suit my uses for it, and I can do it without making too many waves. The best kit is the stuff that keeps you warm and dry and under the CSMs radar. The idea that troops would spend hundreds on kit to "look different" is stupid, and harkens back to a time when all troops were treated like children, all the time. If my issue kit was adeuate, I would use it, FULL STOP.

Al is right when he states that we must get away from the Garrison, or Garatrooper mentality, it is simply not practical. When I am strutting around edmonton, I blouse my boots, and wear issue gloves and headgear. When we are in the field, I have a green wind-proof touque, gloves which do not absorb water and a nice pair of Danners. 

To extend this argument to the load carriage equipment issue, a great number of soldiers (including several officers) have posted here that the standard load for troops overseas is 10 mags. Whether or not the school, or anyone else agrees that this is the case is immaterial - That is the reality on the ground. Given that Kandahar can hit 50 degrees celsius in the summer, it is impractical, nay, just plain dumb to expect troops to sacrifice water for ammunition. As a result, the commander on the ground authorised the use of adequate equipment. It was/is a good call, and should not be sacrificed on the altar of "uniformity".


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Apr 2006)

Wow I think there is a blue moon out there tonight.


----------



## darmil (27 Nov 2007)

Is there anybody thats on TF108 get the O group stating that we are not allow to wear any non issue kit over seas?No chest rigs, no boot,gloves,pistol holsters not  even goggles.WTF. :


----------



## medaid (27 Nov 2007)

MikeH said:
			
		

> Is there anybody thats on TF108 get the O group stating that we are not allow to wear any non issue kit over seas?No chest rigs, no boot,gloves,pistol holsters not  even goggles.WTF. :



no boots? That sucks mate... I guess fighting would be pretty hard in bare feet... heard it's cold right now 

But seriously on boots, didn't a CANFORGEN come out saying that if it's Black, Military looking, and has been utilized at one point or another by the CF, issued out to soldiers, airmen and sailors, that it's now GTG? Vern?


----------



## COBRA-6 (27 Nov 2007)

MikeH said:
			
		

> Is there anybody thats on TF108 get the O group stating that we are not allow to wear any non issue kit over seas?No chest rigs, no boot,gloves,pistol holsters not  even goggles.WTF. :



I think this has happened to every roto so far, when the TF hits theatre and gets outside the wire things tend to loosen up from what people have posted here.


----------



## Armymedic (27 Nov 2007)

Re: boots. There is not so much of a debate of black boots in Afghanistan....as everyone wears tan.

Like Cobra said, every tour get told that at least once during predeployment and in theater. You've read it here I am sure.


----------



## KevinB (27 Nov 2007)

So basically every piece of kit that units put in UCR's for...

 Hmm


----------



## WLSC (27 Nov 2007)

The current JTFA staff make a point, a really strong point to make sure that wath is seen on TV and in newspaper ic Cdn issue kit.  Not even the shamag is accepted  :-\


----------



## Osotogari (27 Nov 2007)

> The current JTFA staff make a point, a really strong point to make sure that wath is seen on TV and in newspaper ic Cdn issue kit.  Not even the shamag is accepted



It's all part of the effort to counter the fact that the emperor has no clothes WRT the issue tac vest, boots, and combat jacket, just to name a few.  Hopefully this is as close as my generation will come to the Ross Rifle debacle.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Nov 2007)

The current JTFA staff make a point, a really strong point to make sure that wath is seen on TV and in newspaper ic Cdn issue kit.  Not even the shamag is accepted  

That fails the "so what" test on a number of counts. I suspect the average Canadian doesn't sit in from of the tube watching for non-uniform items. Now, it may be a different matter for the CTS crowd . . .


----------



## WLSC (27 Nov 2007)

> That fails the "so what" test on a number of counts. I suspect the average Canadian doesn't sit in from of the tube watching for non-uniform items. Now, it may be a different matter for the CTS crowd . . .



Yap but their is people in Ottawa that doing just that, look at TV and pic in the paper...


----------



## Danjanou (27 Nov 2007)

FusMR said:
			
		

> Yap but their is people in Ottawa that doing just that, look at TV and pic in the paper...



And that boys and girls is your tax dollars at work :


----------



## armyvern (27 Nov 2007)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> That fails the "so what" test on a number of counts. I suspect the average Canadian doesn't sit in from of the tube watching for non-uniform items. Now, it may be a different matter for the CTS crowd . . .



I'd go even further on this point -- I'd argue that the average Canadian doesn't even have a clue as to what IS a Canadian piece of kit or not, even were they sitting watching us on the tube and are further in the dark as to whether or not the kit item actually serves the pointy end well. Then again, the average Canadian would also assume that because the soldier they see IS wearing it -- that it MUST work.

I guess, the "making it seen" is enforcing the erroneus belief that "it works" in the public eye. Saving someone an explanation as to why there are so MANY unsats, noted defeciencies, and UCRs on some of those same "seen" kit items from *those who are actually** using  ** the kit when the shit hits the fan* ...


----------



## WLSC (27 Nov 2007)

> I guess, the "making it seen" is enforcing the erroneus belief that "it works" in the public eye. Saving someone an explanation ...



I would agree totally.  And the big visual ''every bidy look the same factor''  In general, not bad kit but need evolution.  But by doiing so, someone will have to explain why their scientific answer do not match reality


----------



## Kiwi99 (27 Nov 2007)

Whats disturbing about this possible comment about non issue kit, and yes I know every roto says it, is the fact that even after two years in Kandahar, people refuse to listen to the comments made by previous tours that state quite simply-theis piece of kit is crap!  From the TAC VEST to the glare of lights on ballistic goggles.  Boots and gloves.  It's all the same.  If a commander wants to be all cool and regimental and stuff, good for him.  But at least take the time to read previous reports about the quality of kit first.  Oh well, such is the professional envy\jealousy in this army today.  How many new commanders in theater have sauid that they are going to do it the right way and not take any casulties, won't make the same mistakes as the roto they were replacing, blah blash, blah.


----------



## armyvern (27 Nov 2007)

FusMR said:
			
		

> I would agree totally.  And the big visual ''every bidy look the same factor''  In general, not bad kit but need evolution.  But by doiing so, someone will have to explain why their scientific answer do not match reality



The answer is ...

"Because the troops are not using the kit properly."  :

The truth is though that the soldiers aren't using it properly, because the kit won't/doesn't/can't and ISN'T performing when used "as per the CTS instruction manual" on the front line ... in real world battlefield time. And those guys & gals keep on saying so ... over and over and over ...

My personal thoughts? It's been battlefield tested -- and a heck of a lot of it failed miserably.


----------



## WLSC (27 Nov 2007)

Yep, but hey, who are we tu disagre with a scientific evaluation by bureaucrat in unuform in an office in Ottawa !!  :-\


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Nov 2007)

I hope they start cracking down on haircuts and boot blousing while they are at it.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I hope they start cracking down on haircuts and boot blousing while they are at it.


And shaving.  I mean, why issue troops water if all they are going to do is drink it?

:


----------



## JBoyd (27 Nov 2007)

could the reason not be somewhere on the lines of liability? What would happen if someone was using something they had not been issued and OK'd for use overseas and something serious happened because of that?

Also I could definately see it being something similar to loyalty with other jobs in the civie world, along with standards of uniform. For instance, if you work at Future Shop and in the winter & they 'issue' you a long sleeved red shirt with festive icons on it, they want you to wear it while you're at work... not another long sleeved red shirt that may be warmer or fits better.. or etc..


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Nov 2007)

One analogy is the sports analogy.  Look at the Toronto Maple Leafs.  They all wear Blue and White jerseys, and the jerseys are uniform.  That's about it.  Yes, the helmets are blue (or white on the road), but each has their own.  They still look like the Toronto Maple Leafs to me.
Solution: have a "set" of authorised dealers in "stuff".  That "stuff" then eliminates the "liability" issue.  The "stuff" is warranted by the manufacturer, and the users will determine which "stuff" is best.  That's my solution.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> Also I could definately see it being something similar to loyalty with other jobs in the civie world, along with standards of uniform. For instance, if you work at Future Shop and in the winter & they 'issue' you a long sleeved red shirt with festive icons on it, they want you to wear it while you're at work... not another long sleeved red shirt that may be warmer or fits better.. or etc..



Wow.....we're futureshop now ?

 :


----------



## MG34 (27 Nov 2007)

The way I saw it is that if some REMF pogue wanted to take the chest rig, Knight's Armament M5/M4RAS, ACOG,VLTOR butt stock,etc from me they could damn well have come out to where I was to try and do it, the same applied (applies) to the troops I command. I have yet to have one of the kit nazies take up the challenge, they can quote all the CANFORGEN/LANDGEN they want, I will not order the men under my command to wear the issued crap when they are willing to purchase better equipment.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Nov 2007)

I gave up the fight for comfortable gear on this roto. The one thing I will not give up is my SWAT boots. I'll take the charge on that one, after the medical system didn't allow me to get a chit for them. I mean, I have a hard enough time with my issued holster, and I'm not one of the pointy end types that require it quickly. Heck, how do you guys even fit in the copola of the LAV III with the issued tacvest on? I'm a skinny lad, and don't fit into a Bison CC hatch with my frag vest and tacvest on, and it seems wider.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Nov 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> I will not order the men under my command to wear the issued crap when they are willing to purchase better equipment.



I wish those in the puzzle palace thought the same way.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Nov 2007)

SuperSlug said:
			
		

> I gave up the fight for comfortable gear on this roto. The one thing I will not give up is my SWAT boots. I'll take the charge on that one, after the medical system didn't allow me to get a chit for them. I mean, I have a hard enough time with my issued holster, and I'm not one of the pointy end types that require it quickly. Heck, how do you guys even fit in the copola of the LAV III with the issued tacvest on? I'm a skinny lad, and don't fit into a Bison CC hatch with my frag vest and tacvest on, and it seems wider.



I can't speak for any other Roto but on ours we didn't wear the TV or any other Chest Rig for that matter in the turret.


----------



## JBoyd (27 Nov 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Wow.....we're futureshop now ?
> 
> :



No, you are not. My point was that some employers have uniform standards and the CF is a job, and they wish their employees to use the kit they provide. Don't get me wrong im all for using better equipment for any given situation, I was mearly pointing out something that did not seem to or had not been brought up before in this particular thread.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> No, you are not. My point was that some employers have uniform standards and the CF is a job, and they wish their employees to use the kit they provide. Don't get me wrong im all for using better equipment for any given situation, I was mearly pointing out something that did not seem to or had not been brought up before in this particular thread.



Is that futureshop employee going to get killed because his/her red sweater is inadequate ?

Give your head a shake


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> could the reason not be somewhere on the lines of liability? What would happen if someone was using something they had not been issued and OK'd for use overseas and something serious happened because of that?
> 
> Also I could definately see it being something similar to loyalty with other jobs in the civie world, along with standards of uniform. For instance, if you work at Future Shop and in the winter & they 'issue' you a long sleeved red shirt with festive icons on it, they want you to wear it while you're at work... not another long sleeved red shirt that may be warmer or fits better.. or etc..



You're RTFO'er.

There's a big difference between Afghanistan and futureshop. People aren't trying to kill you at futureshop.

The shirt you wear at Futureshop isn't going to affect your ability to sell/stock/cash etc.

The difference in equipment you wear in Afghanistan can change CAN affect your personal operational standards, if making you more efficient, maybe saving your life, preventing minor injuries, etc.

You my friend, are comparing a single grape to an entire orchard of oranges. Stick to your lanes.


----------



## DirtyDog (27 Nov 2007)

SuperSlug said:
			
		

> I gave up the fight for comfortable gear on this roto. The one thing I will not give up is my SWAT boots. I'll take the charge on that one, after the medical system didn't allow me to get a chit for them. I mean, I have a hard enough time with my issued holster, and I'm not one of the pointy end types that require it quickly. Heck, how do you guys even fit in the copola of the LAV III with the issued tacvest on? I'm a skinny lad, and don't fit into a Bison CC hatch with my frag vest and tacvest on, and it seems wider.


Atleast bring your personal kit with you.  From the guys I talked to on 3-06, they were told not chest rigs etc., which of course changed after some time in theatre where they were then able to open their barrack boxes and pull out the chest rigs they had packed.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Nov 2007)

And Be careful what and who you buy from.  An ill sewn aftermarket Chest Rig could be more dangerous then the issued junk.

We have TF 1-08  guys "trialing" rigs here right now and I think if that they continue to trial them oversea's management will be hard pressed to remember who was trialing and who wasn't.


----------



## TN2IC (27 Nov 2007)

JBoyd,
        there is a saying in the military. "Only a fool makes him/herself uncomftable in the field."

And MG34, 
               I agree with your statement. Just not the usage of some words.  ;D



> The way I saw it is that if some REMF pogue wanted to take the chest rig, Knight's Armament M5/M4RAS, ACOG,VLTOR butt stock,etc from me they could damn well have come out to where I was to try and do it, the same applied (applies) to the troops I command. I have yet to have one of the kit nazies take up the challenge, they can quote all the CANFORGEN/LANDGEN they want, I will not order the men under my command to wear the issued crap when they are willing to purchase better equipment




Note: Spell Check is N/S for me now while on DIN. Hoping I'm in the clear here.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Nov 2007)

It's unfortunate that common sense seems so rare.  Anyone else remember the "American Rain Gear" rules prevalent on so many bases in the 80s and 90s: Don't wear it in garrison, but it's fine for the field.

Seems like we need a similar dose of common sense now...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Nov 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> There's a big difference between Afghanistan and futureshop. People aren't trying to kill you at futureshop.



You're not from Toronto are you? ;D


----------



## riggermade (27 Nov 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Atleast bring your personal kit with you.  From the guys I talked to on 3-06, they were told not chest rigs etc., which of course changed after some time in theatre where they were then able to open their barrack boxes and pull out the chest rigs they had packed.



It has happened every tour...too bad guys couldn't train with it before they went over


----------



## medaid (27 Nov 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Re: boots. There is not so much of a debate of black boots in Afghanistan....as everyone wears tan.



No no, I was talking about at home, not in the box.


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Nov 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're not from Toronto are you? ;D



lol, fair enough, no. But until futureshop starts issuing their people with BA, the comparison is invalid.


----------



## amastermason (27 Nov 2007)

Cumon people, if the CTS staff says the kit is great and works ideal in a war zone enviroment, then it does.  The generals say it was tested to high standards, so it will work.  Why would they issue sub-standard kit to us? :skull:


----------



## medaid (27 Nov 2007)

amastermason said:
			
		

> Cumon people, if the CTS staff says the kit is great and works ideal in a war zone enviroment, then it does.  The generals say it was tested to high standards, so it will work.  Why would they issue sub-standard kit to us? :skull:




Okay, I really hope you're kidding, and by the look of your profile  I'd say you are.... need a  not a  :skull: man  hahahaha.


----------



## RCR Grunt (27 Nov 2007)

I have 2 comments ...

1)  As per the issue of liability.  No agency, not VAC or SISIP, will refuse you coverage based on what you were wearing at the time of injury, period.  I've made the calls, I've asked the questions, this is an invalid argument against unissued kit.

2)  The problems with CTS all boil down to one thing, job security.  If you're hoping that CTS will hold itself accountable for some of the terrible items it has approved for issue, you're dreaming.  If CTS ever suggested a switch to troops purchasing OTS equipment from a pre-approved list of kit, they would be out of a job.  Those personnel previously flying a desk would then be posted back to a unit, possibly a deployable unit, and who wants to deploy anyways?  Its dangerous!  There are too many desk jockeys in Kingston and Toronto doing "studies" and "trials" and looking into "human factors" for any real change to come without a fight.  In my mind, it is they who promulgate the "parade square" mentality by not allowing other ideas reference kit to come to the surface.

As you can tell, I don't like CTS, and I think they should be disbanded.  The money they waste could be better spent anywhere else in the CF.  I know this isn't the "lets bash CTS" thread, but its they who push this crap kit on us, and its that crap kit that the soldiers go out and spend their hard earned dollars on to replace with functioning kit that meets their requirements.  

As has been stated, all it will take is one good TIC for the reins to loosen.  In the meantime, send in those UCR's (cuz CTS doesn't get enough use out of their shredder) and push your CoC to look at the high speed stuff thats out there.  Good luck.


----------



## PhilB (27 Nov 2007)

MikeH,

I'm not sure who you are with (NSE maybe?) but at least for the BG we were told that certain items of non issue kit were good to go. i.e. boots - must be desert and look military, gloves - any really except fingerless gloves, chest rigs - they gave us a list of approved rigs which included the CP Gear MOFOCR, Arkitis rigs, Dropzone rigs, and the HSGI Warlord. We have not heard any different so, at least for us, most stuff is pretty much good for wear. I'm not sure whats up with your chain, is it just your particular chain that is saying this?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Nov 2007)

In some cases the info that flows down the chain changes and morphs by the time it gets to the troops.


----------



## RCR Grunt (27 Nov 2007)

... A case of the old "broken telephone" game.  Where "watch your footing" can be easily distorted to "chocolate pudding."


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Nov 2007)

This may sound stupid, but forgive me...

If this stays firm ( I hope for deploying pers, it does not) can you just take the charge and wear the gear you need? I know I personally could not perform as well with some kit issued... e.g.  boots


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2007)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> This may sound stupid, but forgive me...
> 
> If this stays firm ( I hope for deploying pers, it does not) can you just take the charge and wear the gear you need?



And then be charged again for the same thing....having been charged once already for the same infraction ? The snowball effect will kick into high gear there.

Nice advice


----------



## WLSC (27 Nov 2007)

For the boots, right now its something like if it is from the PX or the brits store, it's ok.  As long that it's tan


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Nov 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And then be charged again for the same thing....having been charged once already for the same infraction ? The snowball effect will kick into high gear there.
> 
> Nice advice



Seen. 

I guess I was just curious if the powers that be would actually pursue it repeatedly. 

Thanks for the correction.


----------



## medaid (27 Nov 2007)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Seen.
> 
> I guess I was just curious if the powers that be would actually pursue it repeatedly.
> 
> Thanks for the correction.



Strange, I have heard this line of argument not less then 24hrs ago from another soldier...


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2007)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Seen.
> 
> I guess I was just curious if the powers that be would actually pursue it repeatedly.
> 
> Thanks for the correction.



Look at it this way...

You are a CO and say "no non-issued kit"

Cpl Bloggins showes up with non issued kit

You charge him with disobeying a direct order and he is fined $500

2 days later you see Cpl Bloggins again with unissued kit.....

What do you think is going to happen ?


I'm not saying that a "non-issued kit" policy is right.....just looking at it from a command perspective and the perspective of someone whos been in shyt for doing the same stuff after being charged for it.


----------



## Donut (27 Nov 2007)

PhilB said:
			
		

> MikeH,
> 
> I'm not sure who you are with (NSE maybe?) but at least for the BG we were told that certain items of non issue kit were good to go. i.e. boots - must be desert and look military, gloves - any really except fingerless gloves, chest rigs - they gave us a list of approved rigs which included the CP Gear MOFOCR, Arkitis rigs, Dropzone rigs, and the HSGI Warlord. We have not heard any different so, at least for us, most stuff is pretty much good for wear. I'm not sure whats up with your chain, is it just your particular chain that is saying this?



HSS Coy got the same direction (no non-issue kit) today.  The specific items mentioned were vests, eyewear, and boots.  Then we were told to bring it anyway, and squirrel it away for outside the wire or after the change of command midway through the deployment.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Nov 2007)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> change of command midway through the deployment.



could you elaborate on this?


----------



## Neill McKay (27 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> Also I could definately see it being something similar to loyalty with other jobs in the civie world, along with standards of uniform. For instance, if you work at Future Shop and in the winter & they 'issue' you a long sleeved red shirt with festive icons on it, they want you to wear it while you're at work... not another long sleeved red shirt that may be warmer or fits better.. or etc..



Your logic is reasonable, and it applies pretty well to offices, workshops, classrooms, warehouses, *especially* parade squares, and similar environments at CF bases in Canada.

The difference when one is deployed is that the finer points of uniformity often have to take a back seat to practicality.  It's not possible to test uniforms under deployed conditions until someone deploys with them, and now that people are doing just that they're finding problems.

Some rules that work on the parade square don't work in the field.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Nov 2007)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> The difference when one is deployed is that the finer points of uniformity often have to take a back seat to practicality.



You best put on a muzzle cause your talking crazy and there may be a black helicopter come by to pick you up in the near future if you continue to try and make sense.


----------



## Armymedic (27 Nov 2007)

Not to add fuel to the fire....

Ok I am.  >

How come when I look at the cbt camera photos of the Vandoo BG, and in almost 99% of the pictures they are wearing the issued vest and using only issued gear.  It is obviously good enough for that honourable regiment. Why is it not good enough for the squareheads in our army?


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Nov 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Not to add fuel to the fire....
> 
> Ok I am.  >
> 
> How come when I look at the cbt camera photos of the Vandoo BG, and in almost 99% of the pictures they are wearing the issued vest and using only issued gear.  It is obviously good enough for that honourable regiment. Why is it not good enough for the squareheads in our army?



Maybe... 

 They put the vest on only for photos...  ;D


----------



## Donut (27 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> could you elaborate on this?



PM on it's way.


----------



## Blakey (27 Nov 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Not to add fuel to the fire....
> 
> Ok I am.  >
> 
> How come when I look at the cbt camera photos of the Vandoo BG, and in almost 99% of the pictures they are wearing the issued vest and using only issued gear.  It is obviously good enough for that honourable regiment. Why is it not good enough for the squareheads in our army?


The images get vetted in Ottawa prior to being released.

EDIT: Well, most of TF 1-08 has been issued the new rucksack (Bergen) from the folks a CTS, sure wish I would have had this twomonths ago (while in the field) so that I could have gotten comfy with it.  :......


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2007)

PhotoShop?


----------



## Blakey (27 Nov 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> PhotoShop?


No, vetted for OPSEC and appropriateness.

EDIT: Actually, PS is used in some aspects of post production of the images.

Just think (or have a gander at the site, Cbt Camera), how many images have actually been posted that shows Canadian Soldiers in a TIC? and by that I mean putting rounds down range while engaged with the enemy.


----------



## Armymedic (27 Nov 2007)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> The images get vetted in Ottawa prior to being released.



Hey, I am trying to paddle some poo here!


----------



## Blakey (27 Nov 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Hey, I am trying to paddle some poo here!


Stroke....


----------



## Gunner98 (27 Nov 2007)

This policy will be hard to enforce as many CWOs in various stages of deployment are wearing 'trial boots' provide by the CF Clothing Committee and these boots look a lot like those that soldiers are buying.  

"I'm sorry Pte but you can wear these boots because I have not finished the trial yet.  I think they are great but get them off your feet before someone takes a picture." :


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2007)

Some days i miss the army.....some days i do not  ;D


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Nov 2007)

I always found that was a good way to answer at KAF.

"Why are you wearing those non-issue converse boots?"

"I'm trialling them"


----------



## Haggis (27 Nov 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> I always found that was a good way to answer at KAF.
> 
> "Why are you wearing those non-issue converse boots?"
> 
> "I'm trialling them"



So, Des, "who wants to know?" wouldn't be an acceptable answer?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Nov 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's unfortunate that common sense seems so rare.  Anyone else remember the "American Rain Gear" rules prevalent on so many bases in the 80s and 90s: Don't wear it in garrison, but it's fine for the field.
> 
> Seems like we need a similar dose of common sense now...



They still say that at CFSME to all staff and students. Guess they are still in the time warp.


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Nov 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So, Des, "who wants to know?" wouldn't be an acceptable answer?



Might work at your rank level, Haggis, but not so well at mine


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Nov 2007)

Hey, it's raining and snowing out now, and I'm in the field.  Can I trial a new rainjacket please?  I realise that it's not an urgent operational requirement, but I am getting wet and cold.  I mean, it's not even 1/10th the price of one Globemaster to outfit 25,000 soldiers with rainjackets.  I mean, sometimes, good enough is what's needed.  


Well, since nobody heard me, I'll just wear something non-issue and if anyone tells me to take it off, I'll just smile politely and put it on UNDER my issue stuff, so that I have the appearance required.

Remember this for my tombstone: IT IS BETTER TO BE SEEN AS GOOD THAN TO ACTUALLY BE GOOD.


Then kick someone in the junk for me.


----------



## Haggis (27 Nov 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> Might work at your rank level, Haggis, but not so well at mine



Take off your slip on.   Slap on a pair of Oakleys and avoid the barber for a bit.  *Poof!*  You're now from "The Hill".


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Take off your slip on.   Slap on a pair of Oakleys and avoid the barber for a bit.  *Poof!*  You're now from "The Hill".



or in the air force...... ;D


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Nov 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Take off your slip on.   Slap on a pair of Oakleys and avoid the barber for a bit.  *Poof!*  You're now from "The Hill".



LOL I'll try to see how that goes for me on 1-09


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Nov 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Take off your slip on.   Slap on a pair of Oakleys and avoid the barber for a bit.  *Poof!*  You're now from *"The Hill".*


Parliament Hill?  


I don't get it....


----------



## darmil (27 Nov 2007)

> MikeH,
> 
> I'm not sure who you are with (NSE maybe?) but at least for the BG we were told that certain items of non issue kit were good to go. i.e. boots - must be desert and look military, gloves - any really except fingerless gloves, chest rigs - they gave us a list of approved rigs which included the CP Gear MOFOCR, Arkitis rigs, Dropzone rigs, and the HSGI Warlord. We have not heard any different so, at least for us, most stuff is pretty much good for wear. I'm not sure whats up with your chain, is it just your particular chain that is saying this?



PhilB yes I'm part of the NSE FP you know which platoon.We where told no non issue kit I'm still going to bring my boots ,gloves,chest rig and holster.I have a feeling its just my gay COC but I guess this order came from 5BG.The word is there is people looking around at FOBS.They know that we will switch out Tac vest for chest rig once outside the wire not sure if this is just a scare tactic or what.My plt was told that the changeover is in march sometime.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Nov 2007)

I have no idea who or what your COC is.  I don't care.  All I know is that if people are running around in a war zone, making sure that the TVs the troops are wearing are issue, along with boots, socks and so forth, then we're going to lose this war.


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Nov 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I have no idea who or what your COC is.  I don't care.  All I know is that if people are running around in a war zone, making sure that the TVs the troops are wearing are issue, along with boots, socks and so forth, then we're going to lose this war.



I do know of his CoC, and I sincerely hope it doesn't last. Or at least some of the decisions lacking common sense.


----------



## Haggis (27 Nov 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Parliament Hill?



Look a little southwest of there.  On that hill he'd need a Saville Row suit and a briefcase.



			
				Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I don't get it....



That's OK.  Even if you did, we couldn't tell you that you were right.


----------



## darmil (28 Nov 2007)

The kit narcs at FOBs are not from my COC.We where told this about the roto over right now.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Nov 2007)

Well if they aren't in your chain then tell whom ever it is that you have a chit but unfortunately left it back in KAF.


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Well if they aren't in your chain then tell whom ever it is that you have a chit but unfortunately left it back in KAF.



So then, if they happen to bump into him in KAF ... and find out he's lying ... (or ask for ID/take his name - last 3 etc) ... he's fucked twice?? Because really, anyone in authority can simply get ahold of the clothing section and ask "XXX Bloggins -- is there a chit on his docs for non-issue footwear?" It's happened before, quite frequently actually.

Niiii-iiiice advice.

He'd be in more shit from me for the blatant lying than the boots.


----------



## RCR Grunt (28 Nov 2007)

.... Just scream "Incoming!!!" and scurry off to hide somewhere, I'm sure the kit nazi's will forget all about your functioning kit as they scramble for cover.  Kidding.  Don't do that.  Thats a joke.


----------



## Canadian Sig (28 Nov 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Hey, it's raining and snowing out now, and I'm in the field.  Can I trial a new rainjacket please?  I realise that it's not an urgent operational requirement, but I am getting wet and cold.  I mean, it's not even 1/10th the price of one Globemaster to outfit 25,000 soldiers with rainjackets.  I mean, sometimes, good enough is what's needed.
> 
> 
> Well, since nobody heard me, I'll just wear something non-issue and if anyone tells me to take it off, I'll just smile politely and put it on UNDER my issue stuff, so that I have the appearance required.
> ...



Someone must have been listening. I got issued my new raingear the otherday.  ;D  Pockets on the sleeves and all.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Nov 2007)

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> Someone must have been listening. I got issued my new raingear the otherday.  ;D  Pockets on the sleeves and all.


Is it raining where you are?  If so, outstanding.  If not, find me (in the field) and I'll "trial" it for you ;D


----------



## Canadian Sig (28 Nov 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Is it raining where you are?  If so, outstanding.  If not, find me (in the field) and I'll "trial" it for you ;D



Sunny Petawawa....but wait 10 minutes, I'm sure the weather will change.


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2007)

Well for any of you who are interested ...

DIN Link below for the latest CTS updated briefing on kit ...

Army On-Line

Update brief provided to 3 ASG by CTS (you'll note the bit about raingear ...   )


----------



## Dirt Digger (28 Nov 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> 1)  As per the issue of liability.  No agency, not VAC or SISIP, will refuse you coverage based on what you were wearing at the time of injury, period.  I've made the calls, I've asked the questions, this is an invalid argument against unissued kit.



Liability can become an issue if a soldier has deliberately modified PPE in such a way as to defeat its intended function.  i.e. removal of kevlar from the vest.  This is more of an issue of what was "not" worn at the time of injury than what was worn.  All PPE is returned to DRDC-Toronto for analysis.



> 2)  The problems with CTS all boil down to one thing, job security.  If you're hoping that CTS will hold itself accountable for some of the terrible items it has approved for issue, you're dreaming.  If CTS ever suggested a switch to troops purchasing OTS equipment from a pre-approved list of kit, they would be out of a job.  Those personnel previously flying a desk would then be posted back to a unit, possibly a deployable unit, and who wants to deploy anyways?  Its dangerous!  There are too many desk jockeys in Kingston and Toronto doing "studies" and "trials" and looking into "human factors" for any real change to come without a fight.  In my mind, it is they who promulgate the "parade square" mentality by not allowing other ideas reference kit to come to the surface.



While you are entitled to your opinion, you should be aware of the big picture.  These "desk jockeys" in "human factors" are the reason why gloves come in _more than one size _ and you can go prone while wearing a helmet and ballistic vest _at the same time_.  They are the reason why we have rain gear that actually stays _dry_ on the inside and the reason why the 82 pattern ruck is on the way out.  Is it a slow process?  Hell yes.  They feel the same way you do about the delays; they have as much control over the kit procurement system as you do.

The ones working at DRDC-Toronto actually have Masters degrees in Human Factors, mostly from Loughbourgh University in England.  They conduct the ergonomic trials and provide recommendations for corrections.  They also have the unenviable task of working on the PPE analysis team...every piece of kit that comes back is photographed and catalogued with the intent of determining if anything could be corrected or improved to increase survivability.  Having been involved with three such events, I can tell you they are not a great way to spend a day.  As for desk jockey status, one of them was in theatre a few months ago and another is preparing for a deployment.  

If you want to fix the system, I invite you to complete a 4 year Bachelors of Science in a life science field such biology, kinesiology, ergonomics, etc. and apply to the Bioscience trade.  If accepted (usually one or two a year) you would then do a few years, most likely in Winnipeg, as an Aerospace Physiologist.  Once you reached Captain, you could then apply for that Masters Degree in Human Factors.  After two years of schooling and a thesis, you can then go through all of the effort to schedule and run a kit trial including:  ethical approval to conduct the study, finding a unit willing/available to conduct the trial, getting enough kit to outfit everyone, funding to get to the study location, conducting a couple dozen anthropometric measurements on each study volunteer, etc, etc, etc.



> As you can tell, I don't like CTS, and I think they should be disbanded.  The money they waste could be better spent anywhere else in the CF.  I know this isn't the "lets bash CTS" thread, but its they who push this crap kit on us, and its that crap kit that the soldiers go out and spend their hard earned dollars on to replace with functioning kit that meets their requirements.



While I understand your frustration, I can tell you that the individuals working behind the scenes are doing their *absolute best* to listen to the needs of the sharp end.  

Back you your regularly scheduled threat.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2007)

Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> The ones working at DRDC-Toronto actually have Masters degrees in Human Factors, mostly from Loughbourgh University in England.  They conduct the ergonomic trials and provide recommendations for corrections.  They also have the unenviable task of working on the PPE analysis team...every piece of kit that comes back is photographed and catalogued with the intent of determining if anything could be corrected or improved to increase survivability.  Having been involved with three such events, I can tell you they are not a great way to spend a day.  As for desk jockey status, one of them was in theatre a few months ago and another is preparing for a deployment.
> 
> If you want to fix the system, I invite you to complete a 4 year Bachelors of Science in a life science field such biology, kinesiology, ergonomics, etc. and apply to the Bioscience trade.  If accepted (usually one or two a year) you would then do a few years, most likely in Winnipeg, as an Aerospace Physiologist.  Once you reached Captain, you could then apply for that Masters Degree in Human Factors.  After two years of schooling and a thesis, you can then go through all of the effort to schedule and run a kit trial including:  ethical approval to conduct the study, finding a unit willing/available to conduct the trial, getting enough kit to outfit everyone, funding to get to the study location, conducting a couple dozen anthropometric measurements on each study volunteer, etc, etc, etc.



...so just when do these people recieve some meaningful field/ water/ air unit time?

My pet peeve......too much class, not enough clash.


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2007)

Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> Liability can become an issue if a soldier has deliberately modified PPE in such a way as to defeat its intended function.  i.e. removal of kevlar from the vest.  This is more of an issue of what was "not" worn at the time of injury than what was worn.  All PPE is returned to DRDC-Toronto for analysis.
> 
> While you are entitled to your opinion, you should be aware of the big picture.  These "desk jockeys" in "human factors" are the reason why gloves come in _more than one size _ and you can go prone while wearing a helmet and ballistic vest _at the same time_.  They are the reason why we have rain gear that actually stays _dry_ on the inside and the reason why the 82 pattern ruck is on the way out.  Is it a slow process?  Hell yes.  They feel the same way you do about the delays; they have as much control over the kit procurement system as you do.
> 
> ...



The 82 pattern rucksack IS NOT on it's way out. It's only disappearing for those who conduct regular dismounted operations; everyone else will be retaining their 82 pattern ruck (see the update briefing in my post below for details/breakdown).


Let's not kid ourselves ... the "desk jockeys" he is referring to are not limited to those of the "ergonomic/human factors" type that you have outlined in your post.

There are some other trades, including combat arms, flying desks in CTS.

And all the nice trials, 4 years of ergo work, and a masters degree still should_* not * _ overrule the troops when actual CONTACT/BATTLE has shown the kit is not as perfect as it seemed to be to the _'specialists'_ developing & testing it in pristine conditions in Canada, when the shit hits the fan.

And, after all, that kits reliability and ability to function as intended when the shit is actually hitting the fan is ultimately what it's all about. Now, we have a group (ever-growing) of soldiers who have worn that kit in the battlefield circumstances for which it is intended -- and they say "It doesn't work!!" And there's no Masters Degree in NATO who hasn't been there and actually DONE IT who should rightfully be able to tell them that they are wrong.


----------



## RCR Grunt (28 Nov 2007)

Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> Liability can become an issue if a soldier has deliberately modified PPE in such a way as to defeat its intended function.  i.e. removal of kevlar from the vest.  This is more of an issue of what was "not" worn at the time of injury than what was worn.  All PPE is returned to DRDC-Toronto for analysis.



Like I said, I made the calls, I asked the questions.  SISIP covers you both civvy side and military, and no one wears full PPE when they play ball hockey or drive down the 401, so they cover you 24/7.  As for VAC, if you are injured in the line of duty, it doesnt matter whether you were wearing a pink tu-tu or the latest and "greatest" CTS approved gear, as long as it was in the line of duty.  Those are the facts straight form those organizations.



			
				Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> While you are entitled to your opinion, you should be aware of the big picture.  These "desk jockeys" in "human factors" are the reason why gloves come in _more than one size _ and you can go prone while wearing a helmet and ballistic vest _at the same time_.  They are the reason why we have rain gear that actually stays _dry_ on the inside and the reason why the 82 pattern ruck is on the way out.  Is it a slow process?  Hell yes.  They feel the same way you do about the delays; they have as much control over the kit procurement system as you do.



What rain gear?  I don't have new rain gear, unless you mean the stealth suit I purchased, in that case its great.



			
				Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> The ones working at DRDC-Toronto actually have Masters degrees in Human Factors, mostly from Loughbourgh University in England.  They conduct the ergonomic trials and provide recommendations for corrections.  They also have the unenviable task of working on the PPE analysis team...every piece of kit that comes back is photographed and catalogued with the intent of determining if anything could be corrected or improved to increase survivability.  Having been involved with three such events, I can tell you they are not a great way to spend a day.  As for desk jockey status, one of them was in theatre a few months ago and another is preparing for a deployment.
> 
> If you want to fix the system, I invite you to complete a 4 year Bachelors of Science in a life science field such biology, kinesiology, ergonomics, etc. and apply to the Bioscience trade.  If accepted (usually one or two a year) you would then do a few years, most likely in Winnipeg, as an Aerospace Physiologist.  Once you reached Captain, you could then apply for that Masters Degree in Human Factors.  After two years of schooling and a thesis, you can then go through all of the effort to schedule and run a kit trial including:  ethical approval to conduct the study, finding a unit willing/available to conduct the trial, getting enough kit to outfit everyone, funding to get to the study location, conducting a couple dozen anthropometric measurements on each study volunteer, etc, etc, etc.



I think you just tossed a lot of people who were sitting on the fence on this issue straight into my yard.  Look at all your fancy degrees and qualifications.  Look at all the money.  Look at all the disconnect from the fighting soldier you have going on there.  All your studies and such cost cash, I'm just a high school grad but I can see that much.  It doesn't take a bloody rocket scientist to look around and see what pieces of kit work best.  Look south, look east across the Atlantic, ask our allies what they use.  We are a small force with a small budget, the cash your using to reinvent the back pack could be better spent elsewhere.  The time factor of issuing new kit is but one frustration of the common fighting soldier, the fact that half the time it doesn't do what it is needed to is another.  You don't need a degree in anything to realize gloves should come in more than one size.

P.S. -- Go get' em, Vern!


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Nov 2007)

Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> While I understand your frustration, I can tell you that the individuals working behind the scenes are doing their *absolute best* to listen to the needs of the sharp end.



That's what frightens me.



> masters degree still should not overrule the troops when actual CONTACT/BATTLE has shown the kit is not as perfect as it seemed to be to the 'specialists' developing & testing it in pristine conditions in Canada, when the shit hits the fan.



I think that says it all.


----------



## Dirt Digger (28 Nov 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...so just when do these people recieve some meaningful field/ water/ air unit time?
> 
> My pet peeve......too much class, not enough clash.



Due to the competition to get into the trade, most come the ranks, either as a CFR or DEO with Reserve experience.  UTPNCM has also occurred, but it's rare.  Just having a degree usually isn't enough to make selection.  Of the three currently in the cell, two have prior experience in the infantry...one Reg (PPCLI Capt) and one Res (Wpg Rifles Sgt).  The other has prior in the Air Force, although I'm not familiar with his background.  The cell also has two additional non-Bios...one is a Vandoo Capt and the other is a RMS Clerk Sgt with lots of field time.  It's a small cell, which is another limiting factor. 

However, you do bring up a valid concern with recruitment.  I would rather see the trade pull someone in from the ranks than cherry pick a PhD with a huge sloping forehead, which tend to have some issues adapting to the uniform and rank structure.  Of course, a personal view, and I don't sit on the selection board.  Winnipeg gives some field and air experience with the combined exposure as a physiologist and the SERE program.  Suffield, another Bio posting, can lead to experience in NCBD.  However the hard core field experience is as limited to the trade as it would be for a doctor (which we're often mistaken for)...which is why the field trials are so valuable.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So then, if they happen to bump into him in KAF ... and find out he's lying ... (or ask for ID/take his name - last 3 etc) ... he's fucked twice?? Because really, anyone in authority can simply get ahold of the clothing section and ask "XXX Bloggins -- is there a chit on his docs for non-issue footwear?" It's happened before, quite frequently actually.
> 
> Niiii-iiiice advice.
> 
> He'd be in more shit from me for the blatant lying than the boots.



If this person in authortity wants to clog up the admin house with a personal vendetta then I guess I'd be screwed.  He can do what he wants and so can I.  And if it were me I would lie and man up to the consequences if caught.

Speaking of lies: "While I understand your frustration, I can tell you that the individuals working behind the scenes are doing their absolute best to listen to the needs of the sharp end."

How then do you explain the hundreds of UCR's sent in on junk equipment?  Also talk to people who have trialed kit where there input was rarely factored in ie. doubling up the size of the mags on the TV.


----------



## Dirt Digger (28 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The 82 pattern rucksack IS NOT on it's way out. It's only disappearing for those who conduct regular dismounted operations; everyone else will be retaining their 82 pattern ruck (see the update briefing in my post below for details/breakdown).



Those that need it first should be in the queue to get it first, which are those in dismounted ops.  I should have been more clear about that.  In time though, the 82 pattern will be replaced.  Until then, I'm happy with my 64 pattern...  



> Let's not kid ourselves ... the "desk jockeys" he is referring to are not limited to those of the "ergonomic/human factors" type that you have outlined in your post.
> 
> There are some other trades, including combat arms, flying desks in CTS.



Which is why I stayed away from commenting on the activities of CTS itself.  The Bios are involved with one component of the entire kit procurement procedure, which is the human factors component that was commented on.



> And all the nice trials, 4 years of ergo work, and a masters degree still should_* not * _ overrule the troops when actual CONTACT/BATTLE has shown the kit is not as perfect as it seemed to be to the _'specialists'_ developing & testing it in pristine conditions in Canada, when the shit hits the fan.
> 
> And, after all, that kits reliability and ability to function as intended when the shit is actually hitting the fan is ultimately what it's all about. Now, we have a group (ever-growing) of soldiers who have worn that kit in the battlefield circumstances for which it is intended -- and they say "It doesn't work!!" And there's no Masters Degree in NATO who hasn't been there and actually DONE IT who should rightfully be able to tell them that they are wrong.



No one is saying they are wrong Vern...in fact it's on the contrary.  However, in the big picture, like many others they only have the power to test and recommend a course of action.  No one disputes the "quality" of the LSVW, but somehow it got into service.  One of the most valuable sessions involves talking with the infantry once they've returned from a deployment...however these are difficult to organize due to post-deployment leave, courses, etc, etc...  Believe me, you're not the only one feeling frustrated.


----------



## bilton090 (28 Nov 2007)

Due to the competition to get into the trade, most come the ranks, either as a CFR or DEO with Reserve experience.  UTPNCM has also occurred, but it's rare.  Just having a degree usually isn't enough to make selection.  Of the three currently in the cell, two have prior experience in the infantry...one Reg (PPCLI Capt) and one Res (Wpg Rifles Sgt).  The other has prior in the Air Force, although I'm not familiar with his background.  The cell also has two additional non-Bios...one is a Vandoo Capt and the other is a RMS Clerk Sgt with lots of field time.  It's a small cell, which is another limiting factor

        Thats the problem, they let the officers in it !, they have a problem reading a map !  :


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2007)

Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> Those that need it first should be in the queue to get it first, which are those in dismounted ops.  I should have been more clear about that.  In time though, the 82 pattern will be replaced.  Until then, I'm happy with my 64 pattern...
> 
> Which is why I stayed away from commenting on the activities of CTS itself.  The Bios are involved with one component of the entire kit procurement procedure, which is the human factors component that was commented on.
> 
> No one is saying they are wrong Vern...in fact it's on the contrary.  However, in the big picture, like many others they only have the power to test and recommend a course of action.  No one disputes the "quality" of the LSVW, but somehow it got into service.  One of the most valuable sessions involves talking with the infantry once they've returned from a deployment...however these are difficult to organize due to post-deployment leave, courses, etc, etc...  Believe me, you're not the only one feeling frustrated.



It IS NOT being replaced. See the CTS update ppt that I provided earlier in this thread; begin at page 24 for the rucksack. See the PIP on the CTS website. 

Entitlement:

"Issued on IA to Reg/Res dismounted pers working away from vehicles or camps for in excess of 24 hours."

See particularily slide # 31. There is no intention "on the table" to eventually field these to other pers besides those who conduct dismounted ops. None. There was NO intention of such stated at any CLS WGs I've attended on the issue either.

Slide 31:



> The CTS Rucksack is NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE THE 82 Pattern rucksack one for one.
> The CTS Rucksack is to be issued only to those who conduct significant dismounted operations away from vehicles Regular and Reserve.
> Infantry is the primary customer along with elements of the Artillery (FOO, FAC and Mortars), Armoured Recce, and Engineers.
> Small Pack System will be used as the main bag and accessory pouches equal 45 Litres of capacity equal to the 82 pattern rucksack.



The above is taken directly from CTSs official update briefing.

Ref your last para:

Have you seen the official response by CTS to those UCRs?? I have, and *overwhelmingly*, their official response has been that the troops are simply "_not using the kit as designed_ or that they have "not been instructed properly on it's use." No shit --the design sucks --_* it isn't working when used "as designed and instructed"*_ over in Afghanistan in the real world. And, they need to start admitting that fact and listening to the troops who are telling them this constantly ... UCR after UCR, roto after roto ... but it's always the users fault??

Gimme a break already.

Long story short??

The SME on a TAC vest as it's performance in battle??

Is the soldier who  has used it in battle on the front line, even should they be some "uneducated first year 031 private". That's THE SME and the EXPERT on the Tac Vest.

It sure ain't some "well degreed, high paid" individual who has probably never had one on their own back (wearing components of one on one's back in the lab ... don't count).


----------



## Dirt Digger (28 Nov 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> I think you just tossed a lot of people who were sitting on the fence on this issue straight into my yard.  Look at all your fancy degrees and qualifications.  Look at all the money.  Look at all the disconnect from the fighting soldier you have going on there.  All your studies and such cost cash, I'm just a high school grad but I can see that much.  It doesn't take a bloody rocket scientist to look around and see what pieces of kit work best.  Look south, look east across the Atlantic, ask our allies what they use.  We are a small force with a small budget, the cash your using to reinvent the back pack could be better spent elsewhere.  The time factor of issuing new kit is but one frustration of the common fighting soldier, the fact that half the time it doesn't do what it is needed to is another.



If they're tossed into your yard, that's fine.  If they have a better understanding of how the system is working/not working, then all the better.    I'm not disagreeing that the system is broken or that procurement takes too long, but I think you'll find disconnects with kit in every force you speak with.  I remember speaking with some individuals in the US regarding COTS purchasing...how it tended to have higher levels of acceptance due to name brand recognition (i.e. polar fleece made with Polartech...with the label _still attached_).  Should we be still be using a ruck sack that was designed in the eighties with all of the advances in tech since then?  Why do I use a 64 pattern?  Could it be because the 82 has two positions for the low back padding, neither of which really seems to fit anybody?  "Should it be reinvented?" can be answered the same way as every other kit/vehicle purchase the CF has made.

I realize that you're very passionate about this topic, but your beef is with the procurement process...not the individuals that are actually trying to get stuff to you that works.  



> You don't need a degree in anything to realize gloves should come in more than one size.



One-size-fits-all?  Three sizes in S/M/L?  Five in XS/S/M/L/XL?  Seven?  What length for the fingers?  Is there a standard finger length of 5'11" males for the North American Population that can be used for sizing?  What about 5'2" females or 6'4" females? Does the sizing serve a representative group for the Canadian Forces covering up to, or over, the 95th percentile?  How wide should the palm be?  Will the glove have inserts?  What's the burden of the supply system with 3/5/7/... sizes?  

Admin:  Why does the spell checker try to replace "One-size-fits-all" with "Incestuously"?


----------



## RCR Grunt (28 Nov 2007)

Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> If they're tossed into your yard, that's fine. If they have a better understanding of how the system is working/not working, then all the better.   I'm not disagreeing that the system is broken or that procurement takes too long, but I think you'll find disconnects with kit in every force you speak with.  I remember speaking with some individuals in the US regarding COTS purchasing...how it tended to have higher levels of acceptance due to name brand recognition (i.e. polar fleece made with Polartech...with the label _still attached_). Should we be still be using a ruck sack that was designed in the eighties with all of the advances in tech since then? Why do I use a 64 pattern? Could it be because the 82 has two positions for the low back padding, neither of which really seems to fit anybody?  "Should it be reinvented?" can be answered the same way as every other kit/vehicle purchase the CF has made.
> 
> I realize that you're very passionate about this topic, but your beef is with the procurement process...not the individuals that are actually trying to get stuff to you that works.
> 
> ...



For the size of our force, we should be going off the shelf, not designing our own kit.  If we go off the shelf, some other company has already asked those questions and found those answers, all we have to do is buy the gear.  If you compile a list of appropriate companies that make appropriate kit, then let the soldier decide which kit suits him/her, you can make people happy, up to and including the 95th percentile.  I hear Mountain Equipment Co-op makes a lovely backpack.


----------



## Garett (28 Nov 2007)

Arcteryx is a Cdn company, I'm sure they could pump this out in CADPAT for everyone in the CF for half what it cost to design and produce the new rucksack.  I bet they could produce 4-5 sizes and it would fit just as well.


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2007)

You know ...

With all the money the CF is spending to pay the high priced 'experts' to determine that all girls are not 38-26-37 red heads with size 5.6E boots and size small-long fingers to fit into mortar gloves ... study after study to tell me my finger sizes when civvy street did it years ago?? For each and every piece of kit?? So someone can claim "this was a specific CF copyrighted innovation" (think cadpat design here ....)(think - they probably got a promotion out of it too) ... even though actual BATTLEFIELD testing is proving that much of their "high-priced" help with "fully funded 40 million dollars worth of purchasing" items such as the TV --- isn't worth much at the end of the day when the kit doesn't work on the battlefield.

this outfit could AFFORD to buy each and every soldier his "one man -- one (off the rack) kit that works" -- if it cut some of the middle men between requirement identification and soldier operation. Think of the PYs and man hours saved!! Enough actual money to buy 'one man -- one kit' for their career!! (I need an award for fiscal management for this brilliant idea!!  : ) 

Soldiers CoC identifies need for (Hmmmm), let's say, (Ohhh!!) -- Chest Rigs!!

Requirement is Valid says the CoC;
Proceed to RFQ from civvy street; 
Contract to provide XXX number off-the-rack chest rigs (many types already in use & battlefield PROVEN by our allies out there);
Delivery from contractor manufacturer completed;
Issued to the troop within a very short time period.

Wow!!

Now??

Soldiers CoC identifies need for (Hmmmm), let's say, (Ohhh!!) -- Chest Rigs!!

Requirement is Valid says the CoC;
Proceed to RFQ from civvy street;  Proceed to spend millions to "develop, plan, test, ergo assess many styles/designs/layouts";
Conduct expensive Field Trails & Tests (including DRDC etc);
Send back to ergo for more million dollar re-design and rescoping; 
Proceed to RFQ (step #2 the other way!!);
Develop funding plan -- and fight to obtain it;
Contract to provide XXX number "CF INVENTED & DEVELOPED & COPYRIGHTED" chest rigs (none battlefield PROVEN, but heck ... lab proven and trialled while marching in circles around a warehouse just may qulify as "trialled" in some offices out there);
_*4 OR 5 years later ...*_
Delivery from contractor manufacturer completed;
Issued to the troop.
Troop ends up buying his own "proven" gear that actually works on the battlefield anyway... and the circle continues.

I can so see a better way ahead ... and I guarantee that I'll save this system (ie the taxpayers of Canada) money & save the actual users of this kit (ie the pointy end soldiers required to fight & die with it) some aggravation. And gee, my salary is a heck of a lot lower too!!


----------



## Dirt Digger (28 Nov 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> For the size of our force, we should be going off the shelf, not designing our own kit.  If we go off the shelf, some other company has already asked those questions and found those answers, all we have to do is buy the gear.  If you compile a list of appropriate companies that make appropriate kit, then let the soldier decide which kit suits him/her, you can make people happy, up to and including the 95th percentile.



Many designs start out as COT prototypes and are then modified.  I think what you're hitting on is the "good enough" concept and wether a COT design meets CF requirements without the whole modification process.   Obviously there are a lot of good manufactures out there, several of which post on these boards.  Do they make the cut?  Can new designs get on the approved list?  Who approves?    

Which then goes back to the often quoted tale of the RSM that wants every soldier wearing the same boot.  No matter how much your plan makes sense, I seriously doubt that it would go as far as you would like.  The US boot purchasing system makes sense...different boots for different feet.  But extending that to load-bearing vests, rucks, etc., in the eyes of the Devil's Advocate, flys in the face of the whole concept of "uniform".  Personally, I feel that if it works, use it...especially when your life is on the line.  Just convince that RSM with the throbbing forehead vein, the procurement system that takes a year (or more) to make a decision and all of the COT business that are more than willing to file the inevitable lawsuit when they don't make the final cut.  Kit should be about functionality - unfortunately that seems to be trumped by several other factors, none of which anyone here has a huge amount of control over.  You can guide the elephant, but it sits down when it wants to.



> I hear Mountain Equipment Co-op makes a lovely backpack.



Just try getting it in olive drab.    :-\   Can anyone confirm the story of MEC balking on certain "military-inspired" colours?


----------



## medaid (28 Nov 2007)

Now believe it or not, we're (ICE) in the process of designing rucks in CADPAT in the British SAS ParaBergen Style and the style that was posted for Arc'Teryx. The funny thing was that packs and cold weather/layers are what my boss does best! He came from a backpacking background, and to him, the 64 pattern is archaic, and I don't disagree with him. The thing is, we went the 64 pattern route because there were no other "approved" rucks that the RSMs/CSMs/WO/Sgt would accept over the 82. Trust me, if we got a pack design going, it would've been a nice one. We just need the CoC to trial it for them selves and then say "Yay, ICE ruck GTG" Speaking of which... any takers for T&E?  ;D


----------



## Bomber (28 Nov 2007)

Anyone from Shilo interested in commenting on their rucks today or tomorrow?  See you all in Edmonton next week to teach you how to assemble, wear, and use your new rucks.


----------



## medaid (28 Nov 2007)

Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> Many designs start out as COT prototypes and are then modified.  I think what you're hitting on is the "good enough" concept and wether a COT design meets CF requirements without the whole modification process.   Obviously there are a lot of good manufactures out there, several of which post on these boards.  Do they make the cut?  Can new designs get on the approved list?  Who approves?



That's exactly it. We need a section formed up of different personnel from different branches to just T&E equipment. No freaking design genius need apply. TRIAL: beat it to crap and put it through its paces EVAL: get what you like and don't like on paper. If it can be addressed it would be, if not, move on to the next product. 

Indeed.... it all comes down to who approves... CTS? They approve everything that's theirs.... so essentially they're both biased AND useless.



			
				Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> Which then goes back to the often quoted tale of the RSM that wants every soldier wearing the same boot.  No matter how much your plan makes sense, I seriously doubt that it would go as far as you would like.  The US boot purchasing system makes sense...different boots for different feet.  But extending that to load-bearing vests, rucks, etc., in the eyes of the Devil's Advocate, flys in the face of the whole concept of "uniform".  Personally, I feel that if it works, use it...especially when your life is on the line.  Just convince that RSM with the throbbing forehead vein, the procurement system that takes a year (or more) to make a decision and all of the COT business that are more than
> willing to file the inevitable lawsuit when they don't make the final cut.  Kit should be about functionality - unfortunately that seems to be trumped by several other factors, none of which anyone here has a huge amount of control over.  You can guide the elephant, but it sits down when it wants to.



The US already allows their troops to buy their OWN rigs and packs, they don't care about uniformity in the field as much as we apparently do. They all look the same either way, if it's the Army, their parameters are ACU? Good to go. For the MARINES it's Coyote Brown or MARPAT, good to go. For the AIRFORCE, it's TAN, CB or the new fugly ACP then it's good to go. The Deltas have their MultiCam. We need to move away from garrison uniformity, because a battle field is NOT a garrison. When you are on ops, or you are training up for ops, it's time to let the chicken sh^t go. Because eventually they're going to cave in theater, so why not train with it, get used to it, and when you are out side of the wire you're more effective with your kit? Like I said, why are we always doing things ass backwards when it comes to personal gear?



			
				Dirt Digger said:
			
		

> Just try getting it in olive drab.    :-\   Can anyone confirm the story of MEC balking on certain "military-inspired" colours?



They do. Just not on all the ones we'd like them to. Very limited CAG and CBness is available...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Nov 2007)

Nothing like taking 10 years to re-invent the wheel.  And that is exactly what CTS does.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Nov 2007)

You would be hard pressed to tell one Arid Cadpat rig from another 20 feet away.


----------



## medaid (28 Nov 2007)

Exactly my point LWQ, no one cares! It's ALL ARID! If it's being made from DND approved material i.e. CADPAT AR, what's wrong with it? "Well some material aren't the same specs, they're not IR, they are not this, they are not that" honestly? It doesn't matter. Because all of that lovely IR feature is going to be effected by the sand... It's going to be polished off and out of the fabric anyways... Oh well what do I know right? I don't work for CTS...


----------



## RCR Grunt (28 Nov 2007)

We don't need a department to do this at all, each unit can decide what they need.  Each unit has its own collection of "kit whores" who know more about who makes what and how well it works, and if not the internet is your friend.  Forums such as this one and the others are a wealth of information regarding equipment.  Gather your "kit whores" in one room, make a list of kit that is acceptable for use for your unit, disperse this list to the troops, they go into QM and "order" what they want.  

Or, have a list, troops buy what they want from the list, troops get reimbursed with an opportunity to repurchase in 2 fiscal years or upon promotion to a new rank level (i.e. Sergeants don't really carry C9's anymore, but they might carry more comms / maps / GPS type gear) 

Of course, all this gear would be in CADPAT, so in effect we would all look the same, but still be different.

I dunno if that makes much sense ... its all part of the "xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Defense reform Plan," which I really must put onto paper one of these days.


----------



## sjm (28 Nov 2007)

Firstly, posting on Army.ca is not an Olympic Event, 6,142 wow, I just crapped myself.

Having just returned from "A", all I wore was issue kit.  Being with the OMLT I was allowed to wear anything I wanted as long as under it all somewhere was the arrid cadpat.  The tacvest was phenomenal, my old issue ruck couldn't be a better fit.  We were regularly given stuff to trial.  I still have 4 pairs of prototype ballistic goggles that I have yet to eval.

Someone suggested we just buy stuff and have the troops eval it.  Good luck!  You'll have better luck finding troops at the voluntary dental clinic.  I work 3 floors directly above the DLR types starving for evaluations, have I responded directly to them, no CoC involved at all.  Of course not.  How many troops have actually filled in those IMP evals?  And no I don't want to hear from those that did reply.  Point is the troops don't eval because it's been demonstrated over many decades that they don't care.

Eventually all the kit you're issued will approach the standards to which the average Army.ca "user" aspires... a uniformed BlackWater employee.  I hear their benifits suck though.

Someone wants a bigger ruck?  Are you planning on actually patrolling with this bohemoth or just using it as a carry on bag when the BlackHawk lifts you in and out of MSG?  Having patrolled on foot regularly with the ANA big is a bad thing.  I was cutting links off my dog tag chain to save weight.  Why do you really think we only load 28 rounds in a 30 round mag?  To keep the springs fresh?  I could get new mags every week if I wanted...it was to save weight!

The only guy who carried more kit than me was the poor sod that hauled the portable ECM, and he never hauled it 14km to be sure.

From what I saw our replacements were under a strict issue only kit policy, the biggest complaint I heard was about the JR Nicols holster.  A real show stopper that one!

A soldier shall never be denied the right to complain, but the whining stays at home.

Soldier on

later


----------



## medaid (28 Nov 2007)

No it makes sense. At home and abroad. Uniformity on a parade square. What works in the field.


----------



## MG34 (28 Nov 2007)

SJM: Way to toe the party line, the Tac vest is phenominal compared to what exactly?? I would hazard a guess you have not tried anything else except for maybe  82 pattern web gear and the jean jacket vest?? 
 The CF tacvest is one of the biggest pieces of crap ever issued to a standing army, yet some of the lees informed of us still contend it is a good piece of kit, I suggest that you and the rest of your ilk get educated on what is out there,perhaps the blinders will be lifted.


----------



## MikeL (28 Nov 2007)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Anyone from Shilo interested in commenting on their rucks today or tomorrow?  See you all in Edmonton next week to teach you how to assemble, wear, and use your new rucks.



Just got mine this morning the rucks seem alright, but untill we actually get to use them a bit(for morning PT, etc) I  got no real comment on them yet.  Only thing I really got to set it up for is the BFT(after did mine for this tour, so have to wait till next year for another); I never ruck anywhere in the field, just toss it the vehicle an roll out or it stays under my cot.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Nov 2007)

sjm said:
			
		

> Firstly, posting on Army.ca is not an Olympic Event, 6,142 wow, I just crapped myself.



Nice way to start your post there sport.   :


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Nov 2007)

sjm said:
			
		

> The tacvest was phenomenal, my old issue ruck couldn't be a better fit.
> I was cutting links off my dog tag chain to save weight.
> Why do you really think we only load 28 rounds in a 30 round mag?  To keep the springs fresh?  I could get new mags every week if I wanted...it was to save weight!



LOL
Whaaaaaat?  :
Rucksack back anyone?

So you denied yourself 20 rounds out of your 10 mags to save weight? Is that a wise thing to do? You're given 10 mags for a reason, if the army wanted you to go into battle with 9 mags they would have issued you 9 wouldn't they have?
You should cut your tooth brush in half or something to save weight instead.

That post made my week, cheers.


----------



## sjm (28 Nov 2007)

I don't recall having to pay anything for my TacVest and at the end of the day it did everything I expected it to do.  I got to try on about 10 different rigs from guys trying to flog their wares and none of it justified spending my valuable dime.  One might try to deduct the cost on their income taxes since it might qualify as a work related expense.

The rigs I saw allowed the wearers to carry no more kit than I required to do my job.  One of the rigs had a real sexy drop down portable office on the chest but I don't do paperwork on the go.  It's just a personal thing. 

Can the kit be better? sure and a big juicy pay hike wouldn't bite the bag either but we got what we got.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Nov 2007)

I don't recall anyone suggesting they wanted a bigger ruck.  They want a rug that is comfortable under load.  Oh and I do put 28 rounds in the mag to ease the springs and allow the mags to work better.


----------



## sjm (28 Nov 2007)

Yo Flawed Design;

I probably humped close to 500km, and a tooth brush didn't accompany me for 1 meter of those 500km.


----------



## medaid (28 Nov 2007)

sjm said:
			
		

> Eventually all the kit you're issued will approach the standards to which the average Army.ca "user" aspires... a uniformed BlackWater employee.  I hear their benifits suck though.



Yes, you're absolutely correct! EVENTUALLY! by the time that the kit that's issued approach the standard that we need now, it'll be OUT of date, once more. Everyone else will be using powered armour, and we'll STILL be stuck with CTS crap. I don't aspire to be a BlackWater employee. I never did and I never will. What I inspire to be is a troop who 
can actively engage if need be, when all the combat arms types have fallen, the enemy. I inspire to do so, effectively, and quickly winning the fire fight. Having 4 mags, does NOT allow me to win any freaking fire fight! Maybe if they guy that's charging at me was on a donkey, and had nothing but a lance. But as we all know, that's not the case now is it?



			
				sjm said:
			
		

> Someone wants a bigger ruck?



How bout not BIGGER, but think BETTER? The issued rucks SUCK. Even if we were to patrol with bigger rucks, as long as they are BETTER, with all the proper weight bearing points, and the freaking wire frame doesnt twist and bend then I'll take that BIGGER ruck any day. why? Because it'll be BETTER.



			
				sjm said:
			
		

> From what I saw our replacements were under a strict issue only kit policy, the biggest complaint I heard was about the JR Nicols holster.



Could that be because that most people were wearing NON-issued kit to start with? 



			
				sjm said:
			
		

> A soldier shall never be denied the right to complain, but the whining stays at home.



Most of us are at home... and isn't Canada home? So why can't we criticize and evaluate critically the crap kit that WE have to work with overseas?



			
				sjm said:
			
		

> Soldier on



That's exaclty the attitude that makes new troops not visit the MIR. The old school mentality has to stop sometimes... now is good as ever with kit don't you think? It's universally agreed upon that we have SH^TTY personal kit...

But that's just my 0.02 rupees, take it as you will.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I don't recall anyone suggesting they wanted a bigger ruck.  They want a rug that is comfortable under load.  Oh and I do put 28 rounds in the mag to ease the springs and allow the mags to work better.



Thats because you're used to plastic mags 

I'd personally love to have a bigger ruck. It doesn't mean I'll have to carry more it means I'll be able to fit all the gear I have to carry now, better.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It IS NOT being replaced. See the CTS update ppt that I provided earlier in this thread; begin at page 24 for the rucksack. See the PIP on the CTS website.
> 
> Entitlement:
> 
> ...



Got a question on that Vern would that mean most if not all Reserve Field units will be getting this? Or is there a set list as to who is entitled to it?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Nov 2007)

I believe the priorty would be those going oversea's doing dismounted ops etc then once there are enougth to kit all of them would be the groups going out the door next, followed by Reg force Cmbt arms frontline units etc.

sjm good on you for making do with crappy kit.  Me I'll look for ways to carry whats required for the mission while being as comfortable as possible.  As far as aftermarket chest rigs I have no idea whose you were looking at but the good ones are more comfortable, can carry more stuff and are more flexible to the user because they are modular.


----------



## RCR Grunt (28 Nov 2007)

sjm said:
			
		

> I don't recall having to pay anything for my TacVest and at the end of the day it did everything I expected it to do.  I got to try on about 10 different rigs from guys trying to flog their wares and none of it justified spending my valuable dime.  One might try to deduct the cost on their income taxes since it might qualify as a work related expense.
> 
> The rigs I saw allowed the wearers to carry no more kit than I required to do my job.  One of the rigs had a real sexy drop down portable office on the chest but I don't do paperwork on the go.  It's just a personal thing.
> 
> Can the kit be better? sure and a big juicy pay hike wouldn't bite the bag either but we got what we got.



You are a douche!!

Can the Kit be better?  Hell yes!!  But taking the "oh well, what can you do" attitude isn't going to change anything!  Your a bloody WARRANT OFFICER, FFS!  Your in a leadership role and a position of authority, stand up and do something!  With all the humping you've done, you should at least have a spine under your combat shirt somewhere!!  WAKE UP!!  Its the 21st century, kit has come a long way, and we should be given the best of it!  Your right, you shouldn't have to spend your own money on it, I agree, but we shouldn't have to wait years for someone to redesign a piece of kit from the ground up when a combat proven model already exists.  Attitudes like yours are the reason why the system is so messed up.

And I put 30 rounds in my mags, because they don't stay full very long anyways.


----------



## Canadian Sig (28 Nov 2007)

I'll happily take my old 64 pattern over with me this spring. I just wish they would get me a bag that actually carries a radio, spare batteries, spare ammo, med supplies and water.....comfortably.  :crybaby:

Guess I'll just have to hunt up my own. Suggestions???  ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I believe the priorty would be those going oversea's doing dismounted ops etc then once there are enougth to kit all of them would be the groups going out the door next, followed by Reg force Cmbt arms frontline units etc.
> 
> sjm good on you for making do with crappy kit.  Me I'll look for ways to carry whats required for the mission while being as comfortable as possible.  As far as aftermarket chest rigs I have no idea whose you were looking at but the good ones are more comfortable, can carry more stuff and are more flexible to the user because they are modular.



I kinds figured that Lone Wolf, I was mainly thinking for after that.


----------



## medaid (28 Nov 2007)

Canadian Sig, shoot me a PM and I'll set you up with an ICE 64 pattern bag and suspension. PM me!!


----------



## KevinB (28 Nov 2007)

Dirt Digger -- fine - however when those people your listing have lost touch with the coal face then the problem arrises, also looking down your nose at the troops using the gear in combat does not really help -- since THEY are the ones using the gear, and the true stakeholders...

Blaming troops for using the gear incorrectly, in some cases lying to the troops on TAV (one instance would eb the request fro the RAS for weapons and claiming it overheats the weapon when testing has proven more than a 20% increase in cooling not to mention other benifits) and the general asscovering does not sit very well...

Stef -- your role may have been okay -- but how many firefights did you get into as an Infantryman?  Your role is different.


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> LOL
> Whaaaaaat?  :
> Rucksack back anyone?
> 
> ...



Come on Flawed, get serious would you (sarcasm mode on now ....), ... SJM sure as hell didn't carry those 10 required mags in a friggin' tacvest now did he??

Because the Tacvest CAN'T HOLD the 10 friggin' mags it should. One more reason that pers purchased their own chest rigs that ARE capable of carry their ammo load.

Yet, CTS will have you run back from the front line (or during a TIC -- after all who can predict when those will happen??) to your vehicle ... to go through your small pack system ... to get those 5 extra mags when you need to replace them. Officially -- By the book -- !!!

Go friggin' figure. Yeah, the tacvest works great ... NOT.

Geez, I'm merely a girl (an old one), merely a support "REMF" trade, and even I am quite capable of figuring out the WRONG with the above. ) Besides ... firing prone tends to hurt my 'lil chest with the stupid TV on ... so it must suck even more for a girl who actually HAS a chest. So, even as a support trade -- the TV doesn't work for me.


----------



## sjm (28 Nov 2007)

Hey Kev you visiting the old stomping grounds anytime soon?  Call me...

I got to play with the Kandak HQ and the Weapons Coy on all types of Ops.  My usual luxury of a truck to haul my aging "douche (thanks for the accolades RCR Grunt, I should change my callsign)"-like carcass around was more often than not left at the Zulu harbour unfortunately.  The ANA are light and fast and we needed to be the same.

For those that are convinced that only 4 mags fit in the present chest rig, the left hand C9 pouch holds 5 mags with room to spare for the MNVG.  My leg-drop M203 bandolier was perfect for my pistol mags once 1 grenade was loaded and the Black Hawk holster fits a bottle of hand sanitizer and a bag of Skittles perfectly.


----------



## KevinB (28 Nov 2007)

I will be in after X-Mas 

  Will carry - is different that carries well -- I dislike the TV because based on my experience LITTLE is ergonomically placed for me in a fight.


----------



## RCR Grunt (28 Nov 2007)

sjm said:
			
		

> Hey Kev you visiting the old stomping grounds anytime soon?  Call me...
> 
> I got to play with the Kandak HQ and the Weapons Coy on all types of Ops.  My usual luxury of a truck to haul my aging "douche (thanks for the accolades RCR Grunt, I should change my callsign)"-like carcass around was more often than not left at the Zulu harbour unfortunately.  The ANA are light and fast and we needed to be the same.
> 
> For those that are convinced that only 4 mags fit in the present chest rig, the left hand C9 pouch holds 5 mags with room to spare for the MNVG.  My leg-drop M203 bandolier was perfect for my pistol mags once 1 grenade was loaded and the Black Hawk holster fits a bottle of hand sanitizer and a bag of Skittles perfectly.



So you did what we always do, and thats make lemonade out of lemons, instead of what you should've done, and thats refuse the lemons and ask for proper kit that performs the task it is required to do... And that is why you are a douche-bag.


----------



## KevinB (28 Nov 2007)

FYI putting 30 rds in a 28rd mag is a bad idea -- I dont care who says its a 30rd mag -- realistically unless you have the Hk mag or the PMAG 30rds reduce the easy to reload bolt foward - and reduce your reliability...

Stef is nto a douche BTW -- misguided in this instance yes...   Much like old Mortarman Rockpainter once was...


----------



## sjm (28 Nov 2007)

Kev - Admittedly, the mags on the outsides were a bit hard to get to but those were reserved for my tracer only mags anyway.

And the side pouches can be hard to get to at times but not impossible.  You know how our trade works, most of what I needed was hanging around my neck anyway.  And the M-72 in my pack was for the guy behind me.

Vern - I don't recall going prone once, it's hard to fight lying on one's belly.  The prone position is strictly a "range"ism.


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2007)

sjm said:
			
		

> Vern - I don't recall going prone once, it's hard to fight lying on one's belly.  The prone position is strictly a "range"ism.



Yes it absolutely is!! That IS exactly the point. It (the Tac Vest) doesn't friggin' work there either!! (Especially for women!!).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Nov 2007)

"My leg-drop M203 bandolier was perfect for my pistol mags once 1 grenade was loaded and the Black Hawk holster fits a bottle of hand sanitizer and a bag of Skittles perfectly"

I thought you said the TV fulfilled your needs?  Which is it?  What does the C9 gunner do with his NVG's and other required items?


----------



## Jammer (28 Nov 2007)

I sense a little posing going on...yup...caught the scent.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Nov 2007)

If I-6 says he's kosher I believe him and that this WO is misguided on this issue.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Come on Flawed, get serious would you (sarcasm mode on now ....), ... SJM sure as hell didn't carry those 10 required mags in a friggin' tacvest now did he??



Checkmate 

You can carry 10 mags but like Kev said, can you carry them well? No.
5 mags in the side pouch of a tackvest is sketchy at best. Along the same train of though you can carry those 5 mags in your CF issue arid combat pants.
I think the tacvest debate has been beaten to death.

I'm out of my lanes when it comes to the ANA I admit (and I'm not trying to be a smart ass here). 
I'm a little iffy though on us "fighting like the ANA" after I read an article talking about how we've lost considerable amouts of the ground we took during 2006 OR we are at risk of losing it. the article made it sound like the ANA didn't put up much of a fight (sans canadians) when the taliban came around.


----------



## Jammer (28 Nov 2007)

Then use a little profesionalism and stop talking OPSEC. 
Loose lips sink ships, and all that.
PM any little personal msgs please


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Nov 2007)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Then use a little profesionalism and stop talking OPSEC.
> Loose lips sink ships, and all that.
> PM any little personal msgs please



That can backfire too mate.

The interperters know more about the you know what than the new soldiers coming into therater thanks to a poor passage of info and trade secrets.


----------



## Jammer (28 Nov 2007)

You're preaching to the converted...browse my profile...


----------



## redleafjumper (28 Nov 2007)

An interesting thread with some good points.  I have little to add beyond this quotation from a very successful General whose life was cut short at Waterloo:

"I don't care how they dress so long as they mind their fighting."
- Sir Thomas Picton on his mens' poor dress standards.


Cheers,


----------



## DirtyDog (28 Nov 2007)

sjm said:
			
		

> Point is the troops don't eval because it's been demonstrated over many decades that they don't care.


Hundreds of UCRs might suggest otherwise.

Many grunts aren't even aware there are much better alternatives out there, and when they do see something they can't beleive they've been saddled with junk when there is a much better alternative.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Nov 2007)

I didn't even know what a UCR was until I read it here with ref to Roto 0 in 2002.


----------



## MikeL (28 Nov 2007)

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> I'll happily take my old 64 pattern over with me this spring. I just wish they would get me a bag that actually carries a radio, spare batteries, spare ammo, med supplies and water.....comfortably.  :crybaby:
> 
> Guess I'll just have to hunt up my own. Suggestions???  ;D



Check out the Camelbak Moterlode, it's working out pretty well for me, an a buddy of mine used it on 1-06 an had no problems at all with it.


----------



## DirtyDog (28 Nov 2007)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Check out the Camelbak Moterlode, it's working out pretty well for me, an a buddy of mine used it on 1-06 an had no problems at all with it.


What colour do you have it in?


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> What colour do you have it in?



Well, if it isn't cadpat AR ... CTS has now come out with an AR cover for camelbaks (see ppt update briefing in earlier post in this thread) ... 

We've only been there since 2002.


----------



## MikeL (28 Nov 2007)

That AR CADPAT cover is meant for only the bladder an carrier(dunno the actual name of it), the motherlode is a camelbak back pack.

My Motherlode is in Desert MARPAT.


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2007)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> My Motherlode is in Desert MARPAT.



Sarcasm on ...

The world will end ... non issued camelbaks?? In the right colour for desert ops!!??!! Egads ... say it isn't so ... especially right off the rack without spending millions to trial, test, ergo, and evaluate -- it just can't be possible.


----------



## riggermade (28 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, if it isn't cadpat AR ... CTS has now come out with an AR cover for camelbaks (see ppt update briefing in earlier post in this thread) ...
> 
> We've only been there since 2002.



Funny I have only been making AR covers since 2002...glad to see CTS has caught up...bet that was a tough trial to approve...open cover, drop in camelbak


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2007)

riggermade said:
			
		

> Funny I have only been making AR covers since 2002...glad to see CTS has caught up...bet that was a tough trial to approve...open cover, drop in camelbak



If it weren't so true -- it'd probably be funny.

Eerily ... I don't think operational kit taking so long to get into the system when the troops need it NOW ... is a laughing matter (yet your post still made me chuckle) -- how ironic.


----------



## medaid (28 Nov 2007)

CTS = irony/oxymoron...


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> CTS = irony/oxymoron...



They aren't all bad ... and there is some good kit put out by them.

It's the bad kit and the problems noted with it by the pointy end that needs addressing ... not excusing or writing off as a "user problem or user error or lack of education on it's proper use."

We've already noted that those kit items (and everyone knows what kit items they are) DO NOT work on the front line when "as per the CTS user-guide" and instructions ... that is the VERY reason why it's being modified (or mags are being stored in places they shouldn't have to be) or off-the-rack items are being purchased by members instead.


----------



## Armymedic (28 Nov 2007)

sjm said:
			
		

> Why do you really think we only load 28 rounds in a 30 round mag?  To keep the springs fresh?  I could get new mags every week if I wanted...it was to save weight!





			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> So you denied yourself 20 rounds out of your 10 mags to save weight? Is that a wise thing to do? You're given 10 mags for a reason, if the army wanted you to go into battle with 9 mags they would have issued you 9 wouldn't they have?



Let me sort this shit out right now....You put 28 rounds into your 30 rd mags not to save wieght, but to ensure your mag seats rapidy and properly during your speed and tactical reloads. So you do not have to waste time and effort in slapping the bottom of the mag to make sure it is seated after insertion.

But if you let your gun run dry for every mag change...I guess 30rds in would be good for you to load.


----------



## medaid (28 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> They aren't all bad ... and there is some good kit put out by them.
> 
> It's the bad kit and the problems noted with it by the pointy end that needs addressing ... not excusing or writing off as a "user problem or user error or lack of education on it's proper use."
> 
> We've already noted that those kit items (and everyone knows what kit items they are) DO NOT work on the front line when "as per the CTS user-guide" and instructions ... that is the VERY reason why it's being modified (or mags are being stored in places they shouldn't have to be) or off-the-rack items are being purchased by members instead.



That's true, the fleece is good, so is the mortar glove. I agree, there are some (limited) things that are HOO AH, but too many problems over shadow these nice little bits.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Nov 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FYI putting 30 rds in a 28rd mag is a bad idea -- I dont care who says its a 30rd mag -- realistically unless you have the Hk mag or the PMAG 30rds reduce the easy to reload bolt foward - and reduce your reliability...
> 
> Stef is nto a douche BTW -- misguided in this instance yes...   Much like *old Mortarman Rockpainter once was*...



Who ya' callin' old?  Oh...wait...that is right, I am old.  Sorry, carry on.....


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Nov 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Who ya' callin' old?  Oh...wait...that is right, I am old.  Sorry, carry on.....



Dave, embrace your inner dinosaur.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Nov 2007)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Anyone from Shilo interested in commenting on their rucks today or tomorrow?  See you all in Edmonton next week to* teach you how to assemble, wear, and use your new rucks*.


Now soldiers, who are smart enough to get dressed in the morning, all on their own, have to be taught how to do all that, in a four hour lesson, no less?  Who says that this ruck is "user friendly?"  My god...what have we become?

Oh, FYI, the TV "can" carry ten mags IF you decide to not carry water.....:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Nov 2007)

Like most lesson plans I wonder if they really need 40min per for the ruck.


----------



## Armymedic (28 Nov 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Oh, FYI, the TV "can" carry ten mags IF you decide to not carry water.....:



Actually you can carry 16 mags C7 mags (4 on chest, 6 per side square pouch) in the TV. As for carrying water....what did they issure Camelbaks for?


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Nov 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Actually you can carry 16 mags C7 mags (4 on chest, 6 per side square pouch) in the TV. As for carrying water....what did they issure Camelbaks for?


I imagine that Camelbaks are for water...but then again, the troops are carrying too much water as it is, right? [/sarcasm]


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Nov 2007)

Gentlemen, can we put this thread back on track, or has it outlived its usefulness?

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## medaid (28 Nov 2007)

I think it has. We're hashing old points again...


----------



## Armymedic (28 Nov 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> the troops are carrying too much water as it is, right? [/sarcasm]



Right. Water needs to be in the body to be useful, not on...   ;D


----------



## KevinB (28 Nov 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Let me sort this crap out right now....You put 28 rounds into your 30 rd mags not to save wieght, but to ensure your mag seats rapidy and properly during your speed and tactical reloads. So you do not have to waste time and effort in slapping the bottom of the mag to make sure it is seated after insertion.
> 
> But if you let your gun run dry for every mag change...I guess 30rds in would be good for you to load.



My friend is very astute sometimes  

Water -- highly overated  :


yup..


----------



## Bomber (29 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Like most lesson plans I wonder if they really need 40min per for the ruck.



Feed back should be coming once the folks being issued it right now start writing.  I do know that when it is not assembled correctly it is uncomfortable and when put together properly, it can handle some pretty heavy loads comfortably.  The 1st is very simple, an intro to the parts and the assembly points.  The second is the shaping of the stays.  And the third is how to put it on, adjust it, and take it off.  I am intersted in this sort of tuff and was very happy with the 2 weeks plus training that I received on it.


----------



## davidk (29 Nov 2007)

For those of us without DIN access, would it be possible for someone to post the CTS update mentioned by Vern?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Nov 2007)

Bomber are you in the postion where you will be training other troops?  2 weeks seems like along time as our guys are getting 1 day.  3x 40 min classes.  Now don't get me wrong the info is necessary.  I was refering to how you when you learn a certain class in the Inf and 40 min are alloted and it only takes 15 to cover the material.


----------



## sjm (29 Nov 2007)

I had to come back, the invective well was running dry and we can't have that now can we?


Firstly, I love lemonade. Almost as much as Gin and Tonic with double lime.

Secondly, I never suggested that we have to fight like the ANA, that would be impossible.  We already live in a country that is free and relatively clear of any real or perceived threats for that matter.  We're not motivated enough to fight like the ANA.  In theatre, the average troop sees the ANA when they're on their down time.  They tend to laze about the FOBs pretty much like we do in similar circumstances, we just go to a better gym.  They've had good role models to follow when it comes to their leisurely persuits.  If anyone tries to suggest they lack in the art of killing the TB, check their record.  They've been doing it for a very long time now and they're pretty good at it.  We can't fight like them but we do have to keep up, however, and that means staying as light as possible. If it's not mission essential, it's staying under the cot and that was true in the BG as well.

Was I less effective with "1 less mag"? Perhaps, but I don't recall ever needing mag #10.  The 200 odd ANA in the vicinity seemed to be prepared to take up the slack quite nicely. Perhaps carrying no ammo would inspire me to call in the Guns, FA or CCA just a tad quicker.

Finally, it's a pretty ruck, no doubt about it.  Probably comparable to the best civy ruck you might be able to find.  I don't know any campers that would be inspired to use it but...The nicest thing is you barely have to put anything in it to make weight for the BFT.  The lessons on how to wear it isn't a problem, what else are you going to do with those four hours?  SISIP briefings stop being fun the third time through.  If you can endure the name "CTS Rucksack" then you should be able to sit through the lessons on how to wear it to it's full effect to make your next hump through the wastelands known as Wainwright an enjoyable experience.

Next we'll be calling the 521 the "DLCSPM Radio" and the LAV III the "DAVPM Light Armoured Vehicle".  I cringe everytime I hear the acronym. As soon as the teams have finished spreading their bountiful knowledge upon their target audience it will quickly become known as the "'07 pattern ruck" or more likely the "GBFB" (I'm sure you can figure that one out)

According to a fairly reliable source, the UCR file on the Tac Vest is quite light.  I'm not sure if they're using some creative accounting methods but if you don't like a piece of kit, any kit, that includes trucks, rifle sights or down-hill skies the only recourse is the UCR, completed in it's entirety, naturally.  There's no co-incidence that the form is a monster and you need to be a supply tech to get all the info required to fill it in to the Life Cycle Managers satisfaction.  An incomplete UCR quickly finds it's way to the blue bin.

The UCRs should start flying on the issue maglight, with the new LED one on the market and only at the rediculously low price of $40, the army has to start getting those to replace our low-tech, outdated and totally ineffective 200 year old tungsten filament technology based maglights at 1/4 the price.  How did we ever survive without LEDs?  Wake up you slaggards in the supply system, can't you see we're falling behing here! (I'm hoping you think the preceding arguement is without merit and borders on lunacy, that's how I view the entire TV issue)

I brought my helmet today so let er rip.  Like a bunch on this site I've endured much, much worse.  So let the "friendly banter" begin, I've got my QC and CAT handy.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Nov 2007)

I don't recall the majority of people here slagging the efforts of the ANA.  ANP sure but not the ANA.


----------



## KevinB (29 Nov 2007)

Maglight? -- the fact they issue a maglight not a Surefire G2 (cheaper, brighter, more robust) is enough to make heads shake already.
  However CSM's outside your chain of command dont get pissy when a troop has his own flashlight...

Or self important Staff Officers who ask stupid questions
S4 "who's carbine is this?" (pointing to tan sprayed C8SFW)
Answer: mine
S4: who did that
Answer: did what
S4: you know what I'm talking about
Answer: no I really dont
S4: painted it 
Answer: I did
S4: you've destroyed it, who told you you could do that
Answer: my boss
S4: who's you boss
Answer: Maj XXXXX
S4: Figures he's an idiot

 Anyway - thats one of several hundred discussions I've had with morons in the CF abotu kit they neither understand nor use.


----------



## armyvern (29 Nov 2007)

sjm,

Supply techs didn't make the UCR form -- just to clear that one up. Nor are we capable of being the only who can completely fill them out as your posts notes.

1) The form (it, it's step by step instructions for completion, and links to how to track it's progress through the system to ensure it's action, are already posted in another thread on this site by me) clearly has a spot where "recommended improvement" is to be included ... 

I can only fill it out for the improvements that I can recommend from my own personal experience -- not anyone's on the pointy end that was noted during TIC etc (and THOSE) are the ones that count.

I have also recommended in the other thread that _*1*_ CO submitting *1* UCR, is exactly that -- 1 UCR submitted by 1 user. Now, you know and I know that CO is submitting on behalf of all personnel of his Unit ... but _statisticly speaking_ that is only 1 UCR -- and that is how the powers that be look at it.

I have said it here many many times -- EACH soldier should submit a UCR on the item, even it's a photocopy of someone else's with a unique tracking number placed onto it by your Unit UCR co-ordinator. Most of the troops aren't even AWARE who the UCR co-ordinator is for their Unit -- and that's not a Supply issue. That's a communication within their CoC issue.

Here, we stacked a pile of blank UCRs on the counter of clothing stores a few short years ago ... and had each soldier who came in fill one out regarding the fading of the cadpats. It sure didn't take long for that to get fixed when they were inundated with hundreds of them in a very short timespan.

The tools are out there -- if the end-user isn't going to use the tools properly -- then it won't get fixed.

(Oh, and just so the misinformed/uneducated are aware -- CTS does not equal the Supply system nor does it equal (in any way, shape or form) Supply Techs. It is a Project Cell and Sup techs are the least of it's staff. As well, reviewing of UCR recommendations, determination of UCR merit and it's validity as requiring action or not, nor the UCRs outcome at the national level --  are determined by Sup Techs -- because if they were decisions made by Sup techs ... all the problems would be fixed (!!!) because we're  the ones who get to put up with the whining and bitching about kit decisions and make etc that have absolutuely ZERO to do with us. In short -- we take the fall out for these areas which are much outside our realms of work.)


----------



## Jammer (29 Nov 2007)

To prevent that nasty mag from emptying on you...please do the following:

Insert 1 x 5.56mm tracer rd as your 3rd round
Insert 1 x 5.56mm tracer rd as your 27th round.

BTW I carried all 10mags in the TV, as well as a Camelbak pistol, frags, smoke...lalalala, and still in the fight had soldiers go down from heat exhaustion .
I never had a stoppage I could attribute to loading 30rds in my mags....and I used 8 out of 10 several times.
Thanks for coming out


----------



## Blakey (29 Nov 2007)

sjm, I like the cut of your jib (like a few on here), you speak with a 'straight' tongue.
+1

And too add to the ruck discussion; carried it for the first time with 55+ lbs for about 5 km's, not too bad although, I will reserve total judgement until I have to sustain myself out of it for a prolonged period of time. (96+ hrs)


----------



## Jammer (29 Nov 2007)

It retains rainwater well...


----------



## armyvern (29 Nov 2007)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> sjm, I like the cut of your jib (like a few on here), you speak with a 'straight' tongue.
> +1



-1 from me. There some inaccuracies as to the Supply system in his post which only tend to slag the trade and perpetuate the myths, in areas that we have zero to do with.


----------



## Jammer (29 Nov 2007)

Concur,
For the time being be happy with what you get, if not buy it and shut the hell up.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Nov 2007)

Man I'm really eating that 30 rounds in a magazine comment 
Jammer I'm more of a tracer in the 2nd & 28th round kinda guy. (I think we had a few convos about the opsec stuff when I as over at your shop unless I'm mistaken you for someone else, i'll fire off a PM in a bit)

I see the difference you're talking about between fighting LIKE the ANA and being light and fast like the ANA, SJM.  I remember seeing pictures from soldiers deployed over there in 2002 and I felt bad for them.  It looked like they were humping every piece of kit they owned.

A comment was made a few years back on here that new kit is on the market and e need to start buying/making lighter kit. Just because we have the stuff and it can be made to work doesn't mean it's in everyones interest to use it.

Troops are willing to drop $500 on rucksacks, sleeping bags, chest rigs, their own weapon sites and weapon add ons. Hell there is a critical shortage of pistols, I bet half the deploying soldiers would BUY their own pistol if they could use it overseas.
Sure some of those guys dropping that kind of money on kit are going to be the type that go overboard and end up looking like a merc. (unless their CoC calms them down) but there are a lot of soldiers out there who are just willing to spend money on good ki that they realise works better than what their issued. That's telling you something.

We have tons of those little metal folding chairs. It's like saying we shouldn't purchase those sexy expensive reclining chairs that are often used for o groups and meetings etc. We both know that won't fly.


Infidel-6 why did something think that painting your rifle destroyed it??


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Nov 2007)

Jammer I don't know you or your history but I do know I-6s' and he shots more then my BN in a year.  His thoughts on 28 rounds and my personal experience would suggest 28 rounds is ideal.  But to each his own.


----------



## Jager (29 Nov 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Now believe it or not, we're (ICE) in the process of designing rucks in CADPAT in the British SAS ParaBergen Style and the style that was posted for Arc'Teryx. The funny thing was that packs and cold weather/layers are what my boss does best! He came from a backpacking background, and to him, the 64 pattern is archaic, and I don't disagree with him. The thing is, we went the 64 pattern route because there were no other "approved" rucks that the RSMs/CSMs/WO/Sgt would accept over the 82. Trust me, if we got a pack design going, it would've been a nice one. We just need the CoC to trial it for them selves and then say "Yay, ICE ruck GTG" Speaking of which... any takers for T&E?  ;D



I'll take the Trial and Evaluation (T&E).... And tell Hobey to send me a msg


----------



## HItorMiss (29 Nov 2007)

28 rounds, absolutely though from my personal experience and from CF training it makes more sense to have the 3rd and 4Th round be the tracer think about your drills and target indication methods and you'll see why.

As for kit well whatever works is best IMO. Softy better then our fleece then wear it, Non issue boots better then our issues ones wear it. If it comes in Cadpat or OD then wear it. Just as long as you are sure it works better for you and does indeed make you more effective. If it's just LCF well why bother with all the expenditure. Unless of course your talking Oakley's and then man you gotta have Oakley's right  ;D


----------



## sjm (29 Nov 2007)

Vern, chill.  I'd never slag the Supply Techs that provided everything I needed to do my job with a smile on their overworked faces while they were doing so.  

Most people here like to quote Generals, I'll be different here's one from me (a guy's gotta dream):

 "There's no co-incidence that the form is a monster and you need to be a supply tech to get all the info required to fill it in to the Life Cycle Managers satisfaction.  An incomplete UCR quickly finds it's way to the blue bin."

I don't know too many troops that have ready access to all the details required for the UCR.  I know it was produced by a non-supply tech. I could tell you the exact indiv that did produce it, the paper trails here at the stand-around may be long but they are nothing if not well maintained.

I've had to fill in a UCR or two in my day, without the help of supply it couldn't have been done.  Bureaucrats needs an out, an error or omission on a UCR is a perfect out.

Later


----------



## MG34 (29 Nov 2007)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Concur,
> For the time being be happy with what you get, if not buy it and shut the hell up.



Now that's the way to get results  :
 The system is broke and it needs fixing, being complacant about it solves nothing. I don't know about you but my life has more value to me than the $250.00-$600.00 it costs to purchase a piece of kit that will allow me to perform my duties without fighting with the gear to get a magazine into the weapon when needed, or wrestle a handgrenade from a pouch. No single person I have spoken to has considered the tac vest an adequate piece of kit on the battlefield, they have made due, or put up with the poor design.
 If your attitude was the majority we would still be wearing wool uniforms with blancoed web gear, so no I won't shut the hell up..but you can return to what ever rock you crawled out from and rejoin the rest of the dinosaurs hiding from the reality that our troops require and deserve the very best equipment when called to fight in Afghanistan or some other theatre of operations.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Nov 2007)

So a couple of the guys just got the ruck.  I will preface my comments by saying I have not used the ruck extensively nor have I attended the classes.  From my observation I can say that the ruck was not built to be put on quickly.  With all the straps to tighten it plus the jug fuck compression sack I would hate to get out of there quickly and still have all my kit.  The plastic buckles and clips for the compression sack cause me concern esp. in the cold, say winter ex.  Also the  sternum strap pops off when you exile from your ruck with the quick release straps.  Now in A Stan who gives a shit but back in Canada I expect there will be LSR's on this little item.  When you bend the metal bars to form to your back they give you a sheet you must keep and I can see that getting lost (although I don't know what the answer will be), and finally I am a little leery on the round bars near the edge of the ruck retaining their integrity from normal user wear and tear but I guess only time will tell.  I should also add that pack your compression sack without light is going to be a joke.  And the guys were informed from the guys from Ottawa that the day bag is the 48 ruck and this new thing is long range/72hours plus ruck.  Since I didn't hear it with my own ears I will reserve judgement on that comment.

On the plus side some members will be able to pack there warm blooded play things with them now, its that big.


----------



## dangerboy (29 Nov 2007)

As I was at the brief I can confirm what LWQ said in his above post. The briefing said that the Day pack is intended to replace the 82 pattern rucksac and the new ruck is designed for when you operate away from your vehicle or base for more than 72 hours.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Nov 2007)

Not liking that little tidbit of info.  Was this always the intent?  (Directed to those in the know).


----------



## medaid (29 Nov 2007)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> The briefing said that the *Day pack is intended to replace the 82 pattern rucksack* and the new ruck is designed for when you operate away from your vehicle or base for more than 72 hours.



HOLLY FRACK!!!


----------



## Jammer (29 Nov 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> If your attitude was the majority we would still be wearing wool uniforms with blancoed web gear, so no I won't shut the hell up..but you can return to what ever rock you crawled out from and rejoin the rest of the dinosaurs hiding from the reality that our troops require and deserve the very best equipment when called to fight in Afghanistan or some other theatre of operations.


Alright Mate,
Apparently you don't see the value of my point regarding whining about kit we would all like to have, but have to put up with for the time being.
Don't preach to me about Afghanistan. The reality there is a lot of soldiers, including me have in fact spent their hard earned money to kit themselves out with they needed to be successful.
Yes we deserve the best money can buy, but that ain't gonna happen with everything.
For your viewing pleasure you can lift up my rock and and read my profile. I'm pretty sure I have a little bit of experience the would validate my opinions. Otherwise, please don't mess up the pebbles I've placed around it to mark my territory.
Cheers


MOD: Fixed your quote in this post and binned the other attempt.
Bruce


----------



## Gunner98 (29 Nov 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> HOLLY FRACK!!!



While speaking to 2 DRDC uniformed officers during pre-depl trg, I was told the same info.  In fact many sr pers are encouraging the use of the Day Pack during the work-ups and actual BFT as a part of pre-deplyment trg to assess your fitness with the appropriate kit.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Nov 2007)

From the CTS site ref day bag:

Concept of Use – The Small Pack System will be a basic issue to CF personnel conducting land operations. It will provide load carriage in operations where soldiers are required to wear fragmentation protection and carry combat supplies and sustainment items sufficient for up to 24 hours. In addition to the soldier’s own carriage requirement, the Small Pack System will provide a means to carry the soldier’s share of section/platoon weapons, amunition and mission-oriented stores.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> From the CTS site ref day bag:
> 
> Concept of Use – The Small Pack System will be a basic issue to CF personnel conducting land operations. It will provide load carriage in operations where soldiers are required to wear fragmentation protection and carry combat supplies and sustainment items sufficient for up to 24 hours.* In addition to the soldier’s own carriage requirement, the Small Pack System will provide a means to carry the soldier’s share of section/platoon weapons, amunition and mission-oriented stores.*



 :rofl:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Nov 2007)

I know, I know.


----------



## Armymedic (29 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> In addition to the soldier’s own carriage requirement, the Small Pack System will provide a means to carry the soldier’s share of section/platoon weapons, amunition and mission-oriented stores.



Not bloody likely. During the trial, did they carry 50+ lbs in that pack, over body armour and vest? I think not


----------



## Jammer (29 Nov 2007)

...in 50+ celsius temps...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Nov 2007)

No idea, I only cut and pasted of their site.  I am not fond of how the shoulder straps slide.  One quick pet peeve.


----------



## Armymedic (29 Nov 2007)

or the weak sternum strap that will snap off.


----------



## MG34 (29 Nov 2007)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Alright Mate,
> Apparently you don't see the value of my point regarding whining about kit we would all like to have, but have to put up with for the time being.
> Don't preach to me about Afghanistan. The reality there is a lot of soldiers, including me have in fact spent their hard earned money to kit themselves out with they needed to be successful.
> Yes we deserve the best money can buy, but that ain't gonna happen with everything.
> ...



Buds, do you think you are the only one with a tour or two under your belt, as a Sig Op no less, wow must have been rough manning those CPs, STFU about your so called operational experience.
      A soldier doesn't have to put up with anything that it is within his control to alter,or the chain command 's control to alter.Kit is most definately something that is well within the realm of the soldier and his CofC to alter,all it takes is some back bone to tell the clowns  at CTS and elsewhere to go f#$k themselves  and that their kit will not be used. Oddly enough it works,I've done it. my chain of command has done it and 2 complete CF units have done it, the problem is most so called leaders of men lack the testicular fortitude to do anything about the crap kit.
 There is no making due or putting up with anything that doesn't have to be.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Nov 2007)

Is there a link or pictures of the new ruck sack you guys are talking about?

Is this our replacement one?


----------



## DirtyDog (29 Nov 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Is there a link or pictures of the new ruck sack you guys are talking about?
> 
> Is this our replacement one?



http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/chief_land_staff/clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/283_e.asp


----------



## Jammer (29 Nov 2007)

How narrow minded can you be....?
You obviously have no idea about what my trade does. I'd be happy to educate you about how diverse my trade is. Someone has to make sure you grunts can talk on the radio instead of banging on your heads to get it to work.If you want to get into a pissing match about who does what...bring it on.
I welcome it, otherwise educate yourself before spouting off crap.
Just for the record and your edification (knowledge for you), my last three tours were out of trade doing C-IED outside the wire. 
CP..hahahahaha I haven't seen one of those for ten years, although I head the coffee's good there.
(Crawls back under rock watching "We Were Soldiers" and counting how many signallers get whacked.)


----------



## Jammer (29 Nov 2007)

MG-34
I do agree with you that CTS is a giant white elephant.


----------



## MikeL (29 Nov 2007)

The new ruck basically looks like a giant small pack.






Ruck an  compression sack








I wonder how well the frame is gonna hold up once we start tossing the ruck into vehicles.. or load them up on a plane.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (29 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> No idea, I only cut and pasted of their site.  I am not fond of how the shoulder straps slide.  One quick pet peeve.



I hear your pain and by the end of next week I'll have a COTS fix available for both the issues of shoulder strap slide, as well as the shoulder straps being too short for wear with body armour.

Cheers,

Matt


----------



## MG34 (29 Nov 2007)

Jammer said:
			
		

> How narrow minded can you be....?
> You obviously have no idea about what my trade does. I'd be happy to educate you about how diverse my trade is. Someone has to make sure you grunts can talk on the radio instead of banging on your heads to get it to work.If you want to get into a pissing match about who does what...bring it on.
> I welcome it, otherwise educate yourself before spouting off crap.
> Just for the record and your edification (knowledge for you), my last three tours were out of trade doing C-IED outside the wire.
> ...



Well goody for you, send me a pic so I can hang it on my wall next to John Wayne and Dick Marcinko.   

If you are only using the TAC Vest as a place to store magazines and other crap sure it works well, then again so does a laundry bag. The problem lies during those times you actually need to get at what's stored in it right frigging now  ie in the middle of a firefight. I have seen enough troops flopping on the ground like a fish out of water to get at their C9 drums,magazines and frag grenades to know that the TV doesn't work. This is critical time lost during a firefight, time when they and their section mates are left vulnerable.
     The average troop will figure out in a hurry that when the  metal is meeting the meat having magazines stacked in a pouch (the side C9 drum pouches) that was not designed to hold them is a poor choice ,as are C9 drum and frag pouches that are too tight and in the wrong location.
( going back to kicking over rocks and slaying dinosaurs)


----------



## Garett (29 Nov 2007)

I heard Recce Pl on TF 1-07 were issued the Kifaru ZXR for the tour.  Don't know if someone here can confirm that, I'll ask my 2IC tomorrow though.  Seems like another contradiction to me.

http://www.kifaru.net/MG_ZXR.htm


----------



## COBRA-6 (29 Nov 2007)

Garett said:
			
		

> I heard Recce Pl on TF 1-07 were issued the Kifaru ZXR for the tour.  Don't know if someone here can confirm that, I'll ask my 2IC tomorrow though.  Seems like another contradiction to me.
> 
> http://www.kifaru.net/MG_ZXR.htm



I have been looking long and hard at the Kifaru X-Ray as an assault pack for the next go in the sandbox...

http://www.kifaru.net/MGXray.htm


----------



## Kiwi99 (29 Nov 2007)

I agree that the issue vest is crap.  Graet for storing notebooks and palm pilots and other uber-geek stuff.  Earlier this year I ran into a dude from clothe the soldier that was involved in the ruc.  Back in 1999 they said we were goiung to get a new one, and now, ten years later almost, we start to.  But he looked me in the eye  and bugger me if he didn't say -"I have no idea how you are going to fit them all in the LAV'.

Clothe the soldier is a crap idea and organisation.  Olive drab combat jacket, CADPAT cbt jacket, what next.  Do it once and do it right.  Raingear.  Sorry, only 1-08 are priority for the green rainjacket, even though yours is obviously crap.  They need them in theatere apparently.    Where do all the UCRs go, and what action is taken on them?  *WHERE DO ALL THE UCRs GO!!!*


----------



## Garett (29 Nov 2007)

Haven't been over, but from what the guys in my Coy tell me you can expect to be hauling around 60-70 pounds on your back in the summer time on Ops.  They mostly used the issued Small Pack which was big enough to carry what they needs, but it has a POS belt so the weight is all on your upper body.  The XRay is about the same size in liters, but has better access and has a wicked looking optional belt.  

You can get a Coyote Brown RAID Pack from ATS Tactical on sale for $99 USD right now, down from $210.  The price is excellent, lots of great reviews.  

http://www.atstacticalgear.com/istar.asp?a=6&id=LF-009!151


----------



## George Wallace (29 Nov 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Clothe the soldier is a crap idea and organisation.  .................    Where do all the UCRs go, and what action is taken on them?  *WHERE DO ALL THE UCRs GO!!!*



I must agree with you, but then again, where would we be if they had not been created?   There are some very fine people in the various specialties of clothing design working hard to figure out and test what will best serve the soldier.  Does Clothe the Soldier take all their work and put it into production is the next question.  

On another note, as was pointed out before in other posts, some of that Gucci kit is dangerous to your health.  UnderArmor t-shirts and shorts, although great for sports, are dangerous in combat when exposed to heat and flames.   If you want to be a "Kit Whore" you better know your stuff or you are endangering your life.

I am sure no one wants to still be wearing the old OD Combat Jacket of the 1970's.


----------



## Haggis (29 Nov 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am sure no one wants to still be wearing the old OD Combat Jacket of the 1970's.



There are still a few troops wearing them, particularly in Reserve units.


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Nov 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On another note, as was pointed out before in other posts, some of that Gucci kit is dangerous to your health.  UnderArmor t-shirts and shorts, although great for sports, are dangerous in combat when exposed to heat and flames.   If you want to be a "Kit *****" you better know your stuff or you are endangering your life.
> 
> I am sure no one wants to still be wearing the old OD Combat Jacket of the 1970's.



Just to note, UnderArmor and 5.11 now make fire resistant shirts.


----------



## DirtyDog (29 Nov 2007)

Garett said:
			
		

> Haven't been over, but from what the guys in my Coy tell me you can expect to be hauling around 60-70 pounds on your back in the summer time on Ops.  They mostly used the issued Small Pack which was big enough to carry what they needs, but it has a POS belt so the weight is all on your upper body.  The XRay is about the same size in liters, but has better access and has a wicked looking optional belt.
> 
> You can get a Coyote Brown RAID Pack from ATS Tactical on sale for $99 USD right now, down from $210.  The price is excellent, lots of great reviews.
> 
> http://www.atstacticalgear.com/istar.asp?a=6&id=LF-009!151


It's funny because the boys in my Coy said they did next to no humping, and the sum of their kit was in their valises as that was all their was room for in the LAV.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Nov 2007)

1970's ?

Or the OD 'Gortex' of the 1990's?


----------



## DirtyDog (29 Nov 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> There are still a few troops wearing them, particularly in Reserve units.


I think they're mostly wearing the OD gore-tex though, no?

In BMQ we were issued the corduroy OD combat jacket.  I just recently turned it in when I realised it was still on my docs.  The greenhorn supply tech didn't even know what it was.


----------



## armyvern (29 Nov 2007)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> As I was at the brief I can confirm what LWQ said in his above post. The briefing said that the Day pack is intended to replace the 82 pattern rucksac and the new ruck is designed for when you operate away from your vehicle or base for more than 72 hours.



And that certainly would have been the case for those receiving the brief you mention on entitlements. They were dismounted personnel. A first line operational Unit. The brief you are talking about was presented to the PPCLI no?

The same statement however, is NOT applicable to ALL Land Force Units & personnel. Read the PIP, read the updated briefing. It clearly differentiates between mounted/dismounted/rear echelon/pointy end.

BUT, the day pack is NOT replacing the 82 pattern ruck either. The day pack is intended for use in tasks lasting less than 24 hours ... and the new ruck for dismounted ops over that time. People like me will have a day pack and ... an 82 pattern ruck. You dismounted pers will have a day pack and a new ruck.

This has always been the intent (concerns about which have indeed been staffed to CTS) for these two items above, as per their PIPs (project implementation plans) which have been posted on the CTS web-site (links posted on this site many many times) for years now. This shouldn't be shocking news. The info has been available for years on the web-site. The update briefings (such as the one attached earlier) have also stressed this point many many times ... and it has been passed on at CLS WGs where each Army Base had representation at. It should not be news to anyone ... even the lowest level Pte, this many years later.

If I were giving a brief to the PPCLI -- I would certainly give them the entitlement details as you have stated above as those are the details which are applicable to THEM, but that does not mean those same "entitlements" are applicable to everyone else. Show me a Sup tech or an RMS clerk in NATO (for example) that works away from their vehicle or det for more than 72 hours ... and I'll show you a Sup tech who'll be getting the new ruck.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Nov 2007)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Just to note, UnderArmor and 5.11 now make fire resistant shirts.



Fire resistant is not quite the same as Fire retardant.   In the end though, if your clothes survive, but you are boiled or burnt to a crisp, we really haven't found a solution.   ;D

The point was: Know your kit.  Don't just buy something because it is Gucci and someone else says it is good.  If you want to wear something that is going to melt into your skin in a fire or explosion without knowing that was a flaw, fine with me.   Just make sure you know what you are buying.......Do the research.

I will agree that there are flame retardant clothing articles out there.  Some are in name only, and do not stand up to the test.  Others like Nomex are issued to certain Trades.  Nomex, however, is very expensive.   The search in finding a good fabric that is truly fire retardant, light and wicks sweat away, and cheap, is still ongoing.


----------



## Jammer (29 Nov 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Well goody for you, send me a pic so I can hang it on my wall next to John Wayne and Dick Marcinko.
> 
> If you are only using the TAC Vest as a place to store magazines and other crap sure it works well, then again so does a laundry bag. The problem lies during those times you actually need to get at what's stored in it right frigging now  ie in the middle of a firefight. I have seen enough troops flopping on the ground like a fish out of water to get at their C9 drums,magazines and frag grenades to know that the TV doesn't work. This is critical time lost during a firefight, time when they and their section mates are left vulnerable.
> The average troop will figure out in a hurry that when the  metal is meeting the meat having magazines stacked in a pouch (the side C9 drum pouches) that was not designed to hold them is a poor choice ,as are C9 drum and frag pouches that are too tight and in the wrong location.
> ( going back to kicking over rocks and slaying dinosaurs)



That's sweet, really.
You have to be my hero. Where else can you be on the receiving end of such rapier like wit and still come out looking like Gumby. The next guys you're going to go after the MSE guys who ride Hwy 1 and 4 every day dodging IEDs and ambushes. Lazy Tim Hortons eatin'  coffee drinkin' slaggards!!!!
Seriously though, don't get me wrong. The TV is far from being even close to desirable, thus guy's were/are buying their own rigs.
Now that you've deftly identified the problem...I'm going to go back to wearing my '68 pattern webbing...velcro strips and gun tape to hold it together.
(Daring him to even come close to my rock lest he get stomped...again.)


----------



## COBRA-6 (29 Nov 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I will agree that there are flame retardant clothing articles out there.  Some are in name only, and do not stand up to the test.  Others like Nomex are issued to certain Trades.  Nomex, however, is very expensive.   The search in finding a good fabric that is truly fire retardant, light and wicks sweat away, and cheap, is still ongoing.



There is some good stuff getting out there, some of even sold by an Army.ca advertiser  ;D

http://www.cpgear.com/default.asp?mn=1.19.56&f=pd&pid=500


----------



## Shamrock (29 Nov 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In the end though, if your clothes survive, but you are boiled or burnt to a crisp, we really haven't found a solution.   ;D



Throw it in the wash and issue it out again.


----------



## Haggis (29 Nov 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 1970's ?  Or the OD 'Gortex' of the 1990's?


The 1970's canvas coat.  It is still issued to new recruit Reservists in lieu of ICE or IECS.

There are still dozens and dozens of soldiers across Canada still wearing the "original" IECS OD GoreTex jackets.


----------



## armyvern (29 Nov 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Where do all the UCRs go, and what action is taken on them?  *WHERE DO ALL THE UCRs GO!!!*



I can only recommend that you query your Unit UCR co-ordinator. They should have assigned it a tracking number and logged it into the national tracking system electronicly when they recieved it from _you_.

All they need to do is log in, enter the tracking number ... and see who, what & where it is right now ... and it's status.

Do you know who your UCR co-ordinator is? 
Do you know what your tracking number is? They should have advised you of that.


----------



## DirtyDog (29 Nov 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Fire resistant is not quite the same as Fire retardant.   In the end though, if your clothes survive, but you are boiled or burnt to a crisp, we really haven't found a solution.   ;D
> 
> The point was: Know your kit.  Don't just buy something because it is Gucci and someone else says it is good.  If you want to wear something that is going to melt into your skin in a fire or explosion without knowing that was a flaw, fine with me.   Just make sure you know what you are buying.......Do the research.
> 
> I will agree that there are flame retardant clothing articles out there.  Some are in name only, and do not stand up to the test.  Others like Nomex are issued to certain Trades.  Nomex, however, is very expensive.   The search in finding a good fabric that is truly fire retardant, light and wicks sweat away, and cheap, is still ongoing.


5.11 and under-Armour both produce fire retardent clothing.  Some of which is %100 Nomex and reasonably priced.  Potomac field gear seem to make some decent stuff too.

EDIT - CP now has some nice looking stuff as well.


----------



## armyvern (29 Nov 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> There are still a few troops wearing them, particularly in Reserve units.



Which ResF Units?? They should have all been rolled over into ICE by now (if they are Land ResF Units of course).

Although those not yet BMQ qualified are only entitled to the IECS (olive drab gortex), but absolutely none should still be in OG107 olive drab combat jackets anymore.


----------



## Jammer (29 Nov 2007)

A perfect example of poor implementation of a bit of kit.
The tan gloves that were isseed in Dec of last year to us were ordered back to the RQ  almost as fast. They were not in any measure flame/fire retardent.
I bought a couple of pairs of nomex gloves from the KAF PX.
George, how can you even comment...if MG-34 thinks I'm a dinosaur surely you can remember the days of brass breast plates ;D


----------



## George Wallace (29 Nov 2007)

Jammer said:
			
		

> George, how can you even comment...if MG-34 thinks I'm a dinosaur surely you can remember the days of brass breast plates ;D



Ya!  I know.  I am not too much of a 'Kit Slut', but I do have some collection of bags and packs, and still haven't found one that really does everything I would want it to.   Should I be bitching too?............  I am still alive?


----------



## Jammer (29 Nov 2007)

Maybe you should hook up with "CP Gear guy".....


----------



## armyvern (29 Nov 2007)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Maybe you should hook up with "CP Gear guy".....



I think he's called Matt Fisher around here ...

(do I get free stuff to stuff stockings with for the shameless plug??)  >


----------



## Jammer (29 Nov 2007)

You too could be the lucky winner of the CADPAT IPE bag...


----------



## George Wallace (29 Nov 2007)

Klc said:
			
		

> I know that many of us students at CFSCE in Kingston still have the old combat jackets -



AH!  Well, you see, CFSCE was mostly "Air" until this past summer when it was designated as a "Land" 'institution'.    ;D

Perhaps therein lies the rub.   :-\


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Which ResF Units?? They should have all been rolled over into ICE by now (if they are Land ResF Units of course).
> 
> Although those not yet BMQ qualified are only entitled to the IECS (olive drab gortex), but absolutely none should still be in OG107 olive drab combat jackets anymore.



Umm Vern I still think (as for this summer) that RMC Cadets are not entitled to IECS but are still issued the "Jean Jacket. Then again the guy was airforce.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And that certainly would have been the case for those receiving the brief you mention on entitlements. They were dismounted personnel. A first line operational Unit. The brief you are talking about was presented to the PPCLI no?
> 
> The same statement however, is NOT applicable to ALL Land Force Units & personnel. Read the PIP, read the updated briefing. It clearly differentiates between mounted/dismounted/rear echelon/pointy end.
> 
> ...



Any word as to what ResF units are entitled to it Vern?


----------



## armyvern (29 Nov 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> Umm Vern I still think (as for this summer) that RMC Cadets are not entitled to IECS but are still issued the "Jean Jacket. Then again the guy was airforce.



RMC Cadets get issued their IECS (green gortex) when they come here for their CAP. So, you should see both about there. Land enviornment wise anyways.

Blue & black CAP candidiates also get IECS from us during CAP -- they are going to the field too!!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Nov 2007)

Interesting.... 

Refresher does CAP replace Phase IV?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Nov 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> Interesting....
> 
> Refresher does CAP replace Phase IV?



Its Ph2


----------



## Shamrock (29 Nov 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> Interesting....
> 
> Refresher does CAP replace Phase IV?



Phase II Land


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Nov 2007)

Ok, thx.


<Goes back to hiding under a rock> ;D


----------



## armyvern (29 Nov 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> Interesting....
> 
> Refresher does CAP replace Phase IV?



Dude, I stick to the old system as I have no CLUE what Phase course equals what for anyone anymore!!

DP 1.2, 2.3, fuck.

We see every friggin' land trade here ... and I'm supposed to be able to track what DP point _whatever_ = for an infanteer, which differs from an Artilleryman, and an Armoured soldier, and an engineer.

Bring back the actual course friggin names -- make life easier for everyone!! Bureaucratic BS.

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.


----------



## armyvern (29 Nov 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> Any word as to what ResF units are entitled to it Vern?



Read the powerpoint!!

"Some engineers".  

Do you fall into the entitlement category of "reguarily performs dismounted ops in excess of 72 hours?"

Just as "some" FOOs, SIGs, etc, will qualify, other trades may qualify as well -- depends on what position they happen to be serving in, and that entitlement to it for those trades will only be applicable as long as they fall into the above category.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Dude, I stick to the old system as I have no CLUE what Phase course equals what for anyone anymore!!
> 
> DP 1.2, 2.3, fuck.
> 
> ...



You got that right Vern,

:cheers:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> RMC Cadets get issued their IECS (green gortex) when they come here for their CAP. So, you should see both about there. Land enviornment wise anyways.
> 
> Blue & black CAP candidiates also get IECS from us during CAP -- they are going to the field too!!



BTW wasn't talking about courses but rather taskings. My "Cadre" Officer was bitching that we had the Gortex while a 3rd year RMC guy had the Jean Jacket. I told him to suck it up  lol  >


----------



## armyvern (29 Nov 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> You got that right Vern,
> 
> :cheers:



Yeah, the new way is just sooooooo spot on. Ask the Ops WO ...

OpsO "Is so & so DP1.2 qualified?"

Ops WO "Well what friggin' courses are considered 1.2 for that trade?"

OpsO "LAV ... he needs LAV so he can be crew comd qualified"

Ops WO "Well cripes ... he's got his LAV qual ... so I think so."  :

Everyone scrambles to look up what DP point _whatever_ equals what actual course name ... so we can answer the darn questions.

Just go BACK to the friggin' actual course names already, because we need to know them anyway!!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Nov 2007)

With regards to the comment about not do dismounted patrols.  On mine that was the case for the vast majority of the tour (and by that I mean 99% of dismounted patrols where less then 24 hours, not that dismounted patrols didn't occur).  Apparently the guys over there are doing quite a bit and as a result our guys are possibly going to do 3 weeks of dismounted ops prior to going over.  So in closing every tour is different.  For me we lived out of our day packs and valise.


----------



## DirtyDog (29 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> With regards to the comment about not do dismounted patrols.  On mine that was the case for the vast majority of the tour (and by that I mean 99% of dismounted patrols where less then 24 hours, not that dismounted patrols didn't occur).  Apparently the guys over there are doing quite a bit and as a result our guys are possibly going to do 3 weeks of dismounted ops prior to going over.  So in closing every tour is different.  For me we lived out of our day packs and valise.


Yes, I was just relaying their experience on 3-06 as it was explained to me.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Nov 2007)

Yes that was the one I was on.  Our rucks stayed in KAF along with our gas masks.


----------



## armyvern (29 Nov 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> BTW wasn't talking about courses but rather taskings. My "Cadre" Officer was bitching that we had the Gortex while a 3rd year RMC guy had the Jean Jacket. I told him to suck it up  lol  >



Absolutely -- you come here on a tasking and you're only entitled to the old jean jacket, guess what you get?? IECS gortex because that's what we stock along with ICE.

Or, this one's good -- actually had an RSM of a ResF Unit call me and order me to take away the ICE from one of his Corporals as their Unit was not yet converted to ICE.

"No says I. Read the CTS implemetation PIP. Your corporal was on a Class B contract with an entitled Unit when they were converted, that made him entitled to it. He belonged to THAT Unit at the right time." 

But, I don't want him having it when the rest of us in the Unit don't.

"Good" says I, "get yourself and all of your staff onto a B Class contract with an entitled Unit. Do you really want your corporal to be dressed in IECS when the rest of the RegF Unit he is now on contract with are in ICE?? That, Sir -- is the Total Force concept in action."


----------



## Blakey (30 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> With regards to the comment about not do dismounted patrols.  On mine that was the case for the vast majority of the tour (and by that I mean 99% of dismounted patrols where less then 24 hours, not that dismounted patrols didn't occur).  Apparently the guys over there are doing quite a bit and as a result *our guys are possibly going to do 3 weeks of dismounted ops prior to going over.*  So in closing every tour is different.  For me we lived out of our day packs and valise.



Bite your freaking tongue!, it's not like we have 30 other things on our plate..... :rage:
Honestly though, I'm hearing seven day dismounted Ex in Jan '08, seriously, it's like craming 10 pounds of shit into a five pound bag... :


----------



## armyvern (30 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> .....Our rucks stayed in KAF along with our *gas masks.*



Say it ain't so!!!  

Isn't obtaining desert NBC gear one of the TOP priorities for CTS action on that CTS update powerpoint?? How can you be without your gas mask??!!  :-\

[/sarcasm]

(I know I'm not the only one who picked that out of the powerpoint -- I can certainly think of things I'd be placing a higher priority on -- like chest rigs --- TVs that work --- footwear, raingear etc etc).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

Yes I laughed when I read they are pumping out gas mask carriers.  Come on now honestly.


----------



## Donut (30 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Yes I laughed when I read they are pumping out gas mask carriers.  Come on now honestly.



We got ours yesterday...and what a fine piece of kit it is, too.


----------



## DirtyDog (30 Nov 2007)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> We got ours yesterday...and what a fine piece of kit it is, too.


I'd be interested in seeing this.  How is it worn?  Is it the standard carrier in CADPAT?


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Nov 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I'd be interested in seeing this.  How is it worn?  Is it the standard carrier in CADPAT?



Could this be it?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> Bite your freaking tongue!, it's not like we have 30 other things on our plate..... :rage:
> Honestly though, I'm hearing seven day dismounted Ex in Jan '08, seriously, it's like craming 10 pounds of shit into a five pound bag... :



Rumor mill has it that the CO wants to do another BFT in Jan as well.


----------



## Donut (30 Nov 2007)

I think it's a slightly lighter material then that one   >

It's a slightly lighter material, some of the internal layout of the pockets is different, and the spare canister is held internally (with no little external access flap) with an elastic strap.  The waistbelt is fastex, and it has a thigh strap, too. I suspect my OD carrier is 1st edition, as the FCS techs hadn't seen a C4 mask with as few refits as mine during the fit tests recently, so they may have updated the carriers, in which case my comparison may not be all the valid   ;D


----------



## Blakey (30 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Rumor mill has it that the CO wants to do another BFT in Jan as well.


Ahhh, good 'Ole RUMINT; it is a flying. 
Caught wind of a doozy couple days ago, TF would be deploying to Texas (Fort Hood?) for dismounted Ex then, get this, _deploying overseas from there._


----------



## DirtyDog (30 Nov 2007)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> Ahhh, good 'Ole RUMINT; it is a flying.
> Caught wind of a doozy couple days ago, TF would be deploying to Texas (Fort Hood?) for dismounted Ex then, get this, _deploying overseas from there._


Fort Bliss for the 3-08 TF... *supposedly*.

Infact, some people were informed they were tasked to it today.  No dates or details.....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

I heard the southern thing as well, I would have thought California mind you seeing as it closely resembles A Stan.  The departure from there though will really suck for the spouses if true (which I have a hard time believing).


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Nov 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Fort Bliss for the 3-08 TF... *supposedly*.
> 
> Infact, some people were informed they were tasked to it today.  No dates or details.....



Thats par for the course, the higher ups treating everyone like mushrooms (feeding em shyte and keeping them in the dark).  Hell they still haven't figured out whats going on with stream 4, and its supposed to start in like 5 weeks.  :


----------



## MikeL (30 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Rumor mill has it that the CO wants to do another BFT in Jan as well.



I've heard the January Ex one but this is new.  I think part of this stuff comes from people being jumpy when we get called in early for work after we did the 10km run before goin into the field last May.  Was a nice surprise to be called in early just for a pee test though haha.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Nov 2007)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Thats par for the course, the higher ups treating everyone like mushrooms (feeding em shyte and keeping them in the dark).



Ever work in a headquarters?  If every bright idea being staff-checked was briefed to the troops as a 'definite maybe' then you would be complaining that the CoC lies 90% of the time.  Rumours often have a tiny basis in fact, but quite often it dies before it turns into anything that actually affects day-to-day operations outside the HQ.


----------



## DirtyDog (30 Nov 2007)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Thats par for the course, the higher ups treating everyone like mushrooms (feeding em shyte and keeping them in the dark).  Hell they still haven't figured out whats going on with stream 4, and its supposed to start in like 5 weeks.  :


I know the first several echelons of my CoC are as frustrated as I am trying to figure out what's going on.  They seem to be getting told something new every week, which is passed on to us.  Do you still call it a rumour when it comes down the chain?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> I've heard the January Ex one but this is new.  I think part of this stuff comes from people being jumpy when we get called in early for work after we did the 10km run before goin into the field last May.  Was a nice surprise to be called in early just for a pee test though haha.



Yeah I think your right about being jumpy.  I'm not too concerned.  Even if I fall and break a hip or butcher my feet, I won't be going down south or anywhere else do to a patrol ex.  If that rumour pans out mind you.  I feel bad for those that are deploying mind you.  Its not the BFT per se, its the conditions it will be conducted in.


----------



## Canadian Sig (30 Nov 2007)

I am deploying down to Ft. Bliss 3rd week of Feb. I have dates ect so it seems pretty confirmed from where I sit.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

Until your there and back nothing is confirned, lol


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Fort Bliss for the 3-08 TF... *supposedly*.
> 
> Infact, some people were informed they were tasked to it today.  No dates or details.....


Not supposedly, but in fact.  If you haven't been informed, then it's your chain of command's fault.  There are no specific times for flights (eg: manifests), but there are windows.  G4 moves at 2 CMBG is working their collective butts off to get all the cats herded.  

EDIT: The ex is called "Southern Bear".  The Warning Order was *just* issued.  I told the bde that I did my time estimate and map estimate (both quick versions) and now await the orders so that I can start my mission analysis and estimate, but then I told them that I was kidding.  

Oh, and we HQ types sit up late at night, thinking of new and improved ways to "feed you shyte".


:

Next Edit: read my tag line.  That's how I feel about army staff.


----------



## Jammer (30 Nov 2007)

Oh yeah...I was there...It piles on like an socially unacceptable husky adolescent on a smartie.


----------



## Garett (30 Nov 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> It's funny because the boys in my Coy said they did next to no humping, and the sum of their kit was in their valises as that was all their was room for in the LAV.



India Coy did mostly dismounted ops due to the terrain they were in.


----------



## Bomber (30 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> So a couple of the guys just got the ruck.  I will preface my comments by saying I have not used the ruck extensively nor have I attended the classes.  From my observation I can say that the ruck was not built to be put on quickly.  With all the straps to tighten it plus the jug frig compression sack I would hate to get out of there quickly and still have all my kit.  The plastic buckles and clips for the compression sack cause me concern esp. in the cold, say winter ex.  Also the  sternum strap pops off when you exile from your ruck with the quick release straps.  Now in A Stan who gives a crap but back in Canada I expect there will be LSR's on this little item.  When you bend the metal bars to form to your back they give you a sheet you must keep and I can see that getting lost (although I don't know what the answer will be), and finally I am a little leery on the round bars near the edge of the ruck retaining their integrity from normal user wear and tear but I guess only time will tell.  I should also add that pack your compression sack without light is going to be a joke.  And the guys were informed from the guys from Ottawa that the day bag is the 48 ruck and this new thing is long range/72hours plus ruck.  Since I didn't hear it with my own ears I will reserve judgement on that comment.
> 
> On the plus side some members will be able to pack there warm blooded play things with them now, its that big.



The ruck can be put on quickly, throw it on your back and start walking.  However, by putting it on, and adjusting it before you start out, it will be more comfortable.  Remember that the Hip belt is an integral part, but not a critcal part.  By doing it up and adjusting it, you can make the ruck much more comfortable.  By leaving it undone and carrying on, you are carrying all the wieght on your shoulders, and not over your entire middle and upper body.  

You sternum strap pops off when you blow both of your shoulder harness straps.  If you only pop on and roll the ruck off the side, then it stays on.  Which allows you to keep one hand on your weapon, and drop the ruck to your side.  If you pop both, you are using both hands, not holding your weapon, and it does take a bit longer to return it to working order.  If it happens that you blew both off, and you lost the strap, there is an extra in the top pouch of the ruck, as well as there will be extra's at the QM.  Just don;t forget to remove the waist belt before you quickly remove the ruck.  If you are just taking it off at the end of the march, simply loosen off the shoulde harness, undo the waist belt and sternum strap, and lower it to the ground.

Glass Reinforced Plastic buckles are very resilient in the winter, they were trialed in the North, and have a very high breaking strength.  And, if you do bust one, in the top pouch, along with your spare sternum strap is 2 sets of field replaceable buckles, specially designed to attach in adverse conditons without the need to remove and re-sew their attachment points.  The compression sack is also fairly simple to use, fill it, close the snow cuff, kneel on it to push the air out, and tighten the four straps, if you want it to be waterproof, close the plastic strips together, roll it thrice, and clip it shut.  Takes very little time provided you only put soft stuff in it.  Boots are not a good item for the WCS, fleece and sleeping bags are.  Also, packing it in the dark is also fairly simple, it is just a large stuff sack.  FIll it, compress it, close it, and pack it.

Bending your stays is simple, and done quickly.  Your sheet can be rolled and tossed in with all your kit somewhere, or if lost, anyone that went through the fitting and tracing can tell you it should take no more than 2 minutes to get a new trace done by supply.  Your aluminium stays are issued to you for your career, so once you turn in your ruck, you keep your stays, and put them back in when you get another ruck.  If the metal becomes fatigued and wears out through use (haven't seen it happen, even in the bags that were jumped).  Turn them in, and you get two new ones to re-bend.  The Load Transfer Roads are made of high strength fiber glass, and also have not shown themselves prone to breakeage, and if you happen to snap one, turn it in, and get two new ones.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

Time will tell.


----------



## Bomber (30 Nov 2007)

I guess it will.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

Were there any tests done on packing the compression sack under time with all the required winter kit.  I ask because we tried in good light in a warm building and it was a jug f--k.
 And is it true that your not suppossed to pack your bivy bag seperate from your sleeping bags?


----------



## Bomber (30 Nov 2007)

PM function seems to be NS


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

I will try on my end.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

PM sent, hopefully the reply function will work.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Nov 2007)

PM feature does not work when you are using the DWAN/DIN, nor will the ability to Reply.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

Thanks George, I wasn't aware he was at work.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2007)

@ CTS


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

lol


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2007)

Getting back to the topic intially and the issue of kit -- do these "experts" in human pysiology understand the best mechanics of operating a weapon in combat -- and I ask this question since the C7/8 pam is an example of how not too...

  I'd like to see CSOR and JTF-2 set up a ASW type unit/cell to go out and help regular units learn to fight with weapons beyond the abstract idea of gunfighter.  Placing mags in spots for a REASON etc.

  Many guys in 1VP, 2VP and 3VP and some guys I know in 1 and 3Chicken a lot of experience and knowledge is out there (and getting ignored in a lot of areas) the idea would be to polish it into a package like AWG runs for conventional units down south, and I dont mean parking a guy against his will in Gagetown.


----------



## medaid (30 Nov 2007)

LWQ that's what's known as irony


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

Yes I think your right.


----------



## medaid (30 Nov 2007)

LWQ could you please PM me? I'm on a crackberry, and would like to ask you a question.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2007)

Done


----------



## medaid (30 Nov 2007)

Replied,and cheers!


----------



## Bomber (30 Nov 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> @ CTS



Im a rental that was previously employed by DLR, but never actually within CTS, kind of a CTS associate guy I guess, but never enough to add to a business card.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2007)

Sorry my bad -- I did not mean the insult.


----------



## McG (1 Dec 2007)

sjm said:
			
		

> I've had to fill in a UCR or two in my day, without the help of supply it couldn't have been done.  Bureaucrats needs an out, an error or omission on a UCR is a perfect out.


If some technical omission is being used as an argument for an LCMM to ignore a UCR, then he needs a good kick (and there is a CWO UCR coordinator named in the DWAN site who could likely do that if the originator were to send a complaint.  Now, at the same time, a UCR that lacks the any commentary of value is of no use even to someone that agrees with & is attempting to push the opinion of the originator.  It's not enough to just say "Item X is crap" or "I buy brand 2 & I think it is better than your crappy X."  (and UCRs do get submitted like this).  If you are going to take the time to write a UCR, then take the time to explain why item X is crap.  That is the only way to give your supporters in Ottawa the ammunition they need to help you with your problem.



			
				Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> *WHERE DO ALL THE UCRs GO!!!*


From the sender to the LCMM (who may be military or civilian).   One weakness of the UCR system is that it does not CC any point in the CoC between sender & LCMM (except maybe the one national UCR coordinator in Ottawa who attempts to make sure that these reports don't get left unactioned). While the unit should be aware of what is happening (because the unit UCR coordinator controls the serial numbers), the CoC should be passing this information to formation (bde or NCE) and command (Army or CEFCOM) on all UCRs of a mission critical or life saving issue.  This will ensure command & operational support/backing to finding a solution. (and solutions to problems can die quickly if the leadership turns around and says "we don't want that because we're happy with what we have"

Additionally, anyone can review & add reinforcing commentary to an open UCR.  I personally would recommend that when a Cpl submitts a UCR then the Sect Comd & Pl Comd should both be adding comments for the LCMM. As Vern mentioned, one UCR for a unit is not enough in some cases.  Get every user that has an opinion to write one.  



			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> We need a section formed up of different personnel from different branches to just T&E equipment. No freaking design genius need apply. TRIAL: beat it to crap and put it through its paces EVAL: get what you like and don't like on paper. If it can be addressed it would be, if not, move on to the next product.


It is called LFTEU & it is in Gagetown.  It actually reports to the Army too.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, if it isn't cadpat AR ... CTS has now come out with an AR cover for camelbaks (see ppt update briefing in earlier post in this thread) ...
> 
> We've only been there since 2002.


It can't have been a "just" because the covers were there when I first got there at the start of 06.



			
				Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Not liking that little tidbit of info.  Was this always the intent?


I've known for a few years now that only soldiers in light jobs were supposed to get the new ruck while everyone else would replace the old ruck with a small pack.  There was a message posted on a 1 CER bulletin board in an attempt to answer the many questions that everyone seemed to have at the time the small packs were fist issued.



			
				Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> ... if people are running around in a war zone, making sure that the TVs the troops are wearing are issue, along with boots, socks and so forth, then we're going to lose this war.


But, we were able to do it at Vimy despite those same type of folks ensuring the troops were all wearing their ties.


----------



## armyvern (1 Dec 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> It can't have been a "just" because the covers were there when I first got there at the start of 06.



Sure there were 'some' there. Just like the AR raingear that 'some' (but far from 'all') had over there ... after all, you've got to have someone trial them in theatre for you before you _rush_ out on the big contract for provision.  >


----------



## TCBF (1 Dec 2007)

"I've known for a few years now that only soldiers in light jobs were supposed to get the new ruck while everyone else would replace the old ruck with a small pack."

- Won't work on Baffin Island.  "Travel light - freeze at night".


----------



## armyvern (1 Dec 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "I've known for a few years now that only soldiers in light jobs were supposed to get the new ruck while everyone else would replace the old ruck with a small pack."
> 
> - Won't work on Baffin Island.  "Travel light - freeze at night".



Who said that?

Everyone else's ruck isn't being replaced by the small pack. They're keeping their old rucks ... along with the small packs they've been issued.


----------



## logan7979 (6 Jan 2008)

I wouldn't bother complaining, fact is the Canadian Forces has lost all respect in my eyes.

Hopefully i will be deploying in 2009 in the battle group, i will probably spend a good amount on equipment... it may seem like a lot, but i dont waste my money, and having the best equipment is essential. Before you scream kit whore, i watched my friends laugh at me when i bought my $1000 of running gear when i came to battalion. I just finished my first half marathon and plan on running the boston marathon. $400 custom insoles do wonders people.
Look at the world of professional sports, do you think they compromise on their equipment??? Fact is whether your old school or not, better equipment at the very least makes you more efficient.

We dont need much, but it is nonetheless essential. One question still remains... when i will actually wear it...whether its right before we leave the wire, or once we have left...will i do a switch. Either way, i invite anyone to convince me that our equipment is good.

Heres my tentative list...

ARMOUR
-Plate Carrier (eagle ciras, probably the best) w/ all the armour attachments, groin, neck, shoulder, deltoid etc... $1000ish 
-Various MOLLE pouches, mag holders, first aid, utility, $200 ish
-ESAPI plates (our regular sapi plates dont make the cut...)  $500 (x2) 
-MICH helmet (this is a luxury, it weighs 2lbs and can easily be fitted with a night vision bracket) Also better ballistic protection, can stop a 9mm, and has deflected point blank 7.62 impacts... mind you the force put him in a coma, but he woke up, regained sight and is somewhat normal these days. $500
-Forearm Protection (these are nice because they are as solid kevlar gloves, which extend down your arm offering very good frag protection) $250 



Fact is you cant truly protect your lower body yet... either way as a crew commander your upper body is most vulnerable. Also with the CIRAS vest, it can easily be released, one pull on its release system and its off. I dont know about you, but getting the TV, and then the Frag vest off takes quite awhile.  

Weapon:
get rid of the c79
-Eotech 
-Arms Buis
-Magpulls 

It's all about priorities people, all this stuff can be resold once you return, lots of starving u.s troops can only afford 2nd hand. I watch my friends buy $1500 TV's, xboxs etc, yet spending a good chunk of change on body armour is considered crazy. 

It's time people start using their head

-Mcpl
Valcatier, Quebec


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jan 2008)

Well.  In some ways I must agree with you 100%.  In others, I am a little bit skeptical and think of it as a waste and not such a good idea.  On others I must say I would if I could afford them.  So I am 100% for some of what you said, 90% against some of what you said and then 50/50 on other portions of your post.

I'll have to agree 100% on your running gear and about 90% on some of your body armour suggestions.  I would have to go 90% against your helmet idea, but am willing to think about it.  Much of your body armour ideas are in my 50/50 approval rating, mostly on what I could afford or not; not on the protection factor (that would be a higher percentage of approval).


----------



## armyvern (6 Jan 2008)

logan7979 said:
			
		

> It's time people start using their head
> 
> -Mcpl
> Valcatier, Quebec



Two questions for you.

Have you done your job and submitted your observations via the UCR process? Have you had your personnel do the same?

Swamp them with UCRs like the official system calls for, as that IS the way to report kit defeciencies, and DO something about it instead of talking about it.

5 UCRS (official complaints) sitting in NDHQ when 35000 people have been issued the kit -- means that 34996 people have NOT told NDHQ they have a complaint about the kit. And, sadly -- that's what it all boils down to. If the troops want to have the kit changed -- the troops are going to have to tell NDHQ that ... en masse.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (6 Jan 2008)

logan7979 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't bother complaining, fact is the Canadian Forces has lost all respect in my eyes.



I have just come from the British Army, and if you think the Canadian Army is under/ill-equipped, well I can guarantee you we're not.





			
				logan7979 said:
			
		

> It's all about priorities people, all this stuff can be resold once you return, lots of starving u.s troops can only afford 2nd hand. I watch my friends buy $1500 TV's, xboxs etc, yet spending a good chunk of change on body armour is considered crazy.
> 
> It's time people start using their head
> 
> ...



I also have priorities, like a wife, new house and baby on the way. No problems by me if you want to spend that sort of money on kit you get issued, however, bear in mind not everyone can afford it. However I do agree with the running kit expenditure. You can replace insoles, not knees.


----------



## PhilB (6 Jan 2008)

logan7979 said:
			
		

> Heres my tentative list...
> 
> ARMOUR
> -Plate Carrier (eagle ciras, probably the best) w/ all the armour attachments, groin, neck, shoulder, deltoid etc... $1000ish
> ...



Logan,

Let me address some of your points. A bit of background before I start. I went overseas on TF 1-06 and I am set to deploy, in the battle group with TF 1-08. I am also a self professed kit slut. That being said I disagree with a lot of the kit you are planning on buying. Let me place a caveat on that, I dont disagree with it, but let me give you a reality check.

-Armour - You want to buy a CIRAS and use ESAPI plates. Thats fine it is a good piece of kit. The problem with your post is several fold, after 1-06 and now looking at whats going on on 1-08 I can tell you that you will not be able to use non issue armour inside the wire or out. I had a couple buddies that used CIRAS's on 1-06, they were told they could use them, over top of the issue armour. This is uncomfortable, and not what the CIRAS is designed for. I agree there is better soft armour out there than what we have, if you want to spend money on upgraded armour it may be an idea to look at getting some custom made soft panels made that will fit our issue carrier. As far as ESAPI plates go, you are looking at more than $500 a plate first off, then I would say that it is not really necessary. Our plates are not that bad, and provide good protection, the down side in them is that they are heavier than ESAPI's. Having held one of our plates in one hand and an ESAPI in the other I would say that the American plate is about half the weight of our plate. So then the decision has to be made again, are you willing to spend all of that money, and hassel (good luck finding a source that will sell a set of ESAPI's  to a Canadian and mail them to Canada), for a set of plates that is lighter (I am suggesting using the plates in the issue carrier). If you want to use upgraded armour you can, and get away with it as long as it is all in the issue AR Cadpat carrier. I would do that, and then buy a chest rig to go over the armour. You are taking the risk yourself as to whether or not what you bought was authentic and provides the stated protection.

- MOLLE pouches - couldn't agree more, great piece of kit.

-MICH Helmet - Again, like the armour discussion above. I know of a few people that bought MICH's on 1-06 and then were forced to go back to the Canadian issue helmet. In my experience the chain of command will usually let chest rigs and other pieces of non issue kit fly outside the wire, but not armour. Look at it from their point of view; protection of the soldier is their primary focus. They know that the issue armour and helmet work, and have neither the time or inclination to research and verify the ballistic properties of the armour and helmet that you want to use, so its back to what they know works. The MICH is slightly lighter than our helmet, mainly because it is cut higher. The higher cut has advantages and disadvantages, it reduces the weight, allows for better integration with amour and comms but lowers your coverage area i.e. less of your head and upper neck is protected. From reading your post above it seems that protection is your primary focus do you want to reduce your coverage? Now, the MICH is superior in terms of suspension, the Oregon Aero pads and strap that are in the helmet are leaps and bounds ahead of ours. You can get those straps and pads from several Canadian retailers and retrofit your issue helmet. That is what I have done to my helmet and it is quite comfortable. Finally, the NVG bracket, you can drill a hole in the front of our helmet just as easily as there is one drilled in the front of the MICH. I really like the MICH, I like it better than our helmet, and if I could get away using one I would. I havent bought one because there is a slim to non chance that it would be allowed for wear.

- Forearm Protection - Im not exactly sure what you are meaning here, do you have a link? The only thing I would say is just remember the heat and amount of weight you are going to be dealing with overseas, dont over burden yourself with superfluous pieces of kit. 

- Eotech - completely agree, although you might want to wait out as if you are issued a C8A2 most are coming with eotechs.

-ARMS BUIS - again agree on the need for a BUIS however the arms #40 BUIS does not easily fit the Canadian upper (Our rails are not to American mil specs). I would suggest going with a Troy, MI, or LMT sight. I know all of those ones fit.

- Magpuls - Sure, they are personal preference.

Now having said all of that I would save your money on the amour and helmet and buy some different stuff. I have bought a chest rig, boots (the issue ones are junk!), Oakley sunglasses (I got really bad headaches using the issue ballistic glasses on 1-06), nomex gloves, helmet suspension upgrades, forearm rails for my weapon and a few other things. If you want more details just pm me. I agree that there is nothing wrong with spending money on kit that could potentially save your life overseas. I would just research what you want a bit more, and be more realistic about what you will and will not be able to use overseas.


----------



## geo (6 Jan 2008)

One big thing sticks in my craw right now.....



> fact is the Canadian Forces has lost all respect in my eyes.



If you have no respect for the CF.... then what the H are you still hanging around for?


----------



## geo (6 Jan 2008)

Big problem with wearing non issue balistic plates and helmets...

Though the issue kit might be a little bit larger and a little bit heavier, if you get injured in spite of your personal investment in protective kit, you WILL have some major problems with the CFs health system AND Veteran affairs afterwards.

Don't want to pee on anyone's choices and decisions BUT, if treatment AND compensation is denied or limited because you willfuly chose not to use the issue kit..... you won't have much grounds to appeal.

IIRC the US Army issued similar comments on personal body armour use in Iraq & Afghanistan.  They will assume responsiblilty for injuries where THEIR kit did not work as advertised.  They will not assume responsibility for injuries where YOUR kit did not work as advertised.


----------



## Armymedic (6 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> One big thing sticks in my craw right now.....
> 
> If you have no respect for the CF.... then what the H are you still hanging around for?



Obviously, for the money. To pay for the kit he "thinks" he needs.


----------



## RCR Grunt (6 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Big problem with wearing non issue balistic plates and helmets...
> 
> Though the issue kit might be a little bit larger and a little bit heavier, if you get injured in spite of your personal investment in protective kit, you WILL have some major problems with the CFs health system AND Veteran affairs afterwards.
> 
> ...



Though the issue kit might be a little bit larger and a little bit heavier, if you get injured in spite of your personal investment in protective kit, you WON'T HAVE ANY major problems with the CFs health system AND Veteran affairs afterwards.

I've said this before and I'm about to say it again ... I've made the calls, I've asked the questions, I've gotten the answers.  Both SISIP and VAC will cover you regardless of the kit you are wearing.  SISIP covers you both civvy side and duty side, and no one wears armor on the 401 so they cover you regardless.  VAC covers service related injuries.  So if your injured in the line of duty, whether you are wearing the latest and greatest piece of CTS gear or a pretty pink tu-tu, you are covered. 

This argument has been made for some time in an effort to "scare" troops into wearing the sometimes inferior but issued gear.  It is false, and a moot argument, and this is the third time I've had to restate this.   

Oh, and we're not the US Army.


----------



## NL_engineer (6 Jan 2008)

But with that said, if the COC says you *will* were the issued kit, it is a direct and legal order; despite any objections we may have we have to follow.


----------



## RCR Grunt (6 Jan 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> But with that said, if the COC says you *will* were the issued kit, it is a direct and legal order; despite any objections we may have we have to follow.



Yes, but I don't need to be "scared" into following a direct and lawful order.

The CoC knows there is better kit out there, why do you think some commanders allow troops to buy it and use it overseas?  Somewhere, someone is persuading the CoC that issued = the only thing going, and that whatever our allies use is sub standard to our "CTS revelations."


----------



## PhilB (6 Jan 2008)

RCR I agree completely. I think the flip side to that is un-informed troops messing it up for the rest of us. What I mean is every time a troop buys a sub standard piece of kit that fails in the field, every time a troop spends lots of money on superfluous kit (how many people do you know that have spent stupid amounts of money on huge "jackhawk 3000" tank buster knives that have no purpose  > ) the chain of command can point to that and say "thats why issue kit only be used". IMHO the more informed troops, that are forced to go out and spend their money on kit that will actually, work the better, to a certain degree. They shouldn't have to, and it indicates a clear failure in the system that they do but eventually if enough people are using other stuff the chain and the system will follow (fingers crossed). That or the dinosaurs will be gone and more nlightened leaders will have the reins. Before anyone pipes up about UCR's yes I have submitted UCR's, in fact I have submitted multiple UCR's on the tac vest, wet weather boots, helmet suspension, and the small pack. I realize that UCR's are supposed to work, and they do in some instances, but I think that there is to much vested interest in some senior leadership in CTS.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> That or the dinosaurs will be gone and more nlightened leaders will have the reins.



20 years from now, the CF will be fighting in  (insert country name) and the young soldiers of the day will be calling you the dinosaur.


----------



## PhilB (6 Jan 2008)

very true, very true. I think what I would classify as a dinosaur, though, is not someone that is necessarily older but less open minded. The "this is how was used to do, this is what we did in Bosnia, this is how I was taught, so thats the only way we will do it". I REALLY hope that I don't become close minded like that. Every idea has merit and should be explored. Workable solutions are workable solutions regardless of where they come from, if a chest rig is a workable solution to load carriage it should be accepted. I understand that the wheels of the army grind slowly and that budget is a factor, as well as personal preference, yada yada yada so implementation of some ideas takes time. What irks me more than not being issued, say for example a chest rig, is the illogical refusal of some in the chain to allow soldiers that will spend their own money on that chest rig to use it. If the piece of kit is of equal or better quality to the issue kit, improves a soldiers ability to fight, and does not compromise their ability to be instantly identified as a Canadian then what is the problem? Thats my major issue, closed mindedness!


----------



## McG (6 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> ... but eventually if enough people are using other stuff the chain and the system will follow (fingers crossed).


If those people buying thier own kit do not take the time to fill out a UCR, the system will never know what needs to be fixed/replaced.  So, if you are ready to throw hundreds of dollars into something you should not have to buy, then I hope you are also putting 15 - 20 min into drafting a UCR.  If not, Ottawa will never know of the problem (regardless of dinosaurs vs. enlightened pers).


----------



## PhilB (7 Jan 2008)

agreed, a couple posts above the post you are quoting I posted that I had turned in UCR's for several pieces of kit (I saw the UCR comments coming a long way off  ;D )


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> agreed, a couple posts above the post you are quoting I posted that I had turned in UCR's for several pieces of kit (I saw the UCR comments coming a long way off  ;D )



Good, then you did what you are supposed to do. The comments will continue to come though --- just like the troops bitching about it will continue -- until the troops get off their duffs and file the paperwork to get it fixed.

Unfortunately approx 34996 other pers who have been issued the TV have NOT noted any problems with it via the UCR which IS the avenue to voice a complaint, note a concern/deficiency and to propose a solution.

The TV is an _individual_ kit item. The UCRs for it should be done by _individuals_. The more -- the better.

Less than 10 submitted for 35000 issued means that not too many individuals have such a big problem with it that they are actually willing to DO something about getting it fixed instead of simply bitching about it. Ergo ... OFFICIALLY ... it is well within the 80% satisfaction rate.

It can't be said enough.


----------



## PhilB (7 Jan 2008)

Completely agree, I think the root of the problem lies in the "bulk UCR" . I have done one of these for the TV. Wherein a whole unit or sub unit submit one UCR with the whole  units thoughts on it. I think that what should be done is at a platoon or section level in the post tour AAR process everyone sits down and collaborates on 1 UCR. Everyone inputs and helps to get it done, then it is photocopied and passed out to every troop who inputed. Each fill in their particulars and voila, many more UCR's. 

All of that being said my major issue is with the dress policy as opposed to the TV itself. I realize the TV is crap and we shouldn't be saddled with crap, but like you said Vern unless people get up and officially (UCR) voice their thoughts nothing will be done. Even then, who knows it anything will really change. As I stated earlier it really irks when higher ups come down with, what IMHO is illogical, dress policies. i.e. no non issue LBE. Why is ask? Why? Where is the logic in stating this? How does it make sense? To me, as long as the piece of kit wanting to be used meets the criteria I posted earlier, we should be allowed to use what we want.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> Completely agree, I think the root of the problem lies in the "bulk UCR" . I have done one of these for the TV. Wherein a whole unit or sub unit submit one UCR with the whole  units thoughts on it. I think that what should be done is at a platoon or section level in the post tour AAR process everyone sits down and collaborates on 1 UCR. Everyone inputs and helps to get it done, then it is photocopied and passed out to every troop who inputed. Each fill in their particulars and voila, many more UCR's.
> 
> All of that being said my major issue is with the dress policy as opposed to the TV itself. I realize the TV is crap and we shouldn't be saddled with crap, but like you said Vern unless people get up and officially (UCR) voice their thoughts nothing will be done. Even then, who knows it anything will really change. As I stated earlier it really irks when higher ups come down with, what IMHO is illogical, dress policies. i.e. no non issue LBE. Why is ask? Why? Where is the logic in stating this? How does it make sense? To me, as long as the piece of kit wanting to be used meets the criteria I posted earlier, we should be allowed to use what we want.



_*Individual*_ kit = *Individual* UCRs.

Write one up (do not have ANY control numbers assigned to it & leave the individual particulars blank), then photocopy it for all your pers, then have them each fill in their particulars & sign theirs, THEN have a control number assigned by your Unit UCR co-ordinator to each and every one of them. Then submit to your CoC and have them annotate them to back you all up, then courier them via your OR ... en masse to NDHQ.

It worked for the fading cadpats ...

As to the logic of the TV and the CTS items -- they were designed in the mid to late 90s -- well before Sept 11th, and well before the influx of combat experience the CF is currently witnessing. They took 10 years to get into the system -- had the CTS kit been design after 9/11 and after our deployment to Afghanistan circa fall 01 -- I'm quite sure that it would be significantly different than it is now.


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Jan 2008)

I'm not going to try to quote everyone on their more than valid points about filling out UCRs and passing info up the chain and whatnot, I just want to throw my $0.02 in... so here it is; 

I will be using the TV as an example;

I think its fair to say that anyone who has used the TV in operations, specifically those involving the big 'ol 2 way range, would agree that it does not suit the needs of the average combat soldier in the field... I almost said "infantry soldier" just there, but it has been proven countless times that infantry aren't the only ones facing the 'angry bees'... Anyway, the solution most combat soldiers have come up with is to purchase the items they feel they require to do their job more effectively, rather than use the chain of command to improve what they are being given.  I know I'm stating the obvious, I'm just summing up the issue(s).

Now; the first step in solving a problem is figuring out why there is a problem at all.  I think its blatantly obvious why the troops don't like the issued TV, so I'm not going to get into it's horrible horrible shortfalls (nor will I be pulled into a dispute... use it while getting shot at and you will no doubt agree that it has issues)... anyway, the next problem would be why the troops are buying their own gear vise asking for better kit...  well, I can't speak for everyone, so I'll just spit out the reasons why I dumped $2000 into a tour that only lasted 3 weeks...
Here are/were my reasons, in no particular order;

1) Time: Specifically the lack of it.  Most troops figure out their kit has problems shortly before deploying... I had no idea what I was really in for until I got into the battalion, and even then, it took time to sort out what I needed.  I know nothing about the UCR system and how long it takes to sort out kit, but judging by previous kit 'upgrades'; it seems as though it takes a lot of time... eg. CADPAT and CTS; still on going from the mid-late 90s.   So, although I'm confident that new kit will get to the troops, it just doesn't seem like its going to happen any time soon.   
So how does this effect the troops decision to buy gear? Simple answer; there isn't enough time to screw around with bureaucracy just before deployment... so it comes down to impatience. Troops need kit now, and they didn't know they needed it until they hit the beach, so to speak.
So, why don't troops do the paper work after? Why bother now that the needed kit has already been purchased? or once the tour is done, the troops that needed the good kit may have left the military all together.  Either way, it comes down to the disdain for bureaucracy.  I know that sounds like horse crap, but think about who is using the kit and needs it the most; it's not the soldier behind a desk; it's the soldier behind the rifle... and we ain't much for writing (well... some of us anyway).

2) Make it work: My father has a saying; "if Sh!t works, use it."  This is part of the problem of our military and is also what makes us so damn good... we improvise, adapt and overcome.  Someone once made a very good point to me; "We (the Canadian forces) have been handed crap from day one, and instead of turning it away and saying 'this isn't going to work' we make it work, and then we win... then those in the CoC see that we used the crap we have to win, and they say 'we won thanks to that crap'... which is wrong; we one because our soldiers made that crap work." (I cleaned it up a bit, but thats the gist of it.).   I don't know how I can make that more clear; we get handed kit that barely suits our needs, and we make it suit our needs... now, this may prove that the kit we have is good enough, but why make it harder when there's kit out there that's made better.  I see it as using a brick to hammer in a nail; sure, you're going to get the nail hammered in, but you're not using the right tool... and you're just making it more difficult...  But I digress... we will always have poor quality kit, 'cause we're always going to make it work.  This also goes along with #1.

3) Old school mentality;  I don't mean to pick on anyone here.  I think we can all name people within our ranks, trades, elements, who cling to the 'old ways'.  During work up for TF3-06, the RSM (god rest his soul) really picked on the troops for wearing non-issued tactical gear... I recall one day he had us all in the Drill hall at the 1 RCR building, giving us a shouting for wearing "combat bras", and stated that he would personally burn them if he caught us wearing them...  Fair enough.  He then tried to point out how "great" the TV was, and while he was going on about it, someone (I know who and I'm not telling) yelled from the back; "Where do you put the 4 boxes of 556 link when one utility pouch has to have a med kit?"... the RSM said; "in your small pack... the crowd laughed.  Then the same voice from the audience; "what about 15 mags? where do you keep the other 10? The utility pouch only holds an extra 5."  The RSM was getting a little annoyed at this point a blurted out; "Look you (expletive deleted), this kit has been proven in battle." Again the voice from the crowd; "What battle?".  The RSM; "You will wear this kit and you will make it work... it has been proven to be the best kit available." again from the crowd; "we won WW2 with a bolt action rifle... it's proven too..." Now the RSM was ready to kill... and we all knew it; "If you (expletive deleted) want to wear that crap, I will make you wear old 82 pattern webbing!"  He was very annoyed... and again from the crowd; "At least it's modular".  The RSM left very angry and we spent the rest of the week garbage sweeping the lines...  But the point was made; the battlefield is dynamic, and soldiers must be just as dynamic... But, there's a lot of resistance.  So the troops just do it, get it done and then move on.  
We fought toe to toe with the enemy just about every day (that I was there anyway) and we used the high speed, gucci gear and it worked... but once back on Canadian soil; no more training with the stuff that works... back to the junk.

Anyway; so we've identified some of the reasons why troops will buy kit and not go through the system... Now what's the solution?  I honestly don't know... but if we're really an army that likes to learn from our actions... why wouldn't we look at other Armies as well...     Take, for example, the US military;  Their plate carrier has MOLLE on it... BAM! Modular tac vest and armour rolled in one... theres one solution.  or how about the fact that a lot of their units are allotted funds to equip the soldiers with what they need... hey, we could do that too... just set up limits and boundaries.  Or... how 'bout this one, and this will probably cost a lot of people their jobs; just ask the troops what they need... heck... you don't even need to ask... call up OneShotTactical and ask how much of what they're selling to troops... You could do the same with just about any tactical supplier. Done; now you know what the troops want.

I know there will be some resistance here; 
Not all troops know what they need, and some are just going for the LCF: Yeah... thats why we have Jr leadership and veterans within the units.
It won't look uniform; yup... that's why we have CF DEU's... the enemy doesn't care if you look uniform... everyone looking the same won't win a fight. But everyone being effective will.  Granted, somethings have to be uniform... like medical kits.  but beyond that; it should be up to the soldiers digression as to how their kit will be laid out... especially when their the ones using it to do their job.
And of course; if it's going to be used in operation, it needs to be used in trg.  When (and if) I ever get myself medically sorted out enough to get back into the rifle company, I'm going to have a really hard time adjusting to using kit I know isn't effective... but at the same time, I know that I can't tell the troops or the jr leadership that what they have is junk and it won't work well in operations... mainly because it's a reserve unit, but also because it's not my place.

Anyway... I think I've written enough of a novel tonight...  so I'll do a quick sum up;
- Troops need the kit to do their jobs more effectively... and why not, if it's going to make things easier. (it will benefit the end state)
- Troops don't/won't fill out UCRs because of a multitude of reasons (laziness, apathy, etc, etc.)... and because we're not the Borg, we cannot force/convince/persuade our peers into doing something... especially with the "ah, F*** it attitude" embraced by so many.  
- No matter what, the troops will make the kit work
- A lot of our kit is NOT battle proven, since most soldiers will shed the crap kit when going into battle
- The troops will continue to purchase kit, 'cause it makes their job easier, keeps them safer and suits their needs
- There are many ways to solve the problem... but I'm just a plug, toon corporal and know nothing of how to make thing better... nor do I have any kind of power... just ideas and lots of time (as you can tell by my novel of a post.)

So, there it is.   There's got to be about 100 threads on these forums all saying the same thing; our kit is crap. heres why. why isn't this getting fixed.  To which the response is; fill out a UCR... if it were so simple, it would have been done the first time someone ran out of rounds on the dusty 2way range and had to hand-bomb to win the fire fight, thanks to having only 5 mags... but, here we are.   UCRs sound like the most simple solution... but it's just not happening.

Either way, we'll make it work.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

Perhaps you missed the part where I said the CTS kit was designed BEFORE we found ourselves on the 2 way range.

Funny what future combat experience will reveal about one's kit and it's defeciencies.

Time? It took me 10 minutes to write up a UCR on the faded cadpat. 

I stuck it in the photocopier and let 'er rip. I refilled the paper tray 4 times.

I then had 2000 copies of that UCR. I stuck it on the clothing front counter. We had all the troops (and courses who came in) fill in their particulars on the top and sign it (that took them all of 10 seconds).

We then did 'em up and shipped 'em out en masse.

Quit bitching -- start improvising -- and start doing. With the amount of time spent mulling about the CQs or out having a smoke -- surely to gawd at least ONE person in a Unit can find the time to write up a UCR to photocopy it. 

Everyone always has a reason for NOT doing what they need to do -- and if that's the case, then just stop bitching about it. It is absolutely ZERO different than asshats who do NOT vote -- bitching about politics. None.

You want your voice and you want your say -- then let's see some action to make it happen. The defeatist attitude kills me. I posted a UCR thread on this site 2 years ago, along with a sample and instructions (step by step by step) with a note to PM me to obtain a copy of the UCR form, a whole 3, yes three people, actually requested a UCR from me (and one of those was tonight!) and that was in a TV bitch thread.

You want to sit on your duffs, it won't change. That's the plain and simple facts of the matter. Funny how you all expect CTS to do something, but none of you think you should do anything.


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Perhaps you missed the part where I said the CTS kit was designed BEFORE we found ourselves on the 2 way range.



Indeed, and it'll be a long time after we leave the sand box that things get changed... thus is the great chain of kit upgrades.  The kit we need now won't be in the system until long after we are done needing it.... this has happened many times in the past and the only real answer is a more dynamic system.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Funny what future combat experience will reveal about one's kit and it's defeciencies.



True... it's also funny that these deficiencies aren't addresses until long after the combat experiences.  Back to my last point; more dynamic system needed.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Time? It took me 10 minutes to write up a UCR on the faded cadpat.



I stuck it in the photocopier and let 'er rip. I refilled the paper tray 4 times.

I then had 2000 copies of that UCR. I stuck it on the clothing front counter. We had all the troops (and courses who came in) fill in their particulars on the top and sign it (that took them all of 10 seconds).

We then did 'em up and shipped 'em out en masse. [/quote]

sooo... who's job is it?  the individual soldier on behalf of their unit, to do all UCRs?  back to one of my points; I don't believe enough individual soldiers will do this; thus there is no majority and it seems like a few bitching and not a fair representation.

And, if the responsibility lies on the leadership; what about those who don't see, or refuse to see a problem? "We make the kit work, so what's wrong with it?" 

But I do see your point... the issue does have to be addressed.




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Quir bitching -- start improvising -- and start doing. With the amount of time spent mulling about the CQs or out having a smoke -- surely to gawd at least ONE person in a Unit can find the time to write up a UCR.
> 
> Everyone always has a reason for NOT doing what they need to do -- and if that's the case, then just stop bitching about it. It is absolutely ZERO different than asshats who do NOT vote -- bitching about politics. None.
> 
> You want your voice and you want your say -- then let's see some action to make it happen. The defeatist attitude kills me. I posted a UCR on this site 2 years ago, along with a sample and instructions (step by step by step) ... a whole 3, yes three people, actually requested a UCR from me (and one of those was tonight!).



Agreed... It comes down to people 'doing' instead of bitching.  If change is to be made, it's going to take everyone doing what needs to be done... but, as I've said; we're not a Borg collective... we can't change peoples apathy or laziness, and that will always be the weakest link in the chain.




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You want to sit on your duffs, it won't change. That's the plain and simple facts of the matter. Funny how you all expect CTS to do something, but none of you think you should do anything.


(you added this while I was writing...)

Exactly... But, I doubt the CTS program could fix the problem in time even if every soldier in the CF wrote up a UCR... The system has to be just as dynamic as the soldiers on the battlefield to keep up with the needs of the troops.

I think what I'm getting at is; do we really need the CTS program? Do we really need to develop our own kit when there's better kit out there for the same price?  Just my thoughts on it.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I don't believe enough individual soldiers will do this; thus there is no majority and it seems like a few bitching and not a fair representation.



I'm pretty sure Vern was clear on who should submit UCRs

and if the soldiers dont/wont participate in the system and fill them out , they are just as much part of the problem as the CTS people that you all blame this on.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Indeed, and it'll be a long time after we leave the sand box that things get changed... thus is the great chain of kit upgrades.  The kit we need now won't be in the system until long after we are done needing it.... this has happened many times in the past and the only real answer is a more dynamic system.



Wrong. 110% wrong. It's called operational requirements. Get the friggin UCRs in en masse and the CF CAN go outside of federal contracting requirments and get new kit in FAST precisely because it IS a direct in-combat operational kit requirement. Need proof? Think Globemaster.



> True... it's also funny that these deficiencies aren't addresses until long after the combat experiences.  Back to my last point; more dynamic system needed.



You've got the experience NOW. You could have drafted 5 UCRs in the amount of time it took for your below post ... and quite possibly even have photocopied them too for YOUR Unit.



> sooo... who's job is it?  the individual soldier on behalf of their unit, to do all UCRs?  back to one of my points; I don't believe enough individual soldiers will do this; thus there is no majority and it seems like a few bitching and not a fair representation.
> 
> And, if the responsibility lies on the leadership; what about those who don't see, or refuse to see a problem? "We make the kit work, so what's wrong with it?"
> 
> But I do see your point... the issue does have to be addressed.



You must also have missed the part below where I said _*Individual Kit = Individual UCRS*_. In this case, it is an individual responsibilty ... same for PPE. Let me tell you this, when there's less than 10 UCRs on 35000 issued does it seem to be a big problem? No. Like I said ... that infers that 34996 individuals are perfectly fine with their kit. The "photocopying bit" is called IMPROVISING like I said already. One person with enough initiative to do this in every Unit WILL make a difference. And when NDHQ has 20000 UCRs on whatever piece of kit -- then that kit and its defeciencies certainly DOES become a problem that needs to get sorted out _post haste_ exactly because it IS operational.



> Agreed... It comes down to people 'doing' instead of bitching.  If change is to be made, it's going to take everyone doing what needs to be done... but, as I've said; we're not a Borg collective... we can't change peoples apathy or laziness, and that will always be the weakest link in the chain.



Or, like I said ... one superior robot with initiative to fill one out and photocopy it ... and then have the borgs sign it. Really.


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Jan 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure Vern was clear on who should submit UCRs
> 
> and if the soldiers dont/wont participate in the system and fill them out , they are just as much part of the problem as the CTS people that you all blame this on.




Don't get me wrong; I believe every soldier should be filling out these UCRs, and I agree that anyone who just bitches and does nothing about it is just as much a part of the problem... But...  The reality of the situation is this; most soldiers won't take the time.  Weather it's because they're lazy or apathetic or they just don't know... Ignorance of the system is a big issue... I knew nothing of the UCR process until about 8 months after I got back, and when I asked my platoon mates from tour about it, they had no idea what I was talking about.  As well, there's the 'weak link in the chain' effect too.  All it takes is one member of a section/platoon to say "nuts to that" and then everyone else will question the worth of doing the paperwork... it's just human nature. 

As for CTS's role... You can't honestly tell me there's nothing more they can do... it's not like those who work on this project live under a rock, and I'm pretty sure they're intelligent people... somethings gotta give.  The responsibility can't lie solely on the soldiers; there's got to be some give and take.  This is exactly what I mean by; we make our own bed by making things work... no one sees the problem 'cause theirs no apparent problem to see.  It's not like the kit is clearly, with out a reasonable doubt, costing lives or endangering the mission... if, for example, the issue was with hand grenades. And every time a soldier used one, it blew up in their hands... pretty clear indication of a problem... but some issues aren't so clear, and even with hundreds, or even thousands of UCRs submitted, I have my doubts about how quickly the problems would be addressed.  

So I go back to the Dynamic solution.  Soldiers know what they want... they know where to get it... There's got to be something that can be done.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> most soldiers won't take the time.  Weather it's because they're lazy or apathetic or they just don't know... Ignorance of the system is a big issue...



Then they need to look in the mirror and say to the reflection "its your fault"



> I knew nothing of the UCR process until about 8 months after I got back, and when I asked my platoon mates from tour about it, they had no idea what I was talking about.



Well, guess what your job is at your unit is now ? Time to step up to the plate !


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

OK RHFC Piper,

Have _*you*_ submitted one of those UCRs on the kit?

And you're correct ... CTS doesn't live under a rock. But if you want to see specs change (which costs millions of dollars) for multi-millions of dollars worth of kit ... and contracts get re-done (which costs further millions of dollars) to get proper stuff (whether an industry off the shelf item or whatever, but make sure you put that into your "suggested improvements/solution area) purchased that suits our combat needs -- then more than 10 people out of 35000 better be saying so.

And right now -- they're not. So, get some initiative -- fill one out and photocopy it for your Unit ... and lead them borgs by the hand.

Because CTS certainly can't pull it off either -- without the damned paperwork well beyond the 20% "dissatisfaction rate" to back up the justification for doing so.


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Wrong. 110% wrong. It's called operational requirements. Get the friggin UCRs in en masse and the CF CAN go outside of federal contracting requirments and get new kit in FAST precisely because it IS a direct in-combat operational kit requirement. Need proof? Think Globemaster.



I'm not going to argue this point anymore...  The point I'm trying to make (and this will be my last on this) is that we've been there for 6+ years, seen lots of combat, have lots of vets, have lot of people trying to change things and nothing has changed (for personal kit)... and I do realize the need wasn't always there... but when the need was there little has changed. But, I digress...  I'm done with this line of argument... it's just circular; Things need to change ==> Fill out the forms ===> No one does ====> things need to change ===> fill out the forms, etc, etc..  If it were so simple it would have happened.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You've got the experience NOW. You could have drafted 5 UCRs in the amount of time it took for your below post ... and quite possibly even have photocopied them too for YOUR Unit.



I have, and all 3 of us have submitted it... yay reserves.




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You must also have missed the part below where I said _*Individual Kit = Individual UCRS*_. In this case, it is an individual responsibilty ... same for PPE. Let me tell you this, when there's less than 10 UCRs on 35000 issued does it seem to be a big problem? No. Like I said ... that infers that 34996 individuals are perfectly fine with their kit. The "photocopying bit" is called IMPROVISING like I said already. One person with enough initiative to do this in every Unit WILL make a difference. And when NDHQ has 20000 UCRs on whatever piece of kit -- then that kit and its defeciencies certainly DOES become a problem that needs to get sorted out _post haste_ exactly because it IS operational.



Seems simple... but how many of those 34996 have seen the problem (under fire)... and how many will do their part? and when all is said and done... how many UCRs will be at NDHQ?  Back to the circular argument.




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Or, like I said ... one superior robot with initiative to fill one out and photocopy it ... and then have the borgs sign it. Really.



I can only hope that there is someone in each deploying/deployed unit who knows about this and can sort everyone out... until that day...


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> without the damned paperwork well beyond the 20% "dissatisfaction rate" to back up the justification for doing so.



I've addressed the rest of this post, but this is an interesting point;

So there are 35000 troops with a TV... and CTS requires 20% dissatisfaction;  
I'm not even going to try to pull numbers out my ass, but I just had a brain-fart...  Of those 35000, how many have deployed to Afghanistan.  And of those, how many have been in a situation which would make them believe the kit is not up to par for fighting (combat) and of them, how many 'just made the kit work' or just don't care...  Somehow, and feel free to call me a pessimist, I don't foresee that number being 20%.  This is the point I'm trying to make.

I believe the system can change to suit.  I believe soldiers have to get off their asses and change things if they so desire things to change... I think you and I are on the same page with that... But I also believe that if CTS saw a problem, they could fix it a lot more quickly and efficiently than what they're doing now... the catch is; the issue isn't that apparent... 

Anyway, I understand what you're getting at... and this will be the constant argument on every single page of every single thread about kit; The kit suck ==> do the paperwork.  Perhaps there should be a Sticky at the top of the Kit page which reads;

Topic: Don't like issued kit? Read this!

Body:


FILL OUT THIS PAPERWORK AND SUBMIT IT HERE!! (add link and address).

Bam! no more threads about "this kit sucks".


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Seems simple... but how many of those 34996 have seen the problem (*under fire*)...



You said yourself that most soldiers figure out its crap during training, so what does "under fire" have to do with anything now ?



> and how many will do their part? and when all is said and done...



If they are not part of the solution and filling out and sending UCRs then they are part of the problem. If ignorance of the system is the problem, then you RHFC-Piper are in the perfect spot to rectify that situation. You are not shy about saying you have experience, its time for you to put money where your mouth is and spread the word. If you dont, you are also part of the problem and failing your duties and failing the soldiers under you.


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Jan 2008)

RHFC_Piper:

I know your background, and I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinion.

BUT (there's always a "but" after an opening line like that) - you're missing the big picture.  The CF is a HUGE organization, complete with a HUGE bureaucracy - and it's only a little part of the HUGER bureaucracy which is the Federal Government.

Bureaucracies have policies, and means of getting things done.  From an individuals point of view, those policies and means are unresponsive and vexing.  But those policies and means are there for a reason - usually financial.

If you want the bureaucracy to change something - you need to play by its' rules.  Vern has made a very good suggestion regarding the UCRs.  Why NOT fill one out and photocopy it.  Leave a stack by the Class A sign in sheet - along with a sign detailing what it's all about.  Twist a few arms if you have to - get a few Pl WOs and/or Sect Comds onside - I'm sure you can make it happen.  While you're at it - talk to friends in OTHER units - give THEM a stack of the UCRs you've filled out.

It doesn't matter how right you are - if you want to move a bureaucracy, you need to do it by using their policies.  Nothing else works.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

The UCR does not have to based upon "combat defeciencies" as there are shitloads of "training defeciencies" with it too.

Stop talking. Start doing as was already suggested numerous times ... lead the borgs by the hand and get it done. 

As to 20%. The fact of the matter is that CF kit needs to satisfy 80% of it's users ... and officialy it is in compliance with that standard right now. Until 21% says "this kit f'n sucks" officially and in writing. How much clearer can one get?


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Jan 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You said yourself that most soldiers figure out its crap during training, so what does "under fire" have to do with anything now ?



No one takes issues during training as serious as issues when bullets are flying... 



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If they are not part of the solution and filling out and sending UCRs then they are part of the problem. If ignorance of the system is the problem, then you RHFC-Piper are in the perfect spot to rectify that situation. You are not shy about saying you have experience, its time for you to put money where your mouth is and spread the word. If you dont, you are also part of the problem and failing your duties and failing the soldiers under you.



Yup... and I've passed it on to as many people as possible.  Hell... I tell the troops in my reserve unit to take full advantage of UCRs and the passage of knowledge. But, alas, this changes very little... oh, wait... my bad.. I have managed to change a few things at my home unit in regards to kit... but one of them is because I'm the kit shop manager and it happened before I left;  The troops are allowed to wear Shemaghs... not entirely my doing, but I will be providing them through the kit shop.  And I convinced the RSM to allow dump pouches... took some talking but of all the kit I suggested for use, that's the only one that took...  But, the troops have to buy them.

So, as I've tired to make clear; I AM NOT AGAINST THE SYSTEM... I like the system.. I think it could work... I'm more annoyed at the people who impede the system or just don't get involved.. and I can see room for improvement.  But that's just me.







oh.. and as for my "experience"...  There are days I wish I had none what so ever...  lots of days.  Like every day.  

And as much "experience" I have (all 3 weeks), it doesn't amount to much more than war stories and bad dreams.


Thanks.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> No one takes issues during training as serious as issues when bullets are flying...
> Thanks.



Bullshit. STOP making excuses. Why don't you put some effort where your words are. Write one up and photocopy it.

Don't talk about passing it on. Write it up -- AND pass it on. 

Cripes almighty -- it's NOT that difficult of a concept to grasp.



> So, as I've tired to make clear; I AM NOT AGAINST THE SYSTEM... I like the system.. I think it could work... I'm more annoyed at the people who impede the system or just don't get involved.. and I can see room for improvement.  But that's just me.



Yes, all those soldiers who talk but don't action. Me too.


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Jan 2008)

What she said.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> No one takes issues during training as serious as issues when bullets are flying...



So now who's fault is it ? Is it the system's fault that soldiers dont take things seriously during training ? Or is it the systems fault for not taking the soldiers seriously ? If they dont do their part, how can the system know to take them seriously ?





> And as much "experience" I have (all 3 weeks), it doesn't amount to much more than war stories and bad dreams.



BS

You have enough to see a problem and you have enough to know what to do about it. You want to be a leader some day, get off your ass and do something about it.


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Jan 2008)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Leave a stack by the Class A sign in sheet - along with a sign detailing what it's all about.  Twist a few arms if you have to - get a few Pl WOs and/or Sect Comds onside - I'm sure you can make it happen.  While you're at it - talk to friends in OTHER units - give THEM a stack of the UCRs you've filled out.




Heh... yeah... 'bout that.  It may come as a surprise (sarcasm), but I'm not exactly well liked at my unit... at least not by those in the rifle coy who have any say in anything...  I've pretty much been buried in a corner of the building until something happens to change my situation... and I pretty much stay out of the way of the TRG coy... for many reasons... mostly 'cause I don't "fit" into the trg plan. 

This isn't a new thing either.  Otherwise I would have picked a different screen name other than PIPER.... Before I deployed I was shuffled off to the band because of personal issued between me and those of greater tactical importance... long story...

Anyway, the point being; if I go a-meddling, I will not get a happy response.. but I do what I can..

But... either way... I want things to change, not for my sake... I'm pretty sure I won't be in the need of good tactical kit again... but for the sake of others going over.




			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So now who's fault is it ? Is it the system's fault that soldiers dont take things seriously during training ?



oh no... I'm not touching that one.  





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You have enough to see a problem and you have enough to know what to do about it.



I've seen just as many problems in the 9 years I've been in, the only difference now is the extra holes and the glory stories I'll probably be telling when I'm 80, drinkin in a legion... but it will, of course go from 3 weeks to 3 years... and it will be winter... knee deep snow... and the taliban will be cyborgs with lazers... millions of them.  And it wouldn't be an A-10; it will be 30 A-10s and a couple guided missiles...

But... as it stands... my say is a drop in a bucket.  and the way I see it; I'm not unique in any way.  There are lots of us who've been there, and most of them have been there longer than me.  

I'll do my part to affect change, but I'm just a bit pessimistic... I can't help it. 




			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You want to be a leader some day, get off your *** and do something about it.



To be quite honest; I'm thinking of being able to run some day...  I'm not so worried about being a leader... especially with my unit.  
besides... for now, I can deal with where I am... but only for so long.  I have a lot of decisions to make in the near future and the forces seem to be slipping away from them more and more.


But, back to the topic.  Yes, I believe the system can change.  No, I don't think it will be soon.. Call me a pessimistic asshole, but all I've seen since I've been home is roadblocks.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

10000 drops in the bucket will fill and overflow the pail.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2008)

Piper, i give up....i realy do.

 :


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Jan 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Piper, i give up....i realy do.
> 
> :



Fair enough... we'll call it a draw.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Fair enough... we'll call it a draw.



Certainly not a draw.

I'm not the one stuck with this inferior and inadequate kit.


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Jan 2008)

Piper:

You can't reasonably take an argument about a system that you dislike and turn it into a personal story.  And that's what you've tried to do.

It doesn't MATTER if you're "well liked" in your unit.  You have a valid point of view and the experience to back it up.

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

You've been given some extremely good suggestions by Vern - backed up by others.  What's stopping you?  If you're already unpopular in your unit, then you have little to lose - and much to gain for those following you.


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Jan 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Certainly not a draw.
> 
> I'm not the one stuck with this inferior and inadequate kit.



True.. But honestly; neither am I.  

My original post which started this heated debate, was simply to point out the obvious reasons why kit is needed and a lot of troops aren't doing anything about it.  I am pretty much in agreement with you and vern in that people need to get off their asses and fix the problem... but at the same time, I see why it's not happening.  
Really, I'm not trying to bring up the issue of what I need to do... I know what I need to do and I've done it... hell, I pissed and moaned to the LFCA commander about kit and deficiencies with said kit during an LFCA leadership conference I was asked to speak at, as well as a meeting with him directly and on many other occasions when I am in the company of those who are in a position to address the issue.   I just have a hard time believing there isn't a better way... or that it should take so damn much to see the problem and address it... thats the point I'm trying to make.

I know what needs to be done.. I've done what I can... I'll probably do a little more before I'm done here... But I just can't have faith in a system in which I have seen very little results.
But before I go any further... I think I'm done here.  


I'm sure we will see a million more posts and threads on these boards about kit issues and like I said before; there should just be a Sticky with instructions on how to address the problem... beyond that, the whole discussion on the issues of kit can be summed up as I've stated before;  This piece of kit sucks ===> here's a UCR ====> here's how you submit it.... this is the reoccurring theme for every discussion on kit... of any kind.




and as for what I meant by "draw";  Ref; Monty Python and the holy grail (black night sans limbs).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jan 2008)

Temporary lock for a cool down.
Bruce


EDIT: Open


----------



## KevinB (7 Jan 2008)

Okay I aksed Bruce to re-open this thread so I could post this one.  I had been trying to post for a bnit but the firewall where I was was letting me IM but not post -- I'm over at my Team Villa now and so I am GTG.

 As part of the B Coy 1VP UCR guys from RotoII we sat down and wrote several UCR’s on items like the TV, Body Armour GenIV, Holster, TRIAD-I, etc.
 It was collated from the company – and formulated into one UCR for each item – and send off on the Coy 2 I/C (Hollywood Dale) ‘s signature – after being reviewed by Maj. B who had CO status for the Op.
  CTS had asked the units 3VP, 1CER, LdSH and us to write one per unit (and I think they then later asked for just one from the TF) – the justification was that one concise one taking in the thoughts from the units was better than a whole slew of individuals ones.  That made sense at the time to us.  However it seems now that these specific units UCR’s are now being use/viewed as an individual complaint – rather than 400 peoples thoughts about what a piece of shit this stuff is.  So obviously CTS is playing a game, and is being proven not to care about the needs of the combat troops, but to protect several ego’s involved in this.  This is why several troops who have devoted a lot of time and effort have not seen the results.  I have heard from some TF1-06 troops that CTS asked the same things (hmm wonder why  : )
  Its utterly immoral and bordering on criminal to me – if Canada had a useful Parliamentary system I’d be urging troops to phone their MP – its a great tool in the USA to get your congressman(or woman) to dig into the corruption and rot sometimes occurring in the system.

 Additionally UCR complains have also been deleted and altered online -- having the paper copy and the #'s of some I can only ask myself -- what sort of solider would so such a thing and is ones ego/pet project really more import than troops lives?

   Vern has brought up the best method to get this situation rectified.
 Do a collective UCR
Copy them
Sign them
Forward them to the UCR dude at your unit and have the CO sign them 
  *Vern points out a UCR Officer and CO may get a little incited if some MWO or Cpt is deleting or moddifiying their UCR's - and its trackable...

I would recommend that any of the Officers and NCO's reading this -- sit down with their troops - put pen to paper and make a UCR on each and every item that is deficient.
  Collated them - and do as vern recommended.


lastly put in a big dip of Skoal or redman and dont let the TV get you down  ^-^


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> *Vern points out a UCR Officer and CO may get a little incited if some MWO or Cpt is deleting or moddifiying their UCR's - and its trackable...



I'm sure I used a harsher term in that PM than "incited" to describe how the CO & Unit UCR co-ordinator should react if/when this occurs!!  >

Nice pic Kev.

Nada oaklies?


----------



## McG (7 Jan 2008)

On checking the open UCRs to DSSPM, I found only 2 on the Tac Vest (though I did not go through every one of the thirty-one UCRs without any subject and it is possible there may be one or two more).  On looking through some of the no-subject UCRs, I found that they all typically lacked NSN, official name & any common name for the item being reported.  How do the individuals submitting the UCR expect Ottawa to know what to fix if the originator cannot even manage to identify the problem kit (or identify themselves so that the LCMM can ask questions).

It seems to me that, in addition to emphasising the need to do UCRs, there must also be an emphasis on including enough information for someone to understand and resolve the problems.  Consider the following no-subject UCRs actually submitted with only the following information:



> ROPE TOO STIFF KNOTS BECOME UNTIED


Which rope?



> SNAPLINK FAILURE ON FIRST DAY USAGE


Which snaplink & how did it fail?



> SUNGLASSES ARE UNSUITABLE FOR DESERT CONDITIONS


Why are they unsuitable?



> IMPROPER MATERIAL OF LENSE FITTED INTO SAFETY GLASSES


What is the deficiency in the material (scratch resistance, ballistic protection, colour, other)?



> DIFFICULTY IN REMOVING EMPTY MISSILE TUBES FROM LAUNCHERS


What is the difficulty & which missile system?



> INABILITY OF EQUIPMENT TO MEET SPECIALIZED OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS


Which equipment, what specialized operational requirements, and how does the unnamed equipment fail to meet the undefined requirements?

Without hunting down any formal UCR guide, I would recommend (based on the information requirements that I would have) the following information be included as a minimum:
What is the equipment (I wouldn’t care if you can’t find NSN or formal name, just give me something to identify the item)?
What was the deficiency/problem?
How, when & where was the deficiency/problem noted?
What is the operational impact of the deficiency/problem?
How can the deficiency/problem be rectified (if known)?

.. most importantly, GIVE THE UCR A SUBJECT THAT IDETIFIES THE KIT OF CONCERN!!!  This subject is what will be seen by anyone done a casual scan of UCRs & if you don’t identify the kit in the subject then the kit will not stand out as needing attention.

Finally, when you submit a UCR, an email is generated to inform the tech authority in Ottawa.  Add your immediate supervisor to be CC’ed.  Your supervisor should then add substantiating comments to the UCR and CC his/her supervisor on the email generated from that.



			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> FILL OUT THIS PAPERWORK AND SUBMIT IT HERE!! (add link and address).


From DWAN: http://dgmssc.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/ucrs/frameset.asp


----------



## McG (7 Jan 2008)

... and here is the official guidance (DWAN): http://dgmssc.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/ucrs/Documents/UCR_CFTO.pdf


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jan 2008)

With all due respect, and acknowledging that I have never even seen a 'tacvest'........I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that the number of UCR's is at the level they[whomever they are] say it is.


I would like to see the inside of their shredding machine because, unless just about everyone on this site is lying, there should be more than that just from army.ca members.......


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> With all due respect, and acknowledging that I have never even seen a 'tacvest'........I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that the number of UCR's is at the level they[whomever they are] say it is.
> 
> 
> I would like to see the inside of their shredding machine because, unless just about everyone on this site is lying, there should be more than that just from army.ca members.......



As KevB pointed out, Units had been requested by CTS to file one/Unit and, in one case, ONE UCR on behalf of the whole TF. Kev also stated that some UCRs were "disappearing" off the system. I recommended then, if that's the case, WHY isn't the CO or the Unit UCR co-ordinator (who assigns the serial tracking number to the UCR and submits electronically) screaming bloody blue murder when their UCRs disappear? If this has occured, the Unit UCR co-ord SHOULD have the copy -- and he should be tracking them, hastening them & raising the alarm bells when they disappear or are modified from the original. If this IS occuring -- then the UNit UCR co-ordinator would be the person with the "proof" and that should be actionned immediately via other means to obtain an explanation as to it's occurance at a higher level in the CoC than those who would be able to delete those UCRs.

I posted the below links that MCG has reposted today on this very site, along with the user guide and step by step instructions for their proper and full completion and processing. They were posted in a TV bitch thread 2 years ago with a comment to PM me to obtain a copy of the UCR.

As I also posted yesterday a full TWO people actually contacted me to obtain the UCR form (the linked version below was 'down' at that time, ergo I would have to send out a copy via email). ONE more person asked me for a copy yesterday. Eerily enough, no one who's complaining openly in the threads about this kit has requested that UCR from me. 

You make a good point though -- there's a whole lot of bitching on this site, but very very little action by those pers doing the bitching.


----------



## COBRA-6 (7 Jan 2008)

On the other hand, how many UCR's are initiated but due to incorrect/incomplete information, procedural confusion or CoC inaction don't make it to the end OPI? Just like many of the CF98's that I've submitted through the years...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> As KevB pointed out, Units had been requested by CTS to file one/Unit and, in one case, ONE UCR on behalf of the whole TF.



But yesterday you said something the lines that the ONLY way to make CTS notice is to "flood the system".

Sounds to me like they already had a reservoir dam built beforehand......

I'm not disagreeing with ya Vern, but niether am I disagreeing with someone like RHFC Piper, its just that sometimes knowing SFA is a luxury that makes it easier to sit in the middle and question things that have been presented.

Kinda like our criminal system Judges,........know nothing but expect everyone to listen. ;D


----------



## KevinB (7 Jan 2008)

I think Vern is just politely explaining how to work the system.

  CTS wants 1 UCR per item for ea. unit
  which then allows for
  CTS/DLR to use those UCR's as "individual complaints

The counter to that method - is to flood them.  They may not like it -- but they broke the rules when they rebutt the UCR filled out in good faith by troops of the unit.


----------



## McG (7 Jan 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> With all due respect, and acknowledging that I have never even seen a 'tacvest'........I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that the number of UCR's is at the level they[whomever they are] say it is.


That is the number which are open.  DSSPM has over 1800 closed UCRs but, with many not having subjects or the NSN fields filled out, it would be nearly impossible to determine exactly howmany are hidden in there ... they are as good as nonexistent.  Once the file is closed, you can only find it through a search of closed files.



			
				COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> On the other hand, how many UCR's are initiated but due to incorrect/incomplete information, procedural confusion or CoC inaction don't make it to the end OPI?


The end OPI (LCMM) gets the UCR immediately through the electronic filing system.  The initiator needs to ensure it gets the CoC endorsement by adding immediate supervisor to the CC line of the automatically generated email.  At a certain level, the unit ET needs to be CC'ed and then pass this to the Bde authority.  If the unit is endorsing a UCR and the Bde is not, then that is the place for the CoC to get involved (CO to Bde).  Once the Bde has endorsed it, then it has the weight that the LCMM must respond.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> But yesterday you said something the lines that the ONLY way to make CTS notice is to "flood the system".
> 
> Sounds to me like they already had a reservoir dam built beforehand......
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with ya Vern, but niether am I disagreeing with someone like RHFC Piper, its just that sometimes knowing SFA is a luxury that makes it easier to sit in the middle and question things that have been presented.



You misunderstood me. It is what Kev said _the Units were requested to do by CTS (to submit only 1/Unit or 1/TF)_ years ago --- not what I said to do. I have been saying for years for individuals to get their OWN individual UCRs in -- because that's how it's supposed to be. The numbers show there is less than 10 "complaints in the system." I AGREE with you -- THIS IS WRONG. 

The Units played CTS' game like they were asked and nothing happened (despite saving CTS some work as these items should have been individual UCRs from the get-go as an individual kit item).  So now -- I'm saying flood the system with individual UCRS as should have occured. Individuals have the RIGHT to do this if they have a problem with their kit, despite CTS not wanting to see individual UCRs on the item. That is the process, it should have been the process, and I have zero idea why CTS decided it should be different for their kit items. They'll have to explain that to you. I DO NOT agree with it. 

But it didn't work when it got done their way (to save time & paperwork & effort I'm sure were the reasonings ...) -- so I say -- Do it the _*proper*_ way ... and it'll be a whole lot more "subj line TV etc" UCRs that THEIR higher ups will be seeing that someone is going to have to explain and action.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I think Vern is just politely explaining how to work the system.
> 
> CTS wants 1 UCR per item for ea. unit
> which then allows for
> ...



Damn -- you're eloquent!! That's it!! 

It always SHOULD have been individual UCRs, but yes the Units played nice -- CTS not so nice. So, it's time for the troops to do those individual UCRs and make CTS take notice.


----------



## Dissident (7 Jan 2008)

Fuck that shit.

Vern, PM inbound. 

I got 40-50 people in my platoon who will fill in UCRs for anything and everything we are unhappy with. I challenge everyone, in every unit, to do the same.


----------



## Neill McKay (7 Jan 2008)

I wonder if it would be helpful to post the UCR form here as a .pdf or word file (if available and appropriate)?


----------



## McG (7 Jan 2008)

Don't want to pour water on the disappearing UCR thing & spoil a good conspiracy theory, but I had a chance to log in under someones account today & somethings don't seem to be adding up (but I'll leave a bit of a window open for those who really need the conspiracy).  The standard tech authority log in allows one to edit information such as the official item name, NSN & higher assemblies.  It does not allow the TA to edit the originators comments or to make the UCR disappear.  The TA account also has the ability to provide the Ottawa answer for its equipment.

If people are watching others' UCRs that appear to be changing, it may be that the originators have changed them (as nobody has yet to claim that one of their UCRs has changed on them).  If others' UCRs appear to be disappearing, it may be that they have been closed (and as I mentioned earlier these require a different search in order to view them).  However, to keep that window open for those who need it, it may be possible that there is are higher administrator accounts which do have the ability to edit originator's comments & make things disappear.  However, I suspect these accounts would be somewhere emotionally removed from projects & equipment management teams (such as in DLEPS for DGLEPM).

Now, if someone did submit a UCR that was made to disappear without being answered & closed in Ottawa, then that person would have the option of grieving the disappearance.  If the answering authorty's answer were inadequate for the originator, then the next step in the redress process is the CDS's office.


----------



## KevinB (7 Jan 2008)

PM inbound


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Jan 2008)

I've already got told to pack the chest rig away,tacvest only.Yet again another roto getting told it.
I was hoping to train as I plan on fighting,however I'll have to sneek it aboard my vehicle once I'm over there.

As per,some units find looking good more effective.


----------



## Armymedic (21 Jan 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I've already got told to pack the chest rig away,tacvest only.Yet again another roto getting told it.
> I was hoping to train as I plan on fighting,however I'll have to sneek it aboard my vehicle once I'm over there.
> 
> As per,some units find looking good more effective.



Figure after reading this website that you guys would have figured out that it is the official line. Work within the rules while training. And bring the gear out when you are away.

How many times do people need to be hit in the head before they learn to block?


----------



## medaid (21 Jan 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Until brain matter oozes apparently.




Nope, because then they'd be dead, and other will come along to start the same process all over again.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Jan 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Figure after reading this website that you guys would have figured out that it is the official line. Work within the rules while training. And bring the gear out when you are away.
> 
> How many times do people need to be hit in the head before they learn to block?



Long enough to be high enough on the totem pole to make these official lines.And forget the other official line's they preach as in "train as you would fight".


----------



## Canadian Sig (21 Jan 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> ......Work within the rules while training. And bring the gear out when you are away......



Great idea...unless you work with the RSM.  :'( :'( :'(


----------



## mckee19 (21 Jan 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> lastly put in a big dip of Skoal or redman and dont let the TV get you down  ^-^



I know its a Bit late, but will a dip of copenhagen work?


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2008)

If I may make a point here, as an Infantryman:
There are some good reasons why we tell the troops only issue kit:
1. It's easy on the supply side of things....for instance if every troop had his choice of small arms, you'd have very kind of calibre to resup under the sun. I know this is a "apples vs oranges" comparison, but if you think about how it applies to uniform items, you can see where it is applicable. Its the same for boots. It might be nice to have a pair of "Gucci" desert boots, but if you are way out beyond the wire and need new boots, you're going to get the issue pair, not the "Gucci" ones you paid $300 for.
2. Troops should look somewhat the same, not identical mind you, but similar. In wartime, looking different draws fire, in peacetime it draws Sergeants.

Now having said that, I understand why troops buy their own stuff. Sometimes for functionality, or comfort or whatever, even a morale booster, as long as it doesn't compromise the overall look of the company/pl, I say go for it. If a soldier can do his job better with it, it should be good to go. One has to use a touch of common sense when it comes to dress and equipement in the field.
I remember a CLS telling us it was not acceptable for the troops to buy Danner or Matterhorn boots, and wear them as it was "his" job toi supply the troops. One of the soldiers piped up that maybe it was time to get with the 90's and not the 60's. I tened to agree with the soldier.
I remember in 1977 when we weren't issued bush hats and had to patrol in green berets, and this was a Regular Force battalion, not the "militia". One of us had a bush hat, but wasn't allowed to wear it as it was not "uniform". 
As for the armchair RSMs, most of them haven't been anywhere near a theatre of operations for some time, if at all


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jan 2008)

I don't think anyone here that is of sound mind and body is advocating a different caliber wpn.  As far as clothing is concerned.  I recieved replacement boots sent by my wife and from Shilo before I recieved any from Clothing in A Stan.  Size 9 1/2  As a matter of fact I never did recieve any replacement issued desert boots from Clothing in A Stan.


----------



## Armymedic (22 Jan 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> And forget the other official line's they preach as in "train as you would fight".


You had to go there and get me going [rant]

Geez, unless we fight in attend to get a "check in the box" manner, its never been true. Unless of course, it is used as an excuse to cock the troops in some sort of cold/hungery/no sleep/endurance type of event that is done purely for chest pounding.

Training "as you would fight"...would that be for "this" war, or for "any" war. Cause we love to hear another "this is the way we did it in Afghanistan(Bosnia, Cyprus, Duetchland, Ethiopea, FRY, Golan, Haiti)" story.

[/rant]


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> If I may make a point here, as an Infantryman:
> There are some good reasons why we tell the troops only issue kit:
> 1. It's easy on the supply side of things....for instance if every troop had his choice of small arms, you'd have very kind of calibre to resup under the sun. I know this is a "apples vs oranges" comparison, but if you think about how it applies to uniform items, you can see where it is applicable. Its the same for boots. It might be nice to have a pair of "Gucci" desert boots, but if you are way out beyond the wire and need new boots, you're going to get the issue pair, not the "Gucci" ones you paid $300 for.
> 2. Troops should look somewhat the same, not identical mind you, but similar. In wartime, looking different draws fire, in peacetime it draws Sergeants.
> ...





I've got two pictures here of me and my troops in NI in the 80s: Rural and Urban. The one in the city (under max observation from the locals, world press, RSM&CO, Bde Staff etc) has us all looking like little cardboard cutouts. We all wore almost exactly the same stuff, same weapons too; you know, kind of like the US Marines.  ;D

The one of us in 'the cuds' looks like we just stepped off a pirate ship, right down to the curved machete in the waistbelt (to cut through hedges). Different chest rigs, different day packs, barbour jackets, para smocks, windproof smocks, jungle lightweights trousers, combat pants, windproof pants, boots with puttees, high leg combat boots, Candian cbt boots (guess who?), Lundhags, scarfs on/ off, front teeth in/out. The only thing that is the same is the headgear, which happened to be a beret in this case as was worn by all troops in the Bn. That's essential, especially at night. Prevented a few embarrassing moments as I remember, especially when the QRF shows up unbriefed with fingers on triggers (oops).

IMHO, moral of the story: In town, dress the same - in the Boonies, go crazy but wear the same hats.


----------



## Stauds (25 Jan 2008)

Sometimes buying of non-issued kit is required. A fair number of us troops deploying on 1-08 have not even been issued our tan boots yet, and the forecast for the date of possible issue is "maybe before the tour, or while you are in theatre." Now this is fairly ridiculous, because I want to be able to break them in before I hit the sand, not to mention the fact how big a pain in the butt it would be to wear black for the first while. I'm reaching the point where I say **** it and buy my own. I want to get them issued to save $$$$ but I'm not waiting on the army to take its sweet time to get them to me. And the kicker is we've just been issued brand new Arid gas mask carriers for some reason.


----------



## darmil (25 Jan 2008)

Yeah the gas mask carrier is ridiculous I got my tan boots yesterday.i deploy ***** i was close to buying my own.I'm bringing my own rig and holster over anyway.


Edited by Roy Harding to delete deployment date (OPSEC)


----------



## armyvern (25 Jan 2008)

Tipperary said:
			
		

> Sometimes buying of non-issued kit is required. A fair number of us troops deploying on 1-08 have not even been issued our tan boots yet, and the forecast for the date of possible issue is "maybe before the tour, or while you are in theatre." Now this is fairly ridiculous, because I want to be able to break them in before I hit the sand, not to mention the fact how big a pain in the butt it would be to wear black for the first while. I'm reaching the point where I say **** it and buy my own. I want to get them issued to save $$$$ but I'm not waiting on the army to take its sweet time to get them to me. And the kicker is we've just been issued brand new Arid gas mask carriers for some reason.



You do realize of course that there is a message out (for quite some time now) which expressly prohibits personnel from wearing Arid kit in Canada yes?

(Yes -- I know _some_ people do it -- there's _still_ a message that prohibits it.)

Your boots may not be issued prior to your deployment, but they would be issued prior to your arrival in the sandbox during your _pitstop_, as will PPE etc that is not issued until you're on ground.


----------



## geo (25 Jan 2008)

Tipperary said:
			
		

> Sometimes buying of non-issued kit is required. A fair number of us troops deploying on 1-08 have not even been issued our tan boots yet, and the forecast for the date of possible issue is "maybe before the tour, or while you are in theatre." Now this is fairly ridiculous, because I want to be able to break them in before I hit the sand, not to mention the fact how big a pain in the butt it would be to wear black for the first while. I'm reaching the point where I say **** it and buy my own. I want to get them issued to save $$$$ but I'm not waiting on the army to take its sweet time to get them to me. And the kicker is we've just been issued brand new Arid gas mask carriers for some reason.



Wearing Black....
If you look at all photos of all our LAVs, Leo2s & SMP vehicles which we've taken over to Afghanistan, they all left "green" and within days of being in the field - they've blended into the dusty contryside... No tan paint (Xcept for the RG31s that were delivered from South Africa in Tan).
You will get your desert boots - but your black boots will blend in just as quickly as the vehicles did.


----------



## McG (25 Jan 2008)

Geo,
All the green vehicles in theatre look like green vehicles.


----------



## Stauds (25 Jan 2008)

My point is being missed. We have been authorized to wear our tan boots for the specific reason to break them in before the tour. Not only is this not possible anymore, we have no idea when/if we will receive our boots. I still have my fingers crossed that I receive them soon, because I do not want to have to buy some. 

And there are a few reasons why wearing black is not a good thing. It attracts even more heat, making the feet unnecessarily uncomfortable, and the issued Mark III's leather has always stretched on me causing problems. As well I've already mentioned having to break in the boots, which would be ideally done before deployment, not when I arrive at a FOB.


----------



## COBRA-6 (25 Jan 2008)

Tipperary said:
			
		

> My point is being missed. We have been authorized to wear our tan boots for the specific reason to break them in before the tour. Not only is this not possible anymore, we have no idea when/if we will receive our boots. I still have my fingers crossed that I receive them soon, because I do not want to have to buy some.
> 
> And there are a few reasons why wearing black is not a good thing. It attracts even more heat, making the feet unnecessarily uncomfortable, and the issued Mark III's leather has always stretched on me causing problems. As well I've already mentioned having to break in the boots, which would be ideally done before deployment, not when I arrive at a FOB.



We did the same on my tour, that's when I decided the issued Boulet boots were junk and bought my own SWAT's.


----------



## armyvern (25 Jan 2008)

Tipperary said:
			
		

> My point is being missed. We have been authorized to wear our tan boots for the specific reason to break them in before the tour. Not only is this not possible anymore, we have no idea when/if we will receive our boots. I still have my fingers crossed that I receive them soon, because I do not want to have to buy some.
> 
> And there are a few reasons why wearing black is not a good thing. It attracts even more heat, making the feet unnecessarily uncomfortable, and the issued Mark III's leather has always stretched on me causing problems. As well I've already mentioned having to break in the boots, which would be ideally done before deployment, not when I arrive at a FOB.



I just told you when you'd get them if you didn't have them prior to your deployment -- Hint: it'll happen _before_ your arrival in Afghanistan during your pitstop.

I also said it's been a while now. Do we have to go through the same thing every deployment? The kit is limited -- talk to the taxpayers about increasing our budget so we can afford more!!

CANFORGEN 016/05 CLS 281806Z (Since 2005 -- and STILL in effect due to the same shortages)

Para 11b



> DESERT COMBAT CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT ALLOWS SOLDIERS TO PERFORM MISSION ESSENTIAL TASKS BY PROVIDING ENHANCED CAMOUFLAGE AND CONCEALMENT CAPABILITIES THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO AFFORD PROTECTION IN ARID REGIONS. DESERT COMBAT CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT WILL BE ISSUED AS REQUIRED IN SUPPORT OF OPERATIONS. STOCKS ARE PRESENTLY LIMITED AND AS SUCH DESERT ITEMS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR GENERAL ISSUE NOR AUTHORIZED FOR WEAR WITHIN CANADA


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jan 2008)

MCG the dust does a considerable job turning green machines into a tannish colour.  I also feel your pain for desert boots though.


----------



## MG34 (25 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> If I may make a point here, as an Infantryman:
> There are some good reasons why we tell the troops only issue kit:
> 1. It's easy on the supply side of things....for instance if every troop had his choice of small arms, you'd have very kind of calibre to resup under the sun. I know this is a "apples vs oranges" comparison, but if you think about how it applies to uniform items, you can see where it is applicable. Its the same for boots. It might be nice to have a pair of "Gucci" desert boots, but if you are way out beyond the wire and need new boots, you're going to get the issue pair, not the "Gucci" ones you paid $300 for.
> 2. Troops should look somewhat the same, not identical mind you, but similar. In wartime, looking different draws fire, in peacetime it draws Sergeants.



1. It makes no difference to the supply system, as the issued kit will be issued regardless, all soldiers know this yet still purchase  so called "gucci" kit (I call it superior, effective,better,etc) why is that? Because our CTS items for the most part are useless in any role much less theabuse they are put through in the Afghanistan theatre.

2. Troops should not look the same because they all do not do the same job , otherwise you wind up with a useless piece of equipment such as the Tac Vest, a soldier's appearance should reflect his position and current tasks, not what some idiot has declared so in an outdated manual. Uniformity is an outdated concept that belongs only on the parade square.



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Now having said that, I understand why troops buy their own stuff. Sometimes for functionality, or comfort or whatever, even a morale booster, as long as it doesn't compromise the overall look of the company/pl, I say go for it. If a soldier can do his job better with it, it should be good to go. One has to use a touch of common sense when it comes to dress and equipement in the field.
> I remember a CLS telling us it was not acceptable for the troops to buy Danner or Matterhorn boots, and wear them as it was "his" job toi supply the troops. One of the soldiers piped up that maybe it was time to get with the 90's and not the 60's. I tened to agree with the soldier.
> I remember in 1977 when we weren't issued bush hats and had to patrol in green berets, and this was a Regular Force battalion, not the "militia". One of us had a bush hat, but wasn't allowed to wear it as it was not "uniform".
> As for the armchair RSMs, most of them haven't been anywhere near a theatre of operations for some time, if at all



The curerent stance taken by the commanders in Afghanistan WRT kit,is the opposite of common sense , the soldiers know what works and will use it regardless of what their CofC decides, knee jerk decisions by these dinosaurs only serve to further erode the bridge between higher command and the troops on the ground.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jan 2008)

Thank you MG34.....good points, and by the way I agree with you. Devil's Advocate here!
 It should make no difference what a soldier wears on operations. If you view pictures from WWII, Korea etc, I'm sure that no two were very dressed alike. I agree, uniformity belongs on the parade square. And the Germans in WWII on ops were never dressed alike.
The reason I personally go with issue kit (for the moment) is that I am a skinflint...yes I'm cheap!! If in future I deploy, I may have to invest some $$ into better kit.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jan 2008)

Based on what we had before (jean jacket, 64 pat, cotton thermal uwear etc) our new gear is just awesome,  ;Dso I'm a bad complainer in this regard I'm afraid. Drinking the CTS program juice here on the west coast .... ;D


----------



## Armymedic (25 Jan 2008)

Given the weather and time of year you are going over, Cbt boots (black boots) may be better. It is still the wet /cool season until Mid Mar. I found my Mk3s good walking through the wet wadis and on the rocks in Feb/Mar. But I do have a bit different role, and I had no issues in getting my Swats broken in prior to going over.


----------



## Stauds (25 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I just told you when you'd get them if you didn't have them prior to your deployment -- Hint: it'll happen _before_ your arrival in Afghanistan during your pitstop.
> 
> I also said it's been a while now. Do we have to go through the same thing every deployment? The kit is limited -- talk to the taxpayers about increasing our budget so we can afford more!!
> 
> ...





			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I just told you when you'd get them if you didn't have them prior to your deployment -- Hint: it'll happen _before_ your arrival in Afghanistan during your pitstop.
> 
> I also said it's been a while now. Do we have to go through the same thing every deployment? The kit is limited -- talk to the taxpayers about increasing our budget so we can afford more!!
> 
> ...



While I don't disagree with you that I will most likely get them prior to my deployment, my point is it's a little late for that. I don't want to get issued my tan boots en-route to the desert. I want to have them now so I can break them in _before_ I have to deploy. That's my biggest concern. You could argue that I just have to suck it up. I will choose to buy myself a pair of boots so that when I do deploy I will have a reliable pair. The last thing I would want is to have new boots cause problems that might jeapordize a mission or someone's safety. 

When you mention limited kit because of limited funding, I already brought up the fact that we were issued Arid gas mask carriers. I think it's a complete waste of money to issue something that doesn't even get used when all the troops haven't yet been issued the bare bones of our equipment: boots. I know this is a completely different subject, and I'm going to be the first to say I am nowhere near an expert. It's just a bit of a joke when I am given some obviously expensive (more so than normal) kit, but I still haven't even been issued the thing an infanteer needs most. To me it seems some people higher up don't have their priorities straight. Like I said, I'm sure there are lots of things I don't understand, but that's my perspective on the subject.


----------



## armyvern (25 Jan 2008)

Tipperary said:
			
		

> While I don't disagree with you that I will most likely get them prior to my deployment, my point is it's a little late for that. I don't want to get issued my tan boots en-route to the desert. I want to have them now so I can break them in _before_ I have to deploy. That's my biggest concern. You could argue that I just have to suck it up. I will choose to buy myself a pair of boots so that when I do deploy I will have a reliable pair. The last thing I would want is to have new boots cause problems that might jeapordize a mission or someone's safety.
> 
> When you mention limited kit because of limited funding, I already brought up the fact that we were issued Arid gas mask carriers. I think it's a complete waste of money to issue something that doesn't even get used when all the troops haven't yet been issued the bare bones of our equipment: boots. I know this is a completely different subject, and I'm going to be the first to say I am nowhere near an expert. It's just a bit of a joke when I am given some obviously expensive (more so than normal) kit, but I still haven't even been issued the thing an infanteer needs most. To me it seems some people higher up don't have their priorities straight. Like I said, I'm sure there are lots of things I don't understand, but that's my perspective on the subject.



Understand this:

Different funding goes to different projects. They money is NOT in a central little pool that can be moved around from this PM to that PM as you or I would wish to see.

There's a whole lot more than that involved.

Quite frankly, don't blame the Supply Techs, don't blame the staffer at CTS who can't do anything about it either, don't blame the different project managers who only have _some_ say in where their specific funds go ...

Blame the appropriate political authorities who are responsible for funding this outfit and enabling us to be able to afford the kit we need. ALL of it.

Because CTS is spending some of their project monies on AR gas mask carriers has squat to do with the fact that a totally different entity doesn't have the monies it requires to buy boots and all the other equipment they are responsible for.

In the case of footwear --- you can place the blame for the current situation squarely on the shoulders of Canadian Industry who bitched and whined that soldiers WERE getting the footwear that they needed from a US source of supply. Canadian Industry had a problem with that. Ergo ... now the Canadian Industry is being called upon, as per their DEMAND, to outfit our troops ... and quite the lovely job they're doing eh?

(Maybe, just maybe, ... that's a BIG hint why the footwear was coming from a US source of Supply in the first place)

That is pure POLITICS. Whine and cry all you want, but there's not a damn thing that I (even though I'd love to), you, the CDS or anyone else can do about it ... when Canadian Industry wants to push their "Canadian Content" crap into the kit you get ... at your expense.

Talk to your MLA. Get them involved and make them aware how this 'lil political move is satisfying Canadian Industry at YOUR expense. Then, you may have a slim shot in heck about changing the way things are.

It doesn't sound very nice, but that is the way it is.


----------



## Shamrock (25 Jan 2008)

What kind of desert boots are we getting now that take more than 8 steps to break in?


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That is pure POLITICS. Whine and cry all you want, but there's not a damn thing that I (even though I'd love to), you, the CDS or anyone else can do about it ... when Canadian Industry wants to push their "Canadian Content" crap into the kit you get ... at your expense.
> 
> Talk to your MLA. Get them involved and make them aware how this 'lil political move is satisfying Canadian Industry at YOUR expense. Then, you may have a slim shot in heck about changing the way things are.



One minor nit to pick:  Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) are provincial.  The beef is with Members of Parliament (MP).

Other than that:  Vern, don't hold back.  Tell us what you really think


----------



## armyvern (25 Jan 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One minor nit to pick:  Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) are provincial.  The beef is with Members of Parliament (MP).
> 
> Other than that:  Vern, don't hold back.  Tell us what you really think



Can you tell that I'm not a very politicly correct person??  ;D

I get all things political all fucked up ... all the time. 

Talk to YOUR politicians!! That's what I meant to say!!  >

(Vern gets out whip & punishes dapaterson, who gets his political-terms correct.)  :-*

Oh, BTW ... I got in trouble at work today .... SURPRISE !! (The rye&cokes after work have calmed me down -- be thankful!! ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jan 2008)

Danners take a bit to work in.


----------



## Stauds (25 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Understand this:
> 
> Different funding goes to different projects. They money is NOT in a central little pool that can be moved around from this PM to that PM as you or I would wish to see.
> 
> ...



You are very right Vern, I know I don't need to tell you that. However it may have seemed, I wasn't griping about our supply system, because I know how well they do with what they have. 

The whole issue with the boots is my reason for having to buy non issue kit, as per the topic of the thread. 

My other non-issued kit I will be bringing to theatre and wearing besides boots are:
-gloves (Oakley)
-ballistic eyewear (Oakley as well)
-chest rig (High Speed Gear Inc)
-rifle sling
-and who could forget socks and underwear?


----------



## PhilB (25 Jan 2008)

As everyone knows I am a big kit slut, I would save your time and just buy boots. The issued ones are junk anyways. What I dont get is desert socks. When we got our AR stuff issued we were told that there are no more desert socks being made, and that stock is dwindling. We were told we *may* get some issued in Mirage, but not to hold our breath. In their place we were issued 3 pairs of the thin black liner sock from the CTS sock system. All I can say is WTF?


----------



## Gunner98 (26 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> As everyone knows I am a big kit slut, I would save your time and just buy boots. The issued ones are junk anyways. What I dont get is desert socks. When we got our AR stuff issued we were told that there are no more desert socks being made, and that stock is dwindling. We were told we *may* get some issued in Mirage, but not to hold our breath. In their place we were issued 3 pairs of the thin black liner sock from the CTS sock system. All I can say is WTF?



Perhaps if some Bases had not decided to issue 8 pairs of AR socks to folks in Aug-Sep timeframe, there might not be a shortage.  Kitting in Pet - 6 pairs, pre-depl trg in Kingston - 2 more because Sup Tech said so.

Army Vern what is the Scale and do we really need 8 at a time?


----------



## PhilB (26 Jan 2008)

heres the issue I have. I got issued 3 Brown t Shirts and 3 pairs of black liner socks. The majority of the smaller FOB's dont have laundry. So we are supposed to get by with basically 3 changes of under clothes for about a month in desert conditions  : ridiculous. Obviously, being the kit slut that I am, I have already bought tshirts and socks to make up the deficiency, but really, its at the point where we need to buy our own shirts and socks? Come on!


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> Perhaps if some Bases had not decided to issue 8 pairs of AR socks to folks in Aug-Sep timeframe, there might not be a shortage.  Kitting in Pet - 6 pairs, pre-depl trg in Kingston - 2 more because Sup Tech said so.
> 
> Army Vern what is the Scale and do we really need 8 at a time?



Cripes here goes if you can figure it out (highjacking from an earlier post):



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Op Athena/Op Archer top-up kit:
> 
> 8 X AR T-shirts (3 only for 2nd or more deployment)
> 8 X Tan Socks   (3 pair only for 2nd or more deployment)
> ...



Entitlement to 8 pairs of tan socks is over and above the 8 pairs of CTS black socks you should end up with. The blue font above represents kit you should get for your first deployment into this TF. You would be issued the qty in brackets for each _subsequent_ tour into theatre. Underwear works the same as the CTS socks ... you are entitled to 3 more pairs on top of your normal 5 each entitlement IAW the deployed sub-scale for TFA.

These items are also exchangeable. Whether you go through your 8 pairs or not, depends entirely upon what your task in-theatre involves. While those driving desks in KAF may wear our only 4 pairs of tan socks during their tour ... those out in the FOBs and hauling their asses on foot would obviously go through more of these items. 8 pairs are expected to get them through their stay in the FOB, and they are fully entitled to exchange all 8 pair for 8 new pairs when they get back to KAF during downtime from the FOBs. THAT all being said, supply in KAF WILL ship items out to FOBs (including socks/gotch/t's) if the requirement to get this kit out to an individual is made known to them.

PhilB ... you should have more than 3 pairs of underwear. Being that each member of the Army is entitled to 5 pair immediately upon reporting for basic trg. You are then entitled to 3 ADDITIONAL pairs for the tour. You should have 8 pair available to you out there in the FOB. If YOU have not been issued 8 pair (or 8 tan t-shirts as per the scale), I suggest that you make your way to KAF Clothing and have yourself issued your entitled qty ... and exchange the ones that you've already worn out.

Be thankful that you didn't serve a mere 10 years ago, when entitlement was to a mere 2 each pairs of "passion killer OD boxers" which weren't even exchangeable -- so handwashing was the norm and was expected. Handwashing one's kit is acceptable. It's not fun, but your stuff can be cleaned; after all, flying washers and driers into a war zone takes space and bumps off kit which is a necessity to get into the area. I'm sure the gents manning European trenchs way back when would agree. Not being required to handwash is a comfort, but not a necessity.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> heres the issue I have. I got issued 3 Brown t Shirts and 3 pairs of black liner socks. The majority of the smaller FOB's dont have laundry. So we are supposed to get by with basically 3 changes of under clothes for about a month in desert conditions  : ridiculous. Obviously, being the kit slut that I am, I have already bought tshirts and socks to make up the deficiency, but really, its at the point where we need to buy our own shirts and socks? Come on!



Being the kit slut that you are --- I'm surprised to hear that you didn't take your entitled qty into theatre with you. You've been entitled to 5 pairs of socks, 5 pairs of briefs since CTS introduced them. Your t-shirt entitlement went up to 5 each 2 1/2 years ago. You were then entitled to an additional 3 each of all of these items when you were slotted into the CFTPO posn for TFA.

You should have 8 each of them all. And they are ALL exchangeable. Yep, it's ridiculous that you wasted your money buying something before you even bothered to go get the full qtys that you were entitled to seeing as how it's part of the DAG process. If clothing didn't have it then, why didn't you get it in KAF or Mirage, or didn't you go ask for it?? -- they DO have it.


----------



## Franko (26 Jan 2008)

Just a point on washing laundry, wash tubs and wash boards are in the FOBs so it's up to you to do it. KAF gets laundry services.

Not too sure if there is a laundry turn in for the FOBs. If there is it's a low priority I'm sure.

Back to the issue of boots. The old US Desert boot is now out and only the desert WW pattern (looks exactly the same as the CWW boot) is available.

Seeing as I still have 2 pairs of the old desert boot and after 2 tours, they are both still serviceable I'll be wearing those. 

Mind you someone got all pissy because of the amount of differing patterns of boots the troops have been issued over the years and wants everyone to look the same, so I'll be ready to turn mine in for a set that hurt my feet (CWW pattern).

Regards


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2008)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Mind you someone got all pissy because of the amount of differing patterns of boots the troops have been issued over the years and wants everyone to look the same, so I'll be ready to turn mine in for a set that hurt my feet (CWW pattern).
> Regards



Well, you could always fall back on the old "it's issued kit & therefore authorized to wear" -- and make arrangements with a nice & caring Suppy to quote you the _by the books _ "you are not entitled to exchange it if it is still serviceable."     >

We'd only be enforcing policy after all.


----------



## westernarmymember (26 Jan 2008)

Due to the current shortage in desert boots being experienced, it will not be possible for everyone to look the same. I am aware of no directive concerning what desert boots are worn in the BG. The rest of the task force is in much the same situation I'm sure.


----------



## Franko (26 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, you could always fall back on the old "it's issued kit & therefore authorized to wear" -- and make arrangements with a nice & caring Suppy to quote you the _by the books _ "you are not entitled to exchange it if it is still serviceable."     >
> 
> We'd only be enforcing policy after all.



True enough, but apparently that's not good enough. 5 different soldiers seen wearing 5 different pairs of issued boots displeased him.

Now  everyone will be wearing black Cadillacs in Bliss. That's the directive thus far.

Regards


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2008)

Serving In The West said:
			
		

> Due to the current shortage in desert boots being experienced, it will not be possible for everyone to look the same. I am aware of no directive concerning what desert boots are worn in the BG. The rest of the task force is in much the same situation I'm sure.



Well, you'd certainly be the one to know.  

Your post sits well with me.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2008)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> True enough, but apparently that's not good enough. 5 different soldiers seen wearing 5 different pairs of issued boots displeased him.
> 
> Now  everyone will be wearing black Cadillacs in Bliss. That's the directive thus far.
> 
> Regards



Ahhh Bliss. I can't see that carrying over into theatre though. Especially when he becomes informed of the fact that there is a desert boot shortage ... I'm surprised actually, that no one has yet informed him of this. Bad bad bad communication happening there.


----------



## westernarmymember (26 Jan 2008)

RBD, PM inbound


----------



## Franko (26 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Ahhh Bliss. I can't see that carrying over into theatre though. Especially when he becomes informed of the fact that there is a desert boot shortage ... I'm surprised actually, that no one has yet informed him of this. Bad bad bad communication happening there.



Nor can I, however, everyone knows that there is a shortage at most levels of command these days and he's pretty high up. That being said I'm sure that this will not be an issue in theater and will defiantly not be an issue in my call sign in theater.

Garrison life, unfortunately, gets in the way of training and this is one prime example.

Regards


----------



## PhilB (26 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Being the kit slut that you are --- I'm surprised to hear that you didn't take your entitled qty into theatre with you. You've been entitled to 5 pairs of socks, 5 pairs of briefs since CTS introduced them. Your t-shirt entitlement went up to 5 each 2 1/2 years ago. You were then entitled to an additional 3 each of all of these items when you were slotted into the CFTPO posn for TFA.
> 
> You should have 8 each of them all. And they are ALL exchangeable. Yep, it's ridiculous that you wasted your money buying something before you even bothered to go get the full qtys that you were entitled to seeing as how it's part of the DAG process. If clothing didn't have it then, why didn't you get it in KAF or Mirage, or didn't you go ask for it?? -- they DO have it.



I understand what you are saying but... First off in Edmonton at least they do not have any more brown tshirts, and no desert socks to issue. We got 3 brown tshirts, and no desert socks. The CTS boxer is not practical in the desert in my experience, it doesnt matter though as I went commando most of my last tour. Socks and t shirts are an entirly different matter. Socks are arguably one of the most pieces of kit, particularily to the infantry, I am not going to deploy with basically no socks and then hope that CM or KAF supply will have some to issue me. I had issues exchanging used up desert socks on 1-06, so I shudder to think what it is like now. So like lots of other things, although we may be entitled to it, we are still not getting it.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying but... First off in Edmonton at least they do not have any more brown tshirts, and no desert socks to issue. We got 3 brown tshirts, and no desert socks. The CTS boxer is not practical in the desert in my experience, it doesnt matter though as I went commando most of my last tour. Socks and t shirts are an entirly different matter. Socks are arguably one of the most pieces of kit, particularily to the infantry, I am not going to deploy with basically no socks and then hope that CM or KAF supply will have some to issue me. I had issues exchanging used up desert socks on 1-06, so I shudder to think what it is like now. So like lots of other things, although we may be entitled to it, we are still not getting it.



Oh ... I GET it!!

So, being that you were in theatre on TF1-06 -- you already have 8 pairs of desert socks and your undies from THAT deployment. Plus you are NOW entitled to a top-up of 3 MORE pairs to go with those original 8 for this deployment. You are only entitled to 3 of each after your FIRST deployment --- as YOU already got 8 the first time you deployed. 

What did YOU do?? Throw them out instead of exchanging them? That doesn't seem like a problem on the supply OR shortages end.

I am married to an infanteer -- you do not need to tell me how much they need their kit. Understand that. I KNOW what you do.

I also know that you, being this is your second deployment, should have more socks than the infanteer working beside you who is on his first deployment. You got 8 before ... and you're getting 3 MORE now. That's 11 pairs not 3!!! If you chucked yours out instead of exchanging them etc -- that's not MY problem or the systems ... rather I'd suggest to you that it is fully & squarely YOURS. He's only going to have 8 ... yet YOU are bitching. That's what I know.

And, I already told you -- KAF HAS them, so does CM ... what part of THAT are you not getting?

Read the posts below regarding entitlements. Don't sit here and try to make it like the system has only EVER given you 3 t-shirts or socks to deploy with -- that's bullshit and you know it.

YOU are only entitled to the 3 each tshirt/undie/sock top up because it's a _subsequent_ deployment into theatre for YOU. What did YOU do with the 8 of everything and the 5 tan shirts you got for 1-06?

Because, getting 3 tshirts and 3 pairs of socks from Edmonton means that YOU got exactly what the fuck you were entitled to for a second tour. If you threw your shit out after your first tour ... your bad. Not the systems bad.


----------



## PhilB (26 Jan 2008)

First off I am at a loss to understand why your posts have turned antagonistic and somewhat rude? Was I condescending, or rude to you in any of my posts? I do not think so.

Secondly, where in my posts did I say that I threw out my t shirts or socks from 1-06? Obviously I did not. I still have them, I was simply commenting that we were only issued 3 tshirts, and by we, I mean everyone, including those who have not deployed for, and no desert socks. I understand what my entitlement is, I understand the we are supposed to get them in theater, hopefully.

Finally, have I offended you in any of my posts here? Are you equating a dislike for the "system" as an attack on you? If I have then please, let me know and I will apologize. If not, in keeping with the guidelines of army.ca in reference to being civil, I think that you should reassess the tone of your posts as the are coming across as quite rude.


----------



## westernarmymember (26 Jan 2008)

PhilB, advise via PM what unit you are deploying with (BG, OMLT, etc) and I will find out why those deploying on their first tour did not receive the full entitlement.


----------



## westernarmymember (26 Jan 2008)

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is true that there have been issues with receiving certain kit for TF 108 deployment. It is also true that the reasons for these issues have been fully explained throughout the Ch of Comd, in all elements of the TF and that the majority of issued have been resolved in one way or another. If you have not received the information or you are not clear on certain points, feel me to contact me and I will provide the facts or get the facts for you where I am not up to date (unlikely). I will not discuss anything verging on OPSec but anything else is fair game. I cannot speak to the issues surrounding TF 308 but I can speak confidently concerning TF 108. Feel free to PM.


----------



## MikeL (26 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> I was simply commenting that we were only issued 3 tshirts, and by we, I mean everyone, including those who have not deployed for, and no desert socks.



I guess it depends on when you went into M101. Myself and others(well us who are on our 1st deployment) in my platoon picked up 6 brown t-shirts. And yea no one was issued desert socks, just the 3 black liners and 3 green socks. Also going off ArmyVern's list; none of us got hand towels or bath towels, no boxers or any extra green t-shirts.


----------



## KevinB (26 Jan 2008)

The desert socks suck - the only thing they are good for are cutting one as a goggle mask.

  Buy GOOD socks from MEC etc.  geez.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2008)

Question for Canadian Soldiers:

When deployed to Afghanistan, what extra kit are you issued? I've been itching to go since 3VP went over in 02, and now I have a chance in TF 3-09 if it comes off, all dependent on Parliament of course.


----------



## MikeL (26 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Question for Canadian Soldiers:
> 
> When deployed to Afghanistan, what extra kit are you issued? I've been itching to go since 3VP went over in 02, and now I have a chance in TF 3-09 if it comes off, all dependent on Parliament of course.



You get pretty much the same stuff you get in TW CADPAT just in Arid CADPAT, desert boots, and the new ruck(depends on the unit you go over with), etc Some guys got a new tac vest too trial aswell.

Arid CADPAT uniforms, brown t-shirts, Arid CADPAT plate carrier, TW CADPAT Camelbak, Arid CADPAT Camelbak cover.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jan 2008)

What do you mean by extra kit?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jan 2008)

I guess I could add that you should get the Arid CADPAT gortex rain suit


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> First off I am at a loss to understand why your posts have turned antagonistic and somewhat rude? Was I condescending, or rude to you in any of my posts? I do not think so.


I do not think I was "rude" either, perhaps you think I am because I've had to repeat myself at least 3 times to you now to correct the misleading information that you are posting.



> Secondly, where in my posts did I say that I threw out my t shirts or socks from 1-06? Obviously I did not. I still have them, I was simply commenting that we were only issued 3 tshirts, and by we, I mean everyone, including those who have not deployed for, and no desert socks. I understand what my entitlement is, I understand the we are supposed to get them in theater, hopefully.


Yoiur previous posts have implied that:



> I am not going to deploy *with basically no socks * and then hope that CM or KAF supply will have some to issue me.





> So like lots of other things, although we *may be entitled to it*, we are *still not getting it*.





> heres the issue I have. I got issued *3 Brown t Shirts * and *3 pairs of black liner socks*. The majority of the smaller FOB's dont have laundry. So we are supposed to get by *with basically 3 changes of under clothes for about a month in desert conditions   ridiculous*. Obviously, being the kit slut that I am, I have already *bought tshirts and socks to make up the deficiency*, but really, its at the point where we *need to buy our own shirts and socks? Come on*!



You have continuously implied that you have only ever been issued 3 tshirts, 3 socks, 3 underwear etc. You have said that it was ridiculous; you have said that being issued only 3 ... has caused you to go out and buy your own -- inferring that the system is not looking after you. You have implied that because the FOB has no "electric" laundry -- that you will be forced to live in "3" sets of underclothes (apparently dirty ones) for about a month. That's false. It's misleading. It is dishonest. YOU have 8 from your previous tour ... you have recd "3" additional sets for this deployment. That makes 11 to me. 11 pairs that you can handwash -- just as thousands of soldiers before you have. It will not kill you. Except, of course, for the extra 3 desert socks which you have not _yet_ been issued ... but I've already told you when you'd get them if you don't have them before you depart.

You bought tshirts to make up for what defeciency? You got your full entitlement of 3 more. Add that qty to the ones you were issued for your first tour. Same with your black socks. YOU chose to buy more ... you certainly weren't forced to, as by my counts you have recd one intial kitting of desert kit (TF1-06) and have now recd a deployment Top-up kitting for your second tour. That puts you at 11 AR thshirts (8 for your initial tour entitlement, plus the max 3 each more you are entitled to for this tour). Same counts and entitlements for the boxers (11) and the black socks (11). The only thing you seem to be missing is  3 each desert socks you are entitled to for your top-up -- as has been explained why & when you will get them (but needless, you already have 8 pairs of those anyways -- the same qty as someone deploying for the first time).

Now why, do you keep inferring that you only have "3" ... or "basically 3 changes of under clothes" when that is absolute crap? Do you see why your posts are getting to me now? You have at least 3 X's the number of underclothes that you claim to have. You are publicly inferring that the CF has necessitated your buying of "essentials" -- and that's 100% false.



> Finally, have I offended you in any of my posts here? Are you equating a dislike for the "system" as an attack on you? If I have then please, let me know and I will apologize. If not, in keeping with the guidelines of army.ca in reference to being civil, I think that you should reassess the tone of your posts as the are coming across as quite rude.



I don't take your "dislike" of the system as an attack on me. I dislike your misleading posts. Those conduct guidelines also mention that one shall not post deliberately misleading posts and information. Give them a full read.


----------



## PhilB (26 Jan 2008)

I see where you are coming from, but please do not groundlessly infer that I am being dishonest as I take offense to that. 

As far as the conduct guidelines are concerned, I have read them all, and I am in no way posting "deliberately" misleading information. I was issued 8 shirts and 8 socks on TF 1-06. I was issued an additional 3 more shirts and no socks (desert) for TF 1-08. I was informed by supply that I was not able to exchange non serviceable brown shirts nor ns desert socks. I was told and I quote "you may be able to in theater". Now I understand from your posts that they will have them in theater, perfect, hopefully I will be able to exchange them. But after a full tour (9 months) with the same t shirts and socks all but 1 shirt, and 2 pairs of socks are NS (For the t shirts, sleeves coming off, collars ripped for the socks large holes at heels and toes). 

Finally, I do not feel I am being misleading, because as I have said in other posts, ever troop in my organization, including those without a previous "Desert Entitlement" were issued the same 3 pairs of shirts, and 3 CTS black socks. All of them, like me have gone out and bought additionally socks,  and t shirts to a lesser degree. So, again to clarify, I am not inferring that the system is not looking after me, and those in my platoon, I am out and out saying it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Jan 2008)

Sounds like a problem with your mounting base. Armed with the info that Vern gave you try and get the missing items also ask to speak to the supervisor if the counter staff is unhelpful (Vern can correct if I am misleading you.)


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> I see where you are coming from, but please do not groundlessly infer that I am being dishonest as I take offense to that.
> 
> As far as the conduct guidelines are concerned, I have read them all, and I am in no way posting "deliberately" misleading information. I was issued 8 shirts and 8 socks on TF 1-06. I was issued an additional 3 more shirts and no socks (desert) for TF 1-08. I was informed by supply that I was not able to exchange non serviceable brown shirts nor ns desert socks. I was told and I quote "you may be able to in theater". Now I understand from your posts that they will have them in theater, perfect, hopefully I will be able to exchange them. But after a full tour (9 months) with the same t shirts and socks all but 1 shirt, and 2 pairs of socks are NS (For the t shirts, sleeves coming off, collars ripped for the socks large holes at heels and toes).
> 
> Finally, I do not feel I am being misleading, because as I have said in other posts, ever troop in my organization, including those without a previous "Desert Entitlement" were issued the same 3 pairs of shirts, and 3 CTS black socks. All of them, like me have gone out and bought additionally socks,  and t shirts to a lesser degree. So, again to clarify, I am not inferring that the system is not looking after me, and those in my platoon, I am out and out saying it.



You were told correctly. Desert kit is not exchangeable in Canada ... as you're not allowed to wear it here.

Explain to me then your posts that I've highlited again below in the bold bits ...

Basiclly "3 sets for a month ..." 

They ONLY qtys you mentioned were "3", "3", and "3" over & over again -- until you happened to mention that you had been on TF1-06 as well ... at which time it was I who then had to point out the fact that you also had an additional "8" on top of those "3" (basic/ridiculous/had to buy my own to make up for defeciencies ... etc etc) you quoted until that time.

As for your first-time deployment co-workers only getting 3 as well ... we've already pointed out the shortages and where they'd get them (and you your extra 3 pairs of desert socks still owed you). I won't say where again -- I already have ... and they DO have them as my computer screen at work confirms.


----------



## PhilB (27 Jan 2008)

I understand. This is getting ridiculous, and is quickly losing an relevance to the topic of this thread. Like you said there are short comings in the system, yes guys should get stuff issued/exchanged overseas, and the reality of the situation is that a lot of guys, including me, are purchasing essential items like socks to ensure that they have what they need WHEN they hit the ground, as opposed to relying on the hit and miss supply system.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jan 2008)

If I may.  I was over on 3-06.  Issued 5 tan shirts and told I would get the rest once I arrived as posters have stated.  Once on the ground I asked at the place that remains nameless and told no further on my trip I will get them.  I ask again in KAF while getting the rest of my stuff and was told no.  Now whether or not I am actually entitled to them I don't have the time to argue with them nor does my CQ as I have more pressing issues like getting on a convoy to go somewhere out the wire.  I realize the system isn't and won't ever be perfect but I do wish everyone was singing from the same sheet of music.


----------



## PhilB (27 Jan 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> If I may.  I was over on 3-06.  Issued 5 tan shirts and told I would get the rest once I arrived as posters have stated.  Once on the ground I asked at the place that remains nameless and told no further on my trip I will get them.  I ask again in KAF while getting the rest of my stuff and was told no.  Now whether or not I am actually entitled to them I don't have the time to argue with them nor does my CQ as I have more pressing issues like getting on a convoy to go somewhere out the wire.  I realize the system isn't and won't ever be perfect but I do wish everyone was singing from the same sheet of music.



This is similar to the issues that I, and others ran into on 1-06. Not enough stock to exchange stuff, guys not getting issued things, and again, this experience is why I am buying my own socks! Good intentions, computer systems and "entitlement", dont get socks without holes on my feet! Vern, to clarify, I am not complaining about buying socks out of pocket. I a happy with what I bought, and will use them on civvy side when I get back, if they last. I am just trying to explain my rationale.


----------



## darmil (30 Jan 2008)

Theres no point arguing about things like socks and T shirts the system sucks no offence Vern but the system does sucks.Simple things like socks and T shirts should not be exchanged for new ones they are simple items and should be treated as such.I'm wearing my own under wear and using cotton socks cause I find there is no difference socks are socks minor sh**.T shirts well bringing all my shirts that are green ain't going to see them under a combat shirt.3issued tan  T shirts : first tour to Afghanistan too.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Jan 2008)

Have to disagree with you that socks are socks.


----------



## armyvern (30 Jan 2008)

MikeH said:
			
		

> Theres no point arguing about things like socks and T shirts the system sucks no offence Vern but the system does sucks.Simple things like socks and T shirts should not be exchanged for new ones they are simple items and should be treated as such.I'm wearing my own under wear and using cotton socks cause I find there is no difference socks are socks minor sh**.T shirts well bringing all my shirts that are green ain't going to see them under a combat shirt.3issued tan  T shirts : first tour to Afghanistan too.



So they are simple things that shouldn't be exchanged?? You'd rather just buy them instead??

Unfortunately for you, TB regulations (ie FEDERAL regulations governing taxpayer supplied items) state they have to be exchanged as they are bought & paid for, fo you, by taxpayers. So ... you can't just walk in and get new ones every second day (like happened with DEU back when ResF members could echange it for themselves and we saw some members indeed exchanging "theirs" every second day) ... when you need new ones -- you bring in your old ones -- and we exchange them. It doesn't cost you a dime. Seems fair to me -- seeing as how you'd be coming to clothing anyway to pick up your new ones.


----------



## Dissident (30 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for you, TB regulations (ie FEDERAL regulations governing taxpayer supplied items) state they have to be exchanged as they are bought & paid for, for you, by taxpayers.



Well, the taxpayers should understand about the sock monster that lives in the washer and drier.


----------



## Gunner98 (30 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So they are simple things that shouldn't be exchanged?? You'd rather just buy them instead??
> 
> Unfortunately for you, TB regulations (ie FEDERAL regulations governing taxpayer supplied items) state they have to be exchanged as they are bought & paid for, fo you, by taxpayers. So ... you can't just walk in and get new ones every second day (like happened with DEU back when ResF members could echange it for themselves and we saw some members indeed exchanging "theirs" every second day) ... when you need new ones -- you bring in your old ones -- and we exchange them. It doesn't cost you a dime. Seems fair to me -- seeing as how you'd be coming to clothing anyway to pick up your new ones.



Vern in Kingston and Petawawa, you don't bring in your old underwear, t-shirt or socks.  You can request a new batch every six months.  Am I misunderstanding your point?


----------



## geo (30 Jan 2008)

Cheech!
You go thru your drawers in 6 months?

(I still have my hoard of V neck t shirts for the summer)


----------



## Roy Harding (30 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Cheech!
> You go thru your drawers in 6 months?
> 
> (I still have my hoard of V neck t shirts for the summer)



You DON'T go through your drawers in six months?  You're not eating enough IMPs.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Jan 2008)

Aren't V necks banned?


----------



## armyvern (30 Jan 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Aren't V necks banned?



There's still tonnes around (and being worn), but yes ... there was a message stating that they were no longer authorized for wear. 

My husband saves them for the field. Works for him.

Us chicks tend to get nailed easily though when we wear them ... seeing as how some's cleavage tends to draw attention to the "V" neck; it's not a situation that I personally experience when I wear one though.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jan 2008)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Well, the taxpayers should understand about the sock monster that lives in the washer and drier.



Gold.


----------



## geo (31 Jan 2008)

Illegal?.... eggads!
So far, never been given any grief for still wearing em.
I think I shall still find a time and place to continue wearing em - till they come apart at the seams.


----------



## armyvern (31 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> So far, never been given any grief for still wearing em.



Perhaps ... they enjoy looking at your cleavage??  >


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2008)

Male clevage is wrong on so many levels... especially when it's furry.  Or so I've been told when wearing the old v-necks...


----------



## riggermade (31 Jan 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Male clevage is wrong on so many levels... especially when it's furry.  Or so I've been told when wearing the old v-necks...



And on that note it is time to take myself off the list of being informed of new posts


----------



## Haggis (31 Jan 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Male clevage is wrong on so many levels... especially when it's furry.  Or so I've been told when wearing the old v-necks...



*OH Gawd!!!*

Where's the "retching" smiley?


----------



## Franko (1 Feb 2008)

Haggis....here you go.







Regards


----------



## darmil (1 Feb 2008)

ROFL good one.


----------



## Haggis (1 Feb 2008)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Haggis....here you go.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks, RBD.  I can think of several threads where I could've used that in the past.


----------



## Kilroy (6 Feb 2008)

Two points to mention here.

1)   One of the reasons I was told on my tour in Afghanistan (1-06) that we were to all wear the same kit was for night recognition. If we wore another nations kit, it wouls be harder to distinguish us as Canadians.

2)   This is a question for Vern. I have seen Cadpat pattern t-shirts for sale on Ebay. Aret these authorized pieces of kit yet? If I where to buy a few, could I wear then at work?  Just curious.


----------



## KevinB (6 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> 1)   One of the reasons I was told on my tour in Afghanistan (1-06) that we were to all wear the same kit was for night recognition. If we wore another nations kit, it wouls be harder to distinguish us as Canadians.



NV -- and thus NV IFF items are way better than using the shape or lack of a shape of the TV to ID people at night.


----------



## Gunner98 (6 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> 2)   This is a question for Vern. I have seen Cadpat pattern t-shirts for sale on Ebay. Aret these authorized pieces of kit yet? If I where to buy a few, could I wear then at work?  Just curious.



I have a few questions for you Kilroy:

1) Do you buy all of your military kit on E-bay that is normally issued to you at Base Supply, or just your underwear?

2) Unless you work for Vern, why don't you ask your superiors?  

3) If you do work for Vern why not ask her in person?

4) Are you are one of those soldiers that likes to say to your boss, "You're so wrong, this 'crazy' lady on Army.ca told me I could wear my tie-dyed Hawaiian undershirt under my Coat, Conv, Cbt CADPAT, TW"?

Next you will ask, "Vern, can I wear pink rainboots instead of mukluks during winter warfare."


----------



## Kilroy (6 Feb 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> I have a few questions for you Kilroy:
> 
> 1) Do you buy all of your military kit on E-bay that is normally issued to you at Base Supply, or just your underwear?
> 
> ...




It's just a question "Person" (Can't say "dude" unless you're a female and I might upset you!!" 

1   Do you queestion everyone so stupidly when they ask a simple question?

2 Who s**t in your rice krispies this morning

3  If you are not adding to the conversations, then SHUT UP!!!!!!!!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (6 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> Two points to mention here.
> 
> 1)   One of the reasons I was told on my tour in Afghanistan (1-06) that we were to all wear the same kit was for night recognition. If we wore another nations kit, it wouls be harder to distinguish us as Canadians.



I think that headgear mattered more for night recognition.  Helmet silouette (especially with the MNVGs mounted) was one quick way to tell people apart.  I remember some direction being given on having standardized headgear at night but nothing else and there was every variety of chest rig/TV being worn out there.


----------



## Pampers (6 Feb 2008)

I can't resist:

Vern, can I wear pink rainboots instead of mukluks during winter warfare???

I've got an ex this weekend and it would add the right "Je ne sais quois" to my uniform...

I will also call you as a witness on my charge parade.


----------



## armyvern (6 Feb 2008)

Big_Rifleman said:
			
		

> Vern, can I wear pink rainboots instead of mukluks during winter warfare???



Yes you may.

CrazyLady
Army.ca


----------



## Pampers (6 Feb 2008)

_Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet_.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 Feb 2008)

Just to muddy the waters a bit, I have an issue coolmax CADPAT T-shirt - which was issued as part of the final implementation trial at 3 VP in 99.  It is a great shirt, but has a tendency to retain odour....


----------



## Infanteer (7 Feb 2008)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Just to muddy the waters a bit, I have an issue coolmax CADPAT T-shirt - which was issued as part of the final implementation trial at 3 VP in 99.  It is a great shirt, but has a tendency to retain odour....



Did you get permission from your CO to wear it?


----------



## Thompson_JM (7 Feb 2008)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Just to muddy the waters a bit, I have an issue coolmax CADPAT T-shirt - which was issued as part of the final implementation trial at 3 VP in 99.  It is a great shirt, but has a tendency to retain odour....



And Melt in extreme heat...... ie Fire.

hence why the SOP came out that we could not wear them outside the wire on our tour. just inside KAF and the PRT.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2008)

They might melt quicker then combats but everything we wear will melt including the kit we wear to stay warm in A Stan when it gets cold.  What about that issued Gortex Arid Rain suit?  The SOP needs to be ammended.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Feb 2008)

Wearing fireproof/ cotton only clothing was a big deal for UK troops, in NI and still is in the desert I believe. Except for their jungle kit, all their gear is cotton. The US seems the same, and they have full ripstop cotton gear to support this policy, except for raingear of course.

I've always wondered why we insist on wrapping ourselves up in textiles that will melt nicely into our skins after only modeate heat is applied. One Molotov cocktail can change your mind - or skin texture...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2008)

If I go over again I think I might invest in the old school thermal's some how.


----------



## blacktriangle (7 Feb 2008)

Quag, you talking about those "waffle" things that preceeded polypro? If so, you can have mine for free, never used.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2008)

Yeah I am fairly certain they are 100% Cotton (or pretty close) so instead of melting I can get a nice charring.


----------



## armyvern (7 Feb 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> If I go over again I think I might invest in the old school thermal's some how.



Ask at clothing ... they may still have some kicking about as CiC can still be issued them.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2008)

Will do.  Unfortunately my "pull" only extends within BN.  3-09 is a ways off (unless of course I get called up again).


----------



## blacktriangle (7 Feb 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Yeah I am fairly certain they are 100% Cotton (or pretty close) so instead of melting I can get a nice charring.



ASU Toronto still issues them when there is no polypro to be had...so they are actually good for something? Wow. 

Edit: Looks like Vern beat me to it.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (7 Feb 2008)

Just as an FYI, cotton, while being non-melting, does still burn.  If you're that concerned about FR underwear, you might want to consider some of the stuff which is commercially available in mil-friendly colours... *cough*driFIRE @ CP Gear*cough*...


----------



## armyvern (7 Feb 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> ASU Toronto still issues them when there is no polypro to be had...so they are actually good for something? Wow.
> 
> Edit: Looks like Vern beat me too it.



No worries. I have an "in" ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Just as an FYI, cotton, while being non-melting, does still burn.  If you're that concerned about FR underwear, you might want to consider some of the stuff which is commercially available in mil-friendly colours... *cough*driFIRE @ CP Gear*cough*...



Cough "pricey" cough

Yeah Matt I am aware of those items, but if I can start with the issued stuff (waffle thermals) I will do that.  I do know it will still burn but as far as I know will not melt.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2008)

Thanks Vern.


----------



## KevinB (8 Feb 2008)

DryFire rocks...

 CarbonX as well.

Face it -- due to the bureaucracy the Military will not adapt to change as quickly as outside entities or SOF.  Thus IF you deem your life require kit X -- and its not issued -- you buy it - and suck it up.


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Feb 2008)

Massif makes a whole line of FR stuff as well, including thermal underware, fleece and waterproof/breathable.

More and more FR kit is hitting the street, inlcuding UnderArmor and 5.11... I am picking up some FR kit for tour, starting with Hatch Nomex HK Operator gloves that should show up in the mail anyday now...


----------



## KevinB (8 Feb 2008)

Vickers Tactical Gloves...


----------



## Canadian Sig (8 Feb 2008)

I've got some 5.11 FR gloves that I love.


----------



## TheHead (10 Feb 2008)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Just a point on washing laundry, wash tubs and wash boards are in the FOBs so it's up to you to do it. KAF gets laundry services.
> 
> Not too sure if there is a laundry turn in for the FOBs. If there is it's a low priority I'm sure.
> 
> ...



I wish they had wash tubs when I was at a FOB for months on end.    I washed my clothes in a crappy river going down a hill  ;D


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Feb 2008)

TheHead said:
			
		

> I wish they had wash tubs when I was at a FOB for months on end.    I washed my clothes in a crappy river going down a hill  ;D



Best 'field expedient' washing machine/wash tub I've ever used was a 25mm ammo can.  It also works great for sponge/bird baths whereby you've got 2 cans, one filled with soapy water, the other with clean rinse water.  Stand in the soapy one first, and sponge yourself off, then step over into the clean water filled one and rinse off.  You can then use them for doing laundry after you've had your bath to conserve water.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2008)

To add to Matt, there are Field Expediant methods of Dry Cleaning your clothes and Kit (including Sleeping Bag).  These methods are not safe to post, but are well known by many of whom you may call 'dinosaurs'.  Warning.  When using this method, keep all items away from flame, or sparks.   A 'No Smoking Rule' is strongly advised.  PM me if you don't know, as I am not going to recommend this method on this means.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Feb 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Best 'field expedient' washing machine/wash tub I've ever used was a 25mm ammo can.



Thats a good one. I Kosovo we used a cement mixer to do Laundry for a while.


----------



## Shamrock (10 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Thats a good one. I Kosovo we used a cement mixer to do Laundry for a while.



Garbage bag and shampoo.


----------



## TN2IC (10 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A 'No Smoking Rule' is strongly advised.




Very, very strong advise... do not smoke for a bit while doing this process. ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Feb 2008)

And be sure to rinse the cleaned articles in fresh water and then air dry. This goes double for items that are worn next to your private parts.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (10 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Thats a good one. I Kosovo we used a cement mixer to do Laundry for a while.



Guess you had concrete proof that the items where cleaned  ;D

Sorry couldn't resist.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Feb 2008)

Well  I'm back. Again, with an opinion.

Now I understand that many of you beleive that I may be a "dinosaur' when it comes to kit. When you're in garrison or KAF, I absolutely beleive that issue kit has to be the norm, with exceptions being made medically (boots, as many of us have a hard time with the Mark 3's and the issue desert boots as an example) . If I ever get to Afghanistan, the Original Swat desert boots will be coming with me, even if I have to buy them.
Outside the wire on combat ops...leave it up to the soldier.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Feb 2008)

Well that's a start.  In KAF we only walked around with our pers wpn unless we were leaving to go on an OP and then it was from the Shacks to the vehicle.  Although I disagree to some extent with your statement about use in garrison because if we are to train as we fight and we are fighting in these "other" rigs we should not be learning about their use in Afghanistan.  On step at a time I guess.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Feb 2008)

Lone Wolf:
I think we basically agree. If you're in KAF for an extended period, it's similar to being in garrison. You have to conform. It's not a matter of picking and choosing what dress regulations you'll follow when in garrison or KAF. You have to do what you're told.

Like I say to my company, I don't care what other units do, we will do what we're told.

As for combat ops, if it does not interefere with personal safety (ie dry weave t shirts, which melt), and if its reasonable, then it should be overlooked.
I for one, when I get to Afghanistan (and I will, I hope) will invest in a couple of pair of non issue desert boots.


----------



## blacktriangle (11 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I for one, when I get to Afghanistan (and I will, I hope) will invest in a couple of pair of non issue desert boots.



AMEN. When I had mark 3's I was a medical release waiting to happen. Thank you magnums and swats...


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Feb 2008)

I refuse to Wear MkIIIs....within 1/2 an hour everything hurts. I'll wear original SWAT until the Army issues the new pattern boot. 
In my company, your boots have to be black and conform to a combat boot type of thing. Know what I mean?

I remember two generals who stated that Danners etc were forbidden was that because it was the Army's job to issue you your footwear.
That is true, but it has to be GOOD footwear, not lowers bidder in Canada footwear.

If there is anyone from NDHQ on this web, please pay attention. The troops welfare depend on it.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Feb 2008)

In 1VP, the boots just have to be black - unless it is hot and we are in the field, then they can be black or tan.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Feb 2008)

That "appears" to be the policy here currently as well.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Feb 2008)

Don't tell me common sense has broken out!!! Oh my whatever shall we do!!! LOL
OK here is another "dinosaur" story!
When we were in Cyprus, we got issued jungle boots. If we were in the field, they were good to go in some units. If we were on a road move...no jungle boots.....all in the name of uniformity. It was very exasperating.

In one unit, even if you were issued jungle boots, you were not allowed to wear them EVER because the RSM didn't have a pair...true story.


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Feb 2008)

At a time when we are looking to conserve CF funds for more important things - (like t-shirts, underwear, beans and bullets), you guys should be commended for doing your part by not requiring the re-issue of Black and Tan boots :


----------



## BernDawg (12 Feb 2008)

Cyprus - JBs - If we were on the Ledra gate in Cbts then we had to spit shine the toes (no sh*t!).  Normally we were in that stupid tropical dress and had to wear hush puppies (old desert boots)


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Feb 2008)

I remember the Ledra Gate.  And I remember spit shining jungle boots, starching that ridiculous ball cap and pressing combats....
Downtown Nicosia was entertaingin though.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Feb 2008)

You guys get to wear shorts with those?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Feb 2008)

"Downtown Nicosia was entertaingin though."

Is that where Murmur hung out?


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Feb 2008)

Lone Wolf, sit down by the fire while us old warriors regale you with tales of glory while manning Ledra Gate in our spit shone jungle boots, ridiculous hats and starched combats!!
Yes were were issued shorts, but I never wore them.
We had these socks that came up to your knees. There were OK.
It was very much a "garatrooper" operation.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Feb 2008)

Was that type of attention to detail from the get go or did it creep in over time?

Topic Split?


----------



## Tow Tripod (12 Feb 2008)

Those hush puppy shoes and Cyprus socks are/where the cats meow.Cyprus was the best social event I was ever invited too.It is impossible to make everyone in the army happy with the kit that we get. My days of buying additional kit are long over. So I'm back too saying if the army doesn't get it to me I guess I don't need it. Overall I'm pretty happy with the kit our platoon has received for TF1-08. We are leaps and bounds ahead of the Croatia,Kosovo, Bosnia days. I still wear my Mark's with my Cyprus socks right behind my knee caps!!!!!!!  

TOW TRIPOD


----------



## Roy Harding (12 Feb 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Just as an FYI, cotton, while being non-melting, does still burn.  If you're that concerned about FR underwear, you might want to consider some of the stuff which is commercially available in mil-friendly colours... *cough*driFIRE @ CP Gear*cough*...



Just a thought here (and as an aside I STILL wear my old cotton underwear when the weather dictates - then again, I'm no longer in a position to worry about combustion sources, other than my chain saw).

When I was a Boy Scout, we made "survival kits".  Part of that survival kit was whatever cotton rag your Mom would give you, which you baked on low heat in the oven.  It was EXCELLENT fire starter.  I still carry some in my current "Boy Scout" survival kit whenever I'm out in the bush.  It works GREAT - get a spark on it, it burns.

I understand that the cotton underwear you wear next to your skin has not been "pre-treated" in your oven - but think about it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Feb 2008)

but does it melt?


----------



## Roy Harding (12 Feb 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> but does it melt?



Nope - just burns.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Feb 2008)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I understand that the cotton underwear you wear next to your skin has not been "pre-treated" in your oven - but think about it.



If its next to my burning furnace of love, trust me - it has been heat-treated.


----------



## armyvern (12 Feb 2008)

I am shocked at the tone this thread is taking. 


Yeah ri-ight.  >


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Feb 2008)

Tommy said:
			
		

> And Melt in extreme heat...... ie Fire.
> 
> hence why the SOP came out that we could not wear them outside the wire on our tour. just inside KAF and the PRT.



Same thing we experienced. No Coolmax outside thw wire becuase of the melting. Cotton T's only.


----------



## baboon6 (12 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Same thing we experienced. No Coolmax outside thw wire becuase of the melting. Cotton T's only.



What is the Australian Army's view on non-issue kit in general though?


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Feb 2008)

Well, I wear US desert boots, Altamas with Panama sole. Wore then since 98 (not the same pair, ha). I wear South African M83 webbing, but its AUSCAM, and I use an OD 3L camelbak. 

Instead of an issued M9 Buck bayonet, I carry a US Camillus M3 fighting knife in M8A1 scabbard. 

In the fd, I wear a DPCU parasmock, because we have no combat jackets, many wear them.

We all have swags, and I have never seen two the same. Mine is made by a former Army mbr, its in DPCU, and canvas. There will be 3 or 4 bungied on the top of a LAV. Wierd sight/

In my swag I use an old CF outer SB, and a poncho liner for the winter here, as it does get frosty in some areas down south

Nothing is ever said.

Even the CO and RSM are guilty.

I use a 1982 ptrn CF ruck, so as long as its OD (pack wise) or things are AUSCAM, it does nto seem to rattle anyone's cage. There is so many variations of packs, webbing and other misc kit in use, no one really acts on it. However, there is 'reggieness' in some units, but Field Force units on a war footing are pretty much left to manage themselves.

That old ruck is batleworn, faded and bleached almost to a reddish tan colour, so it blends in well with terrain

On Ops it the same. Wierd tan boots of heaps of varieties, modified hats brims, modified gloves, but no coolmax t's outide the wire. After we had heard some Yanks were seriously burned in operations, the CSM laid the law down. Cotton T's, either plain or our Unit logo on them.

The wearing of unauthorised name tags such as nick names "BUCK", or 'JOEY" worn on the ECBA was common (but discouraged), and US/AUS rank was also worn on ECBA, so the Yanks knew what grade we were in their system. The use of sub-unit locally made patches too was also done, and these were unauthorised version, some funny. Ya, but that was war, do that here, and you'd get a spanking for sure.

I would say overall, the use of aftermarket kit was and is sanctioned by most, as long as it conforms to the DPCU/DPCU cam ptrns, and boot colour.

Personally, I never bag my blokes out. Its all about being comfortable, and if there is nothing in the system for it, improvise with buying your own. Here its a tax deduction anyways.

In theatrre they were sticky on ECBA (various degrees of wear), eye protection, and kevlar lids, plus anit-flash kit for you face etc, when  'out and about' in the happier areas of Baghdad City and Province.

Also important was of course to be bombed up with ammo and frags. This was always checked before going out. The lads always had heaps of belted 4B1T, F1 frags, 40mm HEDP, etc.

Many aftermarket pouches etc too.

Morale was always excellent from go to whoa.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## ark (13 Feb 2008)

> QUEBEC–A member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has recently returned from Afghanistan says he and his fellow soldiers are poorly equipped for their mission.
> 
> In an interview with French-language network TVA, Cpl. Daniel Beaulieu says the equipment is better suited for peacekeeping missions.
> 
> ...



http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/303157

Since I have not been in the region, I would like to hear an opinion of those who have "been there done that". Do you find his claims to be relevant?


----------



## JesseWZ (13 Feb 2008)

I know that the intention was probably magazine... but 4 rounds of ammo? 
Eeek.


----------



## KevinB (13 Feb 2008)

I am not longer in.

However a QUICK perusal of the site here shows threads on each of those topics.


----------



## Trinity (13 Feb 2008)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I know that the intention was probably magazine... but 4 rounds of ammo?
> Eeek.



They MEAN 4 Mags... I can only assume.

And if the RCR and PPCLI figured out ways to solve this problem... I'm sure many VanDoos did too.

Could be an isolated complainer.


----------



## PhilB (13 Feb 2008)

Solving the problem, by buying our own vest, so his comment that we are not properly equipped for the mission, and our load bearing equipment is more suited for peacekeeping, is IMHO, completely valid. Now whether or not this person should have been making statements to the press is another matter, but I agree with his sentiment.


----------



## RHFC_piper (13 Feb 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> whether or not this person should have been making statements to the press is another matter.



Somewhere in LFQA there is a PAFFO spinning like a top.  


And yet, I'm sure this soldier will get a "you really shouldn't have said that" and thats about it... (hopefully)


----------



## blacktriangle (13 Feb 2008)

He's either leaving the army, or wants to be a Cpl forever..good on him in my opinion!  ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Feb 2008)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I know that the intention was probably magazine... but 4 rounds of ammo?
> Eeek.



Yes eek!

I think they meant mags.

Either way, osunds a bit disgruntled and an attitude to boot with this returning guy.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Thompson_JM (13 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Yes eek!
> 
> I think they meant mags.
> 
> ...



I cant say I blame him on either... but time and a place.... Dont slag your boss publicly.....

it doesnt make anyone look good.


----------



## regulator12 (13 Feb 2008)

As a member who is about to deploy....HE IS WAY OUT OF LINE.......

1. We have been issued....ISSUED Arktis vests and other modular type vests and on top of that As well been authorized to wear vests bought from certain companies......the warlord vest, some tactical tailor to name a couple.

2. We have all been issued decent boots...however most members have gotten boot chits and issued SWATS, Converse, Magnums, Daniers Boots Etc by the army. Lots of guys have great boots, Oakleys as well.

3. The sidearm issue.....Cant really comment on that but  I am sure there is a good argument for that....

Maybe the Vandoos did not like to allow its troops to use there own gear but the army has and is buying modular vests for the infantry, they are improving there boots and letting guys wear there own....it seems all right for us....


----------



## benny88 (13 Feb 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> He also says many soldiers had only one or no sidearm, where two should have been the standard.



   Not an expert, but two sidearms? As in two pistols? Did they mean a rifle/carbine and a pistol?


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2008)

The Star needs to get it's act together on the reporting front. There are far too many errors in this article.


----------



## Shamrock (13 Feb 2008)

CBC's version.



> The Valcartier, Que.-based Beaulieu said the vests worn by Canadian soldiers only had pockets for four ammunition magazines, where between 10 and 15 magazines should have been the norm.
> 
> Beaulieu also said many soldiers had only one or no extra ammunition clip for their sidearm, where two should have been the standard.
> 
> Beaulieu also said the holster designed to carry the guns often failed, with the handgun sometimes falling out and creating a serious security risk.



In other news, this guy's PER should be entertaining.


----------



## DarkFire (13 Feb 2008)

At least the CBC corrected all the reporting mistakes that were made, it was really painful to imagine why one would need to pistols.


----------



## KevinB (13 Feb 2008)

Well there have been several complaints about the holster - and lack of pistol mags.
  
 The CBC version does make a lot more sense.


----------



## Canadian Sig (13 Feb 2008)

I have troops who were just issued pistols but no holsters because there were none available. 

Regulator, I assume your with the boys from out west because around 2 Bde it's issued vests only as of right now and seems it will be that way for 3-08.


----------



## GUNS (13 Feb 2008)

Regardless of what this soldier has said is true or not. He should have shown better judgement in airing his complaints to the media.

Others have been there before him and nothing was mentioned to the media. I sure hope his proud regiment will respond to this soldiers public outburst.

Talk about self inflected wounds.


----------



## RHFC_piper (13 Feb 2008)

[quote author=CBC]
The network said other soldiers also expressed similar complaints off-camera, but only Beaulieu was willing to go on camera *despite the repercussions that could follow*.
[/quote]
From CBC article. Emphasis added.


Probably not the best approach...  but he obviously knew what he was getting into.


----------



## time expired (13 Feb 2008)

Maybe the CBC should interview a Taliban fighter to see
if they have any equipment issues.Get over it ,when has
any Canadian force ever been properly equipped for the 
task it was called on to fulfill.
                                Regards


----------



## Matt_Fisher (13 Feb 2008)

Just as a note of common sense here, lets step back and take a breath.  There are numerous pages on the perceived (valid or not) shortcomings on alot of equipment, tactics, and other such related subjects.  This is a public forum, which the media can use, and have used, as source material.  So before we start casting stones at Cpl. Beaulieu, lets make sure that the ones making comments aren't just as guilty of voicing their opinion on other public means such as this site, whether or not they're kit related, tactics, discipline, etc.  i.e. making a comment advocating a physical assault (blanket party) on a commissioned officer in a thread about an RMC professor that refuses to salute/toast the Queen, then on the other hand saying how Cpl Beaulieu should have exercised better judgement.  Pot, this is Kettle, Over.


----------



## dougR6 (13 Feb 2008)

I've spent a lot of time in Valcartier and been on 4 missions during that time including Afghanistan.  I can't say for sure how it is now but until 2 years ago none of us were ever allowed to use equipment not signed from the QMR.  Nothing at all, no Safariland pistol holster, no civvy boots, no civvy gloves, no stealth suit, no nothing!!

At the same time, I have friends in Edmonton allowed to wear Artkis TV, any type of boots they fancy, they all wear the stealth suit, any type of ballistic eyewear...

It's like two different armies with two different mentalities.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Feb 2008)

ʞɔoɹɯɐɥs said:
			
		

> CBC's version.
> 
> In other news, this guy's PER should be entertaining.



Leading Change should be right-justified; however, I'm not too sure about the other "dots" ;D


----------



## GUNS (13 Feb 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Just as a note of common sense here, lets step back and take a breath.  There are numerous pages on the perceived (valid or not) shortcomings on alot of equipment, tactics, and other such related subjects.  This is a public forum, which the media can use, and have used, as source material.  So before we start casting stones at Cpl. Beaulieu, lets make sure that the ones making comments aren't just as guilty of voicing their opinion on other public means such as this site, whether or not they're kit related, tactics, discipline, etc.  i.e. *making a comment advocating a physical assault (blanket party) on a commissioned officer in a thread about an RMC professor that refuses to salute/toast the Queen, then on the other hand saying how Cpl Beaulieu should have exercised better judgement.  Pot, this is Kettle, Over.*



Lets compare apples to apples here. Both the RMC officer and the R22R soldier made there likes/dislikes known to the media.

My reference to a "blanket party" was not made to the media, it was made on this forum. To my knowledge, if a reporter ( they do surf this site) wants to use information that has been posted to this site. They first most identify themself as a reporter and then ask permission to use the posted material. (stand to be corrected)

In the past I had been contacted twice by a reporter, both times I denied him use of posted material. 

In this modern era, " blanket party" has become a figure of speech to describe ones feelings towards a situation/event. In my time " blanket party" was a "blanket party".

"blanket party" carries as much weight as, " knock your block off", "drop dead", "your in for a world of hurt", "your ass is mine", "he should be shot", etc.,etc.

What I have posted here, stayed here.


----------



## darmil (13 Feb 2008)

I carry two weapons rifle and pistol the issue holster is terrilbe can't too get my holster only a few weeks until it gets here.


----------



## geo (13 Feb 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> Maybe the CBC should interview a Taliban fighter to see
> if they have any equipment issues.Get over it ,*when has
> any Canadian force ever been properly equipped for the
> task it was called on to fulfill.*
> Regards



Umm.... IMHO, the CDS & CLS have done a commendable job of getting their hands on the kit that we do need.
Is it perfect - nope... but all in all, compared to some of the other troops deployed, we're doing pretty well.


----------



## regulator12 (13 Feb 2008)

Canadian Sig......Yes I am out west. We are required to wear what was issued to us till we get to KAF. Then outside the wire anything goes. Like I said though we have been issued some good kit. Arktis rigs and such, nice boots, etc. People need to realize this army is in a transition. Look at the new rucks we got. They are pretty dam good, we all have them whole battalion. Issued rails and pistol grips for guns. Not the best but half decent. The kit is coming and the mentality at least out here is that if it works and makes you operate better then go ahead and use it, but when its time to look good for the RSM get rid of it! The army is changing and I personally think it is doing a good job and it will get better as time goes on. That CPL was out of line and mis informed. It seems that every regiment has different outlook not the army.


----------



## Gunner98 (13 Feb 2008)

GUNS said:
			
		

> To my knowledge, if a reporter ( they do surf this site) wants to use information that has been posted to this site. They first most identify themself as a reporter and then ask permission to use the posted material. (stand to be corrected)
> What I have posted here, stayed here.



The reporter only needs your permission to use your 'real name', *he does not need it* to use your comments and Pseudo/screen name.  Your comments (and mine) have been posted into the Open Source WWW.  They can be found by anyone using Google or Yahoo.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Feb 2008)

Who is to say that Cpl had any or all of the kit you mentioned?

I just found pics and an email of what is authorized (for 2VP).  I will find it and retype it here.


----------



## regulator12 (13 Feb 2008)

He most likely did not have that kit thats why he stated what he did.....He should just research and know what is coming down the pipe for the army before making a statement that could need damage control......


----------



## MikeL (13 Feb 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Who is to say that Cpl had any or all of the kit you mentioned?
> 
> I just found pics and an email of what is authorized (for 2VP).  I will find it and retype it here.



Yea, I saw that posted at the lines.  I believe the vests approved are the Arktis vests and RCMP vest some are issued. Denalis an Warlords, Dropzone modular tac vest, CP Gear MoFOCR; think there was a couple others  can't remember though.


----------



## BigRudy (14 Feb 2008)

While I don't necessarily agree with this guy's methods, perhaps he felt compelled to 'take one for the team' and get the word out regarding the TV and boots, two fairly critical pieces of a soldier's gear that, dare I say it, are not only not perfect, but downright awful. Everybody knows that the TV is awkward at best for those operating outside the wire, and don't even get me started on those crippling desert boots.

Anyways....just something to consider before this guy gets eaten alive.


----------



## Blakey (14 Feb 2008)

Anyone else see a problem with the video about the holster?, is there a different issued holster, other than the Bianchi?


----------



## PteGDD (14 Feb 2008)

Cpl. Daniel Beaulieu told TVA, Quebec's French language network, that Canadian soldiers are poorly supplied. He says the equipment they are given -- boots, pistols, vests -- are better suited for peacekeeping. Canadian soldiers are performing a combat role in southern Afghanistan, one of the country's most volatile regions. 

The criticism brought a swift reaction from military officials in Ottawa after the TVA report became public. 

"We have to field 2,500 soldiers, so the equipment, by default, is generic a bit. It's not entirely specific to one soldier. Is it perfect? No. Does it satisfy the vast majority of soldiers? Yes," said Col. Jean-Marc Lanthier, the military's director of land requirements. 

Beaulieu -- who came back from Afghanistan two weeks ago -- also claims the soldiers don't have enough side arms. They're given one, when he said they should carry two. The soldiers' vests, according to Beaulieu, also don't have enough pockets to hold the ammunition that they should have. They have pockets for four ammunition magazines, but Beaulieu claims they should hold about 10 to 15 magazines. 

When it comes boots, Beaulieu says their footwear is not suited for Afghanistan's rugged terrain. TVA said Beaulieu is not the only soldier to complain, although he was the only one interviewed on the record. 

Defence Minister Peter MacKay responded to questions about Beaulieu's claims in the House of Commons. 

"Our government is always looking at ways to improve the soldiers' equipment, but I have to say that we have the best equipment in the world. Of course, if we can make it better, we will try to do so," MacKay said. 

An expert on the Canadian military says he doesn't understand the criticism. Scott Taylor, publisher of Esprit de Corps magazine, says Canadian soldiers are equipped as well as other NATO allies such as the Americans. 

"If you just look at what you see on those news clips that are coming back, these guys look like 'robo-cops' from their helmets to their protective gear ... a lot of stuff is state of the art," Taylor told CTV Newsnet Wednesday. 

Taylor said he doesn't know where the criticism is coming from, noting that "it's completely from left field." 

Taylor said Beaulieu's comments seem to be unrealistic. 

"He wants to have 15 magazines of ammunition on his protective vest. That would weigh about 35 additional pounds," Taylor said. 

Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie told CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live he doesn't understand some of the criticism either. He said the complaint about having two side arms baffles him because most soldiers do not carry any at all. Also, MacKenzie pointed out that he has worn the boots that Beaulieu complains about and "they seem to be popular with most of the troops." 



I don't even know what to say about this article.  This soldier is just pointing out the obvious, yet the media makes it sound like we are fighting with WWII equipement!  Then this "expert" doesn't believe soldiers carry 15mags overseas.  This makes me furious.


----------



## Charon (14 Feb 2008)

Well Scott Taylor must be right, I mean when I knew him he was the Baden graphic artist, so...

(no disrespect to the graphic artists of the world)


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (14 Feb 2008)

From what i've seen of the new equipment issued to soldiers in aghanistan, we older guys would have given our left arm and right leg to have. When I joined the most upto date new equipment we had was the civilian underware we purchased the week before going into basic training.


----------



## Dog Walker (14 Feb 2008)

I will try to be careful here. 

1) The Cpl in question is not reg. Army, and did not send much time outside the wire. I’ve heard stories.

2) The K-becers were discouraged from wearing their store bought kit. 

3) I saw my kid’s mom on the TV news last week waving at P.E.T. 

Maybe I’ve said too much? Remove if this is the case.


----------



## geo (14 Feb 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> From what i've seen of the new equipment issued to soldiers in aghanistan, we older guys would have given our left arm and right leg to have. When I joined the most upto date new equipment we had was the civilian underware we purchased the week before going into basic training.



+1  I resemble that!

To be fair, there is better gear out there.  There always is a better mousetrap coming up on the other side of the hill... really!
Footwear being one of the most important pieces of kit to an Infanteer / Sapper / working stiff... they HAVE to be good & we should get the best that money can buy - without having to cough up our own cash. .. IMHO... really!


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Feb 2008)

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Our kit must, by virtue of our size and varied missions be more generic than specific.

Pistols - I'll give him that one. The Browning should be replaced by another 9mm, and with sufficient numbers.

Vest - better than the 84 pattern webbing, better than the LBV. Probably the silver standard rather than the gold standard. There comes a point of diminishing returns when one attempts to carry too much. Ten mags is probably a good medium. If you need more than 300 rounds on your person, then your CQ or Pl WO should be sending ammo forward in bulk (as I know from experience happens).

Boots - I've not had any problem with mine. The newest style comes in 72 different sizes, but there is always the chance the won't fit all troops. As to terrain... last tour some guys wore theirs out, others didn't. Again, and individual outcome rather than a group one. Lots of guys bought high speed boots that wore out in the first month. Others had their issue boots last all tour. The reverse was true as well.


----------



## MG34 (14 Feb 2008)

Our kit for the most part is GTG, the Tac Vest is not even in the running for Bronze the non-modualr design is outdated as the vest was designed for Bosnia, not combat operations..The issued desert boots are junk, and yes every level of command and support weapon gunner leaving the wire should have a side arm, so no  not sour grapes,and certainly not out of left field.


----------



## G-spot (14 Feb 2008)

my favorite part of the article, are the comments back


*"We have to field 2,500 soldiers, so the equipment, by default, is generic a bit. It's not entirely specific to one soldier. Is it perfect? No. Does it satisfy the vast majority of soldiers? Yes," said Col. Jean-Marc Lanthier, the military's director of land requirements.*
Just let the people going outside the wire buy their own rigs, and tell your buddies to stop making a big stink about someone not wearing something not issued kit?


*Taylor said he doesn't know where the criticism is coming from, noting that "it's completely from left field."*

Hey Scott, when was the last time you wore the TV or the desert boots in Afghanistan?

BTW the newer ones are an improvement, but are pretty hot, I perfered my Danners


----------



## Dirty Patricia (14 Feb 2008)

We are the best equipped infantry battle group in the theater, but there are problems with some equipment which everybody on the ground knows about.  The Cpl is correct.  The Tack Vest is garbage.  It is not modular and it can not not carry enough ammo for a rifleman let alone LMG ammo or M 203 grenades.  The boots are uncomfortable and quickly fall apart.  As for a sidearm, even when you do get a BHP, good luck getting it to work.

As for the other Cpl (Taylor), he demonstrated how out of touch he is by his statement on magazines.  Ten to fifteen are are the norm now and even those go pretty quickly in a _real_ gunfight.


----------



## Gunner98 (14 Feb 2008)

I think MGen Lew is showing his lack of recent experience!  Anyone else think so?

Mike Duffy Live: Major-General Lewis Mackenzie
CTV NN 13 Feb 2008 17h15

Mike: A soldier who has just returned from Kandahar has offered some stinging criticism of the gear being offered in Afghanistan. Corporal Beaulieu says he doesn't like the boots. He says they're not up to the job. The vests that they're carrying don't have enough pouches for ammunition. And he believes each person there should have not one, but two side arms. Take us through all this we're joined by our military expert Major-General Lewis Mackenzie. General every time I visited our troops overseas, it was always one barracks lawyer who was busily telling the reporter what was wrong with the mission. Is this any different? 

Major-General Lewis Mackenzie: No, I don't think so, Mike. I would be very surprised if soldiers didn't speak up and grump and complain. That's not an indication of bad morale. That's an indication of someone that's peed off. I think the lack of caring capability in fact misrepresented what he said. Maybe it was lost in translation. He talked about only four magazines, not four rounds being carried which is the norm. Each magazine carries 30 rounds for most of the weapons and as a result, that's 120 rounds. If he was to carry the 10 to 15 that he wants, I’m afraid he would be a bit of a pack horse and in 45 Celsius temperatures it's not the thing I don't you do normally and if you want to carry extra ones, you get a kit that can carry it. 

Mike: That is balance question between how many bullets can you comfortably carry and use and how many just become a detriment. 

Major-General Lewis Mackenzie: And you can be resupplied. In addition to that, as far as the other issue which were the boots, I looked in my closet today. I’ve got six pairs left over from a military career and I only started keeping them in the last 15 years. They're always improving, always developing. I’ve worn the boots he's talking about. I have been running up and down in the mountains carrying 70 pounds but they seem to be popular with most of the troops. And as far as carrying two pistols, I don't know where that one comes from. Most of them don't have one. If you're fighting in built up areas and you're, you know, in around the mud shacks and things like that, then you one for quick reaction but you also have your rifle but I’m not sure where the two pistols come from. They don't break down. They're easy to service. You keep them clean. So I’m not sure about that one. That's confusing. 

Mike: It was confusing to me too and I wondered if some of it again might have been based on one journalist not really understanding the military very much and the translation from one language to another. 

Major-General Lewis Mackenzie: Righto, Mike. I just make one point. Unlike in my day, there's an outfit the soldiers sell in national defence headquarters that takes feedback from people just like the Corporal and a lot of other ranks and soldiers within the forces. That's the good news. And they do respond to that by way of improving the load carrying equipment, the flak jackets, etc. So that's the positive aspect. 

Mike: Finally, on the general question, you've seen what the Liberals have had to say. What's your assessment of what the government or how the Prime Minister should respond? 

Major-General Lewis Mackenzie: Well, they're gonna reach a compromise but it's going to be a really bad compromise and it won't work. So I guess that's my solution. Let me try and explain. This whole bit about this idiotic argument about combat or non-combat. The fact is, southern Afghanistan is dangerous and there's one guy in charge of the three provinces, regions south and it's currently a Canadian, Marc Lessard and his job is to push back the insurgency, establish security so the locals internally displaced people, refugees, etc. can come back. He does that by using the resources of the 12 nations under his command, including Canadians. And when he turns to the Canadians' next end of February in theory and says, okay, tomorrow we're going out on a six-day operation. We're going to push the enemy back, the Canadian battle group commander has to say, to, we've got a caveat because that's what it is, no matter what anybody says. We've got a caveat and we can't participate in that operation. That is just unworkable. The only solution is, get them out of Kandahar. Get the Canadians out of Kandahar and the taxpayer better not agree to pay the tens of millions of dollars in debt that will expense that will take us to do that, go into a new area where we don't know the people, we don't have the contacts, we don't have the intelligence gathers. Let's get off this, is it combat or non-combat BS because that's what it is. We're in Kandahar and while we're there, we're fighting. 

Mike: Major-General Lewis Mackenzie. Good to see you tonight 

Major-General Lewis Mackenzie: Thanks, Mike.


----------



## GAP (14 Feb 2008)

Compared to what I have been reading on this site, yeah, he does seem dated, but that's expected....

He's dead on on most of his comments, this one is such a non issue, I don't think it makes a hill of beans..

edited to add: As for Scot Taylor's comments.....right outtr' thar....a soldier wouldn't want to carry 15-20 mags....who's he kidding, you carry what you think you need, and then add the reserve, something about "my kingdom for but for a horse....kinda thingy..."


----------



## RCR Grunt (14 Feb 2008)

To all the people who have said "Well, its better than the (insert pattern year here) (insert item of kit here) so I don't see why he's complaining."... STOP, STOP, STOP!  The wet weather boot for example is light years ahead of ankle boots and puttees, but they are still a poor design.  In addition, you are really dating yourself and giving people the impression that you are old and cranky.  In relative terms, our kit has improved, I will give you that.  But, the system in place that designs the kit is slow, cumbersome, and overburdened with a huge bureaucracy.  For the fighting soldier to be properly equipped, he needs access to specialized equipment specific to his employment.  Every conflict and every mission is different, and if it takes years to field proper equipment our fighting men and women will suffer in the mean time.  The system needs to be grossly streamlined, have the red tape removed, and steer away from "revolutionary redesigned human-factor intensive rocket science equipment" to off-the-shelf, purpose built equipment that is readily available here and now.  The TV is junk for fighting soldiers, the issued boots are terrible for everyone, and there are not enough pistols and not enough pistol training to satisfy the requirement overseas.  These are facts, and cannot be disputed, no matter how much better things are now compared to back in the day.  If we're going to send soldiers to fight, we need to give them the tools to fight with.  Its time to pull our heads out of the sand and realize that "uniformity" is something that does not belong on the modern battlefield.


----------



## 2 Cdo (14 Feb 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> As for the other Cpl (Taylor), he demonstrated how out of touch he is by his statement on magazines.  Ten to fifteen are are the norm now and even those go pretty quickly in a _real_ gunfight.



C'mon now, travelling around Germany in the back of a track with 5 mags is more than enough ammo for any soldier. 

I'd say 10-15 mags per man are the STARTING point in reference to personal ammo allotments. I come from the school, the more the merrier. ;D



> To all the people who have said "Well, its better than the (insert pattern year here) (insert item of kit here) so I don't see why he's complaining."... STOP, STOP, STOP!  The wet weather boot for example is light years ahead of ankle boots and puttees, but they are still a poor design.  In addition, you are really dating yourself and giving people the impression that you are old and cranky.  In relative terms, our kit has improved, I will give you that.  But, the system in place that designs the kit is slow, cumbersome, and overburdened with a huge bureaucracy.  For the fighting soldier to be properly equipped, he needs access to specialized equipment specific to his employment.  Every conflict and every mission is different, and if it takes years to field proper equipment our fighting men and women will suffer in the mean time.  The system needs to be grossly streamlined, have the red tape removed, and steer away from "revolutionary redesigned human-factor intensive rocket science equipment" to off-the-shelf, purpose built equipment that is readily available here and now.  The TV is junk for fighting soldiers, the issued boots are terrible for everyone, and there are not enough pistols and not enough pistol training to satisfy the requirement overseas.  These are facts, and cannot be disputed, no matter how much better things are now compared to back in the day.  If we're going to send soldiers to fight, we need to give them the tools to fight with.  Its time to pull our heads out of the sand and realize that "uniformity" is something that does not belong on the modern battlefield.



Well said!(For a dirty Royal )


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Feb 2008)

OK so if Taylor can be come an analyst, maybe I should advertise myself as one too.....as for his comments, this is not out of left field. 
We've ALWAYS complained about our kit, but it is much better than even 10 years ago. 
Does that mean we stay static? NO, we should always look for ways to improve.
The current tac vest, according to some is unworkable. Some say its fine. How do we solve the problem? 
It's apparent the current issue vest is not suitable beyond the wire for extended periods. I know that you can run through 5 mags in no time, so 10 loaded would be better. A modular system where the individual can basically design his/her own.....am I on the right track?


----------



## RCR Grunt (14 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> OK so if Taylor can be come an analyst, maybe I should advertise myself as one too.....as for his comments, this is not out of left field.
> We've ALWAYS complained about our kit, but it is much better than even 10 years ago.
> Does that mean we stay static? NO, we should always look for ways to improve.
> The current tac vest, according to some is unworkable. Some say its fine. How do we solve the problem?
> It's apparent the current issue vest is not suitable beyond the wire for extended periods. I know that you can run through 5 mags in no time, so 10 loaded would be better. A modular system where the individual can basically design his/her own.....am I on the right track?



Your on the EXACT right track, a system whereby a variety of rigs is available and the individual gets to choose between them would be even better.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Feb 2008)

Thank you RCR Grunt!!
I've always been known as a "free thinker"....much to consternation of some of my past superiors who expected me to follow themn with out question. 
I'm a big beleiver in allowing the individual soldier to tailor his web gear, Tac vest or whatever to his needs, not the needs of the parade square. Of course, this has to be done within reason, and at minimal cost to our soldiers.
I know that WHEN this old dog deploys to Afghanistan (not if) there will be some kit I'll pay for in my ruck....or whatever we carry these days.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Feb 2008)

I love General Mackenzie but seriously.. does he really think the guy was talking about two pistols and not two pistol MAGS?? The media of course, messed that up for sure...as discussed in the other thread...


----------



## Dirty Patricia (14 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> A modular system where the individual can basically design his/her own.....am I on the right track?



Yes, but unforunately nobody appears to be listening and that is what is so frustrating for the soldiers.  My platoon submitted dozens of UCRs after the BTE, during the deployment and post deployment.  I personally spoke to this issue, to the highest levels of the Army, during the Army Lessons Learned Conference in Kingston.  When representatives from DLR showed up at the Bn with a solution to the Tac Vest for TF 108, it was a _huge_, non-modular vest from Artkis and a modified Tac Vest (it had an 8 mag capacity, but some serious flaws).  At that point they had not heard anything through their chain about requests for modular equipment.  A MOLLE style modular vest that can be tailored for any tasks (Rfmn, Gren, LMG) or missions and operator comfort is the solution.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Feb 2008)

I said it in the other post but I am flabbergasted that Lew didn't consider the fact that they messed up in translation on the pistols/mags deal.. there is no sane soldier that would ask for two pistols.. he is totally referring to mags...


----------



## KevinB (14 Feb 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I said it in the other post but I am flabbergasted that Lew didn't consider the fact that they messed up in translation on the pistols/mags deal.. there is no sane soldier that would ask for two pistols.. he is totally referring to mags...



In some situations -- where the pistol would be used as a primary -- I have seen some unit members carry two pistols...

But for a conventional soldier -- no


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Feb 2008)

I'd like two pistols...... ;Djust kidding.


----------



## KevinB (14 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I'd like two pistols...... ;Djust kidding.



Your wish....


----------



## Sig_Des (14 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Your wish....



Damn it I-6, I hate it when you do that! Now my colleagues think, with me drooling, that I'm looking at porn!


----------



## Mike Baker (14 Feb 2008)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> Damn it I-6, I hate it when you do that! Now my colleagues think, with me drooling, that I'm looking at porn!


Porn is not this cool!

I6, you are my God!


----------



## KevinB (14 Feb 2008)

Thread not complete w/o


----------



## medaid (14 Feb 2008)

Gun porn = the best shiznit!


----------



## Kilroy (14 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Your wish....



I love that knife? What is it called, and where might I get one just like it??


----------



## NL_engineer (14 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Thread not complete w/o



I never thought I'd see that used, after you convinced Morterman rockpanter (I can't recall his name at the time  :) the tac Vest sucks


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Feb 2008)

Dog Walker said:
			
		

> I will try to be careful here.
> 
> 1) The Cpl in question is not reg. Army, and did not send much time outside the wire. I’ve heard stories.
> 
> ...



Stories? Right, RUMOURS you mean.

What does not being regular army have to do with it? I am sure plenty of regulars don't get out much either.

Res and reg have been killed and wounded in this ongoing war. Yes, and ALL bleed red.

I don't think your post is appropiate.


----------



## Big Red (14 Feb 2008)

The average soldier has no need for two secondary weapons, but I'm sure it was just a miscommunication and he meant spare pistol magazines.

There are reasons to carry two handguns in some scenarios but they have nothing to do with conventional operations.


----------



## RHFC_piper (14 Feb 2008)

Big Red said:
			
		

> The average soldier has no need for two secondary weapons.



IMHO, I don't personally believe the average soldier requires 1 secondary weapon, really...  Not a pistol anyway.  (M203's and shot guns for breachers are a give in, of course.)

But that's just me... 




			
				Big Red said:
			
		

> There are reasons to carry two handguns in some scenarios but they have nothing to do with conventional operations.



Yes... the section pistoleer... who would carry 2 BHPs and would have to fire whilst jumping from cover to cover...  ;D


----------



## Greymatters (14 Feb 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Yes... the section pistoleer... who would carry 2 BHPs and would have to fire whilst jumping from cover to cover...  ;D



Ha, that one made me laugh, I had a vision of Mel Gibson from Lethal Weapon when I read that one...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Feb 2008)

"don't personally believe the average soldier requires 1 secondary"

I can think of a bunch of reasons why the average troop should have a pistol (esp. over those that don't leave the wire).


----------



## RHFC_piper (14 Feb 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> "don't personally believe the average soldier requires 1 secondary"
> 
> I can think of a bunch of reasons why the average troop should have a pistol (esp. over those that don't leave the wire).



Like I said... just my opinion from my experiences...  Didn't see the need for the average dismounted infantry rifleman... who would already be carrying either (or a combination of) an M203, shotty, M72, C9 extra G bombs, etc, etc...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Feb 2008)

Fair enough.


----------



## Dog Walker (14 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Stories? Right, RUMOURS you mean.



No.

My son just came back from Kandahar last week. For a time this Cpl and my son were in the same platoon. He was not serving as a front line infantryman. There is more to this story then the kit. There are other reasons why he talked to the media. This type of thing was SOP for this guy.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Feb 2008)

So what if was not serving as a 'front line' 031. There is more to a sucessful deployment than being Infantry. Yes I am a former 031 myself, so I can say that.

Whatever he did there I am sure he had a purpose, like clerks cooks etc.

I am not sticking up for him, as I beleive what he did was and is wrong WRT the media. he may indeed have a hidden agenda.

I just did not apprecaite your reference about militia vs regular force, and about rumours as that is what they are, you've heard somthing 3rd party.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Feb 2008)

The rumours, innuendo and conjecture can stop right here. Finito. Let's not derail this thread. It's more than about one guy and his interview.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Kiwi99 (14 Feb 2008)

The way I see it, the media loves military bashing on a daily basis, mostly.  And the Afgfhan issue is always a headline grabber.  And numpty goes and gives them more fuel to throw on the fire.  Well done, Francis!!! (sigh)


----------



## armyvern (14 Feb 2008)

CF members can talk to the media, provided that they do not speak outside of their lanes.

1) TacVest? He's got the check in that box.
2) Side arm requiring another mag? Well, he's been into a war zone and carried a sidearm --- check in the box.
3) Not enough mag pouchs - require more & more mags? See number 1 & 2.
4) The TV was designed for peacekeeping? Well, the TV WAS designed well before 9/11 wasn't it? Perhaps he's got that check too.

So, we have an individual Army soldier discussing his individually issued Army kit and shortfalls he believes that he experienced with it in a war zone. Inside his lanes to speak to ... or not?

There's a ton of folks right here on this very site who've posted the exact same comments regarding the exact same shortfalls with the exact same kit. The media can read those posts too -- and use them, they have before. 

As long as you are speaking to your personal experience within your lanes ...


----------



## Teeps74 (14 Feb 2008)

Though I can not fully support going to the press with such a story, I can certainly partially support.  Tac Vest... Meh, it looks good, and I am afraid that is the best I can do for positive commentary on the subject. Others have said here, and I echo, a modular design would be much better. What I carry as a 031 WO is far different from my C6 gunner, or my C9 gunners, or M203 grenadiers, not to mention engineers, and the list goes on and on... Being able to carry the different loads that are required of the different positions in the dismounted PL would be a huge asset.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Feb 2008)

I think this mentioned somewhere else but I think its important enough to mention again.  Why is it that a couple of people unhappy with the medical side can report to the media without a lynch mob telling them to shut up while this guy who as A Vern has pointed out talked about something in his area of knowledge?  When the Generals keeping saying they don't want to hear about the TV anymore then maybe it is time to air out the laundry in the public.


----------



## Osotogari (14 Feb 2008)

I agree with Lone Wolf Quagmire, there has been enough of info from lessons learned to ignore the issues with the tac vest and other items of kit for there to be no further excuses.   Too bad that intelling the emperor he has no clothes, you usually loose your head. 

I cornered a luminary in our brigade about this issue and was told to fill out a UCR.  I guess I can kiss DP3B goodbye for a couple years but I'm tired of having to deal with blatant stupidity and inflexiblity.


----------



## McG (14 Feb 2008)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> I cornered a luminary in our brigade about this issue and was told to fill out a UCR.


So, did you?


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Feb 2008)

UCRs are all well and good IF they end up on the desk that counts. How do we know they do? How do we know they don't end up being "filed" after the Coy 2I/C forwards them to the Maint O or whoever is supposed to handle them?
You will find that some...luminaries? as some one put it will only tell the General what he wants to hear.


----------



## McG (14 Feb 2008)

If you complete the UCR online, it goes straight to Ottawa.  An email is created from you to the LCMM and you CC your chain of command so that they know & action thier part.  If your chain of command (up to the CO) supports it, then that one "luminary" in Bde better be ready to make a bloody good argument to the Comd as to why he is not supporting.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Feb 2008)

As has been discussed before, many a UCR has been filled on the Tacvest, I believe Vern has all the stats and maybe she'll share them with us so you can see how efficient the UCR is to a CTS "god" in Ottawa (their kit is too good to be unsatisfactory).


----------



## McG (14 Feb 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> As has been discussed before ...


in this thread: 





			
				ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> 5 UCRS (official complaints) sitting in NDHQ when 35000 people have been issued the kit -- means that 34996 people have NOT told NDHQ they have a complaint about the kit. And, sadly -- that's what it all boils down to. If the troops want to have the kit changed -- the troops are going to have to tell NDHQ that ... en masse.



We've also gone over the how & why of UCRs in this thread.  If you're not happy with the reply to your UCR, get ythe CoC which initially supported the complaint to engage.  It would be hard for an LCMM to brush aside UCR complaints if unit & Bde chain of command (which have already endorsed the UCR) start making noises that the reply is unsatisfactory (and there are people that units & Bdes can make this complaint to).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Feb 2008)

Don't forget to mention that the powers that be instructed I-6's tour to fill out ONE UCR for the whole TF.  Then later changed the policy.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2008)

The reality check is it takes so long for anything to go through the system. As noted, may of the objections to the Tac Vest were brought up after OP MEDUSA in 2006 (although I suspect many people were saying it even before). Even assuming that the new requirements could be formulated and agreed on quickly, there is then the tendering process, Treasury board approval, manufacture, issuing....

It took over a decade to get a Rucksack issued out, and it doesn't look substantially different from the prototypes I saw trialled in the 1990's. For all I know the real reason is they now make it out of gold rather than nylon  . Getting the G-wagon and Milcots took forever, and the only things that come at us fast and furious are specialty equipment purchased off the shelf in small quantities for operations, like the RG-31 or Leopard 2A6 tanks. (Yes, they cost vastly more than a load bearing vest, but when there are only 50-100 on order, the processing, shipping and handling is much quicker.)

At the current rate of speed, a new, modular load bearing vest might not arrive until 2016! I hope I am wrong, though.


----------



## Osotogari (15 Feb 2008)

> Quote from: Osotogari on Yesterday at 20:48:04
> I cornered a luminary in our brigade about this issue and was told to fill out a UCR.
> 
> So, did you?



Of course not. What's the use?  

They've had people coming up to them conferences saying there needs to be movement on the tac vest issue and there's been all sorts of lessons learned data come in.  It just seems to me that this is a way of perpetuating a bad idea.  People are voting with their feet and wallets on this issue.  Purging non-issue vests from official photographs and ordering people not to wear kit that works will only go so far.  Just as our forbears discarded their Ross rifles and recovered Lee Enfields from their fallen allies, so will many of today's troops take the initiative on this matter.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Feb 2008)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> Of course not. What's the use?



Would it have made things worse ?

No


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Feb 2008)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> Of course not. What's the use?



Bullshit.  You are a Sgt - or so your profile says.  Do the paperwork your troops deserve.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Feb 2008)

If it's any consolation, I was trials officer in 1986 (wayyyyy back in the time of the first shuttle disaster) in Norway with 45 Cdo. We trialled a mix of 'Tac Vest' type rigs as well as chest rigs. These trials went on for several years. The British Army did not put chest rigs on general issue until the early 90s under the Personal Load Carrying Equipment (PLCE) program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Load_Carrying_Equipment

Until then, we all had to purchase our own chest rigs and other kit for NI and other operational tours, usually from Arktis http://www.arktisltd.co.uk/. We also bought bergens (rucksacks) from Berghaus http://www.berghaus.com/ and raingear from Barbour http://www.barbour.com/.

You knew you were going back to NI several times, so it was a wise investment, but we each still spent a bunch of cash on this kit: the equivalent of hundreds of dollars. This was madness as far as I was concerned as the army had been in NI for decades b ut still had not issued suitable kit.

When I see that Canada has had a tac vest on general issue for a few years, and hear that upgrades are being made available to troops going over in this latest roto, I've got to think that there's something going right out there.

I know that nothing ever happens fast enough re: kit for the infantry, but this is pretty good IMHO.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Feb 2008)

You know what I think the issue might be with UCRs?  The "unknown" of them.  By that I mean to say that most of the soldiers I know, that I work with don't even have a DWAN log on to go see what a UCR is.. then the hassle of trying to find where they are on the DIN can be a daunting task to anyone not familiar with a computer.  Then the job of filling them out, taking pictures to include with them, etc etc.. 

I am going to go online (in Afghanistan) in a minute and see how long it would take someone to find and fill an actual UCR.  I will report back once I am done.


----------



## armyvern (15 Feb 2008)

Oh ...
you have been back long before this.  

There have been paper copies of them avail at clothing (and most RQ/QMs) for years.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Feb 2008)

Yes I have, but with food deliveries etc.. I haven't been able to log on DWAN.

I am here now and am laughing uncontrollably (like crazy people do in the movies).  I have just logged on, went directly to the link i had for UCRs and clicked on submit UCR.  I was presented with a pop up window saying "You are about to create a new Unsatisfactory Condition Report (UCR). If you have not read the CFTO for UCRs, it is advised that you read the document for this technical order below".  I click the link and up pops a 66 page CFTO on how to complete a UCR.

I figure "I can do this without some silly book" so I jump straight to the UCR page... first thing.. Assigned OPI..hmm.. wtf is that?  There is a link to click to find this out.. good, it should be easy (by the way this is step 1, on page 1 of 5).  CLICK!  "As all Equipment and Materiel data, including TA mapping information, are now maintained via MASIS and available to all DIN users through various other web tools, the EMM look up tool O&M cost are no longer justified. 
It has therefore been decided to revoke this web site."

Huh?  Oh, there is a button beside the form.. it says OPI List, I'll click it and stop crying...oh cute, another pop up window.. this should be simple.. pick a name from a list?  Hmm, an empty gray window.. I must have made a mistake. I'll try again.  Nope, nothing, nada.  Must not be too important anyhow.. off to block 2.

I CAN DO THIS ONE!!   Element.. I choose Army and start smiling.

Block 3!!! Woohoo!!  Priority...(with a little red star, must be really important ) Crap.. I don't know what this means.. I should've read the manual. RTFM as they say in computer jargon.. page 1-2.. blah blah blah (oh my head hurts)....
"To save time and effort, telephone
contact with the TA, normally the
LCMM, should be made to report a
condition that would otherwise have
to be reported via an Information
UCR. The TA may request a UCR be
raised and may be able to provide
additional information which has
already been established regarding
the particular problem."

Is this my mother tongue here?  I am confused.. let's just say "routine" and move to block 4.

Crap.. moving on to what I thought was block 4 brings me to a block numbered "2"...how did I manage to mess that up?  Oh well, ship/unit.. I can do that.  Done.

Block 5? (3?) Unit UCR number.. of course.. the number they gave me when I decided I would personally raise a UCR.. the UCR office sent it to me.. now where did I put it?!?  Oh, better yet.. another link to click on to get it quicker.. here we go!  CLICK!!  O..M..G... I can't cut and paste it in here because it is a different type of pop up window than the others.  but it says "this field must be 14 characters long in the format: BLAH BLAH BLAH"  Wow.. I give up.

Well then.. time to call the media.. it's just so much easier..

If I have the energy later I might try to get past the first few blocks...I am glad I am not a simple private with no knowledge or background in computers or the "military way"..


----------



## armyvern (15 Feb 2008)

Bzzz,

Get a paper copy and fill it in --- your "UCR co-ordinater" (funny that name for that secondary duty) will do the rest. 

 :-\

If you don't know who your Unit UCR Co-ord is ... I recommended asking your Unit LogO (a very very very good place to start).  

Doesn't your Unit have a listing of duties & resp of pers serving in it's positions avail to you, the members of that Unit? Like an HA/WRA list (mandatory), Unit SafetyO (mandatory), EnviroO (mandatory) -- all should be posted in a prominent location accessible by the troops (like the Unit Canteen). ... Communication is a wonderful thing sometimes and tends to help with avoiding the heartache you experienced below.


----------



## geo (15 Feb 2008)

LOL, Bzzz - I appreceate the line of scrimmage details.... Bin there & done that (for many wonderful & different things...)

Priceless


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Feb 2008)

Vern, currently in Afghanistan I am not too sure who many of those people are, let alone where it is even posted.  I understand all those secondary duty tasks.. I got stuck with a few in Gagetown when I worked at the school.  I am just saying, most young soldiers that would want to start the UCR process by themselves.. might get spooked and avoid it altogether.. as you can see, it is/was a daunting task online.


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Feb 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Vern, currently in Afghanistan I am not too sure who many of those people are, let alone where it is even posted.  I understand all those secondary duty tasks.. I got stuck with a few in Gagetown when I worked at the school.  I am just saying, most young soldiers that would want to start the UCR process by themselves.. might get spooked and avoid it altogether.. as you can see, it is/was a daunting task online.



Using the DIN to search for anything often becomes the exercise in futility that you so eloquently described. ;D That being said, maybe using the paper copy is the best recourse as Vern mentioned countless times on this site. 8)


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Feb 2008)

I understand the paper route.. that is not what I am trying to illustrate here.  I am trying to show the the probable reason behind the lack of UCRs is the difficulties in making them real..whether they be paper or not, it seems to be an intimidating  process for most soldiers.


----------



## McG (15 Feb 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> ... it seems to be an intimidating  process for most soldiers.


That’s a Jr leadership problem that should be sorted out at the Pl/Tp & Sub-unit.  If the troops are intimidated, then their immediate Sr NCOs should be helping them through it.  If that is not happening, then maybe a sub-unit Jr Leader PD session is required, but there is no reason that any Sr NCO should lack the ability to make this happen at the section level.

If the Sect Comd does not understand the form, the Sect Comd should know where to find a Sup Tech that can explain NSN, PSCN, Group Class, Higher Assembly, TA Code, ERN/EAC, etc.

From the DWAN, if you know the NSN then you can find the lead TA code here: http://dgmssc.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/DTICS/SITE/CGCS_Search_e.asp


----------



## geo (15 Feb 2008)

Heh...
It's a section task... all 10 members of the section put their heads together to figure this one out.
When that doesn't work, they go see their Troop WO for the DS solution - but as he does not have the DS solution, he reaches over to the phone and gets the SQMS to come down and help his boys & girls .....

Works every time


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Feb 2008)

I've seen platoons solicit input from each member (who wanted to give their input) on the forms, then bundle them together with a cover sheet, staple, and off they go through Bn Ops along with all the other bundles from the unit. The Bn Ops Offr and Coy 2ICs managed it. Does that still happen?


----------



## dangerboy (15 Feb 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I've seen platoons solicit input from each member (who wanted to give their input) on the forms, then bundle them together with a cover sheet, staple, and off they go through Bn Ops along with all the other bundles from the unit. The Bn Ops Offr and Coy 2ICs managed it. Does that still happen?


That is how I did it, after winter Ex I did up a bunch on the new Ruck, sent it to my Coy 2IC and he sent it to QM.  From there the TQ told me he forwarded to the next level (I can't remember the precise term at this time). The chain of command works, just got to give it time.


----------



## Yrys (15 Feb 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> Re: the Quebec based soldier's comments to the media regarding kit;
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080213/soldier_equipment_080213/20080213?hub=TopStories



Military denies sending ill-equipped troops to Afghanistan



> ...But the department explained that the equipment is already pretty heavy for the hot weather and that soldiers can count on their comrades for more supplies.
> 
> The CFB Valcartier-based soldier also blamed the boots for many injuries soldiers suffer in Afghanistan, saying they are not fit for the long walks in the rugged desert.
> 
> The military replied that it regularly receives feedback from soldiers about equipment and that a new model of boots is currently being tested. The boots will be sent to Afghanistan when ready.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Feb 2008)

The UK seems to be facining similar issues:

A CORONER accused the Ministry of Defence today of breaching British soldiers’ trust by sending them to Afghanistan without basic equipment. Andrew Walker spoke out at the end of an inquest into the death of Captain James Philippson, 29, of 7 Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, in a firefight with Taliban troops on June 11 2006 in which British forces were “totally out-gunned”. 


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article807495.ece


----------



## RHFC_piper (15 Feb 2008)

REF: Military denies sending ill-equipped troops to Afghanistan


[quote author=Col. Jean-Marc Lanthier, director of land requirements for the military]Is it perfect? No. Does it satisfy the vast majority of soldiers? Yes.[/quote]

Hmmm... I think, just by reading posts here, it is definitely not perfect... Does it satisfy the vast majority? perhaps... but are the vast majority engaging the enemy on a daily basis? Definitely not.  Perhaps the vast majority has no need for equipment that suits the battlefield, but the leading edge of the sword definitely does.  Inadequacies for the fighting few cost lives. Simple as that.

[quote author=Col. Jean-Marc Lanthier, director of land requirements for the military]
I can guarantee you that the equipment on the field is absolutely adequate. [/quote]

I suppose I can agree with this statement, at least from my experience... all the equipment I used overseas was adequate... after I spent $2000 buying adequate equipment.  He didn't specify issued or not.

But, I'm sure he does mean "issued equipment"... and judging by that statement, I don't think the UCRs are getting to the people who really need to read them... or its just a smoke screen.


----------



## 421 EME (15 Feb 2008)

Quote from: Col. Jean-Marc Lanthier, director of land requirements for the military
I can guarantee you that the equipment on the field is absolutely adequate.  

 The vest and the POS holster are adequate if you never step one foot out of KAF or never leave your office in Ottawa.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Feb 2008)

Why the fawk should troops in contact have to settle for adequate?  I could adequately empty a swimming pool with a 3 gal pail and a lot of free time, but sure wouldn't feel good about it.


----------



## RHFC_piper (15 Feb 2008)

Is it just me, or does the term "Absolutely adequate" seem a little, uh, farcical...  Like saying "perfectly mediocre".


Oh... one other quote I missed...

[quote author="the department"]
equipment is already pretty heavy for the hot weather and that soldiers can count on their comrades for more supplies
[/quote]

This is in reference to;

[quote author="Cpl. Daniel Beaulieu"]
the tactical vest can only hold four ammunition clips, or magazines, and that ideally they should be able to hold 10 to 15 clips.
[/quote]

as "heavy" as the equipment is, this doesn't change the fact that we were given 15 mags to carry anyway.. and more... so how is a 4 mag vest "adequate"?

'count on their comrades for more supplies?' So, are my comrades carrying more than 4 mags in their TVs... or are they just not shooting...  I am just confused...
We need a rig that carries 10 to 15 mags cause we're using 10 to 15 mags in prolonged contact... time re-bombing mags is time rounds aren't going down range, thus the reason why we're given 15 mags.


----------



## Greymatters (15 Feb 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does the term "Absolutely adequate" seem a little, uh, farcical...  Like saying "perfectly mediocre".



+1 to that, there's a big difference between something being perceived to be 'adequate' and something that 'works well'.  The old C1 bayonet, perfectly blunt and barely useful as a tool for spreading butter, was also at one time considered 'adequate'...


----------



## NL_engineer (16 Feb 2008)

I look at it like, you have young kids and are buying a new car.  Do you go with the one with an adequate safety rating, or the one with a high safety rating.  Hard choice  :

Woh, I never new the people in NDHQ were that far out it to give the responses they did


----------



## Gunner98 (16 Feb 2008)

421 EME said:
			
		

> Quote from: Col. Jean-Marc Lanthier, director of land requirements for the military
> I can guarantee you that the equipment on the field is absolutely adequate.
> 
> The vest and the POS holster are adequate if you never step one foot out of KAF or never leave your office in Ottawa.



Perhaps the 'absolutely adequate' statement was another poor translation - between brain and lips?


----------



## KevinB (16 Feb 2008)

FYI when we tried to UCR the holster -- we made a complaint that it was not sized correctly as the UM-84 series Bianchi is for the bigger 9mm M9 Beretta -- and they said "that is ridiculous they are both 9mm's"  -- the fact the barrel is longer and the slide was fatter went sailing right over the heads of those idiots.

Frankly I can see how troops despondent with the systems failure to evolve to support the warfighter would start to use the public as a force for change.


----------



## RHFC_piper (16 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Frankly I can see how troops despondent with the systems failure to evolve to support the warfighter would start to use the public as a force for change.



As much as I'm not an advocate for that method (using media and the public to force a reaction), as I believe the system can eventually work, I can understand the reasoning behind it.   We are not in 'grin and bear it' times.  Equipment has to work or lives are put at risk.   Equipment that is simply "adequate" and "generic" isn't going to be enough in the eyes of the soldiers who are facing the enemy directly... and at the end of the day, these are the soldiers for whom the equipment has to work best. 
If the system isn't, or doesn't seem to be working fast enough to get what's needed to the front, and all other routes have been taken, I can understand why taking it to the media and the public seems like a good last resort... but, it doesn't make it right.


----------



## LordOsborne (16 Feb 2008)

I'm glad that the load-carriage issue has resurfaced in the mainstream media again. I don't understand though, why the member felt that we need two sidearms.. unless it was a translation error and sidearm was supposed to mean 'small arms' or something like that, in which case one would be the primary weapon and the other the pistol ...?

On another subject, if the good Col. is certain that our vests are perfectly adequate for the task, then why did DLR approve the whole Try-And-Buy affair? Actually, it'd be good to see what that project has come up with..


----------



## armyvern (16 Feb 2008)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> I'm glad that the load-carriage issue has resurfaced in the mainstream media again. I don't understand though, why the member felt that we need two sidearms.. unless it was a translation error and sidearm was supposed to mean 'small arms' or something like that, in which case one would be the primary weapon and the other the pistol ...?
> 
> On another subject, if the good Col. is certain that our vests are perfectly adequate for the task, then why did DLR approve the whole Try-And-Buy affair? Actually, it'd be good to see what that project has come up with..



Already addressed in this thread --- misquote.

Not two side-arms ...


----------



## ark (16 Feb 2008)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> I'm glad that the load-carriage issue has resurfaced in the mainstream media again. I don't understand though, why the member felt that we need two sidearms.. unless it was a translation error and sidearm was supposed to mean 'small arms' or something like that, in which case one would be the primary weapon and the other the pistol ...?
> 
> On another subject, if the good Col. is certain that our vests are perfectly adequate for the task, then why did DLR approve the whole Try-And-Buy affair? Actually, it'd be good to see what that project has come up with..



It was a translation error. You can watch the original interview in French here http://lcn.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/player/video.cgi?file=/lcn/actualite/national/20080213_dion.wmv where he talks about extra mags and not extra side arms.

By the way, according to this video http://lcn.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/player/video.cgi?file=/lcn/actualite/national/20080213_raymond2.wmv (towards the end) Cpl Beaulieu could be sanctioned by the forces because he went public with this. At the moment, CF do not want to elaborate more as the matter is in hands of lawyers.


----------



## MdB (16 Feb 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> REF: Military denies sending ill-equipped troops to Afghanistan
> 
> 
> Hmmm... I think, just by reading posts here, it is definitely not perfect... Does it satisfy the vast majority? perhaps... but are the vast majority engaging the enemy on a daily basis? Definitely not.  Perhaps the vast majority has no need for equipment that suits the battlefield, but the leading edge of the sword definitely does.  Inadequacies for the fighting few cost lives. Simple as that.



Totally agree. Tactical vest is for combat, the name says it. I wonder for how many years the modular concept has been around and if it could have been integrated to the TV in time for production. Now that it is so long to field, what are the impediments to *perfectly adequate* equipement fielding timetable? Is it the identification of the problems (as it appears to be), the R&D, procurement process (hmmm?), and what not (insert here what escapes me yet)?

Another thing, why is there that we need to produce A LOT of them before it reaches the people that really needs it?? I mean, a TV is important for the 4 combat arms primarily, what's the right way to field equipment?

As I learned in the Forces, do it in the way that you reach the end effect in the right time. Train as we fight? Does the equip as we fight apply? We need 15 mags vest, now what? That what I would like to see and hear from CoC, like we so often saw from Gen Hillier.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Feb 2008)

Perhaps if the 85% solution applied to combat arms and not the Military in general we'd be getting somewhere.  As far as being sanctioned what are they going to sanction him on?  The cardinal rule (as mentioned here already) is that you shouldn't get in trouble for speaking on what you know.


----------



## Farmboy (17 Feb 2008)

The problem lies in in the whole Canadian system.

 DLR is not a private company, it doesn't have to be innovative, it doesn't have to make money or answer to shareholders.  They came out with the Tac Vest many years later than it should have been released.  If a private company had done this they would be losing money big time.

 The problem is with any company that is government owned.

 Private companies are years ahead of what the government is doing.  The military needs to purchase direct from private companies without trying to add their own features.  Quick, easy and cheaper than years of development on obsolete equipment.

 Key example is isotopes, Canada has a world monopoly however they still lose money because it's government owned.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (17 Feb 2008)

Perhaps he went and asked for an interview and someone has taken offence to that?

We've been trained before and reminded during our tours, speak only of what you know and that seems to be what he has done.

As for kit, it seems we like to complicate procurement by leaps and bounds. We have to have human factors engineers decide that if I decide to try to eat with my tacvest on, I won't spill any of my hot ration on myself,etc...

That's just plain silly.


----------



## Gunner98 (17 Feb 2008)

The real issue is much higher than DLR or DRDC, it is the PWGSC tender process which forces all Gov't, but especially the CF, jump through many fiery hoops before you can sole-source or off-the-shelf or in many cases buy from outside Canada.  Cdn industry must have a chance to compete for tender before foreign products can be purchased.  The Made in Canada solution takes longer but reduces the hard work for the project managers.


----------



## Farmboy (17 Feb 2008)

Yup, been there, done that, still waiting on public works  :


----------



## MdB (17 Feb 2008)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> The problem lies in in the whole Canadian system.
> 
> DLR is not a private company, it doesn't have to be innovative, it doesn't have to make money or answer to shareholders.


Well, DLR just owes it to those who put their lives on the line... That's reason enough in my mind.



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> They came out with the Tac Vest many years later than it should have been released.  If a private company had done this they would be losing money big time.
> 
> The problem is with any company that is government owned.


A private company will renew it's line every couple of years if not every year. They can afford to do it because they don't have to field their products, instead it will be sold in bunches and will have time to produce them. They do it all the time, not on cyclical basis, Govt do it on a need basis. I concede that the innovative side might lack, but that's why we have CANSEC et al.




			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> Private companies are years ahead of what the government is doing.  The military needs to purchase direct from private companies without trying to add their own features.  Quick, easy and cheaper than years of development on obsolete equipment.



I tend to agree, but the normal reaction from private companies is lobbying and having ties with govt officials, leading to huge conflict of interests, can it get any worse? hehe. Again, is it only this process preventing us from having proper equipment in a timely manner?



			
				Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> The real issue is much higher than DLR or DRDC, it is the PWGSC tender process which forces all Gov't, but especially the CF, jump through many fiery hoops before you can sole-source or off-the-shelf or in many cases buy from outside Canada.  Cdn industry must have a chance to compete for tender before foreign products can be purchased.  The Made in Canada solution takes longer but reduces the hard work for the project managers.



I'm curious about what other countries do to keep it ok. Is not having bid process the only solution?


----------



## LordOsborne (17 Feb 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> It was a translation error. You can watch the original interview in French here http://lcn.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/player/video.cgi?file=/lcn/actualite/national/20080213_dion.wmv where he talks about extra mags and not extra side arms.
> 
> By the way, according to this video http://lcn.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/player/video.cgi?file=/lcn/actualite/national/20080213_raymond2.wmv (towards the end) Cpl Beaulieu could be sanctioned by the forces because he went public with this. At the moment, CF do not want to elaborate more as the matter is in hands of lawyers.



Whoops! Thanks for that.


----------



## Maybee (18 Feb 2008)

As I understand the procurement process - PWSGC and the Treasury board are involved in addition to DND's own bureaucracy. Complicating matters further all those departments have staff rotational cycles that are not in sync. 
Meaning the PWSGC guy who was working on the TV project (or whatever project) changes jobs part way through the process, and then the Tresury guy changes at a different point in the process, and then the DND guy, etc. etc. 
All that to say that perhaps the delay we see in new kit can be attributed to the staff turnover and the 'reading in' process. Not to mention the 'new' guys great ideas on how to improve the project. I am not certain that I have the facts straight on that but I recall hearing that in a conversation with a Staff weinie at the Area level. A possible solution to this (maybe) problem is to second staff from Public Works and Treasury to DND - at least all the staff will rotate on the same cycle that way.
In the meantime give Units discretion to buy load carrying gear that they think is suitable - give them a budget to do it. Then all you have to do is argue with your RQ. Add one or two restrictions like "must be CADPAT" must be MOLLE...and whammo! 
Someone else on this board used the Hockey player analogy no one wears exactly the same shin pads but they are all in the same uniform...
Just a comment from the cheap seats.


----------



## RHFC_piper (18 Feb 2008)

I still don't understand why we don't do like the US WRT LBV/TV etc.   Put MOLLE on our ballistic vest... BAM! Modular Tac vest.


----------



## seamus (18 Feb 2008)

Putting Mollee on our ballistic vests would solve many problems. I would however point out it would create other problems, (gunners and commanders). All they have to do for the present vest is the following. First make it a little bit tougher, I tends to fray and break after long use. Second make the magazine pouches hold 2 mags, and the third is to make it Mollee. Add some pouches c-9 specific and done. I would warn with the experiences I have had to put Mollee on the frag vest, and do not put a camelback on the vest either. Both of these ideas are good in theory but have large draw backs.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Feb 2008)

A Ballistic vest with molle on it will be extremely problematic for crew commanders who have to or decide to dismount.


----------



## RHFC_piper (18 Feb 2008)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> A Ballistic vest with molle on it will be extremely problematic for crew commanders who have to or decide to dismount.



Thats where a TV/LBV comes in handy... 

Or.. another option; if Crew wants to/has to dismount and know well in advance, carry extra mag pouches and such in the LAV... would be a good idea anyway, just in case more mag pouches are needed or some get worn/damaged.  

Either way, having everything on the BV is 1 less layer for every one... might be easier, even for crew... just take stuff out of the pouches till needed.

The way I see it; it's hard to cater to everyone's needs, and it just seems more logical to cater to the needs of those who need the right kit all the time, not just some time or on occasion.   The dismounts would benefit the most from this and if the crew needs to dismount, it would be no different than it is now; put on TV/Rig and go.

As for the uniformity aspect for garrison; have a generic layout for garrison and allow the troops to do what they want/need for ops.  

Maybe it's just me, but the whole MOLLE on the BV seems just too easy and simple...  I've heard no complaints from the US soldiers I've spoken to about the subject either (any here have issues?).  

Sometimes the simplest solution is the right one.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Feb 2008)

+1. Keep the options open. Let the troops decide what they need, and then give it to them.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Feb 2008)

Thus far I've seen a good debate on this subject. 
If we are going to at some point in the future issue a modular type vest where the soldier puts his pouches where he wants/needs them, let the soldier do that and leave it at that. No lay out for "garrison" and one for the field. I know this is preaching sacrilege to the the "garatroopers" and preaching to the converted as well.
As for uniformity on a parade....uniformity is good for DEU parades. Even then we are not truly "uniform".
All in all, let the soldier decide the layout of his tac vest or MOLLE or web gear etc.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Feb 2008)

Exactly. I would say that 'garrison' layout is DEU. Once you get the CADPAT on, what makese sense for battle should be the 'dress of the day'.


----------



## KevinB (18 Feb 2008)

DS solution --- issues MOLLE pouches w/ 1 X releaseable armour vest, 1x chest rig and 1x Patrol vest  -- the user can tailor the kit to HSI (or her) NEEDS.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Feb 2008)

Thank you Inifidel 6. You seem to be the SME on this topic.
DO you have any pictures of what you're talking about? Please post if you do. I, for one, would like to see what you're talking about.


----------



## seamus (18 Feb 2008)

I think it goes, simple solutions for complex problems will not be tolerated? ;D


----------



## RHFC_piper (18 Feb 2008)

...  I only mentioned the "garrison layout" as I know there are some out there who would/might complain...  I have a more utilitarian view of how operational/tactical kit should be organized... it just seems to conflict with everyone.


But, as for the MOLLE BV;  In my short time overseas, I had contemplated going to the seamstress in KAF and have them install some MOLLE straps, but I had 2 resounding issues;
1) I figured, upon returning it, I would get jacked for altering kit
2) I had already spent $600+ on a rig.

I did price it out though... $40 US at the one on the Board walk... Plus another $100 for pouches (coyote tan) at the tac shop...   shoulda thought of that before... oh well.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Feb 2008)

RFHC you wouldn't get jacked by me, just a very mile reprimand....there are some personnel is key positions that need "education" (reality check) on why troops do what they do when it comes to web gear, tac vests etc. 
They do it because it works for them. I say let them do it.


----------



## RHFC_piper (18 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> RFHC you wouldn't get jacked by me, just a very mile reprimand....there are some personnel is key positions that need "education" (reality check) on why troops do what they do when it comes to web gear, tac vests etc.
> They do it because it works for them. I say let them do it.



See... this goes along with my "utilitarian view" of tactical equipment.

Here's how I see it; and this comes from working as a machinist.  If you take your job seriously, and are professional, you want to make sure you do your job to the best of your ability.  In trades dependent on tools and equipment, this means having the best/right equipment for the job.   Some employers supply equipment which is suitable to get the job done, but sometimes you want equipment which will help you work more efficiently, quickly and/or comfortably... This is when you pull out of pocket to get what you need. 
This equipment doesn't have to be the most expensive, just what works for you, since you're the one using it.  But either way, you, as the professional should know, or will learn with time, what you need. And if you don't, all you have to do is merely pay attention to those around you who have more experience doing the same job, and see what they use... use this as a basis and develop your own needs.
There are a lot of companies out there who allow this, and even give allowances for it.  I worked for a shop which gave yearly tool allowances for hand tools, measuring equipment and storage, and when you're done working there, no matter the reason, you kept what you bought... in the event you required it for your next job (I have a lot of tools).  This may not work for the CF, but if such equipment is retained, then it can be reissued when a member wants to spend some cash on the same piece of kit... thus saving money.
So, in summation; The kit we carry, no matter the trade, element, rank, etc, should reflect our needs to get the assigned job done, and should not be dictated by the parade state of the unit... The enemy doesn't care what we look like on parade and our ability to do our job, no matter the trade, should be paramount. Simple as that.


----------



## Loachman (18 Feb 2008)

A REAL expert's opinion (note the assumption that we still use twenty-round magazines and other fallacies):

Soldier’s complaints present weighty questions

By SCOTT TAYLOR On Target
Mon. Feb 18 - 5:00 AM

LAST WEEK, there was certainly no shortage of media attention focused on Canada’s role in Afghanistan. In terms of domestic politics, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion were delicately dancing around the wording on a face-saving compromise that would avoid them sending Canadians to the polls over the duration and nature of our military commitment to Kandahar.

Then came the allegation from a serving soldier that Canadian troops in Afghanistan are poorly equipped. Anxious as always for any new angle on the Afghan debate, the media eagerly gave voice to the concerns expressed by Cpl. Daniel Beaulieu.

His resume seemed very impressive: An 11-year veteran with the Royal 22nd Regiment, Beaulieu served a tour in Bosnia and has just returned to Valcartier from his second tour in Afghanistan. This experienced rifleman’s memos of complaint had fallen on deaf ears within the chain of command, so he decided to take his message to the local TV station. 

To a civilian, Beaulieu’s comments no doubt sounded pretty scandalous. According to this corporal, our contingent is equipped for "peacekeeping, not war-fighting" and to argue his case, he listed several shortcomings. Beaulieu pointed out that the current protective vests issued to our soldiers only have pouches to hold four magazines of C-7 rifle ammunition. Add to this the 20 rounds of ammunition in the magazine already on the weapon, and our soldiers carry into combat 100 preloaded 5.56 calibre bullets. According to Beaulieu, this should be increased to 15 spare magazines or a total of 320 rounds of ammo.

Nobody thought to ask this combat veteran just how he planned to carry the extra 35 pounds of weight this would add to an average soldier’s current full kit load of nearly 80 pounds. Nor did anybody inquire if there has been a single instance in Canada’s six-year military experience in Afghanistan where our front-line troops have been forced to break contact with the enemy as a result of an ammunition shortage. 

During Beaulieu’s seven-month tour in Kandahar, there were no prolonged firefights with insurgents. The only casualties suffered in the Van Doo battle group came as a result of roadside bombs. Given the nature of this threat, I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to travel around with 300 bullets strapped to their chest. 

When our troops have fought insurgents in major offensive operations, they have done so close to their armoured vehicles that offer them not only heavy fire support and protection, but also ready access to additional ammunition. 

Beaulieu’s second gripe about bullets was that infantry soldiers are only issued with one spare clip of ammo for their side arms. He felt they should be issued with at least two spare magazines for their pistols. 

As side arms are intended for use only as an emergency backup or in extremely close-quarters fighting, I cannot imagine a scenario to date in Afghanistan where any of our soldiers would have expended one clip, let alone three, of pistol ammo.

Complaint No. 3 was that the service-issue holsters made the pistol too accessible. Sometimes the handguns would fall out unexpectedly, and Beaulieu stated the obvious by saying this might cause an injury. To date, we have had three Canadian soldiers killed and several wounded by accidental weapon discharges, but these all involved C-7 rifles, or in one case a shotgun — not handguns. As one military spokesman explained in the wake of Beaulieu’s public charges, the pistol has to be able to come out of the holster easily — that’s the way they’re designed. 

The last big revelation from Beaulieu was that the desert boots were substandard. Sure they may be state-of-the-art footwear that retail at around $300 a pair, but after Beaulieu went on long patrols, his feet hurt. I will pause here for a moment to let everyone who once served in the infantry roll their eyes skyward in disbelief. 

Cpl. Beaulieu says he fears retribution for his public outburst, but the military would be wise to heed his advice. They should design the corporal a vest that can hold 15 ammo mags, issue him the extra pistol clips and insist that he carry them all the time. 

Admittedly, there was a time in the mid-1990s when our troops were serving overseas in threadbare combat clothes, and rotating soldiers had to exchange helmets and flak jackets at the airport, but those days are long gone. 

If anyone wants to see ill-equipped soldiers, perhaps the media should focus on the ragtag Afghan National Army, which we are supposedly committed to turn into a self-sustaining military force by 2011.

( staylor@herald.ca )


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Feb 2008)

RFHC- I think the US Army has a policy and a monthly allowance that allows their troops to buy kit. Anyone else know the US Army policy?
That is why their clothing shops in/near the PX are so popular with Canadian troops.


----------



## RHFC_piper (18 Feb 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> A REAL expert's opinion



Hmmm... Let me rip this apart if I may...

As much as I don't fully agree with Cpl. Beaulieu's issues....



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Cpl. Beaulieu says he fears retribution for his public outburst, but the military would be wise to heed his advice. They should design the corporal a vest that can hold 15 ammo mags, issue him the extra pistol clips and insist that he carry them all the time.









Carried that in to countless TICs and Op Medusa...   15 Mags, 4 G Bombs, 2 Smoke, a dozen or so shotty rounds, and some other goodies...  didn't seem all that heavy to me... or to the 4 others in my section carrying the same kinda rigs... some with the added M203 Bandoleer...

 :


----------



## Loachman (18 Feb 2008)

Send that photo to Scott.

I started out as a seventeen-year-old reserve Infantry private in 4 RCR in 1973. I didn't like carrying an ounce more than I absolutely had to - but very early on I appreciated the wisdom of carrying enough ammunition. We still had serving WWII and Korean vets, and tons of others who were associate mess members. I listened intently to them, and I read a lot.

I still listen intently to those with real experience.


----------



## 2 Cdo (18 Feb 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I didn't like carrying an ounce more than I absolutely had to - but very early on I appreciated the wisdom of carrying enough ammunition.



Run out of ammo just once and you become a big believer in the idea that you can never carry too much of it! ;D

Someone should really give Scott Taylor a clue, because he is right out to lunch on this.


----------



## Loachman (18 Feb 2008)

His e-mail address is at the bottom of the article.

Just be nice and factual.


----------



## Farmboy (18 Feb 2008)

> Thank you Inifidel 6. You seem to be the SME on this topic.
> DO you have any pictures of what you're talking about? Please post if you do. I, for one, would like to see what you're talking about.



Releasable Vest






MOLLE Chest rig with mag pouches






MOLLE Vest


----------



## RHFC_piper (18 Feb 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> His e-mail address is at the bottom of the article.
> 
> Just be nice and factual.



I could be factual.... but, nice?  I don't know...  I'm just annoyed by the ignorance displayed in the article.   When I read the part about "20 rd mags", it just showed me he has no clue what he's talking about, or hasn't even taken the time to do the research..


But in regards to the 15 mags...  I didn't think it was necessary at one point, with the LAV right next to us during most TiCs, but then I realized where the ammo is stored in the LAV, and the thought of trying to move a bunch of stuff and lift a bench during combat changed my mind but quick.

And as for carrying it all around and using it... The most I went through in one contact was 6 mags (Op Medusa), but I wasn't in the heavy point of contact.  I would never want to be in a position where I'd have to reload mags during battle... 

Either way, I've shown that pic, and others to my CoC, and all the same issue arose; weight, necessity, etc... and my response is; This is what happens in combat, and this is whats needed... simple concept.   But, WRT all the kit that works being used in the reserve system; as it stands, those of greater tactical importance have determined that there is no need... so that rig, my rails, grips, etc. are bagged up.  And when I return to the rifle company (if ever) it'll be back to the TV.. grudgingly.


----------



## 2 Cdo (18 Feb 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> His e-mail address is at the bottom of the article.
> 
> Just be nice and factual.



Knowing the man personally, and his service, I don't think I can be very nice when talking to him. ;D


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> RFHC- I think the US Army has a policy and a monthly allowance that allows their troops to buy kit. Anyone else know the US Army policy?
> That is why their clothing shops in/near the PX are so popular with Canadian troops.



Not as much as you might think!

US Clothing Allowance: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/fy2005paycharts/a/clothing.htm

The clothing allowance is usually paid annually on a member's enlistment anniversary. Those with less than three years of service receive the basic rate (on the assumption that their uniforms are still fairly new and don't need to be replaced as much). Additionally, their first annual payment will be only 1/2 of the allowance amount (on the assumption that little would have to be replaced during their first six months of service). 

After three years of service, members receive the standard rate each year. This allowance is not taxable. 

Army Enlisted

Type  Male  Female  
Initial  $1,283.49 $1,551.49 
Basic  $356.40  $417.60  
Standard  $511.20  $594.00


----------



## geo (18 Feb 2008)

Scott Taylor.... expert on the military...

BTW, Cpl Beaulieu is a reservist with the Voltigeurs de Québec.
He is on his 2nd mission - the 1st one in Afghanistan.

The way you read the article the fella has been with the R22R all along - which is not true.
The way you read the article the fella has been to Bosnia & is on his second afghan mission.............

What a way to screw up an article.... not the least of which is the 20 round mag...


----------



## Blakey (18 Feb 2008)

Obviously he's never been made aware of the old addage "It's better to have and not need, than to need and not have", I won't even get into his "20 round" mag comment.....FN anyone!?


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Feb 2008)

If you ever read between the lines WRT to Mr.Taylor's headlines/editorials, he appears to harbor a grudge against senior CF officers and NDHQ in general. We are all aware that NDHQ is a bureaucracy, however, a necessary one that commands, controls and coordinates operations world wide.
He is not current with the COE (contemporary operating environment) and woefully underestimates the capabilities of the individual soldier.

Thank you Infidel-6. Pictures are worth 1000 words!!


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Feb 2008)

Reporters or correspondents don't choose the Headline - the Editor does.  The by-line's purpose is to cite the contributor and in some cases give the article's content a degree of credibility.  Only the constant reader can judge the continuing credibility of the author's research. It often interesting to read the different tone in news items and editorials, as the latter come with a disclaimer.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (18 Feb 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> Reporters or correspondents don't choose the Headline - the Editor does.  The by-line's purpose is to cite the contributor and in some cases give the article's content a degree of credibility.  Only the constant reader can judge the continuing credibility of the author's research. It often interesting to read the different tone in news items and editorials, as the latter come with a disclaimer.



+1.  You have to take it with a healthy grain of salt.


----------



## McG (18 Feb 2008)

Scott Taylor said:
			
		

> The last big revelation from Beaulieu was that the desert boots were substandard. Sure they may be state-of-the-art footwear that retail at around $300 a pair, but after Beaulieu went on long patrols, his feet hurt. I will pause here for a moment to let everyone who once served in the infantry roll their eyes skyward in disbelief.


... and here anyone who has worn the current arid boot is rolling thier eyes.  At least, it seems, the Army has accepted that "state-of-the-art footwear" really is junk:





			
				DLR said:
			
		

> The military replied that it regularly receives feedback from soldiers about equipment and that a new model of boots is currently being tested. The boots will be sent to Afghanistan when ready.


----------



## The_Falcon (18 Feb 2008)

This is the letter I sent to his paper and CC'ed to him as well



> To Whom It May Concern:
> 
> I am writing this letter to respond to the utter tripe, that you allowed Mr. Taylor to publish last week in your paper.  Before you allow him to publish one more article, I implore you to make him at least do some basic research.  For one thing we do not use 20 round magazines in the CF, we use 30 round magazines.  He also goes on to state that Cpl. Daniel Beaulieu is an 11 year veteran of the Vandoos, when in fact he is a reservist.  He ponders why a troop would want to carry more ammunition in combat, where erroneously infers that we haven’t withdrawn from a fight because we ran out of ammo (going on his 4x 20 rd magazine assumption), when in fact the standard battle load as attested by several members of my regiment who have been overseas is in fact 10-15 magazines with 30 rounds in each (which equals 300-450 rounds of ammunition).  He asks who in their right mind would want that much ammo strapped to their chest, and the answer is anyone who goes outside the wire and doesn’t want to be caught short in a firefight that’s who.  I could go on but you get the jist of it. I don’t know where Mr. Taylor gets off calling himself a military expert/analyst, when it is painfully clear he is neither.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Feb 2008)

Beauty.


----------



## KevinB (19 Feb 2008)

Farmboy sort of like those -- but I hate that TAG vest thingy

I was more thinking of a MOLLE version of the DHTC Chest Rig and Patrol Vest by Pacific Safety products
 Made in Canada even...


The DHTC vest dig have (had?) modular side pouches 




But the rig themselves was not MOLLE nor adjustable

OD version of the Patrol Vest





CADPAT and CADPAT AR versions of the Chest Rig










Eagle CIRAS (Maritime) in one of my older renditions of its setup






*I am not currently nor have I ever been in JTF-2 - I just have friends in low places.


MOLLE rigs are way better than the non adjustable legacy rigs as they allow the use to tailor the vest to their current mission/role
- my old Harris Assualt Vest circa 2002 in Wainwright. - when at the time I thought I was "cutting edge"






As for Scott Taylor -- the guy in an utter asshat, a clueless moron from a bygone day ( with what 4-6 years in and ZERO combat experience) -- he should STFU before he makes a bigger ass of himself, or someone walks up and throat punches him.  My left toe has more knowledge about militayr and combat operations than he does.


----------



## LordOsborne (19 Feb 2008)

I sent him an email and actually got a reply. I highlighted some points i had issues with in the article he wrote, and of course made sure to beat a dead horse about the 20-round mag thing.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (19 Feb 2008)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> I sent him an email and actually got a reply. I highlighted some points i had issues with in the article he wrote, and of course made sure to beat a dead horse about the 20-round mag thing.



Would you mind posting the reply?


----------



## LordOsborne (19 Feb 2008)

> FYI the switch from 7.62 to 5.56 was in 1986.
> Thanks for all the input.
> ST
> ----- Original Message -----
> ...



His reply is at the very top. I got the 1982 reference from Wikipedia, which was probably not a good idea. 
Also I realise that the point I made about the use of pistols may be controversial; I added it just as food for thought.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> As for Scott Taylor -- the guy in an utter idiot, a clueless moron from a bygone day ( with what 4-6 years in and ZERO combat experience) -- he should STFU before he makes a bigger *** of himself, or someone walks up and throat punches him.  My left toe has more knowledge about militayr and combat operations than he does.



Hold on there, I'm pretty sure that he's the most lethal weapon in our arsenal. Didn't he help destroy the whole Airborne Regiment, single handedly, with one roll of film? As I recall, he thought he was doing the troops a favour....


----------



## Charon (20 Feb 2008)

Well I am not impressed by the overwhelming dialog that he started up with the statement of the 7.62mm being replaced in 86 and then ignoring the rest of your statements.  But one the plus side I haven't heard him refer to himself as a former soldier in awhile, so there is a small grace there LOL


----------



## LordOsborne (20 Feb 2008)

I'm just impressed he replied! Maybe he'll mention my correspondance with him in the next issue of EDC  :blotto:


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Feb 2008)

I am still waiting for my reply.  Perhaps, he is now being deluged with e-mails pointing out his errors, and can't really muster anything other than a curt one sentence reply.


----------



## Charon (20 Feb 2008)

I know a few people that have written to him about his take on various things and from what I've seen, don't hold your breath unless you agree with him apparently


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Feb 2008)

I've got the skinny from KAF last night. I have someone there....
The non issue kit order is very real. No toques before sundown, no non issue gloves or sunglasses in KAF. The chest rigs etc the troops bought are not allowed, even outside the wire. Issue kit only.
Watch and shoot...


----------



## Gunner98 (20 Feb 2008)

Give ST some credit - he did reply and 'thank him for his input'.  That may be his humble way of saying, I hear you and I have nothing to offer in rebuttal other than one date correction.  Perhaps this is a HUA (Hoohah) - Heard, Understood, Acknowledge.  In this case, silence is golden.


----------



## dangerboy (20 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I've got the skinny from KAF last night. I have someone there....
> The non issue kit order is very real. No toques before sundown, no non issue gloves or sunglasses in KAF. The chest rigs etc the troops bought are not allowed, even outside the wire. Issue kit only.
> Watch and shoot...


Just remember they have not had transfer of command authority yet, so they are working under the old TF rules, once TF 1-08 takes command things hopefully will change.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Feb 2008)

Thank you danger boy for pointing that out....yes you are correct command has not been transferred......my source tells me this came from way high up....


----------



## westernarmymember (20 Feb 2008)

There was clear direction passed through the BG sometime ago outlining what rigs are auth for wear. Those members of the BG should have received it.


----------



## MdB (20 Feb 2008)

Does the no non-issued kit directive is for security reasons or uniformity? Security for placing kit at the same place for everybody and uniformity to look like we all come from the same army.


----------



## MikeL (20 Feb 2008)

Security for placing kit at the same place?


As for the looking like we're all in the same Army.. well if someone wearing a different Tac Vest/Chest Rig throws you off an you can't tell that they're still a Canadian Soldier, etc you have problems. We still wear the same uniform, wear Canadian flags an all the IFF patches, etc.


----------



## Sig_Des (20 Feb 2008)

MdB said:
			
		

> Does the no non-issued kit directive is for security reasons or uniformity? Security for placing kit at the same place for everybody and uniformity to look like we all come from the same army.



I hate this argument. Even if everyone wore the same vest, no two people have them arranged exactly the same. And I don't care about the kit list. Are you left or right handed? Do you have a canteen pouch, or two c-9 pouches, or what? Are you a c-9 gunner, grenadier, rifleman?

And uniformity? You're in the desert. It's tan, OD, or Cadpat? Good to go.

It's my firm belief that the reason we have the non-issued kit directives is because of the "We issued everyone this piece of kit. It's the best piece of kit out there, because we obviously care, so you will wear your CF-provided piece of wonderkit" mentality.


----------



## RCR Grunt (20 Feb 2008)

"Uniformity" is an antiquated term that has absolutely NO place on the modern battlefield.  No two soldiers are built the same, move the same, do the same job or carry the exact same kit, so why should they all look exactly the same.  This isn't "Zulu."  The days of "Front rank kneeling, rear rank standing, volley fire!" are long over and its time the dress code changes to reflect reality.  I can tell who plays for the Flames and who plays for the Oilers, even if they all wear different jocks.

"Security," if by this you mean "Can Johnny Two-shoes find my mags, map, and first aid kit if I go down....."  Well mags are simple (they are the rectangular looking gray thingys in the front!), maps are big (and should be sanitized before going on an op where capture is possible), and its not hard to place an IFAK where the RSM prescribes.  If you meant something other, please clarify and I will reply in kind.


----------



## LordOsborne (20 Feb 2008)

My unit is still in the middle of sussing out the kit list. It's not nearly as bad as the one I had on basic: foot powder & bug spray in the C9 pouch - i was even told to fold my raingear top so it would fit into my Tac Vest map pocket so i would be as uniform as the rest of the course who still had the 84 webbing.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (20 Feb 2008)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> i was even told to fold my raingear top so it would fit into my Tac Vest map pocket so i would be as uniform as the rest of the course who still had the 84 webbing



For some reason the phrase "The wheels spinning but the hamsters dead" popped into my head when I read this portion. Not referring to you PatrickO, just how bizarre it does sound and how one could get uniformity between a TV and 84 webbing. (Both of which I have.)


----------



## Haggis (20 Feb 2008)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> My unit is still in the middle of sussing out the kit list. It's not nearly as bad as the one I had on basic: foot powder & bug spray in the C9 pouch - i was even told to fold my raingear top so it would fit into my Tac Vest map pocket so i would be as uniform as the rest of the course who still had the 84 webbing.





 :

Uniformity between at TV and 84 Webbing?  That's, by far, the dumbest thing I've seen or heard of today.... and I work at NDHQ.

Haggis
"Old-school" Sergeant Major
"New School" realist.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (20 Feb 2008)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> My unit is still in the middle of sussing out the kit list. It's not nearly as bad as the one I had on basic: foot powder & bug spray in the C9 pouch - i was even told to fold my raingear top so it would fit into my Tac Vest map pocket so i would be as uniform as the rest of the course who still had the 84 webbing.



I'm trying to visualize and conceptualize this, but my Marine lobotimized brain is having some difficulties...
If YOU have a tac-vest and are putting it in your map pocket to be uniform (read, the same) as those with '82 pattern webbing, where is the rain gear going on the '82 pattern webbing, as there is no chest mounted map pocket?  Unless they're lashing it to the left front yolk web strap?


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Feb 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I'm trying to visualize and conceptualize this, but my Marine lobotimized brain is having some difficulties...
> If YOU have a tac-vest and are putting it in your map pocket to be uniform (read, the same) as those with '82 pattern webbing, where is the rain gear going on the '82 pattern webbing, as there is no chest mounted map pocket?  Unless they're lashing it to the left front yolk web strap?



Hmmm, that would be an interesting way to carry a rain jacket with the webbing... Oh, and thanks. Beer out the nose sucks!


----------



## LordOsborne (21 Feb 2008)

It was all somewhat comical and a little stupid. I couldn't really speak out against the idea since i was just a recruit OCdt at the time. There were only two candidates on the entire course who had TVs. The remainder, including the staff, had the 84 webbing, and they were having a difficult time deciding what to do with the two of us. Every time we had a class on "where things go", we had our hands up saying "but i have a TV, MCpl!" 

While the rest of the course put their bug spray, foot powder, raingear, kfs and spare socks into their 84 butt pouch, we were told to shove them wherever they'd fit- eventually most of them went into the C9 pouch and what was left went into the kidney pouches. That left the raingear - the troops with 84 had to roll both items into the pouch. We were told, for the sake of uniformity, to choose one of the items and somehow find a way to carry it in the TV. We spent one night desperately trying different ways of Origami-ing the jacket top so it would fit (barely) into the map pouch, but we did get it done in the end. Granted, my left chest suddenly protruded an extra 2.5 inches, but we just had to suck it up because it's BMQ. 

At least I got away without taking my kfs with me  :blotto:


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Feb 2008)

Here's the problem as I see it:

Us older members of the CF were trained to be "uniform", and it was like that for the 70's and a good part of the 80's. In the early 90's, younger troops were buying kit that was good....and if the CSM couldn't see it, it was OK. I've always been a bit of a "free thinker" and if the troops were more effective....then fine....and as long as it didn't look to outlandish.
I got 7 "corrective training days" for wearing non -issue boots in 94. They were far superior to the MkIIIs, but that didn't matter. I was hoping those days are over....apparently they are not! 
Regarding the raingear in the TacVest map pocket...its not rocket science. That pocket was not meant for rain gear...
This discussion will never be solved.....there will always be the order "Only issue kit will be worn".
Personally, some people need to be marched to the RQMS and issued "common sense".


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (21 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Personally, some people need to be marched to the RQMS and issued "common sense".



I'm afraid RQMS is out of common sense, as all of it has been shipped to troops outside the wire.


----------



## LordOsborne (21 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Here's the problem as I see it:
> 
> Us older members of the CF were trained to be "uniform", and it was like that for the 70's and a good part of the 80's. In the early 90's, younger troops were buying kit that was good....and if the CSM couldn't see it, it was OK. *I've always been a bit of a "free thinker" and if the troops were more effective....then fine....and as long as it didn't look to outlandish*.
> I got 7 "corrective training days" for wearing non -issue boots in 94. They were far superior to the MkIIIs, but that didn't matter. I was hoping those days are over....apparently they are not!
> ...



That's more or less how I look at things at my unit. If troops want to use Stealth Jackets, UnderArmour, holsters, non-issue gloves, boots, etc, I don't have a problem with it so long as it looks presentable. It's not difficult to understand - some items of kit are deficient, and if a troop wants to make his lot in the field a little more comfortable, I'm all for it, so long as it's green (or tan, situation depending). When I go on exercises at the unit, I look like a walking kitshop. I wear non-issue gloves, boots, a Serpa Holster, magpuls, a vertical foregrip for my C7, shemagh and occasionally, when i know i can get away with it, I wear the excellent chest rig that Riggermade made for me. It's all either Cadpat or OD, and it's not too outlandish. To rip off a phrase from the US election campaign, I try to "be a force for change". :warstory:


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Feb 2008)

Patrick O!! Oh my a fellow free thinker!! There are more out there!!

Back in the 70's when I was a private, two older members were openly wondering why the troops needed so much water. You know the kind..."Back in my day, we were issued 1 canteen per man per day, and you didn't drink it until you were told to"
I'd read an article earlier that stated in the Israeli Army they encouraged their troops to drink loads of water, and if you run out we'll get more for you. I mentioned to the two old codgers this fact....you know what I was told?
"Shut the F*** up, you don't know what you're talking about"
We are still dealing with this type of mentality when it comes to kit.

Yes I wear a shemag too, much to the consternation of the Bde Comd. Oh well...what's he gonna do, send me to Afghanistan? I WISH!!


----------



## LordOsborne (22 Feb 2008)

I've run into the camel-mentality too. A CSM at the Infantry school was telling stories to my CAP course during a ruck march and he remarked at how nearly every officer in the course had camelbaks (in non issue carriers), and how 'back in the day' he survived on one canteen a day. I don't know how he did it, or how anyone would, given how hot and humid Gagetown is. At least the troops overseas don't have to deal with that. 

I think there's still a standing Bde order that absolutely no non CF-issue kit may be worn, ever. I remember for a Bde Ex (Cougar Salvo 05), the Bde RSM sent out a memo electronically detailing in no uncertain terms that he would be actively scrutinizing the units and their soldiers and would be bringing troops up on charges if they wore anything non-issue. My platoon commander told me that he wasn't paying the order any mind. Sure enough, he went to the field wearing MEC fleece, Stealth Jacket, Polar-Fleece toque (basically just snivel kit) and most of the troops in my company had a shemagh and other smaller items on. The RSM found his way out to us and I saw him chatting to my Pl Comd, no doubt about the horrid state of his troops and how he wasn't setting a good example. Nothing came of it, though, and we went on our merry little way. I consider it an implied task to carry on the tradition!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Feb 2008)

There's an old adage "Any asshole can be uncomfortable"
and really, if you're tactical situation is taken care of, what you wear to complete the mission, is really if no consequence.

Here's the caveat:

Can the supply system replace your item should it become ineffective?
Is your issue item available , quickly within your UAB, in theatre (you're in a FOB, you're kit is in KAF)
Did you leave all your issue shyte in Canada, and deploy with all your go fast gear only?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (22 Feb 2008)

recceguy, that shouldn't what has to be done.  Everytime I had to trade vehicles on this tour, I had to transfer two rigs full of ammo over from one vehicle to another.  I was also warned about non issue helmet mods (which I have had for years) to which I replied that my "internals" were at home and that I only had 20 days left before I was home again anyhow.

I shouldn't have to have one "parade" TV and one "combat" rig, we should not have to fear the wrath of KAFasauruses and other dinosaurs that haven't got a grip yet!!

This is a sad state when an RSM can actually tell troops they aren't allowed to wear DLR approved trial gear.  That would be like him telling the crew of a new vehicle being developped that they cannot drive it over here!!  The silliest statement ever!!

Anyone who has taken a walk around KAF can easily speak for the "uniformity" of other nations and none of it makes it hard to recognize a Brit over an American over an Estonian, etc...

my 2 cents of the day...


----------



## McG (22 Feb 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> recceguy, that shouldn't what has to be done.  ...  I shouldn't have to have one "parade" TV and one "combat" rig, we should not have to fear the wrath of KAFasauruses and other dinosaurs that haven't got a grip yet!!


You did not bother to read recceguy's post did you?  He said nothing about parade kit and combat kit.  He said that, in the event your $500 chest rig gets destroyed, the supply system has no authority to replace it.  Therefore, you should have your issued stuff in country (even if it never leaves KAF).


----------



## Farmboy (22 Feb 2008)

> recceguy, that shouldn't what has to be done.  ...  I shouldn't have to have one "parade" TV and one "combat" rig, we should not have to fear the wrath of KAFasauruses and other dinosaurs that haven't got a grip yet!!
> You did not bother to read recceguy's post did you?  He said nothing about parade kit and combat kit.  He said that, in the event your $500 chest rig gets destroyed, the supply system has no authority to replace it.  Therefore, you should have your issued stuff in country (even if it never leaves KAF).



 This is another silly argument. With this argument it's like saying you should have two rigs at all times, one as a back up.  What if the issue rig your wearing gets destroyed in the middle of nowhere? Can it be replaced?  Are there extra TV's at the FOB in case an issue one gets destroyed.

 If the problem is that the QM won't give you a vest if your aftermarket one is destroyed because you still have an issue one, but it's at home, then that's just stupid red tape.

 If your $500 chest rig gets destroyed then I'm sure you have other things to worry about. I know of one TAG chest rig that survived an IED and to my knowledge was still usable.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Feb 2008)

Farmboy,

Your in the business of selling gear, ergo,  your POV can be looked at as somewhat jaundiced. After all, the more aftermarket stuff guys get, especially from you, the better you make out, right?  I simply played devil's advocate and asked some questions, no need to get defensive.


----------



## McG (22 Feb 2008)

and the fact is that the QM will provide emergency replacement to soldiers with nothing to carry their kit. However, the question is going to be asked: why is already issued operational clothing sitting under the bed in Canada when you need it here now?

... there is a tendency for these occurrences to increase the levels of "only wear issue kit" being passed from on high.


----------



## geo (22 Feb 2008)

From a personal point of view, if your expensive store bought rig gets destroyed in ops, there is no reason in the world why the Supply system should not replace it with a standard CF issue rig..... no reason for it.... cause the official CF one woulda been destroyed anyway.


----------



## Farmboy (22 Feb 2008)

> Your in the business of selling gear, ergo,  your POV can be looked at as somewhat jaundiced. After all, the more aftermarket stuff guys get, especially from you, the better you make out, right?  I simply played devil's advocate and asked some questions, no need to get defensive.



 Yes, if guys buy more from me, the better I do make out.  If that was the reason for my point of view I wouldn't be so passionate about it and I would be selling something else, something everyone would buy, not just a small group, that way I'd be making alot more money.

 I get cranky about it cause I have good friends that I care about.  I want them to have the best equipment there is so they can do their job more effectively and bring themselves home saftely.

 When guys get head injuries because they have the plain issue helmet instead of the BLSS or Skydex system it pisses me off big time.

 If the chain of command wanted eveyones nose hairs trimmed a certian way in garrison so be it, but when our guys are in combat and orders like this come down it puts my friends and other lives in danger.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Feb 2008)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> This is another silly argument. With this argument it's like saying you should have two rigs at all times, one as a back up.  What if the issue rig your wearing gets destroyed in the middle of nowhere? Can it be replaced?  Are there extra TV's at the FOB in case an issue one gets destroyed.



I agree.

The army should give you a new one if required. It is ridiculous, in a war zone, to expect the soldier to hand in their destryed/US kit (officially issued or not) in return for a new one. Anyone in the chain of command who expects this to happen should be handed their gold watch and shuffled off to the Regimental Association. Unfortunately, again, this is one of those annoying parts of the steep learning cureve we're going through to adjust from a peacekeeping to a warfighting army...


----------



## armyvern (22 Feb 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> From a personal point of view, if your expensive store bought rig gets destroyed in ops, there is no reason in the world why the Supply system should not replace it with a standard CF issue rig..... no reason for it.... cause the official CF one woulda been destroyed anyway.



It's a matter of Treasury Board. A very legal fucking reason too I'd say.  :

Come one people ... quit blaming the fucking supply system. TB says your're entitled to ONE, you have it, you want another?? Then the first ONE needs to be written off. You're asking me to break the law and perform write-off of your original YOU didn't bring?? Nice. (And YES ... your clothing docs DO get audited by auditor general).

You don't take your issued kit overseas ... that's up to you. You are well aware that you need to take your issued gear with you. Don't bitch about it. That's YOUR choice to make.

Us mere fucking supply techs (QMs ... RQs etc) are limitied by Treasury Board Regulations (that's _*LAW * _ -- LAW enacted by YOUR government which mandates what we can and can not do/issue you).

Here's the kicker: You are entitled to a TV by the scale of entitlement ... YOU are entitled to 1 each. Period. That's the Scale -- ie that's the entitlement you have been given by your EGS' ...IAW Treasury Board Regualtions. 

It's NOT supply techs being assholes ... it's not RQs not using common sense ... YOU have the 1 you are entitled to, yet YOU chose to leave it at home and it somehow becomes our fault? You people fucking kill me.

You want another TV on top of the one your entitled to and already have IAW the *LAW*? (<-- note: I don't make the LAW & I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the way it is, and you are aware of it before deploying when you are told to bring your issued kit anyways). Then I would give you one ... but you'd be submitting the MLR for cost recovery of the original one (you'd be *certifying* that YOU lost/destroyed your original issued one) so that I can re-issue you another, because that's the only way that I can legally do that. 

You submitting & signing your name on an MLR certifying that you lost/damaged/destroyed your original and it's legalities regarding filing fraudulant official paperwork is on _you_. So -- I should break the law and give you another one?? Or should that be your problem ... after all you are the one who chose to leave you issued kit at home when told to bring it into theatre.

People just don't tell you these things to fuck you around --- although some of you seem convinced that is the very reason people like me exist. One day, you can all be responsible for your own actions ... instead of blaming us folks for being assholes/idiots when we aren't the ones sitting in your house choosing to omit kit from the rucksacks getting packed to deploy. Your choice = YOUR problem.


----------



## McG (22 Feb 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> The army should give you a new one if required. It is ridiculous, ....


As was already pointed out, the Army will do this.  Thank you for not reading.

However, to do this some supply NCO is breaking some rules ... because, why is already issued kit (which is apparently needed if it is being demanded for a re-issue) sitting in owner's home in Canada?


----------



## McG (22 Feb 2008)

Keep in mind, this is not saying "don't bring your gucci kit" it is saying "do bring your issue kit."


----------



## KevinB (22 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> It's a matter of Treasury Board. A very legal fucking reason too I'd say.  :
> 
> Come one people ... quit blaming the fucking supply system. TB says your're entitled to ONE, you have it, you want another?? Then the first ONE needs to be written off. You're asking me to break the law and perform write-off of your original YOU didn't bring?? Nice. (And YES ... your clothing docs DO get audited by auditor general).
> 
> ...



Sorry Vern all I got here was Blah Blah Blah

What about boots that where personal due to chit etc?
   I was not entitled to MkIII's, nor the issue Desert Boots due to my Chit -- I dont thinkt he supply system decided to bring extra Danner Desert Boots for me to theatre --- as such I would have been given a pair of boots I was not entitled to if my others where destroyed.

  Temp Issue -- I've had stuff go missing on a plane and been issued a SECOND (OMG dont let the treasury board know that common sence broke out) while waiting for my kit to marry uip with me.
  It is in fact common sence to issue a temp set to a troop who's gear was destroyed -- 

because in fact -- it will take longer for the kit to be written off (a few TF1-06 pers here can explain their stories of kit they still did not have for their JNCO/ISCC whatever its called now - due to it being destoryed in Afghan - and the system had not yet replaced it 8+ months after) than it would take the troop to hop on the net to phone Darren or whomever to get a new vest mailed out to them - and have it in hand in Afghan.

 Frankly why one would want to bring a POS vest into theatre that they did not train with and had different muscle memory?  So they could have an extra in case they got blown up?  Frankly I dont know who many here have been in firefights or IED's - but in my experience when pers kit and pers weapons get holes in them the enduser tends not to have faired all the best either.  


Also given the UAB weight issues -- why bring a 7lbs waste of space?


Just my 200 iraqi dinar


----------



## Teeps74 (22 Feb 2008)

I know I am a new guy here... But um, perhaps bring this conversation back down to a friendly with beers type thing? Vern is absolutly right, supply techs are not the ones at issue here, and suggesting someone go against the rules/laws in place is of questionable merit. I am just a dumb 00010 type guy, but I do know that my friends in the supply world have always taken care of me when they could, and without qualifiers.

It is not unreasonable for one to suggest bringing your issue Tac Vest on top of your commercial rig, as turn around time for a replacement commercial rig could be up to a couple of weeks (assuming you find a way to get it sent priority, faster if you can send it by way of DHL or FEDEX), and Vern laid out the legalities of issuing a replacement without paper work/or the damaged kit. 

I ain't a fan of several of our issued items. However, it is not the fault of supply techs that the known issues exsist. We all work within the framework we are given, we accept risks when we step out of our lanes (ie wearing non-issued kit). We can not demand that others share our risks. It is our duty to protect ourselves, by bringing our issued kit with us, in event that we find ourselves needing a replacement (God forbid).


----------



## geo (22 Feb 2008)

Teeps.... we are discussing this at the mess / friendly level....

Note - I / we are not blaming the supply tech.

Vern, while at some point in time, it will be necessary to reconcile temp issue cards etc, if your gucci TV got trashed in the field, it's a fairly safe bet that the CF standard issue one would have bought the biscuit as well - should it have been there in the 1st place.  The gent needs a vest to get Job #1 done... make him sign for the replacement vest.... he'll be on the hook for that 2nd TV, his gucci vest will have gone bye, bye ... no one is expecting the out of pocket SOB to get away with a 2nd vest he can sell on ebay.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Feb 2008)

As a Sergeant Major, when I make up the kit list, and get the blessing from on high to issue it, I  and my Pl WO's expect it to be followed within reason. It is the Commanding Officer's order once he signs off on it.
If you don't bring your issue Tac Vest, which will be on the list, and you didn't bother to bring it, and you need it because we told you to get it, well there will be at least 3 people in crap....your Sect Comd, the Sect 2 I/C and the one that didn't bring his ISSUE Tac Vest.
You can in fact be charged with an offence, and don't think you'll get away with it. Now, if you cannot be bothered to follow a simple direction, ie you WILL bring your issue TacVest, then get out of the military.
For those of you that think that's too harsh....too bad. Tough luck.
If the CO or whoever blesses the non issue, fine, but have your issue stuff as well.


----------



## PhilB (23 Feb 2008)

Its hard to forget your issue tac vest, as you now get issued an AR tac vest when you go through mirage  >

Seriously though, it is ridiculous to not bring your issue kit when the ability to wear non issue stuff is always "hanging in the balance". I sent my TW tac vest in my UAB, I am bringing my chest rig in my AB, and wearing my AR vest when we get it in Mirage. My coc has basically made it clear, at KAF, even "in" the fob wear your tac vest, outside the wire away from prying eyes, doing the job chest rigs g2g. This is until the TF policy, hopefully, changes. From what I have heard the BG RSM is in a bit of a bun fight with the current TF RSM in regards to the non issue kit issue. Basically the BG is saying we have approved certain vests for our soldiers and they will be allowed to wear those rigs on the list.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Feb 2008)

Thanks for that info. So now there is NO excuse. "I didn't bring it cause I don't like it" is NOT a valid reason.....its garbage. And I don't care if I offended some of you. This is the military, not some rabble who do what they want. 
Like I said, if your CO has blessed the non issue stuff, no issue....but if the CO states you will bring it on deployment and you don't have it....if I were your Sergeant Major you would be charged.


----------



## armyvern (23 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Sorry Vern all I got here was Blah Blah Blah
> 
> What about boots that where personal due to chit etc?
> I was not entitled to MkIII's, nor the issue Desert Boots due to my Chit -- I dont thinkt he supply system decided to bring extra Danner Desert Boots for me to theatre --- as such I would have been given a pair of boots I was not entitled to if my others where destroyed.



Of course you only got "Blah blah blah" out of it. That seems to be the norm when supply techs like me explain the LEGAL side of the house that governs us actually retaining OUR jobs and keeping us out of jail. It's not as easy as you'd all like it to be to just give you whatever you wish/want/hope for whenever you wish it to be so ... without risking our careers.

In your case above, we would buy you boots ... Been there. We've bought you two sets of boots to deploy with (Danners in your case) ... that makes you AUTHORIZED to wear them in-theatre and AUTHORIZED to have them replaced at Crown expense (and all legal IAW Treasury Board regulations). You destroy one pair, you have another to wear. I call Canada and have them buy you new Danners and have them shipped over IOR (HPR) --- you have another set within the week. It's been done.



> Temp Issue -- I've had stuff go missing on a plane and been issued a SECOND (OMG dont let the treasury board know that common sence broke out) while waiting for my kit to marry uip with me.
> It is in fact common sence to issue a temp set to a troop who's gear was destroyed --


Temp Issue -- yes and that is precisely what I am talking about. Regulations clearly state that personal kit that is of permanent issue type (ie your Tac Vest) is NOT authorized to be issued on a Temp Loan card, but must be issued onto your permanent docs. Tac Vests are a permanent issue now. Your stuff going missing on a plane because they LOST your luggage etc clearly falls into the "Stores *Loss* and Damage Report" (ie MLR) category. So, yes ... common sense certainly DOES prevail here. YOU would have NO problem getting another TV issued onto your Clothing Docs should your kit happen to go astray on a flight -- "loss" being the operative word. I would duplicate issue you a secong TV IMMEDIATELY, and would file the MLR (Miscelaneous LOSS Report) that noted the reason why ... totally LEGAL and IAW Treasury Board Policy and Directives. Eventually your MLR would come back from the CO recommending Write-off action of your first TV (which is still on your charge at this point in time). I'd write it off and now you'd have one on your charge which is what you physically have. When I do that write-off, my service number is recorded into the system and it is I that gets to explain to the auditor why I performed that write-off of taxpayer property on your behalf. With that MLR for your LOSS, there is no issue at all -- I AM authorized to do so. It's all good and legal -- not fraudulent.

The scenario regarding the TVs left at home in Canada because a member CHOSE to disobey regulations that state your kit WILL accompany you into theatre does not fall into the same category at all. It's not lost, damaged or destroyed. So, the MLR is legally NOT applicable in the circumstances. I already stetd that I WOULD issue the second TV, but the member is GOING to write-up his MLR stating why *before* that issue occurs. The member can choose to tell the truth on that MLR:

In section two, the member initiates by filling in:

"Explanation by member of loss, damage, or destruction that occured": (Truthful Version): "I disobeyed orders and left my issued kit in Canada. My gucci gear was destroyed, so now I need a duplicate over-entitlement issue made to my clothing docs so that I can do my job." (I have seen this one occur -- and I have witnessed the wrath that it wrought from his CoC, but he did get another TV issued as soon as I had the MLR!!)

OR

(Untruthful Version): "My TV was destroyed in incident XXXX. I need a replacement issued." (Given that -- the soldier had best not TELL me that he is LYING on this signed declaration that is making because you know where that leads ... and I've seen that occur too and the wrath is certainly no less).

Either way, he IS getting that second TV issued ... and either way he proceeds with it ... it's on HIS signature and declaration. In the untruthful scenario (if, as I said, he doesn't inform the Supply staff that he is outright lying on official paperwork) ... if it gets picked up by the Auditor --- it's his ass on the line for fraudulent paperwork -- not MY career. Simple enough?

Now, in your case, if we've re-issued and your MLR has been finalized to write-off the baggage lost TV ... and then Air Canada finds your bag and you get it back ... we then bring a TV back on charge to the QM acoount (reverse the write-off) and cross-refer to the original write-off that we did on it to substantiate why we are now "finding" one that wasn't on charge. That transaction by us is just as auditable and explainable to the AG as the write-off was ... and takes us Sup Techs just as much official paperwork too, but it doesn't affect you any.



> because in fact -- it will take longer for the kit to be written off (a few TF1-06 pers here can explain their stories of kit they still did not have for their JNCO/ISCC whatever its called now - due to it being destoryed in Afghan - and the system had not yet replaced it 8+ months after) than it would take the troop to hop on the net to phone Darren or whomever to get a new vest mailed out to them - and have it in hand in Afghan.



I'd need more info to explain the above occurance to you. The policy is that kit that is lost, damaged or destroyed be replaced IMMEDIATELY upon the member reporting to the QM and stating such by filling in the top portion of the MLR. The troop should get the replacement kit right away. The MLR THEN makes it's way through the CoC for their action ... when they are done with their action, the CO then returns it to me (the QM Staff) and THEN write-off occurs. I have seen MLRs take quite a long time to be returned to us by the CoC (over a year in some cases --- especially if one is in-theatre and a roto etc is occuring), so that entiure time the member was holding "over-entitlement" on his clothing docs. That's fine because a copy of his MLR is kept on his doc file when it is initiated and the issue made by us until such time as the original is returned and the write-off occurs. Therefore, id buds docs (or my service number -- ie me -- ) be queried about the member holding above entitlement on his charge a copy of the MLR is there to explain my actions to the Auditor. That is LEGAL. 



> Frankly why one would want to bring a POS vest into theatre that they did not train with and had different muscle memory?  So they could have an extra in case they got blown up?  Frankly I dont know who many here have been in firefights or IED's - but in my experience when pers kit and pers weapons get holes in them the enduser tends not to have faired all the best either.
> Also given the UAB weight issues -- why bring a 7lbs waste of space?
> Just my 200 iraqi dinar



Because the kit is paid for by taxpayers. Therefore, it is governered by the laws of the land. I don't make those laws, and I don't necessarily agree with them ... but they are the laws that I get to work with ... if I want to keep enjoying my career.

I will go out of my way to assist ANY troop that needs it. If it is common sense then I will fight for that troop to have that kit and I will do my utmost to make it happen, but I will NOT break the law and put my career at risk for someone. I have written to NDHQ on behalf of members trying to get "common sense" kit for them that they were not entitled too amongst other actions, and usually --- my writing up of the common sense of the request has resulted in a "yes --- authorized" response from Ottawa. THAT response goes onto the clothing doc file when I make the issue to a non-entitled individual -- so the auditor can then talk to the "authorizer" if they have a problem with it. 

But, that's where my assistance ends -- at that legal line. I won't cross over that willingly; I like my job. Now, you can think I'm an ass for thinking that way, but that's just the way it is.


----------



## armyvern (23 Feb 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Teeps.... we are discussing this at the mess / friendly level....
> 
> Note - I / we are not blaming the supply tech.
> 
> Vern, while at some point in time, it will be necessary to reconcile temp issue cards etc, if your gucci TV got trashed in the field, it's a fairly safe bet that the CF standard issue one would have bought the biscuit as well - should it have been there in the 1st place.  The gent needs a vest to get Job #1 done... make him sign for the replacement vest.... he'll be on the hook for that 2nd TV, his gucci vest will have gone bye, bye ... no one is expecting the out of pocket SOB to get away with a 2nd vest he can sell on ebay.



Geo, had you read my post, you'd have seen that I stated I would issue the second TV IMMEDIATELY. But, the MLR will HAVE to be filed ... that is the only way I am LEGALLY allowed to issue "over-entitlement" to someone. So, do you see the legal dilema that put us Sup Techs in? There's a reason why they are told to "ensure they bring it into theatre even IF they are allowed by their CoC to wear Gucci." It's not just because someone is being an asshole and wanting them all to carry an extra seven pounds of gear -- it's also got to do with us sup techs being allowed to do our damn jobs legally.

I have, in 20 years, yet to meet a Sup Tech who WOULD NOT issue the second TV, but for gawds sake troops ... let us do it legally. Don't ask us to break the law and risk our careers to save yourself 7 pounds. That's not on.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Feb 2008)

Again, for those who THINK that they do not need to bring the issue TacVest, think again. If it gets ruined, you'll get a new one I beleive...correct  me if I'm wrong.
If you're chest rig etc gets ruined and you paid for it out of pocket, the military is not bound to replace it. 
If you didn't bring the issue TacVest, then you should be charged....if this offends any of you too bad. An order is an order, and it's legal.


----------



## MdB (23 Feb 2008)

It's hard to keep the pace in this thread... ;D



			
				-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Security for placing kit at the same place?
> 
> As for the looking like we're all in the same Army.. well if someone wearing a different Tac Vest/Chest Rig throws you off an you can't tell that they're still a Canadian Soldier, etc you have problems. We still wear the same uniform, wear Canadian flags an all the IFF patches, etc.



Yes, security for placing kit at the same place, like we're all taught to do. For what security issue that could have been true earlier, might not be anymore. And yes, like we're all the same, etc.

And I agree with the fact that as long as we look like from the same army, non issue kit is not an issue in my mind. As I stated, the end state is what is important.



			
				Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> And uniformity? You're in the desert. It's tan, OD, or Cadpat? Good to go.
> 
> It's my firm belief that the reason we have the non-issued kit directives is because of the "We issued everyone this piece of kit. It's the best piece of kit out there, because we obviously care, so you will wear your CF-provided piece of wonderkit" mentality.



That might be the case. And as it's just been said, the rules tend to be more bent as the situation ask for it (ie, TV on inside, whatever on outside the wire...).

A list of acceptable non-issued kit/rig is also a good way to bend the rules. I guess that people that spend $ 1k-2k+ on kit would like to have a look at this list before/during workup training.

Again, at what point is allowing a list done is make do vs enforcing the wear of issued TV is just to save the face....?


----------



## MikeL (23 Feb 2008)

MdB said:
			
		

> Yes, security for placing kit at the same place, like we're all taught to do. For what security issue that could have been true earlier, might not be anymore. And yes, like we're all the same, etc.



K, so placing all your kit in the same area, ie in the LAV, or whatever. Yea, I see no issue between having a issue tac vest or a privatly purchased rig.. not like a non issue one is gonna be any more/less secure than an issue one. An if anything it would be easier too know which one is yours since it would be different from other peoples.


----------



## armyvern (23 Feb 2008)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> K, so placing all your kit in the same area, ie in the LAV, or whatever. Yea, I see no issue between having a issue tac vest or a privatly purchased rig.. not like a non issue one is gonna be any more/less secure than an issue one. An if anything it would be easier too know which one is yours since it would be different from other peoples.



He's talking kit and accoutrements in the same spots. IE ... soldiers are taught to carry atropine injectors (if/when issued) into the same place within their kit. Those with epi-pens ... carry in the same spot. Uniformity. You know, as in "fighting order kit list has item X in pouch X, and item Y in pouch Y" kind of way. TCCC kit will be carried "here". That way, when the shit hits the fan ... the troops know exactly where to find what they need on themselves -- or on a fellow soldier who needs their assistance, rather than searching through countless pouchs/pockets looking for something that isn't where it should have been.

That way, you start doing the flunky chicken -- we all KNOW where to find your injector (you ain't getting mine!!) ... and in those circumstances: time saves lives. Directives handed down by the CoC to their soldiers regarding like-placement of these items into their kit -- is done for a reason, and yes -- your physical health (ie the security of your person) sometimes depends upon it.

Ever seen someone require an epi auto-injection because of a bee-sting etc where within 2-3 seconds after being stung their face/throat was swollen to twice the normal size?? I have. And, she needed 3 injections and a medevac to save her life. Had we had to fish through her gear looking for a pen, those precious seconds wasted there may well have caused a second and third injection to be useless because she very well could have been dead instead.


----------



## MikeL (23 Feb 2008)

Ah, that makes more sense.

K, so on this subject  myself an majority of other people have clearly marked which pouch is our IFAK; also our Medical kit is supposed to be in the right side of the tacvest so I have my IFAK on the right side of my chest rig.    Having things clearly marked, roughly in the same location on your own rig as it would be on the issue tac vest solves the problem, and also telling buddies where you keep stuff as a just in case works out IMO anyways.


Things like finding ammo are pretty simple, look for the pouches that look like they hold mags, grenades, etc.


----------



## SigOpDraco (23 Feb 2008)

Instead of providing a trooper with another tac vest, couldn't there just be a temporary issue of the vest for that member? 

Not saying it's right not to bring the vest. Just wondering isntead of an entirely new vest they can just get a temporary issue. Last day of the members stay in theatre he can turn it in to where he got it from?


----------



## armyvern (23 Feb 2008)

I'll agree with your post 100% ... it's that minority who have NOT followed those simple rules, who tend to have problems when the shit hits the fan.

I think it goes right along with that old Murphy's Law thing ...


----------



## armyvern (23 Feb 2008)

SigOpDraco said:
			
		

> Instead of providing a trooper with another tac vest, couldn't there just be a temporary issue of the vest for that member?
> 
> Not saying it's right not to bring the vest. Just wondering isntead of an entirely new vest they can just get a temporary issue. Last day of the members stay in theatre he can turn it in to where he got it from?



Sure there could be -- but not legally, that would be contrary to regulations and directives. Tac Vests are an individually issued kit item and are required to be issued onto your permanent clothing docs. I've already explained that. DND638s are not authorized to replace (cover someones ass with because he left his in Canada) individually issued clothing items with -- clothing is mandated to be issued onto those electronic docs. 

Clothing docs are now electronic and accessible anywhere in the world (even in those FOBs by us suppies) ... so there is zero reason why someone would need one issued on a DND638 Temp Loan card (unless of course it was because he'd left his clothing home in Canada by choice). We issue to his docs -- we keep it legal. He's still getting his TV that he now needs ... and HE can explain why his original is in Canada to whomever in his CoC has issue with that.

Fair enough? He gets his vest. We've done our job legally. He gets to deal with whatever repercussions his own actions cause -- seems fair to me. Tell me how the soldier is put-out in this circumstance?? He's not. He's getting his vest IMMEDIATELY ... and I've done my job properly and followed the orders that I am subject to. He may be put-out that he now has some explaining to do to his CoC -- but that's because of HIS actions -- not mine. His choice to disobey orders to bring his kit into theatre should not result in a situation where I am asked to disobey mine to cover his butt and that is essentially what you are asking the Sup Tech to do here ...

I believe the PER calls it "accountability" and "reliability" for ones own actions.


----------



## RHFC_piper (23 Feb 2008)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Ah, that makes more sense.
> 
> K, so on this subject  myself an majority of other people have clearly marked which pouch is our IFAK; also our Medical kit is supposed to be in the right side of the tacvest so I have my IFAK on the right side of my chest rig.



This is what we did on TF3-06...  IFAK goes in the right utility pouch on the TV, thus if you bought your own rig/vest, it had to have a utility pouch on the right side big enough to hold your IFAK.  For those who had modular rigs, they bought the same bag as the TCCC drop leg, just a MOLLE version which attached to their rig... or a pouch similar and clearly marked... more clearly than the pouch on the issued TV.   

As for the rest of your gear; as stated, everything else is pretty easy to find... 



WRT bringing your issued TV;  I don't see an issue with bringing it from a load management point of view.  You're not going to have much of a choice when you get to mirage, weather you wear a TW TV or an AR TV, it's going to be an issued TV...  and as for consuming space in luggage; had I stayed longer, I would have shipped at least 1 barracks box worth of junk I didn't even need to bring back the first chance I got... so the way I see it, next time (if there is one) I find myself on a similar tour, I won't be bringing half the crap I over packed... so there's lots of room.  Besides, it's not like I have to carry it to Afghanistan, so an extra 10-20 lbs. in my AB doesn't make a difference to me.
With that said; my concern would be storage in the LAV.  I can understand not wearing a rig in KAF, but you don't wear a rig around KAF anyway... when we came in, all the gear stayed locked in the LAV till we went out again (minus personal weapon).   But out in a FOB... not so much.   It just doesn't seem practical to me to consume space in a LAV with extra crap that you're not going to use until you're in a place where you don't really need to use it.  Even if a FOB was attacked, I'd still rather have my rig on.
But, either way; not bringing your TV with you from Canada in the first place just seems like a bad idea...  It's issued kit, and at some point, someone will want you to wear it, or at least prove that you have it. And speaking as a Cpl; there's enough to worry about with IEDs and people who want to shoot you without having to worry about disciplinary actions for something as simple as bringing issued kit.... but that's just my take on it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Feb 2008)

The voice of reason has spoken. Thanks Piper.


----------



## sjm (25 Feb 2008)

Piper pretty much has it nailed down on this one.

Not sure if anything changed after R-4 but the TW pattern vest was on the kit list and we had to wear it from the HN to KAF.  In KAF everyone, including guys with their own rigs had to sign for the AR TV the same time we got the AR Flak, helmet covers, etc...

The kit list may have changed but unless the AR vest is being issued in Canada or in the HN now, I can't see that being the case.  The trip into KAF would still require the issue TW Tac Vest.  They were pretty picky about what we wore when leaving and entering the HN facility.

I didn't see anyone with both sets of gear anywhere.  Not enough room obviously.  If your rig was damaged either due to use or poor workmanship, your issue TV was only a drive away in KAF back in your room.  The Qs always had spares anyway, along with BEW and other necessities.

A kit list is a kit list.


----------



## MG34 (26 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Again, for those who THINK that they do not need to bring the issue TacVest, think again. If it gets ruined, you'll get a new one I beleive...correct  me if I'm wrong.
> If you're chest rig etc gets ruined and you paid for it out of pocket, the military is not bound to replace it.
> If you didn't bring the issue TacVest, then you should be charged....if this offends any of you too bad. An order is an order, and it's legal.



WRONG.. the CF doesn't care what kit you need replaced, especially in the case of destroyed kit. Several soldiers have had their   "gucci" (I hate that term) kit blown up,burnt etc and it was replaced with an issued vest. When a soldier gets wounded the kit if blood contaminated is destroyed no matter what. If you break your non issued rig  you have 2 options, repair it or get issued a CF Tac vest. This is war not the parade square or garrison damaged kit is replaced no matter the reason or what it is (you WILL get the CF issued equivalent).
 The lack of forward thinking here is astounding,the issued vest is not adequate for our needs ..period I will never order a soldier under my command to use it if they choose to replace it with something better, regardless of the consequances of some dinosaur being offended.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2008)

I think you miss my point MG34. I'm not saying that the issue Tac Vest is the be all and end all. What I'm saying is that the CF will not pay for your ruined non issue vest. Like you said, you'll get an issue vest.
My point is that you, as you well know, are given a kit list. If that list included the CF issue tacvest, then the soldiers best bring it. That's all I'm saying.
I'm all for improving kit, weapons etc, within reason. 
Boots are an example. I gather the issue desert boot is not adequate, so lets get something that does work.


----------



## blacktriangle (26 Feb 2008)

I don't think its possible for one boot, one vest/rig to suit an entire military. The pair of boots that works for my feet may be useless for others...

I wish they would just give out a yearly allowance for these kind of things. However, since that probably won't happen, I just wish we could issue everyone from clerk to infantry really high speed stuff, talk about uniformity!


----------



## GregC (26 Feb 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> I just wish we could issue everyone from clerk to infantry really high speed stuff, talk about uniformity!



Hmmm, this is the best, most logical idea I've heard in a long time!

MICH, Oakley, Arcteryx, Hanwag and Trijicon for all!

Oh well, we can dream can't we?


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Feb 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> I don't think its possible for one boot, one vest/rig to suit an entire military. The pair of boots that works for my feet may be useless for others...
> 
> I wish they would just give out a yearly allowance for these kind of things.



I think a yearly allowance is the best idea out there.  Cheaper in the long run (less space required in stores/warehouses),  fewer issues if a company should go belly up or have issues meeting our needs,  fewer delays in getting new kit (due the lengthy "R&D" process, and subsequent tendering).  Sure that might mean a couple of officers/SNCOs might actually get posted some place where they have to work  >, but I think we (the CF) will survive.  

In my mind its pretty simple, CDS puts out a list of approved companies for boots and aftermarket load carriage (with appropriate info regarding what colours you are permitted, ie CADPAT only, CADPAT/MARPAT, etc.).  For boots, you are entitled to claim x amount of money per annum to replace your boots, which you do via CF 52 (which is not unlike how most other organizations work).  For load carriage it could be every 2-3 years you can make a claim (this based on the reasoning that a QUALITY chest rig/vest etc, should last about this long even with heavy use/abuse).  Once you make your first claim for a load carriage item, you would be required to return your issue TV, which would then be returned to stores, and held for intial trades courses, and emergency/temp issue only (until you get your aftermarket vest replaced).  After a suitable phase in period, all CF pers would be required to purchase their own gear, once trades training is completed, that way only a small number of CF TVs need to be kept in the supply system (ie for course, emerg/temp issue).


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Feb 2008)

MG34 said:
			
		

> WRONG.. the CF doesn't care what kit you need replaced, especially in the case of destroyed kit. Several soldiers have had their   "gucci" (I hate that term) kit blown up,burnt etc and it was replaced with an issued vest. When a soldier gets wounded the kit if blood contaminated is destroyed no matter what. If you break your non issued rig  you have 2 options, repair it or get issued a CF Tac vest. This is war not the parade square or garrison damaged kit is replaced no matter the reason or what it is (you WILL get the CF issued equivalent).
> The lack of forward thinking here is astounding,the issued vest is not adequate for our needs ..period I will never order a soldier under my command to use it if they choose to replace it with something better, regardless of the consequances of some dinosaur being offended.



OK, so here's the plan: We clone MG34. Then we parachute all the MG34 clones into every unit on ops in the CF right now. That's GOT to be easier than actually getting a chest rig that works to the troops who need it now, and backloading the rest to be used by LOBs like me in the mother country.  ;D


----------



## MG34 (26 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I think you miss my point MG34. I'm not saying that the issue Tac Vest is the be all and end all. What I'm saying is that the CF will not pay for your ruined non issue vest. Like you said, you'll get an issue vest.
> My point is that you, as you well know, are given a kit list. If that list included the CF issue tacvest, then the soldiers best bring it. That's all I'm saying.
> I'm all for improving kit, weapons etc, within reason.
> Boots are an example. I gather the issue desert boot is not adequate, so lets get something that does work.



I have seen some asinine kit lists in my day, but I do see your point. Every man is responsible for his equipment that should be the bottom line, once again I am loathe to have troops haul around a useless piece of kit that will not be used just to satisfy a list that was arbitrarily made up in Canada. I guess that we will not come to a common ground on this issue, perhaps my views are too extreme but my methods have been proven in combat so I will stick to what I know works.....BTW don't even get me going on weapons


----------



## mudgunner49 (26 Feb 2008)

MG34 said:
			
		

> I have seen some asinine kit lists in my day, but I do see your point. Every man is responsible for his equipment that should be the bottom line, once again I am loathe to have troops haul around a useless piece of kit that will not be used just to satisfy a list that was arbitrarily made up in Canada. I guess that we will not come to a common ground on this issue, perhaps my views are too extreme but my methods have been proven in combat so I will stick to what I know works.....BTW *don't even get me going on weapons *



No really, go on... 8)


blake


----------



## armyvern (26 Feb 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> OK, so here's the plan: We clone MG34. Then we parachute all the MG34 clones into every unit on ops in the CF right now. That's GOT to be easier than actually getting a chest rig that works to the troops who need it now, and backloading the rest to be used by LOBs like me in the mother country.  ;D



You know what, I don't think you'll find an individual on this site who does not agree that we need a suitable chest rig set-up for our deployed personnel. That includes me.

That all being said, I've already explained the "whys" behind the legalities of carrying the useless TV into theatre.

We may not like it, but those are the legalities within which we get to work ... and to deploy. And, quite frankly, sometimes the CoC (no matter how high or what posn they fill) has ZERO say in the matter due to *federal regulations which govern us*. What exactly, is so difficult about that to understand?


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2008)

Thank you MG34...we have common ground. 
I agree that the kits lists are a bit too aribtrary, however, I do see your point about lugging useless gear into theater. I make up my own kit list for my company, with the provision that more experienced soldiers may adjust that list as they see fit, with the concurrence of their NCOs'. Being Reservists, we have to make sure that our soldiers carry the kit they need to survive, so a little more supervision is the norm.
I did hear that some rotos were told to bring winter whites. Truth? If that is true, why not hold a stock of whites in KAF?


----------



## MikeL (26 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I did hear that some rotos were told to bring winter whites. Truth? If that is true, why not hold a stock of whites in KAF?




Yup, winter whites were part of my kitlist for going over.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You know what, I don't think you'll find an individual on this site who does not agree that we need a suitable chest rig set-up for our deployed personnel. That includes me.
> 
> That all being said, I've already explained the "whys" behind the legalities of carrying the useless TV into theatre.
> 
> We may not like it, but those are the legalities within which we get to work ... and to deploy. And, quite frankly, sometimes the CoC (no matter how high or what posn they fill) has ZERO say in the matter due to *federal regulations which govern us*. What exactly, is so difficult about that to understand?



I guess it's just UOR envy. If we can whistle up a fleet of C17s and Leo 2s at short notice, why not a couple thousand chest rigs?


----------



## logan7979 (26 Feb 2008)

My two cents...

Deploying with the vandoos in 09, infantry coy, crew commander, one of the few bilingual MCpls. Yes the vandoos are strict, id say more than any other regiment... weird i know

1- whats up with defending those in charge of equipment testing... BA in this, Masters in this... the only currency that matters these days is combat experience in Afghanistan. Fact is, if i were Supreme Commander i would get a few intelligent Sgt`s from PPCLI, RCR, and the R22R,  put them in a room, and throw equipment at them... no complicated tests required... as the civilian military machine in north america will take care of the specifics for us, we should just buy. There is so much equipment out there, stop designing stuff, let others do the work. 

2- Im going to be purchasing aftermarket kit. Not sure how i will get away with it, but i will.  One thing is certain, i might not get to train with it, but what can you do. I will go as far as to get charged, too bad 

To CTS... Start drafting an aftermarket validation process to be done at the platoon level, you guys are not stupid and are more than qualified to validate general army equipment, but what were you thinking with the tac vest... oopsy! 

you could always undergo my validation process, it  consists of deploying to kandahar in an infantry coy with only your validated equipment and nothing else.  i would never wish that upon someone... imagine wearing those polar underwear in Afghan... 

Cplc
2R22R


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2008)

I would agree with logan7979. I would add to that working group of infanteers,,,,a C9 Gunner and an M-203 gunner. That is about the size it would need to be. Any bigger, and you'd need a Col from NDHQ, a Major from CLS staff and a Capt from LFWA to supervise it....joking!!
How about the modular stuff/ MOLLE I beleive it's called, where the soldier can design his own vest, and change it according to mission if need be.


----------



## deh (26 Feb 2008)

logan7979 said:
			
		

> ARMOUR
> -Plate Carrier (eagle ciras, probably the best) w/ all the armour attachments, groin, neck, shoulder, deltoid etc... $1000ish
> -Various MOLLE pouches, mag holders, first aid, utility, $200 ish
> -ESAPI plates (our regular sapi plates dont make the cut...)  $500 (x2)
> ...



Oh wow dude... this is really unnecessary.  The issued stuff is going to be the only thing you are allowed and really does the job anyway.  Despite some of the more forward thinking peoples attitude to boots and some rigs people have zero sense of humour about armour.  Especially hanging out of the CC hatch your main threat isn't small arms fire.  

I'd look into the BLISS/BLU kit however, I'll even sell you mine if you don't mind washing it.  In anycase id be taking a wait and see approach for a month or two.  New neck protector (a newer much more substantial one) as well as deltoid armour is already in the system and being issued, though most of the mounted guys from my coy (including myself) took the wings and what have you off when we rode in vehicles as we had a nasty habit of getting hung up on everything.

just as a fun aside we had guys in their polar fleece pants over there, the sandbox got freezing cold in December and February this year.  thanks for the pickup by the way Herschel, was good seeing you at 3rd BN.


----------



## armyvern (26 Feb 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I guess it's just UOR envy. If we can whistle up a fleet of C17s and Leo 2s at short notice, why not a couple thousand chest rigs?



I agree with you -- why do you always assume that I don't??

That's a question that only the very highest levels of the CF can answer for you. Go ahead and ask them.


----------



## armyvern (26 Feb 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I guess it's just UOR envy. If we can whistle up a fleet of C17s and Leo 2s at short notice, why not a couple thousand chest rigs?



UOR envy??

UORs are staffed up and are recommended at the highest levels of the CoC ...

Whether or not they actually come to be though is an entirely different matter. Recommendation rests at the highest levels of the CF, *but, implementation and purchase is entirely dependant upon the approval of Feds outside of the CF.*

What part of this is so hard to understand?

UOR envy my ass.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2008)

Regarding non issue kit:
I was given to understand that DND has to go through another federal government department who will let the contracts once the equipment wanted is decided upon . Is this true?
I was also informed that only Canadian manufacturers may supply footwear to the CF....again is this truth?

 :warstory:Anybody old enough to remember the first Canadian attempt at a ranger blanket? It was made out of old rainsuit material....it was like a horse blanket. Apparently DND had a wholde whack of this material left over ,and Department of Supply and Services said you DND WILL use this before you get anything else. True or not?


----------



## armyvern (26 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Regarding non issue kit:
> I was given to understand that DND has to go through another federal government department who will let the contracts once the equipment wanted is decided upon . Is this true?
> I was also informed that only Canadian manufacturers may supply footwear to the CF....again is this truth?
> 
> :warstory:Anybody old enough to remember the first Canadian attempt at a ranger blanket? It was made out of old rainsuit material....it was like a horse blanket. Apparently DND had a wholde whack of this material left over ,and Department of Supply and Services said you DND WILL use this before you get anything else. True or not?



True as per the post that immediately preceeded this one ... whether it's a UOR item or not.


----------



## Farmboy (26 Feb 2008)

> I was given to understand that DND has to go through another federal government department who will let the contracts once the equipment wanted is decided upon . Is this true?



 Yes.  If the purchase is over $25,000 it must then be approved by Public Works.  If it's a general item that lots of companies can provide, it will go out for tender (if PW approves the purchase).  If it's a sole source item, PW must still approve it and then puts it out on MERX to see if anyone else can make the same thing.

 I've had a few cases where I am the sole source, the client has jumped through all the hoops, done all the tests required then sent it to PW for approval only to have it rejected because there is a similar product/name in the system.  The client then must then provide intimate details about the product that makes it different from the one in the system. Then we wait again for PW to approve it or not.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2008)

Army Vern and Farmboy...thanks for the clarification, in a nutshell, how the system works. 
As you all can see, the idea that we can change TacVests in a few months is erroneous.
Remember...politics will play a part in the selection of new kit, for instance:
Can it be made in Canada? In the case of foot wear....yes a product that suits our purposes can be made in Canada.
Can a Canadian company get a license to manufacture it? C7 Family is a case in point.
Can we maintain it in Canada? CF-18 case in point.

As you can see, politics and economic spinoff to Canadians play a big part in any major purchase.


----------



## Farmboy (26 Feb 2008)

> As you all can see, the idea that we can change TacVests in a few months is erroneous



 What it comes down to for alot of guys is the silly orders that only issued kit should be worn.  Replacing the TV could be years away as we have all seen with procurement however it should come down from the top that aftermarket kit is acceptable to wear.

 Sure, throw in some limits on it but be realistic.  I've noticed comments like "approve aftermarket kit BUT only if it looks like this...."  

WTF?

 A basic limit on the rigs purchased is the warrenty that is provided with the rig.  TAG, HSGI, ATS, TT, ICE and others all have lifetime warrenties, meaning if something happens to your rig we/they will fix or replace it.  If your buying airsoft replicas, your not going to get that warrenty or sevice if something happens.

 Make sure it can carry what you need to.


----------



## Gunner98 (26 Feb 2008)

When we ask a mechanic to fix our car do we tell him what brand of tools to use?  When we ask a surgeon to do a vasectomy do we tell him what brand of instruments to use.  Why do we tell a soldier who is being asked to imminently/potentially pay the ultimate sacrifice what magazine pouch holder he can wear or what boots he can die in?


----------



## McG (26 Feb 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> When we ask a mechanic to fix our car do we tell him what brand of tools to use?


It's not the same.  When you want a mechanic to fix your car, you don't buy all the tools for thousands of mechanics to do their jobs.


----------



## The_Falcon (27 Feb 2008)

Well Mr Taylor actually replied to my letter, its seem like he was rather annoyed with me and gave me a bit of a lengthy reply
(the late response was due to the message not leaving my outbox until yesterday)



> Cpl XXXXX has probably not been briefed on op-sec matters, but the decision to alter the number of rounds was a deliberate one that was cleared with CEFCOM. If we give away exact specifics it would give those interested in such matters (insurgents) information they may not already have. The average Canadian only needs to know generalized info, and the thrust of this op-ed was that our Battle Group is the best equipped in the Afghan theatre.
> Once Cpl XXXXX has his own tour I'm sure he'll agree.
> Thanks for the input.
> Scott Taylor.



Condescending twit.


----------



## Gunner98 (27 Feb 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> ,It's not the same.  When you want a mechanic to fix your car, you don't buy all the tools for thousands of mechanics to do their jobs.



Exactly, the mechanic has his own tools and brings them to the garage because he is confident and comfortable with them.


----------



## Farmboy (27 Feb 2008)

Hey Mr Taylor

 For all the Afghans years at war, your telling me they don't know how many bullets our mags hold????   You're right the frig out of er!!!!


----------



## RHFC_piper (27 Feb 2008)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Well Mr Taylor actually replied to my letter, its seem like he was rather annoyed with me and gave me a bit of a lengthy reply
> (the late response was due to the message not leaving my outbox until yesterday)
> 
> 
> ...




Well... if you decide to write back to Mr. Taylor  in response to his idiocy, you can tell him to cram it with walnuts...  If the insurgents don't know by now, just by looking at us with their own eyes, that we carry more than 5 mags, then I don't believe one troop spitting this info out on MSM in Canada is going to help their int...  pssst.. it's not a secret... we don't hid our rigs in black bags when we walk around the all-seeing population in Afghanistan.  

Mr. Taylor is clown shoes and should learn where his lanes are...


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Feb 2008)

"Mr. Taylor is clown shoes and should learn where his lanes are... "

RFHC_Piper....do you know if he needs a big red nose and fright wig? JOKE!


----------



## westie47 (27 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I would agree with logan7979. I would add to that working group of infanteers,,,,a C9 Gunner and an M-203 gunner. That is about the size it would need to be. Any bigger, and you'd need a Col from NDHQ, a Major from CLS staff and a Capt from LFWA to supervise it....joking!!
> How about the modular stuff/ MOLLE I beleive it's called, where the soldier can design his own vest, and change it according to mission if need be.



Having a MOLLE/PALS-based system would be perfect. Imagine, a soldier gets issued a base rig and a bunch of pouches (mag, grenade, 203, smoke, radio, first aid, utility, dump, etc, etc). Depending on his job, he configures his rig for it. A C9 gunner may have 3 C9 pouches on his rig and no C7 mag pouches, etc. Some items can still be standardized ie Blow Out Kits, strobe, etc. Now, get this, buddy as a N/S mag pouch, he takes it off and exchanges it. Instead of the whole rig being written off, only a $8 pouch is written off. A lot more mileage for the dollar. Now, Matt can confirm this, DLR has stated emphatically that the way of the future is NOT a modular system. DLR was at 1 VP last summer and had a lengthy discussion with some NCO's who had been in the thick of it on TF 1-06, to a man they all said we need a modular rig. DLR still wouldn't listen. They gave out some trial vests, none of which were modular, save the JTF Patrol Vest (which the CSM got). They were off the shelf Arktis rigs among others. 

Buying a scaled down version of the Eagle or Paraclete kits, I can't remember the name,  would be perfect. I was on a course a couple weeks back in the US and there was a SF guy on it, he had the Eagle kit issued. It comes with chest rig, CIRAS, plate carrier, whackload of pouches, all in a carry bag. Now this kit is expensive, but a scaled down version would be perfect. Basically some guy developed the TV over a period of YEARS and it is his legacy before retiring. They will not allow anyone to sully the legacy of the TV, better known as the %60 solution. Any decent company can design and manufacture far better rigs in 6 months.

Remember, at the end of the day, are guys carry too much stuff, that's what DLR says anyway.


----------



## Fusaki (27 Feb 2008)

> DLR was at 1 VP last summer and had a lengthy discussion with some NCO's who had been in the thick of it on TF 1-06, to a man they all said we need a modular rig.



Funny...

Bravo Coy, 1RCR was trialling new chest rigs down in Texas this past summer. Included was the Arktis, and JTF rig and one or two others.  As the story was told to me, the Bravo boys emphasized the need for for a modular rig but DLR was claiming that the PPCLI guys they spoke to wanted non-modular rigs... :

I know its one of those "It happened to a friend of a friend of mine" stories... but you can't blame me for being suspicious...


----------



## LordOsborne (28 Feb 2008)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> Hey Mr Taylor
> 
> For all the Afghans years at war, your telling me they don't know how many bullets our mags hold????   You're right the frig out of er!!!!




Couldn't have said it better myself. That information is all open-source anyways and a child with half a brain could find it in under a minute on Google.


----------



## westie47 (28 Feb 2008)

I can speak without a shadow of a doubt that the 1VP guys asked for MODULAR, they even went so far as to invite the owner of Tactical Tailor up to do a gear demo.  That weekend ended with about $5k in sales for TT. 

The boys, mostly snr NCO's actually, argued with DLR. I believe a few units got the same gear to trial so to spread the trial around the army a bit.


----------



## MG34 (28 Feb 2008)

westie47 said:
			
		

> I can speak without a shadow of a doubt that the 1VP guys asked for MODULAR, they even went so far as to invite the owner of Tactical Tailor up to do a gear demo.  That weekend ended with about $5k in sales for TT.
> 
> The boys, mostly snr NCO's actually, argued with DLR. I believe a few units got the same gear to trial so to spread the trial around the army a bit.



I can say the same for 1RCR, we have had 1 Shot Tactical and CP Gear here showing their stuff,as well as some guys trying to folg some gagrage made vests. The DLR reps were told in no uncertain terms that the Arktis kit was not suitable as it was not modular.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Feb 2008)

Hello MG34...I'm a naturally suspicous individual. Why would DLR say that VP guys wanted non-modular....and the RCR say modular....hmmm...maybe some pre-conceived notions on DLR part?
Having viewed this debate, I'm thinking that a modular type vest/rig is the way to go...with each soldier being able to place his stuff where he wants it, not where someone thinks it "looks good" and is "Uniform".
Having said that, there are some good reasons why certain items (First Aid ) should be carried in the same spot. 
This thread certainly has been eye opening and educational. Thanks!!


----------



## Dirty Patricia (28 Feb 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> As the story was told to me, the Bravo boys emphasized the need for for a modular rig but DLR was claiming that the PPCLI guys they spoke to wanted non-modular rigs... :



When DLR came by 1VP to show off the vests that would be trialled (Artkis and improved Tac Vest), they stated 3VP wanted the Artkis vest.  We emphasized  that a modular MOLLE style vest was what was needed.  Their reply to that, as well as the look of the "improved" AR Tac Vest,  didn't leave me feeling very hopeful.


----------



## RHFC_piper (28 Feb 2008)

Again, I'll reiterate a very simple fix to this apparently mind-boggling problem DLR is having, in the hopes one of them reads this;

Issued Ballistic Vest + MOLLE = Modular Ballistic plate carrier

This should be sufficient for everyone since you can put what ever the hell you want on it, where ever you want it, and you have to wear the ballistic vest anyway, so why not integrate.  

Ooohh.. look... a few birds with one stone;
- Modular vest
- Versatility
- Reduced weight (now that you don't have to carry extra cordura straps, buckles, etc)
- Cheap fix

I know there has been issues brought up about drivers and such needing to do dismounted stuff as well, but that's the beauty of MOLLE... you can switch stuff around quickly and whenever.

Anyway... $0.02 thrown in; I'm going back to my little hole in the wall.


----------



## Fusaki (28 Feb 2008)

> Again, I'll reiterate a very simple fix to this apparently mind-boggling problem DLR is having, in the hopes one of them reads this;
> 
> Issued Ballistic Vest + MOLLE = Modular Ballistic plate carrier
> 
> ...



Thats not gonna work, dude.

In a mechanized battalion everyone needs to be able to fit in the turret to do sentry shifts. When your LAV is the cardinal point, guys need to be able to strip down to body armour so they can rotate the gunner and crew commanders out. Nevermind all the small party tasks we do in theatre that require armour, but not 60lbs of other gear hanging off you.

The CIRAS looks like an awsome system, but not practical for most combat arms types.

I'd like to see a CADPAT vest covered in MOLLE webbing. Hold a bunch of different MOLLE pouches in the CQ and push them out to the troops with slings, BFAs, and all the other weapon EIS.


----------



## RHFC_piper (28 Feb 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I'd like to see a CADPAT vest covered in MOLLE webbing. Hold a bunch of different MOLLE pouches in the CQ and push them out to the troops with slings, BFAs, and all the other weapon EIS.



I seem to remember troops from *our tour taking their issued TV to a rigger/ex mat tech in Pet (town of), having the pockets stripped and having MOLLE sewn on... Looked issued, worked better.  So, I agree. Simple MOLLE TV/Rig with various issued pouches based on need.  If the MOLLE on the BV won't do the trick, this is the next simplest step in my mind.  

*I have a feeling you and I were on the same tour (3-06).


I also seem to remember, from way back when I had webbing (yeah... I know 1998 isn't way back... well it's way back for me) and the TV was coming into the system, being told it was going to be fully modular.   What happened?


----------



## Fusaki (28 Feb 2008)

> *I have a feeling you and I were on the same tour (3-06).



We were both in Charles. Check your PM inbox and look for one from me dated October 23, 2007.


----------



## RHFC_piper (28 Feb 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> We were both in Charles. Check your PM inbox and look for one from me dated October 23, 2007.



wow... those pieces of shrapnel in me must be aluminum...  My bad.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (28 Feb 2008)

Here's my reading on the background of why DLR is supposedly saying that the PPCLI wanted the Arktis vest;

Go back to August of 2006 with C Coy 3PPCLI starting its work-up cycle to deploy as part of the 2RCR TF 1-07 BG.  CLS was visiting the unit and held an impromptu Q&A session with the members of the coy.  Among the points raised by the troops was the subject of individual load carriage and the shortcomings of the CF issued Tac-Vest and the concern that they were going to be forced to use what they viewed to be a sub-standard piece of equipment by the BG leadership.  The CLS asked for a proposed solution to this perceived problem and a few outspoken members of the audience suggested a particular model of Arktis vest.  Apparently they stated they didn't need modularity, but rather capacity; All the pouches were large enough to be multifunctional, and most importantly, it allowed them to carry the amount of C7/C8 mags they viewed to be appropriate for dismounted combat ops in Afghanistan.  The CLS then asked that a formal recommendation be drafted as per what the company would like as a UOR for load carriage and that the matter would be looked into.  
CLS then returned to Ottawa and the UOR was sent to his office by C Coy 3PPCLI.  The UOR was then turned over to DLR along with several other UORs being made in respect to load carriage and DLR combined them into what became the 'Mission Specific Load Carriage Trial'.  Now, in DLR's defence, up to this point in time most of the formal/informal requests for future modifications to the tac-vest were along the lines of adopting a MOLLE/PALS/Modular based system.  So, the request they got from C Coy for a fixed pouch setup somewhat took everybody by surpise.

So, whilst everybody likes to point fingers at DLR and say, "What a bunch of (insert explicative)..." the end user community only has itself to blame for providing such differing opinions on what the basis for moving forward should be, i.e. some saying we'd like modular, whereas others are saying we'd like big fixed pouches that can fit a multitude of different things.  

There is some talk of DLR/LFDTS running a 2-3 day load carriage symposium at CTC sometime in either the spring or fall of '08 with representation from the end user community (with a focus on those who conduct dismounted combat ops, as the tac-vest is really their bread & butter) so that some sort of consensus can be formed whereby DLR can begin to write a statment of requirement for an interim load-carriage platform that will be used for operations and the preceding work-up cycle, until ISSP is fielded.


----------



## MG34 (28 Feb 2008)

Good points, we need to get a united front on this issue, as I seriously doubt that the Canadian version of "Land Warrior" will be fielded in the next 10-15 years. If the load carriage symposium actually happens, of which I have my doubts (prove me wrong DLR  ) I hope that it doesn't become another sham like the one for the Tac Vest was. We were told one thing and delivered another so forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical.


----------



## Teeps74 (28 Feb 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> wow... those pieces of shrapnel in me must be aluminum...  My bad.



Ok, so I am at work... And now folks wonder why I am laughing so hard... That avatar of the smily beating another with a "lol" placard is fracking priceless!


----------



## BigRudy (28 Feb 2008)

Further to what Matt Fisher said,

We (I can say 'we' even though I didn't speak a word during the conversation, but it was during the CLS's chat with my platoon that this thing originally got started) didn't so much ask for a non-modular design as ask for some sort of compromise regarding load carriage, just something, anything, better than the TV, even if we had to buy our own stuff. I believe we were told that to go with a modular design with a bunch of different pouches couldn't be done in time for our tour. My pl WO showed the CLS an arktis vest, along with many other off the shelf items that he had purchased, as an example of something more intelligently designed than the TV(of course that's a matter of opinion), so they came up with the arktis trial as a compromise that would hopefully encourage the army to go in another direction. Originally there were plans to purchase rifleman vests and MG vests. 

How did it turn out? No idea. After hearing for about 8 months that, "they're coming, they're coming", the last thing I heard about it was about half way through tour, that they were hijacked and going to India Coy for some reason that I would like to comment on but is way out of my lane. You would have to ask one of the India coy guys about how they turned out, but somehow I doubt the vests showed up for them either.

I think the part about all this that suprised me most was that when the CLS heard that the TV wasn't going to get 'er done, he was genuinely suprised, like he had never been exposed to that opinon before. He struck me as an honest man, which leads me to believe that the message is getting derailed long before it gets anywhere near the top.

Anyhoo, thats my 2 cents.


----------



## LordOsborne (29 Feb 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I seem to remember troops from *our tour taking their issued TV to a rigger/ex mat tech in Pet (town of), having the pockets stripped and having MOLLE sewn on... Looked issued, worked better.  So, I agree. Simple MOLLE TV/Rig with various issued pouches based on need.  If the MOLLE on the BV won't do the trick, this is the next simplest step in my mind.
> 
> *I have a feeling you and I were on the same tour (3-06).
> 
> ...



According to a Technical Assistance Visit AAR that I read and shared a while back, DLR / CTS seems to think the TV and the Small Pack are defined (in their words) as a modular system in conjunction. They ideally see CF soldiers using the daisy-chain pouches between the small pack OR the TV, and that constitutes 'modular'. Although it would seem that there are different versions of 'modular' when we talk about the TV / Small pack:

There's the over-complicated velcro-and-strap system for the 'modular' C9/Canteen pouches
There's the Daisy-chain system,
And finally, there's the PALS-style bayonet system.
None of these so-called 'modular' systems are easily interchangeable, although I have seen some very creative and thoughtful mutations of the TV by some crafty soldiers. I've seen extra mag pouches placed on the bayonet webbing; I've seen the C9 pouch jury-rigged to go in the same spot as the kidney pouches and countless others. 

I almost want to find a way to transfer myself into DLR so I can make my way up their ladder and start issuing common sense. I've actually made mental plans to get posted to DLR / CTS whenever I get too broken to be a Cbt Arms officer.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (29 Feb 2008)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> I almost want to find a way to transfer myself into DLR so I can make my way up their ladder and start issuing common sense. I've actually made mental plans to get posted to DLR / CTS whenever I get too broken to be a Cbt Arms officer.



Easiest way to do that is move to Ottawa and transfer to either the Camerons or the Foot Guards, then apply for one of the Class B/C positions at DLR which they tend to backfill for the Army.  A good number of the guys in DLR are reservists on backfill positions, including the previous Load Carriage Program Manager for CTS.


----------



## PhilB (29 Feb 2008)

BigRudy,

In reference to the Arktis trial vests, I am not sure if they are the same ones that were purchased for you but the BG has been issued the rflmn and C9 arktis rigs to trial. These rigs, in addition the RCMP TV, and the DHTC vests are what comprise the trial that is being run currently. The general consensus on the arktis vests is quite negative (at least in my platoon!) The arktis vests adjust poorly, the "multi functional pouches", although a jack of all trades, are not particularly good at carrying any one thing. The vests are overly large, un-streamlined, and there have been some issues with durability. The RCMP TV is a joke, basically a TV with rearranged pouch placement. Finally the DHTC rigs, there are two. One a patrol type vest, and the other a chest rig. Nobody in my platoon has the vest so I cant comment, however the chest rig seems good to go. It has 4 fixed mag pouches and then PALS on the sides. The only problem is that no additional pouches were issued with the vest, so guys cannot really do a fair trial on it, as it is incomplete. Hope this helps.


----------



## brihard (29 Feb 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Easiest way to do that is move to Ottawa and transfer to either the Camerons or the Foot Guards, then apply for one of the Class B/C positions at DLR which they tend to backfill for the Army.  A good number of the guys in DLR are reservists on backfill positions, including the previous Load Carriage Program Manager for CTS.



Truth. We have a number of 'flag of convenience' officers who work various positions in NDHQ and who appear on our rolls but seldom on the armoury floor.

PhilB- doesn't sound very promising. Thanks for the update, though.


----------



## Donut (29 Feb 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> BigRudy,
> The only problem is that no additional pouches were issued with the vest, so guys cannot really do a fair trial on it, as it is incomplete. Hope this helps.



And to top that off there's an order here that no additional pouches will be added to the trial vests, either

 :


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (29 Feb 2008)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> And to top that off there's an order here that no additional pouches will be added to the trial vests, either
> 
> :



It almost sounds as if they are intentionally trying to sabotage the trial in order for troops testing it to return telling them it doesn't work, giving DLR/CTS the "see I told you so" position on using something other than the TV.



			
				Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Easiest way to do that is move to Ottawa and transfer to either the Camerons or the Foot Guards, then apply for one of the Class B/C positions at DLR which they tend to backfill for the Army.  A good number of the guys in DLR are reservists on backfill positions, including the previous Load Carriage Program Manager for CTS.



Being a Foot Guard myself, I just may look into one of these positions.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (29 Feb 2008)

Panzer Grenadier said:
			
		

> Being a Foot Guard myself, I just may look into one of these positions.



Normally most of the positions are for MCpl.+ on the NCM side, and Lt - Maj on the officer side.  I don't know what they may or may not have available for a Pte such as yourself, but once you get some time in and get promoted, who's not to say you couldn't end up working for them.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (29 Feb 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Normally most of the positions are for MCpl.+ on the NCM side, and Lt - Maj on the officer side.  I don't know what they may or may not have available for a Pte such as yourself, but once you get some time in and get promoted, who's not to say you couldn't end up working for them.



I do plan on staying in, plus a tour or 2 (hopefully), and whatever courses I can get my name onto. Who knows where I will go, I may even become a gear designer.  ;D


----------



## Loachman (6 Mar 2008)

From The Christian Science Monitor:

March 06, 2008 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0306/p03s06-usmi.html

U.S. troops buy own gear for safety, style in battle

Since 9/11, the market for tactical war gear has grown to $150 million annually.

By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

FORT BENNING, Ga.

Commando Military Supply on Victory Drive here is about as different from a musty Army surplus store as you can imagine.

More REI than M.A.S.H., Commando is regularly jam-packed with deploying grunts and sergeants, poking around for custom gear including $200 flashlights, $150 Oakley protective sunglasses, $180 Thinsulate boots, and $20 thermal socks. 

"When you're comfortable and you know where all your gear is, it makes you a better fighter," says Lt. Tucker Knie, an Army Ranger perusing custom ammo pouches and techno-fiber socks. "You don't want to be rummaging around in your pocket during a firefight." 

The traditional Army credo is that it's guts that win the glory – not fancy long-johns or Oakley sunglasses. But that old-school thinking is wicking away like perspiration through Gore-Tex as US soldiers today go beyond military-issue battle dress uniforms in favor of top-of-the-line gear to help them get home in one piece – and look sharp, too. 

One reason, critics say, is that military procurement, especially of life-saving equipment, is still too slow. Quietly, however, the Pentagon – with the Army leading the charge – has begun bypassing rigid procurement rules, loosening uniformity requirements, and even spearheading technical innovations in gear, ranging from flame-retardant shirts to low-infrared signature zippers. 

"The idea now is, 'If it helps Joe do the mission, let him have it – as long as it's not hot pink,' " says Army veteran Logan Coffey, founder of Tactical Tailor, a custom-maker of packs and pouches in Lakewood, Wash. "It's a giant change" in the military mind-set, he says in a phone interview. 

Since 9/11, the market for tactical war gear has expanded from nearly nonexistent to nearly $150 million in sales each year, which includes sales directly to soldiers as well as to the Pentagon, according to industry sources. 

CIA operatives, domestic SWAT teams, and Border Patrol agents are also rounding out their gear at bazaars like Commando.

To some critics, the sight of soldiers buying their own battle gear symbolizes a divide between frontline grunts and rear echelon procurement officers who may never have seen battle. Rep. Gene Taylor (D) of Mississippi told the House Armed Services Committee last week that supplies such as body armor and uparmored Humvees "[have] taken entirely too long" to get to frontline troops. 

In some cases, charity groups have stepped in to help. Operation Helmet, founded by Bob Meaders of Montgomery, Texas, shipped special helmet liners to soldiers to replace what many soldiers said were poorly designed helmet pads issued by the Army and the Marines. Just as Operation Helmet thought its work was done late last year, more requests came in from troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

"The Army is planning a $20 billion future combat system, and they can't provide boots that don't wear out," says Roger Charles, editor of DefenseWatch, an investigative website that advocates on behalf of frontline soldiers. "There's no priority for taking care of relatively mundane items where most people would think, 'Gosh, that's so simple. Why don't they have the best boots, the best uniforms, the best helmets, and the best flak jackets?' " 

But through new and rejuvenated efforts like Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier, the Soldier Battle Lab here at Fort Benning, and Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Mass., the Army has quickened the supply chain, sometimes against daunting odds, experts say. 

For example, PEO Soldier's Rapid Fielding Initiative recently turned around an order for special mountain boots for units in Afghanistan in a month's time. "The Army has never been able to field such updated equipment so quickly before," says Lt. Col. John Lemondes, head of Clothing and Individual Equipment at Fort Belvoir, Va. "We really are moving at the speed of lighting with respect to equipping the war effort." 

And at Ft. Lewis, Wash., one unit commander is putting an array of new protective glasses to the test this month. The unit will use discretionary funds to buy the glasses the soldiers prefer. 

Moreover, the Army and Air Force Exchange Service reports that sales of tactical gear to units have climbed from $60 million in 2005 to $90 million in 2007. At the same time, there's evidence that soldiers are spending less of their own money on gear: One study found that two years ago, marines were spending $400 of their own money on extra gear; last year, they spent an average of only $100. 

"The military is now doing a pretty good job of outfitting the war fighters with what they need, and a lot of it comes from effort and real caring," says Drumm McNaughton, a Navy veteran and management consultant who has written about the struggles of military procurement. 

Because little enhancements can make a big difference, soldiers often choose to pick up their own "dirty packs" to augment the issued gear, especially as many feel flush from combat bonuses. 

"What's 100 bucks for a flashlight if it's going to work during an attack, and help you fend off a knife fight?" says a Commando clerk, who didn't want to be named because he wasn't authorized to speak by the store manager. 

But many soldiers don't blame the Army. One lieutenant shopping at Commando says standard issue gear is usually good enough. His one complaint: the clunky Army cap, which has a thick bill that can't be formed baseball-style. "They need to change it," he says. "It makes you look like a dork." 

Even in life and death situations, fashion means something on the battlefield, soldiers say. "The Army does issue everyone glasses, but the young soldier wants to look cool, fashionable. He wants to look sexy," says Mr. Coffey. 

The sales growth in custom tactical gear is partly made possible by manufacturing advances that allow companies to make profit on small batch orders. But for war fighters, a perk to the hard slog is being allowed to put their own spin on the Army look. 

"One of the basic tensions is that in the Army there's pressure for a strong collective identity ... to develop this feeling of belongingness and camaraderie," says Frederic Brunel, a marketing professor at Boston University. "At the same time, there is a basic human need to pull away from that ... [to] retain some sense of self-identity that is separate from the group identity." 

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links


----------



## Matt_Fisher (6 Mar 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> From The Christian Science Monitor:
> March 06, 2008 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0306/p03s06-usmi.html
> 
> Since 9/11, the market for tactical war gear has expanded from nearly nonexistent to nearly $150 million in sales each year, which includes sales directly to soldiers as well as to the Pentagon, according to industry sources.



I'd say this number is much lower than what is spent on tactical equipment, even that which is personally purchased (in the US).


----------



## KevinB (8 Mar 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I'd say this number is much lower than what is spent on tactical equipment, even that which is personally purchased (in the US).



DITTO

Just crunching a few number on some small items I get a MUCH larger number
25th Inf Div RFI'd Redi-Mag's, Surefire Scout Lights, EOTECH 552's just for weapon accessories, let alone other items.

3 and 4ID have even more generous RFI weapon accessory purchases.


----------



## LordOsborne (8 Mar 2008)

I came across this article on CASR - looks like we're buying more EOTechs as well.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-npp-eotech-hws.htm


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Mar 2008)

How many of you despise the C-79 sight as much as I do? ???


----------



## LordOsborne (8 Mar 2008)

I used to deride it a lot, but after going to CFSAC last year and getting some in-depth coaching on how to use it properly, I had the opportunity to take the time and the ammo to dial the sight in at all sorts of ranges and in varying wind conditions. My confidence in the sight has grown to the point where I'm actually comfortable with it. I used to seriously doubt my point of impact before I was given the chance to become properly familiar with it. I find the C79A2 to be a lot more crisp and bright, which speaks to the quality of the glass which, IMHO, is very good. I will freely admit that I haven't 'been around' enough to compare it to many other optics, though. (I have fired L85A2 + SUSAT and found I liked the C79 more)

I have also seen the flipside of the C79 - poorly maintained, old model C79 sights at the CTC Infantry School during my CAP course. I have seen sights with missing rubber armour coating, still being handed out to candidates. The one I was issued with had a damaged windage screw and was causing me to hit all over the target. The staff thought i was a bag of hammers until one of them poked my sight with his finger and it shifted a good 5mm to the left. They told me to tighten the screw as much as i could, and keep going. I've also seen damaged elevation drums where cranking the sight from 300 to 400 would cause a zero shift of about 5 inches at 300m. 

My final opinion is that it has nice glass, a nice reticle and a decent amount of eye relief, but the mount is garbage. I6 says it better though  ;D

Edit: fixed a typo


----------



## KevinB (9 Mar 2008)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> I came across this article on CASR - looks like we're buying more EOTechs as well.
> 
> http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-npp-eotech-hws.htm



EO 553 -- and to Richmond, Ontario...


IMHO its complete idiocy that there has not been a combat optic trial in the Army -- admittedly I do have links to Aimpoint (and beleive them to be a better sight than the EOTECH for military duties) - I also think that a replacement to the C79 should have been looked at seriosuly before the C79A2 went ahead -- I'd offer croynism and corruption allegations but most already know it to be true.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Mar 2008)

:warstory:In 93 when 2VP deployed to Croatia, we first trained at Ft Ord, California and Hunter-Liggett. We used the old C7 with the open sights....then a month before we deploy, some wingnut decides we should re-equip with the C-79 sighted rifles, after the entire battalion zeroed and shot the PWT with the old rifles.
No one had any training on the site, and I remember guys doing all kinds of things to at least rough zero before attempting to live fire them.
Another example of lack of common sense.


----------



## KevinB (9 Mar 2008)

Embarrasing regimental note -- it was a Patricia officer that pushed the C79 -- In fact a SENIOR (and now retired) officer -- who bragged about it at the 90th Birthday so much that I felt I had to go up and put him on the spot to buy is a round for it - I figured he owed us at least that...
  I won't name him by name -- but he is pretty easy to figure out in his postion


----------



## Dirty Patricia (9 Mar 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Embarrasing regimental note -- it was a Patricia officer that pushed the C79 -- In fact a SENIOR (and now retired) officer -- who bragged about it at the 90th Birthday so much that I felt I had to go up and put him on the spot to buy is a round for it - I figured he owed us at least that...
> I won't name him by name -- but he is pretty easy to figure out in his postion



The same guy who said we didn't need grenades!!  Or that we'd never to advance to contact!!!


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Mar 2008)

Now I'm really curious as to who this might be! ???


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Mar 2008)

I am curious as well, although I could venture a guess. 
Remember the combat shirt with no lower cargo pockets? Our CSM told me to go exhange my cbt shirts (I didn't) for these new ones. I figured that within a year or two they'd be gone, and I was right.
The genius who gave us that said "A soldier will never go anywhere without his webbing, so he doesn't need the pockets" or something like that.
Then there was the "dress " issue. To tuck it in or not?....oh my that was a hot topic, and no one could ever agree. CTC Gagetown didn't tuck in, but 1VP did!!
You would think that we had more pressing issues to discuss, like uhhh,,,,,can the troops pass the PWT? Can they do their BFT with minimal injury? Can they do section attacks?...No....should their shirts be tucked in or not!!!  ???


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Mar 2008)

I remember those shirts without the lower pockets, and they resenbled the Australian 'pixie pocket' version which has recently beern replaced by these.

They are Corps wide replacement, even replaced our cotton Tankie suits, and these new ones are a poly blend, so they melt nice. Ther is alos no provision to pull anyone out through a hatch either.

Many say poor choice.

They are called the DPCU Land 125 version, with zip front pockets (similar to the US Army's ACU style). There is big pockets on each sleeve, with a velcro patch for Unit patches and the ANF patch.

The pants also have zip cargo pockets, but don't expand like the old button versions.

Here is a pic of the shirt.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (9 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I am curious as well, although I could venture a guess.
> Remember the combat shirt with no lower cargo pockets? Our CSM told me to go exhange my cbt shirts (I didn't) for these new ones. I figured that within a year or two they'd be gone, and I was right.
> The genius who gave us that said "A soldier will never go anywhere without his webbing, so he doesn't need the pockets" or something like that.



Those shirts were pretty awful looking at the time, but in hindsight they were a step in the right direction.  Now it's a case of not going anywhere without body armour and TV - again all pockets on the current shirt are useless.  We took a state of the art camouflage (CadPat) and put in on a uniform designed in the 60's.  We need to update the cut.  Most importantly pockets on the sleeves and get away from a "dress shirt" design (the collar and the cuffs).  Make something that functions well in the field.  To make a huge step forward, look at the new design by the British Army, US Army and USMC that uses a "wicking" type material under the body armour portion of the shirt and then regular combat shirt sleeves.


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Mar 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> Those shirts were pretty awful looking at the time, but in hindsight they were a step in the right direction.  Now it's a case of not going anywhere without body armour and TV - again all pockets on the current shirt are useless.  We took a state of the art camouflage (CadPat) and put in on a uniform designed in the 60's.  We need to update the cut.  Most importantly pockets on the sleeves and get away from a "dress shirt" design (the collar and the cuffs).  Make something that functions well in the field.  To make a huge step forward, look at the new design by the British Army, US Army and USMC that uses a "wicking" type material under the body armour portion of the shirt and then regular combat shirt sleeves.



I remember one of the guys on my team getting an extra combat shirt issued at KAF. Then one morning he puts it on, and is completely amazed by the fact that it had no lower cargo pockets. We laughed a lot at his expense, telling him he'd have to fill out a lost stores for times 2 cargo pockets. We figured the shirt probably was an MP shirt, as they tucked their shirts in.

But back to it, something like this is what we should be going to :

http://www.icetactical.com/clothing-directaction.html

I've got a couple on order, and now the test will be to see if I can get away with 'em  

Sleeve pockets to me are the best upgrade to the uniform in a long time. Why? Well, I can't keep my smokes in the breast pocket when I'm wearing armor.


----------



## Dissident (9 Mar 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> We figured the shirt probably was an MP shirt, as they tucked their shirts in.



CP Personel, most likely.

There were discussions about it, but AFAIK no MP pers were allowed or did cut the bottom pockets off of their combats. Roto 3 or 4.

CP did whatever they wanted.


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Mar 2008)

Dissident said:
			
		

> CP Personel, most likely.
> 
> There were discussions about it, but AFAIK no MP pers were allowed or did cut the bottom pockets off of their combats. Roto 3 or 4.
> 
> CP did whatever they wanted.



Fair enough. But this shirt was issued, brand new, packaged, no lower cargo pockets.


----------



## geo (10 Mar 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Fair enough. But this shirt was issued, brand new, packaged, no lower cargo pockets.


Mighta been a simple manufacturing defect..... they do happen once in a while.


----------



## medicineman (10 Mar 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Fair enough. But this shirt was issued, brand new, packaged, no lower cargo pockets.



Keep it and try to sell it like a stamp or coin with a manufacturing defect  ;D.

MM


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Mighta been a simple manufacturing defect..... they do happen once in a while.



That's my bet, as the official pattern hasn't changed.


----------



## westie47 (10 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> :warstory:In 93 when 2VP deployed to Croatia, we first trained at Ft Ord, California and Hunter-Liggett. We used the old C7 with the open sights....then a month before we deploy, some wingnut decides we should re-equip with the C-79 sighted rifles, after the entire battalion zeroed and shot the PWT with the old rifles.
> No one had any training on the site, and I remember guys doing all kinds of things to at least rough zero before attempting to live fire them.
> Another example of lack of common sense.



I absolutely remember that, we had about two weeks to go until deployment and we were out at the range in -30C trying to figure out how to zero these sights. There was no pams or anything. We went that whole tour without any official paperwork or documentation for this sight.  We figured it out in the end, though.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (10 Mar 2008)

Matt,

Has there been any official interest in the shirt you guys at CP Gear have?  That's the direction we should be heading, at least for the field.  Keep the ones we have for garrison.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (10 Mar 2008)

Dirty Pat.. I ordered one overseas and got it the day before I left on HLTA in January.  I returned from HLTA and had a big 20 days to play with it.  It was winter over there so the heat during the day was only hitting around 17 Celcius.  I first started wearing it as a layer with a t-shirt underneath but by the time mid February came around I was wearing it solo, with no t-shirt on most vehicle patrols.  I am a crew commander and I rarely needed to wear a tacvest or rig so heavy patrolling on foot was not experienced aside from my afternoon of picture taking during the bombing on the 18th.

The weirdest part of wearing it was actually not having all the combat shirt "poofiness" under the body armour when it's on.  That tends to make the armour and it's edges more noticeable.  It took some getting used to but in the end, I was happy wearing it.  My driver also purchased one and found it to be comfy.

I wore it on the flight to Mirage and sat across from a fairly scary looking CWO with no negative results. I tactfully wore it around camp under my cbt shirt (which I took off once on my vehicle) and avoided any dinosaur attacks from the SSM.  My troops seemed to like the design and my troopie even liked the style.  It might have helped that we worked with the Brits over there and they had the same style shirts which added to it's credibility.

You can find me wearing the shirt in the top picture here: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/02/18/convoy-attack.html


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Mar 2008)

Dirty Pat, 

So far, we haven't had any official CF interest in the shirt, however we do have a batch of Multticam shirts in production for an RCMP ERT team who're adopting it as part of their rural call-out uniform.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (10 Mar 2008)

Bzzliteyr.....  In a perfect world we wouldn't have to worry about the dinosaurs or forking over $100+ for a shirt that works well or $300+ for a vest that effectively holds all of our ammo.  Other militaries keep up with the technology that is out there in the tactical gear world, while we get left behind.  Look at the strides the British have made recently and their soldiers were previously well known for shelling out big bucks of their own money to Arktis and Silvermans for kit and boots in the 80's and 90's.  They just got new Lowa and Meindl boots (off the shelf), a new _Under Body Armor Combat Shirt_ and I believe a new tacvest.  We need some forward thinking and a way to keep up.  We have an amazing vehicle platform (LAV3), good night vision and STANO, good weapons, but we fall quite short when it comes to the personal equipment for the individual soldier.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (10 Mar 2008)

During texas...I'm finally TRAINING IN A DESERT and not Gagetown/Petawawa/wainwrong....and I'm not allowed to wear my desert boots.

When will dinosauruskit become a freaking fossil.

Already been told to not even bother to bring my chest rig oversea's as well.


----------



## medaid (10 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> When will dinosauruskit become a freaking fossil.



A natural disaster must occur first before any of that can happen. Not to mention lots of pressure, and well... over all you know bringer of death blah blah....


----------



## Bzzliteyr (10 Mar 2008)

X mo, we were warned of that too before we left yet I wore mine EVERY time I needed it outside the wire.  One day in february, I looked down at myself and realized the only issue piece of kit I had on were my combat pants and parts of my C8 FTHB!! Btw, I kept my "parade" gear on my vehicle just in case I was accosted by any dinosaurs.. you just throw it on and they walk away as if nothing is wrong...


----------



## RHFC_piper (10 Mar 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> you just throw it on and they walk away as if nothing is wrong...




Their vision is based on "issued kit", something like T-Rex's vision with movement.  Only issued camouflage works on them.   ;D


----------



## X-mo-1979 (10 Mar 2008)

Bzz
Good to hear.I plan on bringing mine along as I have it set up to AID me in my job so I aint carrying around a bunch of loose kit that I can't fit in the tacvest.As with you it's a couple of our higher who are the worst I've ever seen for kit uniformity...EVER!
Welcome back!



			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Their vision is based on "issued kit", something like T-Rex's vision with movement.  Only issued camouflage works on them.   ;D



I always heard it was scent based.Cause they always seem to appear when I'm wearing the stuff....out of no where.

The kitasaurus can smell un issued kit.Like a dying zebra to a pack of lions....I'm certain.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (10 Mar 2008)

Of course, as I may or may not have mentioned.. do not even THINK of going anywhere in KAF with any non issue stuff.  Leave it in your vehicle to avoid problems for everyone.  I had to constantly remind my driver NOT to parade around in his CP Gear shirt, even on the FOB.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Mar 2008)

KAF wont be a problem for me.You say the FOB's are as bad now?


----------



## PhilB (11 Mar 2008)

It depends on which FOB you are at, who the CSM is, and a big one, who is at the FOB at the time. At MSG things were pretty gay because the CSM has a hard on for issued kit. We didnt belong to him so our WO smoothed things over a bit. At SG things are pretty good because the CSM there kind of turns a blind eye to it. All that being said, as soon as the word that the RSM is in bound all the issued shit comes out. We just got it passed on in O grp yesterday that from the incoming TF RSM, non issue rigs in the BG are good to go. No sooner was that said we were told that the next thing on the shit list was Oakleys! : It doesnt really end. To put it in perspective though,since I have got here I have not once worn a tac vest, not once worn the ballistic glasses, use my own small pack,and  have rails on my rifle. When you are out and about as long as your pl chain of command doesnt care anything flies.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Mar 2008)

Speaking as a CSM (albeit a Primary Reserve unit), the CSM and the NCOs are the enforcers of dress policy, so in reality he is doing his job. 
BUT...The CSM also has the duty to inform the chain of command on issues regarding dress, the policy of "no non issue kit", etc.
This is where the CSM must use his greatest asset, his common sense. What is good for KAF or the FOB or the base is not what is necessarily good for the desert or the Arctic or wherever we deploy.
In my opinion, there are far too many "dress & deportment" nit pickers (I beleive some of you called them "kitosauruses?") and far too few soldiers in the upper echelons who use their common sense. 
There is a time for issue kit only....and that is during ceremonial parades. On actual operations outside the wire, common sense should prevail.
Having said all this, as a Primary Reservist, I don't really want my soldiers to go and spend hundreds of dollars on non issue stuff, only to be told they can't use it. And I agree, only four mags in your vest is far too few. Ten would be much better.
When I was young....(now I know many of you will laugh at this cuz I'm old...not) I used to wonder at what would happen in a firefight with only 5 mags.....would we have to take a "time out" and rebomb?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (11 Mar 2008)

PhilB, I take issue with one of the things you said..ballistic eyewear.  What are you using for eye pro?  I can definetly say that that eyewear came in handy the day a car disintegrated beside my vehicle.  I forgot to mention it as another piece of issued kit I wore because it becomes second nature to have them on.  I have gotten so used to them that i even wear them for driving back in Canada (who requested all this bright reflective snow anyhow?!?!).

They are a life saver and I hope that any young fellows under your command wear theirs or something that IS equal in protection, and not some shiny kewl Oakleys unless they are rated high enough.  Our tour went out and bought the ESS goggles from the PX (or somewhere) to use for vehicle crews, I wore them a bit but eventually settled with my good ole ballistics!

Cheers, stay safe!


----------



## westie47 (11 Mar 2008)

I think Phil wears eye=pro, just not the issued glasses. Myself, I wear the issue glasses around here but I would prefer to wear my oakleys (US army issue). 

I seem to remember a time as a young troop, being told that we only need one mag for a section attack!!!!! But we had 4 spares, just in  case. We also used to go on recce patrols without webbing, until,in our unit we got a WO who just served a few years in Africa.  He changed alot of stuff, doctrinely around the old 'Mo unit.


----------



## Gunner98 (11 Mar 2008)

I agree with your observations - it is strange how few MSM pics show troops wearing any BEW.  I haven't heard or read many reasons for it.


----------



## LordOsborne (11 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Speaking as a CSM (albeit a Primary Reserve unit), the CSM and the NCOs are the enforcers of dress policy, so in reality he is doing his job.
> BUT...The CSM also has the duty to inform the chain of command on issues regarding dress, the policy of "no non issue kit", etc.
> This is where the CSM must use his greatest asset, his common sense. What is good for KAF or the FOB or the base is not what is necessarily good for the desert or the Arctic or wherever we deploy.
> In my opinion, there are far too many "dress & deportment" nit pickers (I beleive some of you called them "kitosauruses?") and far too few soldiers in the upper echelons who use their common sense.
> ...



This hits home with me. I wear my non-issue rig on my PRes exercises, partly to break it in and train with but also partly to widen a trail that was blazed by other officers  and NCOs before me, taking progressively larger steps in my unit. I occasionally got into a heated discussion with some other officers who scoffed at 10 magazines as a "purely TF thing" that had no relevance in Canada.

 I've also seen in the MSM from military 'experts' who say things like "show me one time when Canada has lost a fight due to running out of ammunition".

I think a simple section attack will illustrate the inadequacy of 5 mags quite well. My last ex culminated in a platoon attack using blank ammo. I was in the lead section and we became the firebase as the platoon sorted itself out and did its flanking. This was the only exercise where I was actually carrying extra 5.56mm on stripper clips in addition to my 5 full mags.
 Well, H-Hour admittedly took too long, which shows how much practise we needed, but the fact is that i was down to one loaded magazine (and yes, i was applying proper rates of fire.. we even invented a _new _ one, called "slow rate", which was accented with the delightfully pathetic sounds of Mo' rounds now and again). H-hour was still 5 minutes away, so my fireteam partner and I took turns firing and rebombing. There's no way we coud have maintained a meaningful amount of suppressing fire and still had enough for H-Hour. I came across this time and again, and I'm sure others have too during their section attack training.

Edit: I forgot to add that I think one of the reasons why section attacks go on for so long is that the enemy refuses to die until the assault element actually takes the trench. Come to think of it, I didn't run out of ammo nearly as fast on exercises where we used MILES gear. I could probably attribute that to the fact that I haven't done a traditional section attack using MILES - typically we only see the stuff during our Bde exercise, and then only during the Raid / ambush. 

Actually, since I haven't ever done a _live _ section attack, would someone who has be so kind as to let me know if they have the same problems?


----------



## PhilB (12 Mar 2008)

Bzz,

No worries, I agree that BEW is extrememly important. Me and all the guys in my section and platoon wear eyewear day and night. That being said, Westie is right, I do not wear the issue ballistic eyewear. IMHO the issued ballistic glasses are junk. The are designed poorly, so when folded and stored, the arms rub and the lens causing large vertical scratches on the lens. The frames are poorly designed, in that they contact the face in many different places, adding to heat and sweat. Finally, and my biggest issue the lens. The optical accuity of the lens is, to be blunt, total crap. They have distortion, and additionally they scratch extrememly easily. I realize that they arent bad, and before people start piping up saying I never noticed any problems with distortion etc put on a set of oakleys, or similar high end glasses and then put on the issue glasses. Basically like wearing gas station specials as far as lens quality goes. I wear american issue Oakley M Frames, they have equivalent ballistic protection to the issue glasses and alleviate all of the issues noted above. As a guy MCpl in my platoon so elequently put "12 000 special forces operators cant be wrong". They work for me, dont cause me to have headaches, and are comfortable.


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Mar 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> Bzz,
> The are designed poorly, so when folded and stored, the arms rub and the lens causing large vertical scratches on the lens.



Not anymore, when folded and stored with the issued soft-padded velcro cover (or if stored in the original hard case )- they don't scratch.  As for the distortion factor, not so much with the prescription insert.  

Do the Oakley's allow for the prescription insert, or do you and all the SF guys have laser-corrected eyes?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (12 Mar 2008)

Oakleys do have prescription inserts available.


----------



## KevinB (12 Mar 2008)

Oakley has prescription lens available - not an insert per say (unless your calling replacement lens an insert)


----------



## Matt_Fisher (12 Mar 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Oakley has prescription lens available - not an insert per say (unless your calling replacement lens an insert)



Yeah...what you said.    ;D


----------



## Danjanou (12 Mar 2008)

westie47 said:
			
		

> I seem to remember a time as a young troop, being told that we only need one mag for a section attack!!!!! But we had 4 spares, just in  case. We also used to go on recce patrols without webbing, until,in our unit we got a WO who just served a few years in Africa.  He changed alot of stuff, doctrinely around the old 'Mo unit.



Ironically I remember being taught the old no webbing on patrol, 1-2 mags for your C1 is all you need "doctrine" by that same guy (reluctantly I may add) when he was a Sgt prior to his little sojourn in Southern Africa. If anything it demonstrates the value of having soem recent experienc on the two way range in the training system.


----------



## geo (12 Mar 2008)

Danjanou....
That's what I call a "reality check!"


----------



## X-mo-1979 (12 Mar 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> Not anymore, when folded and stored with the issued soft-padded velcro cover (or if stored in the original hard case )- they don't scratch.  As for the distortion factor, not so much with the prescription insert.
> 
> Do the Oakley's allow for the prescription insert, or do you and all the SF guys have laser-corrected eyes?



Problem being most of us don't thing ahead and put it back in the pretty case or the new velcro case.We usually throw it in our pocket,thus most of us having the scratching issue.

I bought some in Texas for real cheap that meet the military requirements.However I still bring the issued ones with me just incase something breaks  (doubtful) on the ones I paid for.

Should they be placed in the case when not in use?For sure.But for most of us were too busy and it isnt a reality.


----------



## COBRA-6 (12 Mar 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> Bzz,
> 
> No worries, I agree that BEW is extrememly important. Me and all the guys in my section and platoon wear eyewear day and night. That being said, Westie is right, I do not wear the issue ballistic eyewear. IMHO the issued ballistic glasses are junk. The are designed poorly, so when folded and stored, the arms rub and the lens causing large vertical scratches on the lens. The frames are poorly designed, in that they contact the face in many different places, adding to heat and sweat. Finally, and my biggest issue the lens. The optical accuity of the lens is, to be blunt, total crap. They have distortion, and additionally they scratch extrememly easily. I realize that they arent bad, and before people start piping up saying I never noticed any problems with distortion etc put on a set of oakleys, or similar high end glasses and then put on the issue glasses. Basically like wearing gas station specials as far as lens quality goes. I wear american issue Oakley M Frames, they have equivalent ballistic protection to the issue glasses and alleviate all of the issues noted above. As a guy MCpl in my platoon so elequently put "12 000 special forces operators cant be wrong". They work for me, dont cause me to have headaches, and are comfortable.



Bang on Phil. I have a number of Oakley's, including 2 pairs of M Frames. The optical clarity is outstanding and they are very resistant to scratching. They also fit my face better and don't slide down my nose like the issued BEW. However the issued ones do provide great protection, and accept prescription inserts, so if they work for you, fantastic! I would have *loved* to have them in the system when I got in, it would have saved a few sticks in the eye when out bush-bashing...


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Mar 2008)

In my opinion the ballistic eye wear is merely a step in the right direction. We can and must improve.
I agree, it they were available years ago, how many eye injuries would have been saved?


----------



## RHFC_piper (12 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> In my opinion the ballistic eye wear is merely a step in the right direction. We can and must improve.
> I agree, it they were available years ago, how many eye injuries would have been saved?



I agree.  

As much as everyone complains about the BEW, WRT scratching and wear and such, they're pretty good for being purchased in large quantity.    
And, in Operations, they do help... I've seen some pretty nice chunks of shrapnel (from Mortar rounds) embedded in lenses (and faces).  They do work.
I'm a pretty firm believer in the use of BEW, issued or otherwise... but the issued ones aren't that bad.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (12 Mar 2008)

True, I just believe that the military higher ups have the "if I can't/don't have it, it's not allowed" attitude.  Almost a jealousy thing.  

We had this issue with eyewear before we deployed to A-stan.. Wiley-X (the brand name) glasses were not allowed, a message was put out to not use them.  I equivocated that to someone saying we weren't allowed to use Fords cause the Focus is a dangerous car. It made no sense as there are Wiley-X goggles/glasses that are rated just as high or higher than our BEW.


----------



## McG (12 Mar 2008)

Rated by who, and against what standard?  DRDC Valcartier did ballistic tests against many types of ballistic eye wear last year.  I've not seen the reports but have heard anecdotally, from someone involved, that a certain popular brand name performed poorly.  I don't specifically recall the brand, but I'd be cautious of dismissing any official warnings that are out there right now.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (12 Mar 2008)

But the point is that the warning was Wiley-x in general.  Not a certain type or model.  I can't expect eyewear that is on the US BEW list (http://peosoldier.army.mil/pmseq/eyewear.asp) to be that big a failure, can I?  Not only that, but we are talking about eyewear the boys bought from the PX during our visit to Fort Bliss.


----------



## Farmboy (12 Mar 2008)

> Rated by who, and against what standard?  DRDC Valcartier did ballistic tests against many types of ballistic eye wear last year.  I've not seen the reports but have heard anecdotally, from someone involved, that a certain popular brand name performed poorly.  I don't specifically recall the brand, but I'd be cautious of dismissing any official warnings that are out there right now



 So you heard rumors?!?!  About Wiley X, please, by all means post the tests.

They pass the MIL-V-43511C, MIL-PRF-31013, all shatterproof changeable styles meet or exceed ANSI Z87.1-2003.  

 Shall we start a long list of who is issued Wiley X, Oakley, ESS compared to Revision?

 God forbid our guys use gear that is approved for use with US Special Forces.  This whole fucking concept of the CF having a approve everything again is stupid.

 Take for example the BLSS / Skydex pads.  Approved for use in the US and is helping to prevent huge numbers of head injuries, but no not in Canada, we have to wait for it to be tested again, BUT, it won't be tested until a unit buys it, BUT WAIT, the units won't buy it until it's approved!!!!


----------



## medaid (12 Mar 2008)

There needs to be a soft case. I don't mean a soft case like the lens protector, but a non rigid case for people to quickly throw into and then dump it in their kit.


----------



## Farmboy (12 Mar 2008)

Even doing that will scratch the lens.  We were going to carry them, however when the arrived in the *hard case * with the lenses already scratched.......


----------



## medaid (12 Mar 2008)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> Even doing that will scratch the lens.  We were going to carry them, however when the arrived in the *hard case * with the lenses already scratched.......




Bah... give up. I'll buy Oakleys...


----------



## dangerboy (12 Mar 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Oakley has prescription lens available - not an insert per say (unless your calling replacement lens an insert)



Infidel 6 - If you don't mind could you post a link or info on prescription lens as I wound love to have a set of BEW that don't scratch when I look at them like my issue ones do.  I have tried to find the info with no luck, (I guess my google skills are not working lately).


----------



## COBRA-6 (12 Mar 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Infidel 6 - If you don't mind could you post a link or info on prescription lens as I wound love to have a set of BEW that don't scratch when I look at them like my issue ones do.  I have tried to find the info with no luck, (I guess my google skills are not working lately).



https://usstandardissue.com/prescriptions.aspx

http://oakley.ca/search/men+rx+sunglasses


----------



## McG (12 Mar 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I can't expect eyewear that is on the US BEW list to be that big a failure, can I?


Are you willing to gamble your eyes on that?  



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> So you heard rumors?!?!  About Wiley X, please, by all means post the tests.


Because you've not made the effort to read my post I'll spell it out a little more in depth.  I have not seem the report (already stated). I did observe a brief moment of the tests, and one of the pers conducting the tests indicated that a popular model (being purchased by the troops) was failing.  In the room there were several brands of ballistic eyewear & in some cases multiple models from single makers.  The test is not a rumour.  The test report (again, something that I have not seen) most certainly does not belong on Army.ca.  



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> They pass the MIL-V-43511C, MIL-PRF-31013, all shatterproof changeable styles meet or exceed ANSI Z87.1-2003.


At least a handful of accepted Mil-Standards have shown not to meet the requirement since combat in Afghanistan started (2001).  Who's to say that we've not moved to a higher standard ahead of the US?

What's ANSI?  A civi standard?  Like the Civi standards that I6 & I explained to you were junk for a military environment WRT body amour?

[Edit to correct link following a thread merge]


----------



## Bzzliteyr (12 Mar 2008)

it was a memo that got sent around...


----------



## Spartan (13 Mar 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Infidel 6 - If you don't mind could you post a link or info on prescription lens as I wound love to have a set of BEW that don't scratch when I look at them like my issue ones do.  I have tried to find the info with no luck, (I guess my google skills are not working lately).


 I'm currently using these http://www.essgoggles.com/CDI_14_detail.html - the High Adrenaline - interchangeable lens because the issued ones with inserts give me a headache.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Mar 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> it was a memo that got sent around...



Was/could still be in the Theatre Standing Orders.... funny part is the "issued" tan gloves (akin to the cadpat Temp Weather ones) are not supposed to be used in vehicles as they can melt like the foam pad around the Wiley-X glasses.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 Mar 2008)

That's true.. the ones we got issued.. mortar gloves too are a no go...


----------



## Shamrock (13 Mar 2008)

While we're on about gloves, anyone remember the driver gauntlets?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Mar 2008)

I still got a pair of those and I love them lol


----------



## Shamrock (13 Mar 2008)

Yes, but have you ever tried driving an AVGP or coyote with them?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Mar 2008)

No, but I did use them to drive M-113's and T-LAV/MTVL


----------



## Shamrock (13 Mar 2008)

The AVGP and old coyote steering wheel required an underhand grasp and the gear selector was very close to the steering wheel; hand-over hand steering was impossible, so drivers had to do a lot of hand-to-hand.  The gear selector was also very close to the steering wheel, and when in reverse, the rigid gauntlet would catch during turns.  

I had no such problems when driving a leo, but the Darth Vater sized gauntlet felt more than a little goofy.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Mar 2008)

Gotcha  

:cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2008)

I thought I would add this just to remind us all of how far we have come in 50 years.

This picture, taken in 1956, shows soldiers from an operational, combat ready unit, in the field - dressed for training as they planned to fight. The rifle is the good old SMLE .303 bolt action, 10 round mag; I'm less sure of the SMG - I though we got the 'new' Sterling SMG around then but the folding stock looks like the 'old' Sten.

I dressed much the same up until about 1965 except that, by _circa_ 1960 we no longer had to wear ties in the field.

BTW, for other old timers, Art Tompkins (2nd from the left, then a pte) was my platoon sergeant in 2RCR in 1967.


----------



## geo (31 Mar 2008)

Heh.... Coveralls, the old WW2/Korean vintage helmet...and the everpresent smokes


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Mar 2008)

Edward,

The soldier is carrying a Sten which stayed in service in the regular army for a few more years. I fired annual classification on the Sten in 4 RCHA in Petawawa in September 1960, but then encountered the SMG for the first time on officer training a few weeks later.

The dress was pretty standard for the time across the army. In fact the army did not have proper field gear until combat clothing was issued in mid-1964. The press noted earlier that year that the Vandoos and D Sqn RCD were wearing battledress in the heat of a Cyprus spring, even though there was combat in depots waiting to be issued. We drew it in 1 RCHA in Gagetown in the fall. I got the second set in the regiment as I was the IO and Sunray took me with him to the QM to draw it. The issue did not include head gear so we wore bush hats and caps peaked winter, while the RCD sported berets and the RHC kept their balmorals (?). 

Back to the appearance of the army in the field; there was little uniformity in dress, though some units tried. Most wore coveralls with rank stuck on, or not; a few units adopted surplus US Army field jackets. In the guns we favoured rubber boots on the Gagetown ranges. In the summer the army in Canada wore bush clothing, which was not issued in Germany. In retrospect it really was appalling, but we made up for it by excessive chicken sxxx in garrision.


----------



## Drummy (31 Mar 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I thought I would add this just to remind us all of how far we have come in 50 years.
> 
> This picture, taken in 1956, shows soldiers from an operational, combat ready unit, in the field - dressed for training as they planned to fight. The rifle is the good old SMLE .303 bolt action, 10 round mag; I'm less sure of the SMG - I though we got the 'new' Sterling SMG around then but the folding stock looks like the 'old' Sten.
> 
> ...



Although I'm not in that picture, I do/did resemble those fellows. Except we used FNs in Germany(57-59), and I was a Bren Gunner.

Drummy


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Edward,
> 
> The soldier is carrying a Sten which stayed in service in the regular army for a few more years. I fired annual classification on the Sten in 4 RCHA in Petawawa in September 1960, but then encountered the SMG for the first time on officer training a few weeks later.
> ...



I thought it was a Sten. I never fired the Sten. We had Sterlings in the Regt Depot when I did recruit training and in the Bn when I joined it (1960).


----------



## muskrat89 (31 Mar 2008)

> but we made up for it by excessive chicken sxxx in garrision.



Old Sweat - I'm sorry for the hijack, but I have to tell you that when I first read that, I thought you had written "chicken sex"....


----------



## dapaterson (31 Mar 2008)

No, Old Sweat's profile says he was RCHA, not ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2008)

Old Sweat mentioned the custom of wearing hand-me-down (or pilfered) US Army kit. Below is photo (2PPCLI) from Korea showing that.

My favourite bits of unauthorized kit were:

1. A WWII leather jerkin that was handed down to me _circa_ 1960 and which I, in turn, passed on when I got a nice soft job; and

2. Our "sweater, high neck" (an excellent item in and of itself, by the way) which we modified by having breast pockets (from woolen battle dress or bush jackets) and shoulder and elbow pads added.


----------



## geo (1 Apr 2008)

Sweater High neck - now that's something I haven't heard of in a long time.
My favorite was a Brit Wooly pully with the shoulder & elbow patches. To finish it off, I canibalized epaulettes from a bush jacket - I think


----------



## BinRat55 (13 Apr 2008)

Wow, i'm actually feeling a little young here!!  

I remember the "cool" thing to have in the late 80's early 90's was the poncho liner ('mercan)along with the rain jacket.  I had one US Army cat offer me his M-16 for my sleeping bag on RV once... needless to say I kept my bag and he was charged for losing his weapon on the ex...


----------



## armyvern (14 Apr 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Wow, i'm actually feeling a little young here!!
> 
> I remember the "cool" thing to have in the late 80's early 90's was the poncho liner ('mercan)along with the rain jacket.  I had one US Army cat offer me his M-16 for my sleeping bag on RV once... needless to say I kept my bag and he was charged for losing his weapon on the ex...



Ha!! That's the same one where I talked my US buddy out of his fatigue jacket ... just because we shared the same last name!! It didn't cost me anything but a 'lil Vern angellic smile!!  ;D

I still have that damn thing.


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Ha!! That's the same one where I talked my US buddy out of his fatigue jacket ... just because we shared the same last name!! It didn't cost me anything but a 'lil Vern angellic smile!!  ;D
> 
> I still have that damn thing.



Yeah, I got one of them too... not the angelic smile... a jacket!!  Traded one of my berets for it. Still wear it hunting with my Norwegian turtleneck - only a fool needs to be cold!! And when I think about that "angelic smile" it's cold shivers all over again!!  ;D


----------



## armyvern (14 Apr 2008)

Are you inferring that I am somehow evil??


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Are you inferring that I am somehow evil??



Noooooo... you're not evil... LOOK OUT FOR THAT LIGHTNIN...    :skull:

I wasn't quick enough!!


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (14 Apr 2008)

Is it safe to come out now or is lightning still coming down?


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Apr 2008)

Panzer Grenadier said:
			
		

> Is it safe to come out now or is lightning still coming down?



You're safe!!  She's only good for a burst or two, graciously directed to my immediate vicinity... or truck, hoochie, trench, what have you...


----------



## GregC (22 Apr 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Please do.



We were first informed that chest rigs were not allowed on 1-07 because it interrupted your ability to properly adopt a firing position in the prone. As anyone who has carried 10 mags as a rifleman, or 4 boxes as a C9 gunner, or 2 belts as a C6 gunner, there is not a comfortable prone position, especially when you have to jury rig your tac vest to hell and back, or carry boxes in a day bag. Also, if you had your tacvest contaminated or damaged, it could be immediately be replaced. 90% of our company had broken vests, and mine was not replaced for a month. In the meantime it was held together by guntape and paracord.

We also had it passed on to us by Army lesson learned that the tac vest held your guts in in the event of evisceration. He also informed us that death was imminent in the event of wearing an oregon aero kit in your helmet.


----------



## Fusaki (22 Apr 2008)

> However the 2 RCR battle group command completely nixed unissued load carriage systems.... I will not bother to print the hilarious reasons for this, as it would require a new thread.



I heard it was nixed due to 2RCR being too closely located to the Infantry School.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2008)

GregC, thanks for that. I've now had my laugh for the day.


----------



## Armymedic (22 Apr 2008)

GregC said:
			
		

> We were first informed that chest rigs were not allowed on 1-07 because it interrupted your ability to properly adopt a firing position in the prone. As anyone who has carried 10 mags as a rifleman, or 4 boxes as a C9 gunner, or 2 belts as a C6 gunner, there is not a comfortable prone position......



I can see that being a valid reason. But once you get any rig on with plates, soft armour and 10 mags on your abd/chest...there is no comfortable prone posn anyway. And if you are fighting at night with NVGs, traditional prone is pretty much useless.



			
				GregC said:
			
		

> We also had it passed on to us by Army lesson learned that the tac vest held your guts in in the event of evisceration.



Did anyone call BS on that statement? It will however hold your massive molson muscle from causing your shirt buttons to become dangerous projectiles after months of a daily KAF Tim's high carb ration.


----------



## Farmboy (22 Apr 2008)

> Also, if you had your tacvest contaminated or damaged, it could be immediately be replaced. 90% of our company had broken vests, and mine was not replaced for a month. In the meantime it was held together by guntape and paracord.
> 
> We also had it passed on to us by Army lesson learned that the tac vest held your guts in in the event of evisceration. He also informed us that death was imminent in the event of wearing an oregon aero kit in your helmet.




 I'm really going to lose my f**king mind!!!!!!!!!

 I can replace any kit I sell, that breaks, faster than the CF can.  Yes I will put money on that.  However in 3 years in business I have only ever seen 2 broken pieces of kit.

 So how do you get eviscerated, and yet the tac vest is still fine to hold your guts in.  Give me a break!!!!!!  I guess no one is wearing body armour either when it happens.

 The Oregon Aero BLSS and BLU kit provide so much more protection over the leather, paracord and foam POS stuck in the helmet it's not even funny.  

 I am so sick of listening to lame excuses for the gear that gets issued.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Apr 2008)

I know its a tangent but any non-issued helmet liners are forbidden, pants must be bloused at all times, Oakelys are not allowed anymore.  I guess hundreds of thousands of SOF have been wrong all along.  TF 1-08 have been allowed to "trial" about 10 different rigs including usage overseas.  The new cocking handle is absolute junk and break often.  I would hate to be in the middle of a high intensity battle and have my cocking handle bust on me.  There is a tech bulletin authorizing the Wpn tech's to swap the new handles with old ones.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Apr 2008)

We are off on a tangent, but lets go that way. What can it hurt?
Discussion and debate is a healthy thing, as long as you don't get personal or call someone a stupid f&*$head.
The kit issue is a contentious one. As a CSM I have a duty to ensure that the dress policy conforms with higher's intent. I also have a duty to do what's is best and right for the troops. This can often conflict. I won't make up stupid excuses (like you can't adopt a prone position with non issue rigs) to correct someone. Its an order, and soldiers do what they are told.
Having said that, it is also the Sergeant Majors duty to inform his higher of problems with kit and his recommendations that may alleviate or solve the problem. Not enough mag capacity in the issue Tac Vest? Authorize the troops to purchase their own, with the provisio that it must conform to the environment (ie desert) and it be durable enough to with stand at least 6 months of operations.
And, in my opinion, if you ever get eviscerated, it won't matter what you are wearing, but I'm no expert in that field.

If anyone from NDHQ reads these threads, let common sense prevail.


----------



## paraflare (24 Apr 2008)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> So you heard rumors?!?!  About Wiley X, please, by all means post the tests.
> 
> They pass the MIL-V-43511C, MIL-PRF-31013, all shatterproof changeable styles meet or exceed ANSI Z87.1-2003.
> 
> ...



Ok, I usually just check out posts here but this thread strikes a cord with me. Ill try to give some up to date real world info as to whats going on *here*. BEW - Yes the issued ballistics work, but I, and alot of guys, find them uncomfortable. And they do scratch, and the optical clarity is garbage. Alot of guys use Oakley M Frames, including myself. The Oakleys show scratches alot less, the frames are comfortable, and the lenses are crystal clear. Canadians cant order off US Standard Issue but if you email Oakley Canada they can hook you up with thier rep for mil/leo sales. Needless to say after you send some paper work in you can get an M Frame array(black, clear and orange shooting lens) for $140, which is a steal. 

As for the rigs, at the end of the "trial" we overwhelmingly said we wanted a Warlord style rig, like the JTF one they gave out. Now, the Warlord coms in modular and non modular configurations so if they try telling you that the PPCLI said we want non mod then theyre wrong. The rifleman Warlords(versions 1, 2 and 3) are perfect for the rifleman loadout. Theyre also modular on top of the sewn on pouches. The Version 4 is completely modular and more suitable for mgs. Anything CLS or DLR says is RTF out of er. Most guys are either running HSGI or Tactical Tailor(mav or molle tac vest), and the CPGear rig is used. I saw some people saying that a CIRAS style rig would be perfect... No. Having plates/  kevlar on and being able to take off the vest is crutial for mounted guys . I dont even think they should try developing a new vest. The tacvest *can* work in every job, you just have to try real hard to make it. What they should do is have an authorized list of manufacturers that troops can use. I.E. HSGI, TT, CP, Blackhawk. This way guys arent using some chinese sweatshop knock off rigs, but still have the option to get what they need. 

Helmet upgrades: I have a Oregon Aero BLSS kit on my skull. If anybody has a problem with it they can fist themselves. If Im willing to drop my cash to protect my head and they want to bitch about it, then send me home cause Im not taking it off. But anyways this isnt a problem as so many guys have it. And for anybody deploying, And Oregon Aero or Skydex kit is DEFINITELY worth investing in. 

CP Gear OTW Shirt: This thing is amazing. Been using it for weeks now. Used in front of high high higher ups and not one second look. The guys at CP Gear aced this thing hard. This shirt allows the rare breeze to go right through your armour, man it's bliss. One suggestion, maybe throw zipper pulls on the sleeve pockets cause grabbing that little zipper with gloves on is tough. Other than that it's the cats ass.

But anyways to conclude, these people that sit back and bitch about non issued kit arent the ones who need the kit that works. So if they rag you out, take it off then throw er back on as theyre walking away.


----------



## mudgunner49 (24 Apr 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Oh I agree but some pers don't have $1000 bucks kicking around, add in the fact that it takes a General to charge you.



I don't buy the money angle.  I have young soldiers who think nothing of going out and dropping 2-300 bones on a weekend of drinking, or several thousand dollars on stereo/entertainment equipment - the need to do a bit of prioritizing here is pretty obvious to me.  I support a family and still manage to feed the monkey on *my* back...


blake


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Apr 2008)

YOU may not buy the angle but that doesn't mean it isn't true for others.  I don't have $1000 to spend in one shot on that sort of thing and I don't drink or smoke.


----------



## RHFC_piper (24 Apr 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> YOU may not buy the angle but that doesn't mean it isn't true for others.  I don't have $1000 to spend in one shot on that sort of thing and I don't drink or smoke.



(just before I go into this, please understand I don't mean to slag any one... so don't take it the wrong way)

I guess it comes down to weather or not you believe you require it or not.  Plenty of guys on my tour didn't feel they needed anything more than the issued kit, and they seemed to get by just fine, even in combat.  But, with that said; The former RSM of my unit once made a very good point; "You choose to be uncomfortable."   If you think you can get by with issued kit, by all means, do it.  But, I personally found the extra kit I bought made my job easier and more effective, and thus, more comfortable. 

I dropped about $1500 easy on all the gear I picked up before deploying; Forward grip, rails, Chest rig, Knee pads, Shemagh, etc.  And some of it (some expensive stuff) never came home with me... due to damage, destruction or use by others (who needed it more than me after I left)...  But, with that said, and considering that I was only there for 3 weeks and will probably never go back, I consider it a good investment.  The kit helped me be a more effective soldier by making my job easier or more comfortable... and in hind sight, had I known then what I know now, I would have purchased a hell of a lot more.  (I have a large wish list for if I ever go back.)

So, while spending $1000+ in one go seems like a lot of bling, in the long run, how much is it worth when you get there and find you need something else to do your job more effectively or easily?  
I too was on a restricted budget (thanks to the Residential Sergeant Major - aka. Niner Domestic), so I purchased these items a bit at a time.  When you think about it, how often do you buy stuff you really don't need?  Coffee, junk food, fast food, video games, booze, etc.  That stuff adds up, and when you think about it; some of these tactical items, while making your job easier, may also save your life... possibly.

But, with this in mind, there are also those soldiers who are just Kit sluts and buy everything weather they need it or not, so it really does come down to prioritizing in many ways; not just for operation, but for personal finance as well.

Just my $0.02


----------



## MG34 (25 Apr 2008)

Any cash spent on kit is recovered on the first tour pay. Just because of rank I am no more immune from prosecution than anyone else, it still only requires an MWO to refer the charges. Then again I have yet to hear of anyone ,anywhere get charged for "illegal kit"there have been threats of it biy I have not heard of any charges sticking.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (25 Apr 2008)

Heck, I had a no hook private go out and buy a brand new 2008 Nissan Altima four days BEFORE we left for the tour.. talk about sensible spending.  Priorities?  Fail.


----------



## BinRat55 (26 Apr 2008)

I've been following this thread for a few months now, albeit with a little frustration. Oldsoldier, you almost hit it on the head for me. While I AM a supply tech, I (much like Vern) have a little common sense.  But you know, common sense only goes so far!! Suitable or not, there is a REASON this kit was purchased. Yes, some of the underlying factors were associated with cost, but not all. Every piece of protective kit you are wearing can either be attributed or not attributed to your injury, should it happen. DND is faithfully aware of the underwriters policy which is covered by all "actual, issued kit". Should you get injured and you're NOT wearing the kit you were issued, good luck because there is yet another battle you will have to fight.

It's not up to you to decide - period.  There was a thread over and up one where a high ranking individual allowed his members wear a civilian pattern holster for the 9 mm. First, he went through the proper channels. Second, he was the commanding officer - an informed commanding officer. Third, he mandated it into his dress policy for travel outside the wire. It was a mag pouch. You people are here talking about helmets, knee pads, LBV configurations - where does it stop? When is it EVER acceptable to do what you want when you're in the CF? The ones with more time in need to set an example here. I had a young Cpl come up to me with a "Soldier of Fortune" magazine a few weeks ago and show me (all excited) a pair of pants and glasses that he had ordered, hoping very much to have them before we went to the range next month...THIS IS FRICKING GANDER!! And it's contagious.

There is a way. You, those who train with the "issued" kit - address your concerns. You feel that a certain piece of kit that is on your head or around your body is inadequate, learn to write a memo. Some people in here have absolutely wonderful writing skills. For the sake of others, write a memo. In the mean time, if too many people just randomly decide that they would rather wear protective gear NOT approved by DND, we will not look uniform anymore and we will be just like other nations who can't afford uniforms - or better yet, a band of merry men, trying to rob from the rich and give to the poor.

Better yet, give NDQAR a call and ask them why we wear the helmet we wear.

Sorry for the rant, I just can't believe that with the kind of kit we now have compared to the kit we (my father) issued 50 years ago we STILL have kids ordering kit from a Go&%$@# magazine.


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> DND is faithfully aware of the underwriters policy which is covered by all "actual, issued kit". Should you get injured and you're NOT wearing the kit you were issued, good luck because there is yet another battle you will have to fight.



There will be no fight. VAC & SISiP have already stated the kit being worn/or not ... will not play a factor in decision determination. They care only that the incident/injury is in-theatre attributable.


----------



## KevinB (26 Apr 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I've been following this thread for a few months now, albeit with a little frustration...
> 
> snip  While I AM a supply tech,
> 
> ...









Please I will make you a deal -- I wont tell you how to run a supply system -- you dont talk about gear - EVER!


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Apr 2008)

There's always COTS kit that is better, from boots to holsters to vehicles and weapons. What the CF needs to do is wise up and create a definative list of "approved" COTS gear for soldiers to buy, if they want to spend their money on it. I think it was said before in this thread: "Only a fool is uncomfortable in the field."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Apr 2008)

There will be no pile ons here.

INFORMED opinions and discussion only, please.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2008)

Canadian kit has passed destructive testing. 

I don't mind the bitching about the kit, because some of it does suck ...

But constant postings about it being less safe than "gucci" kit are bullshit, seeing as how our kit has outperformed a heck of a lot of the kit being "pushed" around here in blast, frag and other testing. 

Don't hold our kit to ANSI levels either -- our kit is tested to and exceeds ANSI standards.

Don't mingle erroneous information into bitchs about kit if you want to stay in lanes.

Not liking something -- does not mean it's unsafe. Something that works for you --- does not mean it will work for someone else -- and that includes gucci gear. 

CTS makes one bad item doesn't automaticlly mean that ALL their items are bad ... unlike what some would like to have others believe. Personal grudges sometimes come out in ones viewpoint. That's quite obvious.


----------



## medaid (26 Apr 2008)

CTS has thus far made crappy boots, crappy LBE, crappy small pack system... To just name a few. So ar there aren't that many great kit that came out of the CTS program. The ones I thinks are great off of the top of my head are, mortar gloves, neck gaiter/ninja mask, boonies and the NEW raingear. Even the new rain gear needs maasive improvements. 

The BEW like boots are individual preferences. Incase you haven't noticed everyone's face is shaped differently. I will NEVER EVER encourage or condone troops to purchase personal BA. Never ever. Even though there are better stuff out there, but that is one part along with helmet that I will not stand by and let the troops go wild on. If you want to make the helmet more comfy by using a BLISS or BLU kit? Then by all means, but you WILL wear that ugly thing and your heavy as hell armour too . That's my compromise. I know many people won't agree with me, but the way I look at it, you need to be comfortabke to be effective. But there is a line, and the line that I draw is at the helmet and BA.


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> CTS has thus far made crappy boots, crappy LBE, crappy small pack system... To just name a few. So ar there aren't that many great kit that came out of the CTS program. The ones I thinks are great off of the top of my head are, mortar gloves, neck gaiter/ninja mask, boonies and the NEW raingear. Even the new rain gear needs maasive improvements.
> 
> The BEW like boots are individual preferences. Incase you haven't noticed everyone's face is shaped differently. I will NEVER EVER encourage or condone troops to purchase personal BA. Never ever. Even though there are better stuff out there, but that is one part along with helmet that I will not stand by and let the troops go wild on. If you want to make the helmet more comfy by using a BLISS or BLU kit? Then by all means, but you WILL wear that ugly thing and your heavy as hell armour too . That's my compromise. I know many people won't agree with me, but the way I look at it, you need to be comfortabke to be effective. But there is a line, and the line that I draw is at the helmet and BA.



No actually. Let's get this correct:

SOME people don't like CTS boots. SOME do.
SOME people don't like CTS LBE. SOME do.
SOME people don't like CTS SPS. SOME do.
SOME people don't like the new rain gear. SOME do. (and they all bitched and screamed "when are we getting ours??" right here on this very site).

The EXACT same thing can be said about EVERY brand of Gucci gear. SOME like it. SOME do not.

How come, for SOME of you, "SOME" for CTS gear therefore equals "NO ONE likes it", "EVERYONE" hates it, and "NONE of it works, and "ALL" of it is dangerous??

That's complete and total bullshit. 

My problem with all the bitching about CTS --

Is that all the detractors LOVE to slam the individuals and the system. Yet, documented ballisitics testing etc shows the CTS to outperform the Gucci gear. So, keep the bitching to the facts.

If it's uncomfortable -- that's one thing. Unsafe is totally another. And, for every one of you who finds "Gucci armour XXX" "comfortable and therefore ultimately better and safer and more effective for the soldier" ... there's another soldier out there who does NOT think that about the same Gucci item. Exactly the same as CTS gear.


----------



## Yrys (26 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> _How come, for SOME of you, "SOME" for CTS gear therefore equals "NO ONE likes it"_, "EVERYONE" hates it, and "NONE of it works, and "ALL" of it is dangerous??
> 
> That's complete and total bullshit.
> 
> ...



I would say that it is in the human nature to generalise one position to make it more valuable, and make one dislike more strong.
As a DS here, ArmyVern, you have already encounter it.

add :

It's the "Everyone thin*k* so, so *I*'m right!"


----------



## Gunner98 (26 Apr 2008)

I agree with Vern.  The rationale that "the US Army, Rangers or Seals have it" therefore it must be great is risky.  Just look at their CBRN gear.  They use 1/100th as much CS Gas as we do in the Gas Hut training so that the troops do not get a whiff and doubt their equipment.  

There will always be different gear that an individual prefers, the challenge is buying 50,000 or 100,000 sets of it at a time given the Cdn Supply ad Svcs requirements. Buying for one item that meets your individual style, needs, wants and/or comfort desires from $ in your own pocket will always be easier. 

Yes, the US military can buy in bulk but just look at their new BDUs that last about 6 months versus the old pattern that lasted 2 years or more.  Same clothing allowance, quadruple the replacement rate.


----------



## medaid (26 Apr 2008)

Vern, I never said that it's all dangerous and all crappy and everyone hates it. Infact I pointed out the ones that I did like, and maybe I didn't specify at the beginning but it's only my opinion. Sure there'll be people who love CTS kit, and those who hate it. But when I have a large percentage of troops that I see on a range ex or Bde ex modify or out right not use issued kit because of their non-serviceability, I begin to wonder the effectiveness of the issued kit that was given to our troops. 

Now like I said before I think CTS has made some pretty good stuff, and I won't budge on the armour and helmet issue, because I believe that despite its bulkiness and other down falls the current issued armour isn't too bad, and once the inserts have been changed the helnet is an excellent piece of kit. But I have to wonder how come we (The CF) has yet to engage in a helmet modernization program like the one they have in the States? The Advanced Combat Helmet System? Where BLISS and BLU type kits have been installed and are authorized and even encouraged to be done so on the existing helmets that the troops have? 

Here again is my own personal opinion with regards to why some people still prefer issued kit.

1) Exposure: they haven't used it, seen it, touched it or what ever. It comes directly from our mentality of the CF has given you all the kit you will ever need and it's great! You won't ever need anything else. It's been the mentality for the longest time and was still widely accepted even till today. It stems from bothe the garison army mentality and the fact that we have a wish to be un American.

2) Cost: as we all know cost is a major factor in non-issued kit. They are more expensive and that's mostly because of quality and durability. Obviously If you're gonna get shot or blown up no kit's gonna help you, but good kit can help you stay alive ina firefight or on a long retrograde action. Cost is prohibitive to some if not many troops, and hence they'"l use what's been issued to them with some or extensive modifications made so that it's as serviceable as possible. 

 The US has learned that much of their issued equipment aren't as good as some of the civi manufactured stuff, so there are 2 things that they won't bidge on, and those two things are the helmets and their IBAs. Why can't we be the same?


----------



## KevinB (26 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If it's uncomfortable -- that's one thing. Unsafe is totally another. And, for every one of you who finds "Gucci armour XXX" "comfortable and therefore ultimately better and safer and more effective for the soldier" ... there's another soldier out there who does NOT think that about the same Gucci item. Exactly the same as CTS gear.



Okay I will offer some logic in this arena -- I will offer that as far as an PBA end user I am a SME (feel free to argue this).
 Canada does not yet have a releaseable armour system.
Now for those who think this is gucci
 I once attended a Naval boarding event (this was early 90's) the Naval folk had the Vietnam flack vests -- (see where I am going on this one?)
Now I dont have a clue what the NBP folk wear now - and its not really relavent to my topic -- other than getting the reader thinking about why a releaseable armor system would be nice.

*By releasable I mean one pull and it drops into different pieces - and you are free.

If you are in a vehicle roll over (and way to many of them both here in Iraq, and in Afghan) - your vehicle rolls into a drainage/irrigation canal (again more of an issue in Iraq) - without releaseable armor - your going to die upside down in the vehicle (and yes the US mil had this happen way to many times prior to getting the newer armor)  Same goes for a vehicle fire -- troops shot or otherwise injured under the armour -- the conventional armour releaseable vest that started showing up was a direct resutl of combat surgeon and medics - complaining about troops dying when they did not need too
   Now releaseable armour is not new -- the CF has been giving to SOF folk for a while, it took the US Big Army to look at the reasons that SOF was doing something to get them doing it.

A vast majority of people like to decry that people want it since XXX uses it -- well in some cases hero worship is the case.  I would say the vast majority its because an SOF looked at the Big Army issue stuff -- said this is junk for this role, and went and got Y to issue.  Now all of a sudden this Big Army unit finds itself doing urban combat, FID, SR and other "hard" SOF skill missions - and they find their kit not ideal...

   I can test gear under a given parameter to either make it pass or fail.  The question is whether or not it is a valid test.  

One question I have would be why has the CF not gotten into FR items for the basic soldiers -- many troops have suffered horrible burns due in part to the material (which dries easier) of the combat clothing.  Now I took both stats and economics at univeristy - and I can remember the factors affecting consumer recalls - was based on whether or not the expected lawsutis for negligence would outweight the costs or the recall.

 I could add more and more armour to a soldier - and increase his protection level.  However will that same soldier - be able to move his/her head to keep SA...  Will he/she be able to bring their weapon to bear as easily.  Can the soldier hop a fence and run down an insurgent that just planted an IED?  The issue is one needs to have enough operational knowledge to base the trade off between mobility and armor.

I have seen people wearing arm protectors with plates in them - a neck guard that came up over their chin - leg panels with plates.

For OPSEC issues I wont blow a big hole in some other stuff.


Frostnipped Elf - the intial ACU's had problems with the ass ripping out -- it has since been fixed.  Keep in mind the US Mil is at WAR, troops in combat will wear out clothing (amongst other things) at a much fast rate than garrison.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Apr 2008)

As far as lack luster combats.  Ours were less then good on the first initial issue as well.  Stitching was sub par and mine fell apart in garrison with little work load put on them.  90% of the troops were in the same boat regarding first issue of our new combats.  I can only assume it was the case because there was a push from higher to get the boys kitted out in the new dudes.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Apr 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> One question I have would be why has the CF not gotten into FR items for the basic soldiers --



I doubt that the basic soldier would bother to use FR clothing properly. Even now, alot of CF pers who are required to wear FR uniforms do not do so peroperly. A second layer of clothing is required for it to be effective and i doubt that in places like the sandbox, Pte Bloggins would be willing to do that.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Apr 2008)

Does Carbon X require a second layer?


----------



## KevinB (26 Apr 2008)

Yes -- both it and dry fire etc.

 The Second layer is more of an insulation layer, in addition to giving you an extra bit after the exterior suit goes crispy.
Some FR gloves are built with a dual later in the palms - some are not.

Cdn Aviator -- see one buddy becoming a crispy critter is an eye opener.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Apr 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Does Carbon X require a second layer?



From the company's website :



> Another relevant rating system that has been used for years is the Thermal Protective Performance, or TPP. This applies to the garment's ability to provide thermal protection when exposed to both direct flame and radiant heat, and the length of time before a person is subject to second-degree burns. After extensive TPP, flammability and shrinkage test comparisons between the leading FR fabrics and CarbonX®, based on the autoracing industry SFI standards, the results show CarbonX is a superior product. At approximately 600° f., the leading FR fabrics burn, begin to shrink while charring, then crack and decompose. This is all in about 10 seconds. Under flammability testing, the FR fabrics will ignite and they often have problems passing the shrinkage test. Under the same conditions, CarbonX® is not effected in any way. *It even disburses the heat energy and will take about 60 seconds before the heat will start penetrating the next layer of fabric. * CarbonX® will not ignite or burn even when exposed to temperatures exceeding 2600° f. for over 120 seconds. As for material shrinkage, it does not exist with CarbonX®. See testing results.



The company says the fabric performs better than nomex and others and will not burn. That being said, without a second layer of material underneath, heat WILL penetrate and cause injury.

You have to ballance the need for FR with the need for something light, that is easily washable and that can take a pounding and allow the soldier to work without retaining enough heat to cause heat-related injury. A second layer considerably adds to that risk and ,IMHO, Pte Bloggins will ditch the second layer 9 times out of 10.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Apr 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Cdn Aviator -- see one buddy becoming a crispy critter is an eye opener.



agreed

I have seen many videos and pictures as part of training where you can clearly see the difference between one layer and two layers. Its not pretty.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Apr 2008)

One layer of FR would be better then none would it not?


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Vern, I never said that it's all dangerous and all crappy and everyone hates it. Infact I pointed out the ones that I did like, and maybe I didn't specify at the beginning but it's only my opinion. Sure there'll be people who love CTS kit, and those who hate it. But when I have a large percentage of troops that I see on a range ex or Bde ex modify or out right not use issued kit because of their non-serviceability, I begin to wonder the effectiveness of the issued kit that was given to our troops.
> 
> Now like I said before I think CTS has made some pretty good stuff, and I won't budge on the armour and helmet issue, because I believe that despite its bulkiness and other down falls the current issued armour isn't too bad, and once the inserts have been changed the helnet is an excellent piece of kit. But I have to wonder how come we (The CF) has yet to engage in a helmet modernization program like the one they have in the States? The Advanced Combat Helmet System? Where BLISS and BLU type kits have been installed and are authorized and even encouraged to be done so on the existing helmets that the troops have?
> 
> Here again is my own personal opinion with regards to why some people still prefer issued kit.



Word up:

SOME people HATE the mortar gloves. SOME people love them.
SOME people hate the fleece. SOME people love it.

For everything your opinion likes or doesn't --- there are those that hold the OPPOSITE opinion. 

And, your opinion and post about them liking it because of "not being exposed to it" -- does *not* marry up with the facts. SOME of these people have indeed been exposed to it ... both on and off the battlefields of Afghanistan. That is true of people which hold "I like it" opinions AND of people who hold "I don't like it" opinions. Do NOT attempt to write off "good" opinions of it as being held simply because "they have not been exposed to it" -- that's simply not true.

And, your opinion of the "cost factor" is simply NOT true nor is it supported by the facts either. Our kit has been tested and is PROVEN. It is EFFECTIVE, just as effective as Gucci kit, and in many cases (as I've already stated) that gucci kit has been tested side-by-side with CTS kit items and has performed to a LESSER level than CTS kit in those tests. Sure, cost is prohibitaive for buying Gucci kit when issued kit is free. But, that does not mean that GUCCI kit is better -- testing has demonstrated that, in many cases, it IS NOT. Therefore ... troops buying that Gucci gear -- are wasting their money for a brand name a LOT of the time -- it does not mean that they are settling for less effective or safe kit. That's a fact.


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> As far as lack luster combats.  Ours were less then good on the first initial issue as well.  Stitching was sub par and mine fell apart in garrison with little work load put on them.  90% of the troops were in the same boat regarding first issue of our new combats.  I can only assume it was the case because there was a push from higher to get the boys kitted out in the new dudes.



Yes, it certainly was true of the first run of cadpats. Due to an input error in the specs (fading/thread weight). That was dealt with via craploads of UCRs being pumped into the system and the situation corrected -- very quickly.

It had nothing to do with pushing inferior kit onto soldiers quickly. The very LAST thing that CTS is good at, is getting kit out quickly.


----------



## Yrys (26 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It had nothing to do with pushing inferior kit onto soldiers quickly. The very LAST thing that CTS is good at, is getting kit out quickly.





(and yes, you can erased my post ... )


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> One question I have would be why has the CF not gotten into FR items for the basic soldiers -- many troops have suffered horrible burns due in part to the material (which dries easier) of the combat clothing.  Now I took both stats and economics at univeristy - and I can remember the factors affecting consumer recalls - was based on whether or not the expected lawsutis for negligence would outweight the costs or the recall.



I totally agree with the above. The Army lags way behind in this area as compared to the Air Force. The CF, in general, has a very far way to go regarding FR. 

And, for OPSECs sake, I won't post any of the testing results or videos of those side-by-side blowing ups of gucci next to CTS gear either ... some people would be shocked to see the money they'd wasted on certain items.


----------



## Fusaki (26 Apr 2008)

> What the CF needs to do is wise up and create a definitive list of "approved" COTS gear for soldiers to buy, if they want to spend their money on it.



I'm not sure this is a viable solution.

The industry moves so fast and the bureaucracy is so slow that by the time good COTS gear is approved by the big army it will be outdated.

I suggest that we open the floodgates to everything CADPAT and let the decision making be done at the lowest levels.  Let the section commanders, PL WOs, CSMs and RSMs shut down the really dumb pieces of kit on an individual basis.  If a young Pte wants to spend his own money on COTS gear, let him. But if he's right outv'er, his section commander will shut that down and he'll suffer the expense of buying gear he can't use.

I have faith that a sort of non-issue "natural selection" will prevail.  Guys will police each other and good ideas will thrive while bad ideas die out.  Things will be constantly tested and evaluated and tactical thought will be stimulated as guys analyze problems and look for solutions.  Scenarios will be war-gamed and guys will start thinking outside the PAM at the lowest levels.

In the grander scheme of things, I believe in democracy and a free market because it reflects a survival of the fittest in political ideology in the former and economics in the latter.  These systems work because the free masses will always take the path of least resistance.  Good businesses are allowed to prosper and poor business die out, trimming the fat and streamlining our economy.  The majority vote wins allowing a government that most people can at least live with.  One person will make mistakes, but 10 people will make fewer. 80,000 people all testing gear will show trends in what equipment works and what doesn't.  The odd person might do something stupid, but overall the group will be better off.

This is demonstrated in the success of websites like wikipedia. Everyone knows of a case where some anonymous writer posted something on wikipedia that was way out to lunch, but it is usually caught pretty quick by 10 other people who know better.  As everyone contributes together the end result is an largely unbiased source of mostly accurate information.  Because it is policed by it's own freedom it avoids the mistakes a single author would make. It is survival of the fittest applied to knowledge.  It's not perfect, but its fast and it's accurate enough - as shown by it's popularity.

Now, just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right.  But in our environment with our operational tempo as it is and the amount of training that we do, we have the opportunity to test popular opinion against real world conditions.  As more and more troops figure out what works and what doesn't in places like Kandahar and Helmand popular opinion changes to reflect real life.  I don't care how many studies you do, a Canadian Battlegroup given free reign over their equipment will figure out what works best in Kandahar faster then a handfull of R&D types in NDHQ.  R&D can conduct trails and surveys to try and see what the troops want, but the bayonets on the ground will always evolve faster.

War as I see it is a race of adaptation.  The faster we can share information, identify goals, and focus on those goals the better chance we'll all come home alive.  The faster we can fuck up the bad guys OODA loop and keep it fucked up the sooner the war will be over.  It's about taking the initiative to throw the enemy off balance and aggressively exploiting those holes faster then he can plug them.  If we adapt to the situation faster then he does, we will win.

So how do we do survive?  The same way every other species fights for survival. Natural selection.  It's defined life on earth up to this point and any species that had it's priorities elsewhere has died off.  Free economy has brought financial prosperity, free democracy has brought political stability, and if given the chance a free thinking army will find the path of least resistance and choose the right gear for the job.  It will adapt faster, fight smarter, and win wars.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Apr 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> One layer of FR would be better then none would it not?



No. Not in my experience anyways.

I wear a nomex-type flight suit. Under it im am supposed to wear 100% cotton long underwear. One without the other is utterly useless.

All of you boys and girls out there who have seen the pictures from that AH-64 crew that did a ground egress in Iraq wearing only the flight suit will knwo what i mean.

And for you army types, FR clothing takes alot more care in the wash that CADPAT.....again if done properly. It is not supposed to be washed with anything else (i.e. flamable fabrics),you cant use dryer sheets either. The material tends to be thicker and not breath as well as CADPAT so you would sweat alot more.........


----------



## KevinB (27 Apr 2008)

It depends.  For flash - as when something like and RPG enters a vehicle and sets the air on fire a single FR can help immensly as opposed to shrink rap when flame exposed garments.

 For direct contatc with fire -- Nomex will char and burn --

Like armoured vehicles and personal body armour -- its can buy you time to act.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Apr 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> One layer of FR would be better then none would it not?



Rip stop cotton would probably be just fine, like other armies have their soldiers wearing right now.  :

A pal of mine recently returned from KAF and said "We have two armies right now: one in the theatre of operations that gets all kinds of stuff issued that the army at home will never see". Now, this makes good sense because lots of lives are at stake, so why not make sure that the troops on the ground in Central Asia right now get the fighting kit they need to do the job right, and safely. The other 99% of the CF, like me, can get by with the CTS stuff (which is far better than the old stuff for exercises in Wainwright or wherever). I mean, if we can have Leo 2, Nyalas and 155mm, etc etc in theatre, why not issue a few hundred sets of the best quality fighting kit to the very pointy end of our CF spear, who are spending more time outside the wire than in, to make sure that they have the world class gear they need to do the job right first time and come home safely. What would that cost? No idea, but I'm betting it's less than a single Leo 2. And if it happens to save even one life I, for one, think it's worth it.

This would also be a good opportunity for these pointy end folks to inform upgrades to the current range of CTS kit based on their experience with the good stuff. It would also be one hell of a good competition for suppliers to come up to the standards expected. Our 'troops in contact' would then be leading the rest of us by example, as it were, in more ways than one.


----------



## a78jumper (27 Apr 2008)

.

I wear a nomex-type flight suit. Under it im am supposed to wear 100% cotton long underwear. One without the other is utterly useless.

Interesting . I wear Nomex everyday as part of my PPE on the job and I  never knew that.


----------



## Gunner98 (27 Apr 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Frostnipped Elf - the intial ACU's had problems with the *** ripping out -- it has since been fixed.  Keep in mind the US Mil is at WAR, troops in combat will wear out clothing (amongst other things) at a much fast rate than garrison.



I6,

My anecdotal evidence regarding ACU/BDU came from a recent 3-week crse at NNMC Bethesda with TSgt-Lt(N)-LCol from all 4-branches (HSS folks) with recent combat experience - 3 branches expressed dissatisfaction with their BDU/ACU clothing, the Marines were the only exception.  Pockets, velcro and bungee-type closures, and the dreaded elastic wrist/ankle cuffs were some of the issues expressed.


----------



## BinRat55 (27 Apr 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Please I will make you a deal -- I wont tell you how to run a supply system -- you dont talk about gear - EVER!



"Gear" is what I do. And as far as telling me how to run a supply system is concerned, what good is a supply system is no one recognises it?My apologies if i've offended anyone.


----------



## Farmboy (27 Apr 2008)

> "Gear" is what I do.



 "Gear" is what you organize and handout.

 "Gear" is what I-6 and some of the others use on a daily basis.


 It's like the two guys in my regiment who thought they were experts on CQB/FIBUA just because they helped build the FIBUA site at Denison.


----------



## BinRat55 (27 Apr 2008)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> "Gear" is what you organize and handout.
> 
> "Gear" is what I-6 and some of the others use on a daily basis.
> 
> ...



Isn't that special. So I have been reduced to "organising and handing out"? I'm not claiming to be an expert on "gear", i'm stating that if WE are issued it, we should be wearing it. We have a perfectly good Trials and Evaluation unit who goes through great lengths to put this stuff through it's paces and report on it - favorably or otherwise. Read Vern's posts here - some like it for some reasons, some hate it for others. We (we meaning CF) can't suit everyone, no matter how hard we try.

I am, however, an expert on the supply system - this is MY job. If for one moment you believe that I, and other Supply Techs are nothing but kit pushers, think again. I've been overseas four times, as with many other purple trades, and i've used our "gear" for my protection. I have volunteered and gone on foot patrols outside the wire, air sentrys and sat on many gate guards. Don't get me wrong here, i'm not saying that I do what the brave men and women within our combat arms trades do on a daily basis, but we supply techs are much more than organisers and pushers. We wear the stuff too.


----------



## KevinB (27 Apr 2008)

Bin -- my issue is that you commented based on a small operational understanding of gear.

 I've been quite lucky and had a chain of command that either did not care or supported my excessed of kit experimentation when I was in.  One of the problems with T&E'ing kit - is if you dont have a large experience base -- or if you dont have a large segment of kit to trial.


 IMHO I beleive the CF NEEDS a releasable armour system.  I think the GenV Vest and the tac Vest are ill suited for todays conbat environment -- it may be an 80% solution -- but not for the 20% that is fighting in it.
  I have some insights into testing as well -- one issue I have is some of the tests grade a pass fail beyond what the wearer will be able to sustain physically -- great Cpl Bloggins helmet is good to go after a blast -- but his head has been caved in due to the pressure...

 Having had to suffer thru the biomechanic peopel explain that my armor setup and vest was not ideal, I can tell you that as an end user that no amount of book learning will allow one to understand what a soldier needs to fight with.  That unfortunately needs to be learned by training and exposure to combat.

  Unfortunately a very skilled soldier who was involved in the design of the DHTC patrol vest and chest rig left the CF, and left tactical nylon design -- but he is still working in gear manufacture for a Canadian company -- and hopefully he will be able to influence some future kit for the CF.


----------



## NL_engineer (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I totally agree with the above. The Army lags way behind in this area as compared to the Air Force. The CF, in general, has a very far way to go regarding FR.
> 
> And, for OPSECs sake, I won't post any of the testing results or videos of those side-by-side blowing ups of gucci next to CTS gear either ... some people would be shocked to see the money they'd wasted on certain items.



Can you send me those video's on my DWAN email (pm inbound with it)?


----------



## dangerboy (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Maybe this is a good idea (not posting the video openly) show the soldier in a classified brief the test results, so the soldier can get the full picture.  After all a picture is worth a thousand words.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> ArmyVern said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Ask your CoC at work then. They're out there to be seen. You don't see them ... sounds like a problem at your end n'est pas? It's not like they don't come with a "for widest distribution" ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Apr 2008)

I'm in his CoC and this is the first i have heard of these video's.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I'm in his CoC and this is the first i have heard of these video's.



Now, let's get this straight. Is that my fault? Those videos have sweet FA to do with the Supply System. And, I really hope that you are not insinuating that the CF would purposely (and with malice apparently judging by the "normal" vein of CTS rants given on this site) outfit you in unsafe and untested PPE -- because even you know that's BS. 

IIRC, snippets of the BEW testing (as an example) made it up on this site a couple years ago. DIN search should give you a hand to find them. Testing results etc etc. Specs are available there too. This is not new info, and has been posted on this site before.

Now, if you guys want to start jumping all over us Supply Techs simply because we happen to point out that the frequently heard arguements about why CTS kit sucks and is dangerous are the very same arguements applicable to gucci gear ... fill your boots. I don't need "lanes" to point that out to you. 

Fact of the matter is it IS safe. It IS tested. It HAS outperformed Gucci gear in testing. It IS cheaper than Gucci gear (because it's issued for free!!). It lasts JUST as long as Gucci gear. The CF does NOT go with the cheapest manufacturer for it's contracting of it (and hasn't for years). Your CTS gear was also field trialled before it was brought into the system by soldiers like you (*not* rear elechelon LEG/WOGs -- whatever the term of the jour is for people like_ me _ today). ANSI specs are well and good, but CF specs meet OR exceed ANSI specs (exceed, in the vast majority of cases).

Some of it is not comfortable, so some of you will say (and have said) that therefore, may cost a soldier his life. Well, guess what?? SOME soldiers including some of them who've been in the sandbox ... can same the exact same thing about many items of Gucci gear being pushed around here. 

What is comfortable for one person, may not be comfortable for the next. Period. Those are facts. Those are facts which are applicable to both CTS gear and to Gucci gear. So, while there is a tendancy on this site by some to slam CTS gear as "useless" (and usually the people who work there too) because SOME of it is not comfortable etc ... the EXACT same argument could be made by inserting "Gucci Brand name" here because the EXACT same thing applies.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Apr 2008)

Is it your fault?  Absolutely not.  Nor was I implying that in any way shape or form.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Is it your fault?  Absolutely not.  Nor was I implying that in any way shape or form.



My bad then. My apologies.

Perhaps I'm just overreacting from the normal tendancy on this site to automaticly use their big wide brush to tar CTS, the people who work there, the supply system, and anything CTS instead of "Gucci" as BAD, BAD, BAD; automaticly and even when it's just not borne out by the facts. And then, when some of us point out the facts we get told to "stay in our lanes" even though some of those facts are available to us in our jobs (ie specs and testing) and are therefore very much "within" our lanes. I'm am NOT an "organizer and issuer of kit." How fucking insulting is that?

The Tac Vest f'n sucks. Everyone knows that. And because of THAT piece of kit -- some people people will go to good lengths to continue to slam each and every piece of CTS gear they can. But, how many times does it need to be said that the Tac Vest was designed in the early 90s --- when we were a peacekeeping nation -- a purpose for which it would be suitable? 99.9% of those slams ... have SFA to do with CTS gear being untested or unsafe --- but the posts on this site would certainly have the uninformed believing that CTS gear is unsafe and will get you killed -- and that's BULLSHIT. It's untrue. It's not borne out by the facts, and is a completely improper perception to be giving to those just entering the CF, their families who worry about them, and the average civilian visitor to this site. And, I'm tired of the "stay in lanes" comments that come out to we who dare point out that CTS gear is not unsafe, or who dare to say it tested better than some beloved piece of Gucci gear.

Sometimes, I gotta sit back here and wonder if some of the members here are getting kickbacks from the companies involved. Because their distinct anti-CTS streaks are obvious -- whether they've used the gear or not -- it's just an automatic "CTS is bad, and evil, and unsafe."


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Interestingly, a quick review of some of the profiles of posters here in this thread -- certainly does show an association with various of the "Gucci kit" manufacturers. Yeah, absolutely no baisness there.


----------



## KevinB (27 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> My bad then. My apologies.
> 
> Perhaps I'm just overreacting from the normal tendancy on this site to automaticly use their big wide brush to tar CTS, the people who work there, the supply system, and anything CTS instead of "Gucci" as BAD, BAD, BAD; automaticly and even when it's just not borne out by the facts. And then, when some of us point out the facts we get told to "stay in our lanes" even though some of those facts are available to us in our jobs (ie specs and testing) and are therefore very much "within" our lanes. I'm am NOT an "organizer and issuer of kit." How fucking insulting is that?
> 
> ...



Get off your high horse.


You've lost all objectivity in this issue.  Your not acting like a mod your acting like the den mother to CTS/DLR


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Get off your high horse.
> 
> You've lost all objectivity in this issue.  Your not acting like a mod your acting like the den mother to CTS/DLR



I'm not posting as a mod. I don't post as a mod in Supply threads ... never have. What's being a mod got to do with this at all? That's the way this site has always worked. You're quite aware of that. 

It's not a high horse I6.  And you should be one of the last to tell me about "objectivity" given your frequency to slam everything CTS just because it is CTS.

Pointing out fallacies in the "slam everything CTS" posts that claim it is all dangerous and will cost lives is now being a den mother?? Even when that arguement is not true? Cute that. But, bullshit none-the-less.


----------



## Ecco (27 Apr 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Okay I will offer some logic in this arena -- I will offer that as far as an PBA end user I am a SME (feel free to argue this).



I am an end user of a car.  I have been for years, most days.  It does not make me a mechanical engineer.  I have opinions about which cars I prefer, but that's about it.
I am an end user of food, both prepared by myself or from restaurants.  I can tell you what I like, but I am not a chef, or a nutritionist.

The end user of a product is not a SME.  He is an interested stakeholder into procurement.  The user can provide invaluable insight about ergonomics, human factors and feature preference.  However, as opposed to boots for example, the main requirements of a ballistic piece of kit is not related to personal preference, it is related to boring laws of physics and material resistance.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I think the GenV Vest and the tac Vest are ill suited for todays conbat environment



There is no such thing as a Gen V vest.  I will assume you refer to the CTS FPV, which could be referred to as a Gen 3 vest.  Gen 1 and 2 were slammed hard by the Chief of Review Services Report years ago and were quickly replaced (they were the vest that were not compatible with the helmet.)


----------



## McG (27 Apr 2008)

I’ve stolen a few thoughts from the weapon’s mod thread, because I think they important to address here.


			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I think the solution is not in standardization, but instead in education.


Standardization and education are not mutually exclusive.  Non-standardization has a time & place within reasonable scope. Education absolutely is essential.  Even where the information is out there, the Army is doing an inadequate job at this.  Soldiers do not understand their protection requirements, they don’t understand why many items of equipment have been chosen and they don’t understand the sometimes essential relationships between all the various items of equipment.

One effect is that we have soldiers buying unauthorized equipment based on inadequate civilian, law enforcement, or other nation’s mil standards.  In many cases, these soldiers will be less protected simply out of ignorance and not by an educated decision to sacrifice protection for mobility or comfort.

I've stolen a couple of thoughts


			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Contrary to what some might claim, sub-unit commanders have been turning a blind eye (even authorizing?) ...
> 
> Overall, I think the fact that this is becoming commonplace is a step in the right direction.  But I've also seen these "unofficial sub-unit policies" manifest themselves in pretty retarded ways too.  ...  As much as I think that letting troops take some initiative with drop-in weapons modifications is a good idea, I have to admit that it's a double edged sword.  Some would be better off sticking with the issued gear.


You did a good job of illustrating the inadequate rational that goes into weapons decisions in the other thread.  At this point, I’d ask you to consider the dangers of a supervisor as inadequately educated as the subordinate being the one to decide the acceptability of a given item of PPE.

There is a kit problem.  I don’t see a panacea.


----------



## Farmboy (27 Apr 2008)

> I am an end user of a car.  I have been for years, most days.  It does not make me a mechanical engineer.  I have opinions about which cars I prefer, but that's about it.
> I am an end user of food, both prepared by myself or from restaurants.  I can tell you what I like, but I am not a chef, or a nutritionist.
> 
> The end user of a product is not a SME.



 Your right.  Just because I-6 and some of the other end users, use the kit on a daily basis, does not make them able to sew gear, like you driving a car does not make you an engineer.

 Like you using your car on a daily basis though, you, like I-6 and others with gear, are able to point out what works or doesn't work in certain applications.

 You can tell us if the smart car you drive is able to carry all of your family members to the hockey game, how many time you have had to repair it, if it starts in the winter, if it can make if up the icy hill, or if the new SUV your using does a much better overall job.  It's the same feedback.


 The Tac vest has been beaten to death, yes it sucks.

 The BEW looks pretty good for protection, which has made me go back to one of my suppliers and say "This needs to be improved" and it will, very quickly.  The issue ones still give me a headache though every time I put it on.

 Yes the CF still goes with the lowest bidder (unless it is a request for proposal), I am on MERX everyday trying to do business so don't tell me otherwise.  They also like to steal or "take over" designs, then farm it out to the lowest bidder.  

 The reason people are so cranky is because some of the very basic things have not changed.  Helmet suspention/protection, Tac Vest and patrol sling are very simple to change yet nothing has been done.

 Here is a conversation that took place at CANSEC with me and over 10 CF members who could make changes;


CF: "Anything new we should look at?"

Darren: "Yes, the Blue Force Gear slings, specifically the Vickers sling"

CF:  "Why is that?"

Darren:  "Well the Vickers sling was designed for combat unlike the issue slings, it's approved for use with the RCMP, LE Tactical Teams and has been purchased by CF Units"

CF:  "What's wrong with the issue slings?"

Darren: " You know how the patrol sling has that little snap/button that always breaks or seizes and never works right?"

CF: "Yes"

Darren "You know how guys always have that duct taped up, so it makes it pointless?"

CF: "Yes"

Darren: "You know how the rubber pieces on the sling loops are alwasy broken and have to be tied on with more paracord?"

CF: "Yes"

Darren: "You know how that extra strap running along the C7/C8 gets in the way when you have to do your immediate action drills, or gets caught on gear?"

CF: "Yes"

Darren: "Well the Vickers sling................

CF: "Well I'm happy with the patrol sling"

??!!!???!!!!

 They just put a tender out for 10,000 more - yes to the lowest bidder.





> Soldiers do not understand their protection requirements, they don’t understand why many items of equipment have been chosen and they don’t understand the sometimes essential relationships between all the various items of equipment.



 So then inform us, educate us, why Daisy Chains were used on our gear instead of MOLLE?!?!?!?!  



> One effect is that we have soldiers buying unauthorized equipment based on inadequate civilian, law enforcement, or other nation’s mil standards.  In many cases, these soldiers will be less protected simply out of ignorance and not by an educated decision to sacrifice protection for mobility or comfort.



 In this case you're speaking of BEW, helmets and body armour.  Tell us why you think non-issue holsters or vests can't be used.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

"Best Value" does not equal "Lowest Bidder", nor has it for quite a few years now.  

There's already another thread on the site discussing that.


----------



## Canadian Sig (27 Apr 2008)

If the Tac Vest and issued Biannchi holster equal "best value" Then I think we need to re-define that term.

I would'nt presume to go after the CTS folks as I have never done a day in their jobs nor a mile in their shoes. However, I do have to say that it seems to me that the system is very slow to adapt. I dont think thats in anyway the fault of CTS. I think it's higher than that.

 Just my .02 centavos


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> If the Tac Vest and issued Biannchi holster equal "best value" Then I think we need to re-define that term.
> 
> I would'nt presume to go after the CTS folks as I have never done a day in their jobs nor a mile in their shoes. However, I do have to say that it seems to me that the system is very slow to adapt. I dont think thats in anyway the fault of CTS. I think it's higher than that.
> 
> Just my .02 centavos



As said before, the Tac Vest is a piece of crap. It is most definitely NOT suitable to war-fighting. Surprise. It is also a piece of kit designed in the mid-late 90s (well before "best value" & well-before our current "realizations of kit improvements/modifications required due to _warfighting_) ... when we were affectionately still known as "Peacekeepers" ... did you miss that that being said numerous times on this site? It would have served it's purpose way back when.


----------



## Canadian Sig (27 Apr 2008)

No. I did'nt miss that. It just happened to be first on the list, followed by: BEWs, Holster, Helmet Suspension, Sling, Desert boots......and I'm not gonna start on the TCCCs radios (and lack of a bag that holds them with any comfort while fully kitted.).


edit: Some of our issued kit is great. I love my Gortex ICE kit and my new raingear. The boots are progressing well and from what I hear the new ruck is a step-up.


----------



## Farmboy (27 Apr 2008)

I never said it does.  

I said  





> Yes the CF still goes with the lowest bidder (unless it is a request for proposal),


 in response to you saying they don't.

"Best Value" is used for new items they would like to see in the system. 

Most tenders are already written for a specific company or product though. The company just has to send in the paperwork to make it official.



> It is also a piece of kit designed in the mid-late 90s (well before "best value" & well-before our current "realizations of kit improvements/modifications required due to warfighting) ... when we were affectionately still known as "Peacekeepers



So why has it taken so long to do anything about it?

You have to realize the problem is not with you, it's the fact that the Tac Vest is still issued and being made to be worn for combat.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> I never said it does.
> 
> I said   in response to you saying they don't.
> 
> "Best Value" is used for new items they would like to see in the system.


And, resupply or recontract of stuff already in the system is expected to meet the exact same minimal specs of those "best value" items brought in originally. So, of course the cheaper price would be fine in that case --- because the kit by that original supply has already suited the "best value" parameter ... or increased spec -- it certainly doesn't decrease in spec with subsequent purchases.



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> Most tenders are already written for a specific company or product though. The company just has to send in the paperwork to make it official.



Quite often the arguement made, and usually found to be utterly baseless, by suppliers who didn't "win". Hey, why wouldn't they complain --- it's business to them after all; shareholders in those businesses love having a slice of valuable government contracts.



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> So why has it taken so long to do anything about it?



Because, unlike our big rich military neighbour to the south -- we don't have the capability to go into trillion dollar defecits (or even billion dollar deficits) here in the land of 33 million people.

And, because purchasing is Federal and governed by Federal regulations. Involving TB & PWGSC. Slow, tedious beaurcracy at it's finest, but that's the way it works in Canada. You make it seem as if there's no move forward. Surely you're aware of chest rigs being trialled in-theatre etc etc? It's not as if the CF is sitting on it's ass and NOT trying to get a suitable item out there -- ergo why are the chest rigs under discussion and being looked into, and trialled in-theatre? Perhaps even one from the company you advertize in your profile has one over there being tested at this time (I really don't know if one of yours is there or not)??



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> You have to realize the problem is not with you, it's the fact that the Tac Vest is still issued and being made to be worn for combat.



Is it?? Not judging by the posts around here it isn't. Once outside the fence where it counts --- it seems to be perfectly acceptable and common practice to ditch the TV and put on a chest rig.


----------



## Ecco (27 Apr 2008)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> So then inform us, educate us, why Daisy Chains were used on our gear instead of MOLLE?!?!?!?!



That's an easy one, but I will leave the homework to you:

a) Find the year the TV was designed (hint, it's before it was issued)
b) Find the year MOLLE was introduced (hint it's after date a)
c) Find the year MOLLE stopped having stupid introduction issues (it's after date b)

We have a slow procurement process indeed.


----------



## Fusaki (27 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Soldiers do not understand their protection requirements, they don’t understand why many items of equipment have been chosen and they don’t understand the sometimes essential relationships between all the various items of equipment...
> 
> ...One effect is that we have soldiers buying unauthorized equipment based on inadequate civilian, law enforcement, or other nation’s mil standards.  In many cases, these soldiers will be less protected simply out of ignorance and not by an educated decision to sacrifice protection for mobility or comfort...
> 
> ...



I agree, at this point in time there are alot of uneducated troops _and supervisors_ that just don't know whats good for them.  They don't bother to do the research and it could all end up in a case of "The blind leading the blind".

The problem as I see it is alot of troops "doing it because the Americans are doing it" or "I read it was good in soldier of fortune" or even "The manufacturer claims this dragon skin will take multiple hits 7.62".  These are all kinds of dangers with this and up untill this point the big army has said "No! We're going to check it all out with our tests and on our terms and we're going to choose for you what we think is best". I see the logic behind this.

But I think there is a better and faster way.  I tried to get at this in my last post, but I think I sort of went off on a "big picture" tangent.  The reason the troops do not take the time to research the gear is because the vast majority don't see themselves ever applying the knowledge.  They know that the chances are pretty good that they'll be forces to wear the issued gear, so why bother?  Even if they'll be allowed overseas, there's no way they'll wear it in Canada, so why not just cross that bridge when the time comes?  The solution: open the floodgates to anything CADPAT but non-issue. If we do this, we WILL have a period where guys are all fucked up.  But 10 years from now we'll have a solid base of experienced and educated soldiers.  It might even cost lives in the short term, but in the long term it will save lives because our army will be smarter and it will be able to adapt faster to changing situations.

Imagine if we had opened the gucci floodgates in 1998.  The TV was still developed and issued, but guys who did not want to were not forced to wear them.  It is a peacekeeping vest suitable for peacekeeping operations, but at the same time young PTEs were experimenting with other things.  They were anticipating scenarios, wargamming ideas, testing and evaluating individually and building their experience.  Then in 2006 these Ptes are now MCPLs with 8 years of thinking up good ideas, now they can test those ideas in combat.  In 2008 the MCPLs are now SGTs with 10 years of testing and evaluating, and absorbing the experience of others through word of mouth. The TV is nowhere to be seen, because the guys have been policing each other.  On EX Pte Jones says to Pte Bloggins: "Dude, your chest rig is all fucked up. Try this instead." Guys argue and "what if" each other, stimulating discussion. Eventually trends will form, that have been proven by large numbers of soldiers in combat. It's the best R&D you could ask for. Its a faster, more efficient, and more effective system.

It's like muckleing. As in "you guys go muckle onto those sandbags and let me know when they're filled". Of course you could line everyone up in two ranks, front row with shovels and rear row with bags, now shovel in quick time.  But the troops with a common goal will find their own natural bow and stern. If you tell them to muckle onto something they'll automatically pair up with guys they work well with and bitch each other out for not holding the bag properly.  They'll sort each other out and get the job done faster and better.

The same philosophy is applied to gear.  80, 000 soldiers with the common goal of getting home alive might take a bit to gain experience, but once they do they'll have a better understanding of the way things are and they'll be able to adapt quicker to changing situations.  It will lead to a faster, smarter, and more efficient army.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread,

Your idea has been discussed here on the site before.

The major problem with it (hurdle if you will) is that for any item of kit to be "Officially sanctionned & authorized" for wear -- the government has the ONUS to ensure that it is tested for specs to ensure personal safety and that risks posed to the soldier are at the very minimal end of the stick. Soldiers, their families and the Canadian public expect that of them.

Official sanctionning of "off the rack" kit that is not put through the specs and testings required to ensure that it is safe ballistics-wise etc for our soldiers (vice LEO level testing or ANSI testing, etc) would lead to the largest lawsuits in Canadian history the very minute the first troop dies wearing an "authorized, but untested, untrialled, unspeced item of Gucci gear" that the CF "officially" told him he could use without ensuring it was safe for the job. 

There is no risk management in that -- therefore it will never fly.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2008)

Lemesee now...

CTS is a supplier and distributor of gear to the Canadian Forces.
That puts it on a par with a few dozen other suppliers and distributors of kit to CF Soldiers and Wannabes all of whom have the luxury of only supplying one or two bits of kit.

Now let's suppose that there was no CTS and everybody got to buy their own kit.  On that basis I can assume that Infidel 6, Lone Wolf Quagmire and RHFC Piper will all be wearing exactly the same rigs from exactly the same suppliers.  Right?

Not.

Likewise that's the reason that Sportcheck only has one type of shoe in stock.  :

Any shoe on the rack at Sportcheck will get the job done.  Some are going to suit some people better than others and some may have personal preferences for colour etc but they all work.  The variety in stock is possible because the store makes money selling those shoes.  It buys variety and sells variety to you at a higher price making a handsome profit in the process.

The Army doesn't have a Margin available to finance a selection of goods. 

The Army's job is to make sure that whatever kit it supplies is capable of fulfilling the role required of it and do it at an affordable price.


----------



## Fusaki (27 Apr 2008)

> Official sanctionning of "off the rack" kit that is not put through the specs and testings required to ensure that it is safe ballistics-wise etc for our soldiers (vice LEO level testing or ANSI testing, etc) would lead to the largest lawsuits in Canadian history the very minute the first troop dies wearing an "authorized, but untested, untrialled, unspeced item of Gucci gear" that the CF "officially" told him he could use without ensuring it was safe for the job.



So you're saying the problem is politics?

If I'm reading you right, it's about the government more concerned about covering it's ass than winning wars.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> If I'm reading you right, it's about the government more concerned about covering it's ass than winning wars.



The government has to follow Canadian Law


----------



## Ecco (27 Apr 2008)

And PWGSC, who enforces most of the procurement laws, is DEFINITELY not at war.


----------



## Fusaki (27 Apr 2008)

> Any shoe on the rack at Sportcheck will get the job done.  Some are going to suit some people better than others and some may have personal preferences for colour etc but they all work.  The variety in stock is possible because the store makes money selling those shoes.  It buys variety and sells variety to you at a higher price making a handsome profit in the process.
> 
> The Army doesn't have a Margin available to finance a selection of goods.
> 
> The Army's job is to make sure that whatever kit it supplies is capable of fulfilling the role required of it and do it at an affordable price.



If it were as simple as that we'd all be told to wear the grey "Johnny-go-fasters" running shoes we were issued at St. Jean.  Sure, they might get the job done, but at the cost of how many knees, backs, and ankles? IIRC on my joining instructions for BMQ it was actually suggested that I bring my own running shoes.



> The government has to follow Canadian Law



So because Canadian law states the government must equip the soldier, the soldier must use that gear despite the fact that he could be more effective with something different?

Thats a little backwards isn't it? Isn't the law there to ensure that the soldier can carry out his duties with the best equipment available?

I can see why the Canadian Government needs to provide a standard set of equipment a soldier will need to complete the mission. What I don't see is the logic behind the CF policy that only issued gear will be used.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> And PWGSC, who enforces most of the procurement laws, is DEFINITELY not at war.



Nor is Canada, officially anyway.  :-\


----------



## aesop081 (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> So because Canadian law states the government must equip the soldier, the soldier must use that gear despite the fact that he could be more effective with something different?
> 
> Thats a little backwards isn't it? Isn't the law there to ensure that the soldier can carry out his duties with the best equipment available?
> 
> I can see why the Canadian Government needs to provide a standard set of equipment a soldier will need to complete the mission. What I don't see is the logic behind the CF policy that only issued gear will be used.



 :brickwall:

Write your MP, ask him/her to have the government purchasing laws changed and have a nice day.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> So because Canadian law states the government must equip the soldier, the soldier must use that gear despite the fact that he could be more effective with something different?
> 
> Thats a little backwards isn't it? Isn't the law there to ensure that the soldier can carry out his duties with the best equipment available?
> 
> I can see why the Canadian Government needs to provide a standard set of equipment a soldier will need to complete the mission. What I don't see is the logic behind the CF policy that only issued gear will be used.



*You're missing the part where the gear that the government "authorizes for wear" MUST meet safety standards and ballistic testing standard/mil specs. * 

Ergo, each and every piece of OTR kit you want a soldier to have on "that list" of approved for wear ... will have to go through the exact same ballisitics testing/mil spec certification trials that our issued gear does and has gone through. And, it therefore follows that it must also meet OR exceed those specs upon testing (*some of the gucci items have already been tested and determined to have performed * *worse* than the CTS gear in ballisitcs tests) in order to get put onto that list. 

That takes craploads of money -- and TIME. Is it cost-effective and time-effective to do that when *our gear has already met and passed those tests and proven to be safe?* (We are not talking Tac Vest here).

We are NOT a nation of unlimited funding -- much as that would be nice, it simply is not realistic.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> What I don't see is the logic behind the CF policy that only issued gear will be used.



Who would be at fault when some young troop's personally acquired _Super Ninja Lightweight Ballistic Plates_ didn't stop a bullet?


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Who would be at fault when some young troop's personally acquired _Super Ninja Lightweight Ballistic Plates_ didn't stop a bullet?



or if some superninjawannabe in a deployed unit bought a shinny Desert Eagle and it malfunctioned in a TIC.  (I know.....A little extreme.)


----------



## riggermade (27 Apr 2008)

Personally when it comes to body armour then use what is issued...it has been tested and approved

When it comes to anything to improve on the Tacvest and carry the ammo load vice what the tacvest does then go for it...tacvest or chest rig over issued body armour is not going to effect the capabilities of the body armour....there are other organiztions doing the same thing, not in combat but still with the risk of being shot at

The arguement about contractors could go on forever ...I know vests that were approved that fell apart because of poor workmanship and I know there is kit out there that is on more than one tour and holding up

I can see both sides but it is getting rediculous the arguing on this thread

We all know there is approved kit and other kit and every individual has there own idea what works and there has been how many answers to solve the problem

Some people are taking this a little to personal and that is on both sides of the arguement


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> So you're saying the problem is politics?
> 
> If I'm reading you right, it's about the government more concerned about covering it's ass than winning wars.



Not what I said at all.

It certainly wouldn't be the governemnt suing itself with a 

"My son is dead because the CF allowed him to use a plate OTR that let a 7.62 round pass through it without even testing it. They failed in their responsibility to ensure my son was adequately mitigated against risk; And, that is their Duty to my son whose Duty was to serve the country."


----------



## Fusaki (27 Apr 2008)

> You're missing the part where the gear that the government "authorizes for wear" MUST meet safety standards and ballistic testing standard/mil specs.
> 
> Ergo, for every pieve of OTR kit you want a soldier to have on "that list" of approved for wear ... will have to go through the exact same ballisitics testing/mil spoec certification that our issued gear does and has gone through. And, it therefore follows that it must also meet OR exceed those specs upon testing (some of the gucci items have already been tested and determined to have performed worse than the CTS gear in ballisitcs tests) in order to get put onto that list.
> 
> That takes craploads of money -- and TIME. Is it cost-effective and time-effective to do that when our gear has already met and passed those tests and proven to be safe? (We are not talking Tac Vest here).



Then don't make a list of authorized non-issue kit.  Just say "If its CADPAT go for it. If your section commander shuts you down, too bad you've wasted your money."

If everyone had the freedom to choose what they wanted and what they didnt the good gear would thrive and the bad gear would die out. Under Armor is a perfect example of this.  I'm sure the CF has banned Under Armor outside the wire.  Now, I'll bet that if people still wanted to wear it they could get away with it. But NO ONE wants to have that stuff melted to them.  It didn't take a study or the chain of command to stop me from wearing under armor. It took one horror story of a guy getting that crap melted into his skin.

It goes back to what I was saying earlier about natural selection.  If everyone had the freedom to experiment on Ex in Canada and overseas in combat the good gear would thrive and and the bad gear would not.  No two guys would be wearing the exact same equipment, but common trends in design and features will develop over time.  Guys would know what things to avoid and they'd be looking for those things in their next purchase. Over time, Section commanders and PL WOs would have the experience to guide their soldiers and they'd be able to shut down really silly ideas at the lowest levels.  More often though, guys would sort each other out - passing info by word of mouth.



> Write your MP, ask him/her to have the government purchasing laws changed and have a nice day.



Or in other words:  "Used the issued kit because thats the way it is". :



> Who would be at fault when some young troop's personally acquired Super Ninja Lightweight Ballistic Plates didn't stop a bullet?



It would be his fault.  But maybe if he had a better TV he'd have shot the bad guy before the bad guy shot him.  People are always going to get hurt. Bust less people will get hurt by an army that can adapt faster to a changing enemy.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Or in other words:  "Used the issued kit because thats the way it is". :



Save the rolling eyes and lecturing for someone else, i didnt join the CF yesterday. I've used a piece or two of non-issued kit in my days.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Then don't make a list of authorized non-issue kit.  Just say "If its CADPAT go for it. If your section commander shuts you down, too bad you've wasted your money."



If anybody SAID that they would be benefacto "approving" it -- and NO ONE has the authority to do that unless it has been put through that testing process. Is that really too hard a concept to grasp?

 :


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> It took one horror story of a guy getting that crap melted into his skin.
> 
> It goes back to what I was saying earlier about natural selection.



Why did it even need one horror story, what's wrong with the CF testing process to determine acceptable standards?

_Natural selection? _ So, your acceptable solution is the CF saying: "Sorry Mrs Bloggins, Jimmy died because he wasn't smart enough to buy himself better kit.  Yeah, we had workable stuff, but he chose not to use it and that was his right.  Oh, by the way, he signed the waiver, so you can't sue us.  Sorry, he didn't get any medals, but his section did nominate him for the Darwin Award."


----------



## Fusaki (27 Apr 2008)

> Why did it even need one horror story, what's wrong with the CF testing process to determine acceptable standards?
> 
> Natural selection? So, your acceptable solution is the CF saying: "Sorry Mrs Bloggins, Jimmy died because he wasn't smart enough to buy himself better kit.  Yeah, we had workable stuff, but he chose not to use it and that was his right.  Oh, by the way, he signed the waiver, so you can't sue us.  Sorry, he didn't get any medals, but his section did nominate him for the Darwin Award."



How about "Sorry Mrs Bloggins, but Jimmy was trapped inside a burning LAV because his gear got all caught up in a tangled mess.  Maybe if the government had been faster to issue a releasable armour system he'd still be alive."

People are going to die and thats not good. But less people are going to die if the equipment they use can keep pace with the speed the gear industry evolves.  Whats wrong with the system? It's SLOW.  Releasable armor is GOOD idea. But despite the fact that the concept has been around for awhile now, and despite the fact that the US army is now issuing releasable armour, the CF will take another 10 years to get on board. By the time it is issued it will be 2008 technology and the industry will be already be two bounds ahead.

How many lives will be lost between now and 2018 because a guy couldn't crawl out of his burning LAV fast enough? How about training accidents in Canada soldier falls into the river, can't get his gear off quick enough and drowns? What are you going to tell their parents? The technology is there, but we didn't move fast enough? The law says we need to do it this way?

I'm not saying our issued gear is unsafe. Safety is a relative term.  Sometimes the safest thing is to wear less armor so you can move and fight faster. What is considered "safer" today will be "safe, but not as safe as this" 10 years from now.

Like I keep saying, equipment we use should be in a constant arms race. You can never have the "best" of anything. The most you can do is adapt fast enough that you're ahead of the curve.  The COTS gear industry moves one hell of alot faster then the CF beurocracy and if we can find a way to keep up with it our soldiers WILL BE SAFER.



> If anybody SAID that they would be benefacto "approving" it -- and NO ONE has the authority to do that unless it has been put through that testing process. Is that really too hard a concept to grasp?



But it happens anyways and overall the troops appreciate it!  Find me someone who's been in a Battlegroup, OMLT, Force Protection, or anywhere on the pointy end over the past couple years who says that we should exclusivly use issued gear.  Whether or not they have "official authority", switched on COs and OCs have been making the call.  All I'm saying is the sooner we embrace this common sense approach to things the faster our army will have the experience to know what is good gear and what isn't.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> The most you can do is adapt fast enough that you're ahead of the curve.  The COTS gear industry moves one hell of alot faster then the *CF beurocracy * and if we can find a way to keep up with it our soldiers WILL BE SAFER.



I dont know but i'm starting to think you cant understand / read english........

Public works controls, according to Canadian law, all government aquisition policy. This is not a CF policy issue.


----------



## Fusaki (27 Apr 2008)

> Public works controls, according to Canadian law, all government aquisition policy. This is not a CF policy issue.



Well then maybe this authority should be taken out of the hands of someone sitting behind a desk and into the hands of soldiers.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Well then maybe this authority should be taken out of the hands of someone sitting behind a desk and into the hands of soldiers.



While we're making the list, what other plans and policies would you like to see replaced with individual decisions by soldiers?


----------



## Gunner98 (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Well then maybe this authority should be taken out of the hands of someone sitting behind a desk and into the hands of soldiers.



WB,

Is this the initial step in your campaign strategy for running for Prime Minister?  You are not the first to say so, but maybe your voice has more validity than the rest of the choir.  That someone sitting behind the desk is just doing their job in accordance with their job description.   There is only black and white in your world, while the rest of us are used to the grayer areas.

Thanks for making me smile before bed, now I can sleep more comfortably knowing you are there fixing the system, one snap judgement at a time.


----------



## MedCorps (27 Apr 2008)

Oh... I know, I know.  I think soldiers should be in charge of the policies on pay, strategic commitments, real estate acquisitions and disposal,  military law reform, and CDS appointment. 

MC


----------



## MJP (28 Apr 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I dont know but i'm starting to think you cant understand / read english........
> 
> Public works controls, according to Canadian law, all government aquisition policy. This is not a CF policy issue.



Somehow I think that way of looking at things is a bit BS.  We seem to be able to get C17s and other highly polictical items faster (than lets say a new rucksack), but we can't push through better load bearing system or safety gear. If poor Timmy died in Burning LAV upside down or drowned and his wife/parents/ made a national media stink about it,  I bet ya we would get releasable armour faster.  Should that be the way...I say No.  I stand by WonderBread when it comes to kit,  The section commander or WO on the ground makes the call.  I did it all the time overseas from telling my guys to get rid of suspect ballistic eyewear to cheap boardwalk chest rigs.  It's part of your job as a leader.      

We all understand their is system in place to test equipment no one is disputing that fact.  But our system is SLOW extremely slow, which worked fine when we weren't in a shooting war, but now we are and troops are demanding their kit be better for the rigors of combat and to allow them the abilty and comfort to kill their enemy before they are shot.

On top of that the system to change things via the UCR is not understood well by soldiers at all levels.  Everytime I hear one of my buddies or soldiers complain about kit I direct them to the UCR website.  I help them fill it out if needed.  No one ever told them they could do that.  hell I learnt how to do them from the Army.ca  But the flip side is higher in the CoC are people just as ignorant of the UCR system, UCRs sit for months before they are substantiated or are not forwarded at all.


----------



## Fusaki (28 Apr 2008)

~sigh~

I'm leaving this one for tonight.  I'll admit my last comment there was knee-jerk reaction, the rest I'll look at again tomorrow.


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> But it happens anyways and overall the troops appreciate it!  Find me someone who's been in a Battlegroup, OMLT, Force Protection, or anywhere on the pointy end over the past couple years who says that we should exclusivly use issued gear.  Whether or not they have "official authority", switched on COs and OCs have been making the call.  All I'm saying is the sooner we embrace this common sense approach to things the faster our army will have the experience to know what is good gear and what isn't.



Show me one TF Commander who has NOT officially directed his personnel to wear issued gear in-theatre. Every single roto a thread gets put up in here when this directive comes out, "issued and approved kit only in-theatre."

And until/unless the day comes when all that Gucci gear is certified IAW or CF Mil Specs and ballistic requirements -- I'd wager you'd not hear any one of them say anything different either.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Apr 2008)

You should see the latest Warrant's Course (3B) that just finished up - those guys looked like a Lightfighter.com or Tactical Tailor catalog.  Some guys from other places didn't even wear issue uniforms.  And this is the tip of your pointy end here.  Tells you that somewhere, someone isn't really up to snuff on how things are really playing out....


----------



## MJP (28 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Show me one TF Commander who has NOT officially directed his personnel to wear issued gear in-theatre. Every single roto a thread gets put up in here when this directive comes out, "issued and approved kit only in-theatre."
> 
> And until/unless the day comes when all that Gucci gear is certified IAW or CF Mil Specs and ballistic requirements -- I'd wager you'd not hear any one of them say anything different either.



TF1-06 LtCol IC Hope authorized personnel to wear what they wanted as long as it was green/cadpat/black, it was said to the BG many times either on Pde or informally while the CO made his rounds.  Funny enough the NCOs took care of soldiers that decided to play loose and fast with crap gear and told them to stow and buy something solid or wear your issued stuff.


----------



## RHFC_piper (28 Apr 2008)

MJP said:
			
		

> TF1-06 LtCol IC Hope authorized personnel to wear what they wanted as long as it was green/cadpat/black, it was said to the BG many times either on Pde or informally while the CO made his rounds.  Funny enough the NCOs took care of soldiers that decided to play loose and fast with crap gear and told them to stow and buy something solid or wear your issued stuff.



TF3-06 followed suit after a few CAS during TICs...   Most of the troops already had kit, and those that didn't when they got in country soon pick some up from the 1-06 BG...  There was a pile of gear in the CQ, left by C Coy PPCLI, for us...

As for the crap kit; yeah.. If the CoC knew it to be junk, it was ditched...  And as for PPE;  Well, I'm not about to go out and buy armour.  Ours works well enough.  Sure, there is better stuff out there, and the concept of quick release armour is damn important, but if the "System" is going to "drag its feet" testing anything, I'd want it to be the stuff that stops bullets and not so much the stuff that carries them.  I've seen the issued armour stop rounds... that's good enough for me.   If better armour is out there, I'd hope its being trialled and tested (and I know it is, RHFC has done some of the trials for new BVs) before it gets to the troops and I strongly believe that this type of kit (BV, helmet, BEW - to an extent) is stuff that should only be used when the system proves it reliable and effective... (BEW not as much, as there is better one on the market).   But when it comes to LBVs and that sort of tac kit; the best trials have been done: on the battle fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

That's just my take on it.


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

Well now, there's a tidbit of knowledge for the books.

Glad to hear too that the NCOs dealt with the _superwannabeninjasnipers_. 

My whole concern with this entire thread is the posts which insinuate that CTS gear is unsafe and will get one killed. That's not factual -- and it's why I entered this thread in the first place.

And, I will continue to post the "actuals" of CTS safety whenever someone wants to post differently.

We have newbies who've NEVER even worn, let alone been issued CTS gear posting on this site and asking about paying for Gucci gear because they don't want "unsafe" or "crappy" CTS gear, who are under the distinct, but non-factual, impression that just because something is CTS means it doesn't work, is unsafe, or will get them killed.

That's simply NOT the right impression to be giving. You want to say "brand X" is better --- then state why. But don't presume that "brand X" outperformed CTS in trials, or is safer because that's not necessarily the case.

I dislike just as many CTS items as the soldier next to me -- but that doesn't mean the CTS items are less safe, or will get me killed.


----------



## RHFC_piper (28 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> My whole concern with this entire thread is the posts which insinuate that CTS gear is unsafe and will get one killed. That's not factual -- and it's why I entered this thread in the first place.



WRT safety concerns for the BV;  I have a "war story" that, I believe, sheds some insight on these concerns (strap on your helmets);

Op Medusa, 03 Sept 06...  Since everyone knows the major details, I will skim quickly; we walked into a horseshoe of hell.  
During the few hours of fighting, I, inevitably, had to change mags... I informed the LMG I was standing over and moved behind the LAV to get 'er done (we were standing beside the LAV).
I looked around to keep the SA up, and noticed a rifleman from the other platoon standing relatively in the open beside his LAV, engaging the enemy.  Just then, he dropped, having been hit in the chest.  Of course, I thought the worse and turned to tell the Sgt, but just as quickly as he dropped, he popped back up and moved behind cover. 
After we withdrew, I found him in the CCP in the wadi.  the BV plate was cracked, along with some ribs, and he had a neat 7.62XMushed souvenir for his troubles.  The BV did it's job and saved his life.  As I said before; I'm sure there are better BVs out there, but the one we have certainly does the job it was bought for.


----------



## geo (28 Apr 2008)

Well said Vern & RHFCpiper.

Industry is producing new kit at a tremendous pace - hard to keep up with it if you know what I mean... but someone is always coming up with something they feel is better than the last piece of kit.  
I figure that the procurement people are probably more concerned with replacing kit that no longer does it's job or has become waay too old...  
While the BEW can be improved - it does the job and has been shown to do the protection it was designed for.
Ditto for the LBV & the Body armour.


----------



## Fusaki (28 Apr 2008)

Alright, I'm back at 'er...



> Quote
> Public works controls, according to Canadian law, all government aquisition policy. This is not a CF policy issue.
> 
> Well then maybe this authority should be taken out of the hands of someone sitting behind a desk and into the hands of soldiers.



I thought a bit about what I had said here and I can't find anything wrong with it.  In fact, anything else seems ridiculous.  The troops on the pointy end are the dog, and all the other government and military support is the tail.  The dog wags the tail, not the other way around. What we need in terms of equipment is _based around how we are going to win the firefight_. NOT how we're going to win the firefight is _based on the equipment we're given_. I know it's unreasonable to think we can have _everything_ we want.  In the real world we have to work within our limitations. People are always going to die and nothing will ever be perfect. But less people will die if we can streamline the system.  We can stack the deck in our favour by adapting our equipment and our tactics faster and more efficiently.  Instead of letting the tail wag the dog, how about we let the dog do what he does best and have the tail follow behind him.

My comment might have been a knee jerk reaction, but it's still bang on.  The responses to it are nothing more then cheap pot shots that do nothing to address this my point:



> While we're making the list, what other plans and policies would you like to see replaced with individual decisions by soldiers?





> Is this the initial step in your campaign strategy for running for Prime Minister?





> Oh... I know, I know.  I think soldiers should be in charge of the policies on pay, strategic commitments, real estate acquisitions and disposal,  military law reform, and CDS appointment.



Until someone who's actually been outside the wire comes in and applies common sense:



> But our system is SLOW extremely slow, which worked fine when we weren't in a shooting war, but now we are and troops are demanding their kit be better for the rigors of combat and to allow them the ability and comfort to kill their enemy before they are shot.



And this I could not have said any better myself:



> Tells you that somewhere, someone isn't really up to snuff on how things are really playing out....



Now onto this:



> While the BEW can be improved - it does the job and has been shown to do the protection it was designed for.
> Ditto for the LBV & the Body armour.



Sure it does the job it's been designed for. It's just too bad we're not doing that job.  The TV _might_ have been OK for Bosnia - the job it was designed for.  But it blows for an army at war.  _The TV is an unsafe item of gear._ It is unsafe because it limits the soldier's ability to return fire effectively and carry on the fight.  Safety is more then just absorbing bullets. It's also about stopping them at the source.  The same can be argued for the body armor.  While it may be OK for our current threats, new threats might need to be solved by wearing less armour so we can move faster or by wearing more armour if the situation dictates.  But in the time it will take for the system to adapt, how many soldiers will have died?



> I dont know but i'm starting to think you cant understand / read english........



I would have expected more from the DS then roundabout insults and smartass one liners.


----------



## RCR Grunt (28 Apr 2008)

"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade!"

There's alot of lemonade drinkers in this thread, and not one of them is on the pointy end.

I f*****' hate lemonade.


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

So do I. Just so you know.

Keep it civil --


----------



## aesop081 (28 Apr 2008)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> There's alot of lemonade drinkers in this thread, and not one of them is on the pointy end.



Ahh yes, us poor uneducated REMFs really dont have a clue do we. I was wondering when it was going to become an "i've been to Afghanistan and you havent" conversation. I mean, after all, 11 years in the combat arms has not taught me anything......what a waste.

If you think that you combat arms guys have the monopoly on gear that you feel is unsafe and/or could be improved then you are sadly mistaken.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Apr 2008)

I'm not sure which Mod locked this but after a quick peruse of the Mod forum I couldn't find any answer so I am opening this for the time being.

Folks, I grow weary of the sniping and the "I've done more than you bullshit".

Some of you are like friggin' little children right now, .....whats next "My Dad can beat up your Dad"?
Have some "professional courtesy", everyone has a job, get over the fact that you might need to thump your chest publically because, truthfully, its fuckin' embarrassing.

Now the reason some posts went missing is we had what *we* would call an official report that there were some OPSEC issues. We here at milnet.ca take that serious and those posts have disappeared.

Don't bother asking, just accept it, because that's how it works.

NOW LETS TRY THIS AGAIN ACTING LIKE ADULTS.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm not sure which Mod locked this but after a quick peruse of the Mod forum I couldn't find any answer so I am opening this for the time being.



Mike ran a report, and it turns out my big fat fingers clicked on the lock without me realizing it.

I did that unintentionally.  Please accept my apologies, as I still am stoked about getting issued a Polar Fleece tracksuit if that does not date me with regards to Gucci kit.

I did not intend to suppress anything.

dileas

tess


----------



## dapaterson (28 Apr 2008)

One issue to remember when talking kit procurement:  DND ins't buying one set - they're buying tens of thousands of (insert name of kit here).  Despite good intentions, that takes time.  Many vendors can provide a few dozen peices, but not a few thousand on short notice.  So just saying "Bill & Ted's Excellent Tactical Wear" makes a great chest rig doesn't mean they can outfit a battle group on short notice.

The procurement system for government can be cumbersome - but the CF can be its own worst enemy, with revolving chairs among those responsible, so there is little expertise in working projects through the system.  "Letting soldiers run the system" won't solve anything - they're already there.  Despite popular perceptions, it's not bureaucrats running amok and inflicting inconvenience on the military - "The fault lies not with our stars, but with ourselves".


Let's try to discuss procurement without:

(1) Accusing PWGSC of hosting a secret cabal dedicated to buying only the worst equipment;

(2) Accusing CTS of being incompentent / uncaring / secretly plotting the overthrown of the Western world;

(3) Prefacing every comment with "When I was in theatre...".

(4) Asserting that the LSVW is really an example of good procurement, that just has a bad rap.


This thread can have good value - but not if everyone's defensive and sniping...


----------



## Fusaki (28 Apr 2008)

> Some of you are like friggin' little children right now, .....whats next "My Dad can beat up your Dad"?
> Have some "professional courtesy", everyone has a job, get over the fact that you might need to thump your chest publically because, truthfully, its ******' embarrassing.



I wouldn't call it chest thumping.  I'd call it lessons learned.

If you want to know what is working and what isn't in Afghanistan, doesn't it make sense to ask someone who just recently returned home?  When weighing the opinions, isn't it significant that on one side you have people who spent comparatively little if any time outside the wire and on the other side you have guys who've spent months at a time living with a round in the chamber?

It's more then just "I'm the man 'cause I was in combat!" I'll be the first to admit that a TIC does not make anyone a SME on anything. But I'd say that when considering two different points of view it's a necessity to see where those opinions are coming from.

There's a fine line between war stories and lessons learned. When one is confused with the other the picture is muddled by those who are way out of their lanes.


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

Lessons Learned also come from purple trades, amongst others, who've been involved in incidents outside the wire and who also have to use that kit. Therefore their input into that kit is valid. And, you'd be surprised that a lot of them (even IF never shot at) have some of the very same observations that you do. But, the tendency for some to automaticly assume that someone posting not of the "pointy end" side of the house is outside their lanes and has never seen nor sent a bullet flying on the two-way range is also a fallacy. It always seems to be the retort of last resort, and in some cases -- it is erroneously made simply because someone's assumed that poster hasn't been subjected to such.

It's called RESPECT for anothers trade, enviornment. That's "professionalism". 

Just remember what assumputions do. Someone may be in a blue uniform now, or in a purple trade -- that doesn't mean they are out of their lanes, nor does it mean they haven't been there.

Some people seem to forget that.


----------



## rifleman (28 Apr 2008)

Don't forget Afghanistan isn't the first combat operations either. Previous generations had really crappy kit. I hated the dang Y-yoke on the old webbing, and 20 rd mags in the breast pocket, where did your smokes go?


----------



## Armymedic (28 Apr 2008)

It would be nice to have a kit implantation/replacement turnaround at roughly 3-5 years instead of the current decade. Perhaps that in itself would begin to solve the problem


----------



## Fusaki (28 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Lessons Learned also come from purple trades, amongst others, who've been involved in incidents outside the wire and who also have to use that kit. Therefore their input into that kit is valid. And, you'd be surprised that a lot of them (even IF never shot at) have some of the very same observations that you do.



I can agree to that.  Starlight31 posts here. He's an Air Force medic who was attached to my coy and he was in there every day with the rest of us, and to be fair he even sucked up more sharp metal then most of us.  I've seen Veh/FCS/LCIS techs all fucked up and crazy eyed from being mortared every day (PBW, Aug 06). At the time they living in just as much danger if not more then those of us on the sharp end and I have all the respect in the world for those guys doing a job I thought was tougher than my own.

The combat arms NEEDS support to carry on the fight for more than 72 hours.  This support, especially in the presence of an asymmetric threat, often ends up on the pointy end itself.

But the role is different.  My job and the job of any other combat arms guy is first and foremost to do the fighting.  An FCS Tech might find himself hammering rounds downrange with the C6 as his Bison pushes through the killzone, but when he's done his main concern is to fix things so the LAV works properly.  A combat arms guy's job is to think about how he's fighting, and what he could be doing better.  It's his area of expertise.  Overall, the combat arms has more experience fighting the good fight then support trades.  We have a higher percentage of people with combat experience and that experience is concentrated within the units.  It's our bread and butter, and just like an FCS Tech is the best guy for fixing optics, we're the best guys for identifying gear that will suit OUR needs.


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

Sure, the roles are different.

The kit MUST work for the combat arms types first and foremost, but it must *also* be compatable with we others who must use it too. Our observations/input is valid.

As to the medics et al (and every other trade) who are performing so awesomely outside the wire -- kudos to them all. And that highlights exactly my point -- it is not on and is simply unprofessional to wield the big "you're not pointy end - you don't know what it's like to be shot at stick" ... when you do not know where the individual you are speaking to has been -- the tendency to do so, and the often erroneous error in doing so, lends nothing to "professionalism", rather it highlights the exact opposite.


----------



## Fusaki (28 Apr 2008)

> The kit MUST work for the combat arms types first and foremost, but it must also be compatable with we others who must use it too. Our observations/input is valid.



Seems reasonable.  I think we've agreed on this.

But take a look back over the past couple pages of this thread and see who's opinion lies where.  I could be wrong, but my impression is that most - if not all - of those who feel the strongest against the "non-issue kit for everyone" ideas have never spent any time outside the wire in Afghanistan. Regardless of what trade they're in.  You might find someone who did a combat arms tour in Bosnia 7 years ago, before the days of Eagle Industries and before the days of modern counter-insurgency. You might even find someone who was air sentry on a few trips outside of KAF. You might find someone who worked the gate at Camp Julien in Kabul for a few days.

But I'll bet that in the 86 pages of this thread you'll find that the vast majority of soldiers - regardless of trade - who've _lived_ outside the wire - in combat - over the past couple years have held the opinion that the system is broken and going for non-issue gear is the solution.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Seems reasonable.  I think we've agreed on this.
> 
> But take a look back over the past couple pages of this thread and see who's opinion lies where.  I could be wrong, but my impression is that most - if not all - of those who feel the strongest against the "non-issue kit for everyone" ideas have never spent any time outside the wire in Afghanistan. Regardless of what trade they're in.  You might find someone who did a combat arms tour in Bosnia 7 years ago, before the days of Eagle Industries and before the days of modern counter-insurgency. You might even find someone who was air sentry on a few trips outside of KAF. You might find someone who worked the gate at Camp Julien in Kabul for a few days.
> 
> But I'll bet that in the 86 pages of this thread you'll find that the vast majority of soldiers - regardless of trade - who've _lived_ outside the wire - in combat - over the past couple years have held the opinion that the system is broken and going for non-issue gear is the solution.



I'll bite. It's your observation and statement. How about going back and doing a census for us to prove you're right? Your assertion will carry a lot more weight, if you can back it up. Right now, I'm sitting on the fence.


----------



## Fusaki (28 Apr 2008)

> I'll bite. It's your observation and statement. How about going back and doing a census for us to prove you're right?



I can't. And I'll admit that it is only an _observation_ and I just don't have the means to _prove_ that I'm right. But can you honestly look back over this thread and think otherwise?

And besides, a census will turn the subject into something black and white. A full survey would be better. But I think the best way of judging this is to look back at each post individually and get a feel for where each individual generally stands on the subject.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Apr 2008)

I think he means that you post every recent post that is for and against and list their trade. ? ? ? ?


----------



## Fusaki (28 Apr 2008)

> I think he means that you post every recent post that is for and against and list their trade. ? ? ? ?



Trade isn't a good indicator, as Vern has pointed out. And I don't want to compile posts into "for" and "against" piles because that could easily be interpreted as me lumping people into "wog" and "not a wog". I think that people can judge for themselves without openly pointing fingers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Apr 2008)

I don't care what means you use, or how you do it. I'm not accepting your statement at face value without proof, is all. It's too easy to cast dispersions, when it doesn't have to be backed up. I'm really not that overly interested, truth be told, but opinion should have some basis in provable fact. If asked for your facts, you should be able to produce them. Get my drift?


----------



## Fusaki (28 Apr 2008)

> I'm not accepting your statement at face value without proof, is all. It's too easy to cast dispersions, when it doesn't have to be backed up. I'm really not that overly interested, truth be told, but opinion should have some basis in provable fact. If asked for your facts, you should be able to produce them. Get my drift?



I follow.  But if I back up my impression with specifics I'll end up in a spot where I'm pointing out certain individuals and saying that "your experience doesn't count as much as you think it does." This, of course, would be pretty insulting and its not what this site needs.

I think that this could be avoided by members looking for themselves and taking the time to draw their own conclusions. No fingers need to be pointed publicly, but I think when all is said and done the honest individual assessments of everyone here should support my statement.


----------



## McG (28 Apr 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> CTS is a supplier and distributor of gear to the Canadian Forces.


No.  CTS is a project office within the Canadian Forces.



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> On top of that the system to change things via the UCR is not understood well by soldiers at all levels.  ...  But the flip side is higher in the CoC are people just as ignorant of the UCR system, UCRs sit for months before they are substantiated or are not forwarded at all.


On top of being misunderstood, there is also need for some improvement to the UCR system ... but that might be a topic for another thread (and it has been a few times).  Despite their problems, UCRs do work/help when completed intelligently.



			
				GregC said:
			
		

> ... Also, if you had your tacvest contaminated or damaged, it could be immediately be replaced.  90% of our company had broken vests, and mine was not replaced for a month. In the meantime it was held together by guntape and paracord.


This 90% (I'll assume this is a rough order estimate) with broken vests, were these issued or non-issued vests?  Why did you wait a month for something you say could be replaced immediately?



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> I can replace any kit I sell, that breaks, faster than the CF can.  Yes I will put money on that.


So, a soldier gets his kit damaged on patrol returns to the FOB and the CQ hands him a replacement that same day.  You are saying that you can beat that from here in Canada?



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Until someone who's actually been outside the wire comes in and ...


You do know there are Combat Arms soldiers involved in the selection, trialling, testing, & procurement of kit (and no one person has a job that spans all of this) that have time outside the wire in Kandahar, right?



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Now I took both stats and economics at univeristy - and I can remember the factors affecting consumer recalls - was based on whether or not the expected lawsutis for negligence would outweight the costs or the recall.


This doesn't help me want to trust industry with deciding the protection requirements of my PPE.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> If everyone had the freedom to choose what they wanted and what they didnt the good gear would thrive and the bad gear would die out.


I have less optimism on this than you.  I think you are correct as far as the issues of comfort, flexibility, durability, mobility, ease of use, etc, etc & all things human factors.  However, I do not think the personal protection side would be well evaluated until too late.  We typically don't do force on force live fire in Wainwright or any other training area, so in your system the effectiveness of PPE would only truly be tested when we get to war.  Once we are at war, what will be noticed is the catastrophic PPE failures or examples of kit which exaggerate injury.  There is a whole range of marginally inadequate PPE which could go unnoticed to the observer more concerned with the immediate fire fight.



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> The Oregon Aero BLSS and BLU kit provide so much more protection over the leather, paracord and foam POS stuck in the helmet it's not even funny.


 Have you confirmed this for Canadian helmets?  Pads may improve the survivability of US helmets, but our troops don't use those helmets.  I don't know how those specific pads would perform in our helmets but, If I were you, I would be cautious of the implications in making this promise to potential customers without the ballistic & blast testing proof of your product's effectiveness in the Canadian helmet.  



			
				GregC said:
			
		

> We also had it passed on to us by Army lesson learned that the tac vest held your guts in in the event of evisceration.


This is complete nonsense.  If this was passed to you by the ALLC, then someone in that organization is failing to communicate what was explained to them.  However ...


			
				riggermade said:
			
		

> ... tacvest or chest rig over issued body armour is not going to effect the capabilities of the body armour....


... the tacvest does in fact help the performance of the FPV against some threats.  There are other options out there which might be able to reproduce this aid to protection, and there are still others which cannot.  I will not elaborate any further in order to avoid butchering the message as badly as was done by the ALLC rep.  If you need more information, ask your CoC to seek out the information from better informed sources than I.  The message to take away from here is not that the tac vest cannot be replaced; the message is that whatever replaces the tacvest, in addition to meeting the users' preference, may also have to meet a certain capability to assist the FPV.



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> In this case you're speaking of BEW, helmets and body armour.  Tell us why you think non-issue holsters or vests can't be used.


PPE is where I draw the line.  Don't substitute commercial kit in place of issued PPE, and don't modify issued PPE.  The tac vest (despite helping the FPV) is not PPE and its deficiencies (though sometimes exaggerated) are well documented in several threads on this site. The tac vest is an excellent example of an item for which it would be fully reasonable for the local CoC to exercise some discretion in allowing alternatives.

Once again I will state, education of the soldiers & CoC is essential but I do not see any panacea to kit problems.


----------



## NL_engineer (28 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> This is complete nonsense.  If this was passed to you by the ALLC, then someone in that organization is failing to communicate what was explained to them.  However ......* the tacvest does in fact help the performance of the FPV against some threats*.  There are other options out there which might be able to reproduce this aid to protection, and there are still others which cannot.  I will not elaborate any further in order to avoid butchering the message as badly as was done by the ALLC rep.  If you need more information, ask your CoC to seek out the information from better informed sources than I.  The message to take away from here is not that the tac vest cannot be replaced; the message is that whatever replaces the tacvest, in addition to meeting the users' preference, may also have to meet a certain capability to assist the FPV.
> PPE is where I draw the line.  Don't substitute commercial kit in place of issued PPE, and don't modify issued PPE.  The tac vest (despite helping the FPV) is not PPE and its deficiencies (though sometimes exaggerated) are well documented in several threads on this site. The tac vest is an excellent example of an item for which it would be fully reasonable for the local CoC to exercise some discretion in allowing alternatives.
> 
> Once again I will state, education of the soldiers & CoC is essential but I do not see any panacea to kit problems.



Please explain


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I follow.  But if I back up my impression with specifics I'll end up in a spot where I'm pointing out certain individuals and saying that "your experience doesn't count as much as you think it does." This, of course, would be pretty insulting and its not what this site needs.
> 
> I think that this could be avoided by members looking for themselves and taking the time to draw their own conclusions. No fingers need to be pointed publicly, but I think when all is said and done the honest individual assessments of everyone here should support my statement.



But that's exactly what you're doing though, isn't it. Anyway, I hope you get the point. Put away the broad brush.


----------



## McG (28 Apr 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Please explain


Please read to the end of quoted para in which you bolded some font.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Apr 2008)

I can't see how the TV can help the FPV stop rounds, other than just the kit inside slowing the projectile down to assist the plates. That can be accomplished carrying any COTS rig.

The main issue for me with the TV, is that it is completely unsuitable to wear while in the CC hatch of a Bison. I'm a very skinny person, and I cannot enter, exit the hatch quickly without the vest grabbing and holding me in. I've seen the LAV turrets and those hatches look a lot smaller, so I'd have to guess those crews have the same issue (LAV gunner/CC can shed some light that'd be awesome)? Without my TV, all I had was my 2 mags for my C8 and the C6 before I'd be required to duck in for ammo, leaving a nice lull in fire superiority. I think for the whole tour my TV sat on the bench behind me, and didn't ever move.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Apr 2008)

LAV crews didn't wear their TV's on the move (TF 3-06, A Coy)


----------



## McG (28 Apr 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> LAV crews didn't wear their TV's on the move (TF 3-06, A Coy)


There are some pers who wear our armour but never wear a TV (in vehicles or not).  I'll admit that I see this as a concern.


----------



## Armymedic (28 Apr 2008)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The main issue for me with the TV, is that it is completely unsuitable to wear while in the CC hatch of a Bison. I'm a very skinny person, and I cannot enter, exit the hatch quickly without the vest grabbing and holding me in. I've seen the LAV turrets and those hatches look a lot smaller,



You know, that is not an issue with the TV. It is an issue with the hatch size. Armoured vehs regardless of type were/are not designed for people to wear load bearing equipment whist plugging a hole in the veh (dvr, gnr, CC). I have run alot of different gear over the last few years and none of the rigs I have worn would allow me to fit into the hatch on a LAV turret.


----------



## Fusaki (28 Apr 2008)

> However, I do not think the personal protection side would be well evaluated until too late.  We typically don't do force on force live fire in Wainwright or any other training area, so in your system the effectiveness of PPE would only truly be tested when we get to war.  Once we are at war, what will be noticed is the catastrophic PPE failures or examples of kit which exaggerate injury.  There is a whole range of marginally inadequate PPE which could go unnoticed to the observer more concerned with the immediate fire fight...
> 
> ...PPE is where I draw the line.  Don't substitute commercial kit in place of issued PPE, and don't modify issued PPE



When it comes to PPE, you have me convinced.  There is better stuff out there, but this is one area where the individual soldier has less of an ability to assess the merits of the gear on his own.  To follow my own logic all the way through, it would not make sense to expect a soldier to be a SME in this area.  Provided that "the system" does it's best to incorporate features desired by the end user, with the opinions of those who use the gear outside the wire _weighted heavier_ than those who will use the gear in KAF, I now see PPE as something that should be tested and approved by the CF.

So in my mind, the question becomes:  What non-issued items can the big army be expected to gain and maintain a reasonable amount of experience in?

Off the top of my head: LBVs, boots, CADPAT clothing (debatable, considering flash protection), drop in weapons mods (slings, scopes, rails, lights, butts, ect), rucks and packs... I'm sure there are others.


----------



## medaid (28 Apr 2008)

There is a way to ensure kit for Cbt arms suit the needs of non-combat arms members.

Modularity... MOLLE rigs and equipment that will solve a chunk of your problem right there.


----------



## McG (28 Apr 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Modularity... MOLLE rigs and equipment that will solve a chunk of your problem right there.


If you ever get a chance to comment officially make this the first and last point your audience hears.


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Apr 2008)

Well here is a chance to make some improvements to CTS (provided you or someone you know meets the quals)

http://www.cfsuo.forces.gc.ca/csss/ro/ro2008/08prt2-reserve-employment-opportunities_e.asp#10



> 10.    CL B EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY-PROJECT MANAGER CLOTHE THE SOLDIER - MAJ
> 
> MSG 071428Z APR 08 DSSPM 8
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (29 Apr 2008)

;D

So?  How does one go about becoming a Reserve Major?   ;D


----------



## Shamrock (29 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  How does one go about becoming a Reserve Major?   ;D



I have some major reservations, does that count?


----------



## Danjanou (29 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> So?  How does one go about becoming a Reserve Major?   ;D



You could always ask a certain dapper defence analyst and sometimes saviour of Saudi Crown Princes. I heard he told CFRC they should enroll him as one based on his knowledge and contacts. 8)


----------



## darmil (30 Apr 2008)

About a month ago we had this major come from CTS with the new neck guard and shoulder pads and that gay visor that thing is terrible!.Never got them from CQ over here didn't bother cause more velcro and snaps.The FPV should be MOLLE like the marines with built in neck guards with side plates.We talked to this Major about the new items then talk to him about the Tac vest and said why don't you guys make it MOLLE. So you can have a rig for a rifleman,c9 gunner,M203 even can equip it for CSS types.He was like whats MOLLE :.LOL we explained it to him and he said thats a good idea! :Not sure if he was just bullshyting us.
I travel in RG's and drivers ,crew commanders ,and gunners don't where the TAC vest just the GIBS.


----------



## McG (30 Apr 2008)

MikeH said:
			
		

> ... that gay visor that thing is terrible!


That thing, when worn with your BEW, will provide your face the same level of protection as you get from your ballistic plates.  As a rear-sentry,  you could take a 7.62mm bullet to the face & live with your eyes still functioning and your face still pretty.



			
				MikeH said:
			
		

> The FPV should be MOLLE like the marines


MOLLE does not belong on the FPV.  Load carriage should be a separate over-top item because there are several circumstances which can require the removal of load carriage while armour must remain on.



			
				MikeH said:
			
		

> He was like whats MOLLE :


This surprises me as I have heard people directly involved with CTS speak quite favourably about MOLLE going several months back (though maybe not all speak favourably of it).  I suspect if you were to look into this individual's background, he may not even look at load carriage in his daily work.  He may be fully consumed with mounted soldier survivability items (the neck guard, brassards & face shield about which he came to speak).


----------



## Matt_Fisher (30 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> That thing, when worn with your BEW, will provide your face the same level of protection as you get from your ballistic plates.  As a rear-sentry,  you could take a 7.62mm bullet to the face & live with your eyes still functioning and your face still pretty.



There is definitely a time and a place for increased levels of PPE.  Lets just hope that the command element realizes that everything is a balance between protection and functionality and knows when to apply common sense in either direction to best suit the threat environment and the mission.


----------



## NL_engineer (30 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> That thing, when worn with your BEW, will provide your face the same level of protection as you get from your ballistic plates.  As a rear-sentry,  you could take a 7.62mm bullet to the face & live with your eyes still functioning and your face still pretty.



So those test video's on the DWAN are not true? the one were the object passed right through the visor, to get stopped by the BEW, but only after stretching them back over 5".


----------



## MG34 (30 Apr 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> There is definitely a time and a place for increased levels of PPE.  Lets just hope that the command element realizes that everything is a balance between protection and functionality and knows when to apply common sense in either direction to best suit the threat environment and the mission.



I couldn't agree more, but in our current risk adverse climate I can forsee that the visor will become a permanant fixture 
Now can someone explain exactly how the TV is an essential part of the PPE, as passed onto members of the OMLT/POMLT,"the issued TV is key to allow the PPE to do it's job" Now there are some issues here, is the PPE not designed well enough to stay on by itself?? Why does the TV need to be worn? The answer given was that the TV will hold the PPE on in the event of a blast from an IED, now I have been to 8 IED incidents as a first responder not once have I seen any PPE be physically blown off of an individual,eventhose wearing only chest rigs.If the force of the blast was such that you would need the TV to hold the PPE on,wouldn't both the armour and TV be destroyed in the blast? I w0on't even get into the comments made that the TV will hold your guts in if the PPE is breached by a projectile.  :
  It is comments like that from those who should know better that totally undermine the work of the enlightened ones out there that truely get it


----------



## McG (30 Apr 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> So those test video's on the DWAN are not true?


I will not be on the DWAN in the near future, so I cannot put the video into perspective for you.  What I've told you is what the system (visor + BEW) will do.



			
				MG34 said:
			
		

> I won't even get into the comments made that the TV will hold your guts in if the PPE is breached by a projectile.  :


As I mentioned earlier, this is an untruth.  It is not coming from those responsible for PPE or Tac Vest (in fact, I've heard them specifically reject this statement as falicious).  This is a telephone game problem in that the statement has been added somewhere along the line by somebody who should not have been taking artistic license with the facts.

However, the TV does enhance the performance of the FPV.  To avoid misrepresenting the issue, I still am not going to try explaining it, but I share your concerns.  Many times pers wear only the FPV & BV (and some pers always wear only the FPV & BV) and so that should out of necessity meet the full system requirement without the need for the TV on top.


----------



## NL_engineer (30 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> I will not be on the DWAN in the near future, so I cannot put the video into perspective for you.  What I've told you is what the system (visor + BEW) will do.



Stop an 7.62 FMJ at ranges greater then 250 m 



> BRP is a ceramic composite that has improved ballistic protection against 5.56mm Armour-Piercing bullets at point blank range and 7.62mm Armour-Piercing bullets at ranges in excess of 250 metres.


----------



## darmil (30 Apr 2008)

Yeah I can agree with you on the need for having just FPV on being a crew commander and gunner.Would agree with the rear air sentries wearing the visor in a LAV not RG but the way it sounds its like they wanted it to be worn all the time.Theres a place for it but this guy said its meant for all the time.well hopefully the TAC vest is fixed soon make it MOLLE and give us double mag pouches!
Oh yeah does anybody have the new issued high temp gloves the two piece ones like the mortar gloves and the white high temp liner like the old green combat glove liner.Those are ridiculous.We are authorized to wear the Hatch Nomex gloves from the PX.Why do they come up with these useless designs.


----------



## McG (30 Apr 2008)

The system (visor + BEW) will provide your face the same level of protection as you get from your ballistic plates.  I don't think it is really that complicated a statement.

While I don't know what you watched on the DWAN.  It seems there is a publicly released video: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/movie/BPV-BEW%20Combo.wmv

You will note that the deflection of the BEW is many times less that 5 inches.  Maybe .5 inches but I judge it to appear even less than that.


----------



## NL_engineer (30 Apr 2008)

I seen that one on the DWAN, the one I referenced was a 32oz projectile at a higher speed then the one shown in that video.

But that 1/2" could still destroy your eye.


----------



## McG (30 Apr 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> But that 1/2" could still destroy your eye.


Well, that really depends on a lot of factors not shown in the video.  Was it really .5 inches?  What effects will your nose & cheek bone have on deflection?  You want to assume that the protection level is less than what I've told you and so you are grasping at incomplete information to prove this for yourself.

Is this what you are talking about: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/movie/Blunt%20Impact.wmv
There is no penetration here, and the object is certainly not going faster than in the previous video.



			
				NL_engineer said:
			
		

> ... a 32oz ....


Where are you coming from with this?  It is Canadian research; it is done metric.


----------



## KevinB (30 Apr 2008)

I'm curious is the 5.56mm AP round they tested was M995 or if they are erroneously calling M855/C77 an AP round -- since M995 will penetrate most materials better than 7.62x51mm NATO AP.


----------



## NL_engineer (30 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Where are you coming from with this?  It is Canadian research; it is done metric.



I am trying to remember something I seen a wile back, it may be 32g


My big beefs with the issued BEW are the optical clarity, and that they scratch so easily.


----------



## McG (30 Apr 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I'm curious is the 5.56mm AP round they tested was M995 or if they are erroneously calling M855/C77 an AP round -- since M995 will penetrate most materials better than 7.62x51mm NATO AP.


I wouldn't know.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> "...a 32 oz..."
> Where are you coming from with this?  It is Canadian research; it is done metric.



All right then, 908g then...


----------



## KevinB (30 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> I wouldn't know.



Roger -- just curious in this instance.

 As well I want to be clear on this -- I AM NOT RECOMMENDING ANYONE HERE IN THE CF GO OUT AND GET YOUR OWN PPE.

I think the CF needs to alter some things, but I would NEVER support troops doing their own (except me   - and MG34 and maybe one or two other guys here...)

I saw a MP in Afghan that had added a plastic fobus rail system and cheap $30 red dot to his C8 -- when I asked him how it kept zero - he replied he had not been able to zero it yet (and it being on an operational gun...).  NSN stuff good, Canadian Tire stuff bad.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Apr 2008)

The new mortar gloves are nice....


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Apr 2008)

Yes they are  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Apr 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The new mortar gloves are nice....



Sorry wrong thread.  This thread is for using one's energies to whine, bitch and argue instead of writing UCRs and maybe even posting the text used for others to have as a resource to add their own comments when they submit a similar UCR.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Apr 2008)

...they retain warmth even when wet and still give you a degree of dexterity.  However, the stitching of the leather seems poor and I have the leather seperating in multiple places after 5 weeks of hard use; I intend on submitting a UCR on what is otherwise a fairly decent piece of kit.  What was that site again?


----------



## RHFC_piper (30 Apr 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Sorry wrong thread.  This thread is for using one's energies to whine, ***** and argue instead of writing UCRs and maybe even posting the text used for others to have as a resource to add their own comments when they submit a similar UCR.




Whoa now...  That makes way too much sense...  stop that... thats just silly.


If we start making sense now, the whole system will just fall down and catch on fire...


----------



## McG (30 Apr 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What was that site again?


If your on the DIN UCRs can be found at http://dgmssc.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/ucrs/frameset.asp


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Apr 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The new mortar gloves are nice....



I may have a pair for me somewhere....out there....wih my name on them...oaky not literally but...

dileas

tess


----------



## MJP (30 Apr 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Sorry wrong thread.  This thread is for using one's energies to whine, ***** and argue instead of writing UCRs and maybe even posting the text used for others to have as a resource to add their own comments when they submit a similar UCR.



As usual bang on...so to help others a recent UCR on the Tac Vest.  Feel free to use and send many many times to DLR.  Maybe your CoC's will be faster than mine in doing actual substantiation.


THE CURRENT TAC VEST REQUIRES MODIFICATION FOR THE COMBAT SOLDIER.  MAGAZINE CARRYING CAPACITY IS LIMITED TO FOUR C7/C8 MAGAZINES IN FOUR SINGLE-MAGAZINE POUCHES. CURRENT STANDARD LOAD IN AFGHANISTAN IS TEN TO FIFTEEN MAGAZINES FOR RIFLEMEN. MAGAZINE POUCHES NEED TO BE INCREASED IN SIZE TO HOLD THREE MAGAZINES EACH.

MAGAZINE POUCHES ARE LOCATED TOO HIGH ON THE VEST FOR EASE OF ACCESS IN STRESSFUL COMBAT SITUATIONS WHERE MAGAZINE CHANGES MUST BE CARRIED OUT INSTANTANEOUSLY WITHOUT FUMBLING. VEST AND POUCHES NEED TO BE MODULAR USING AN INTERNATIONALLY-ACCEPTED STANDARD SUCH AS MOLLE/PALS TO ALLOW ATTACHMENT IN LOCATIONS SUITABLE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER INCLUDING FEMALE SOLDIERS MANY OF WHOM FIND THAT THE CURRENT LOCATION CAN CAUSE REAL PAIN AND SUFFERING WHICH NEGATIVELY AFFECTS THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND ACCURATE FIRE, WHICH IS UNACCEPTABLE IN ACTUAL COMBAT SITUATIONS.  

THE TAC VEST IS DESIGNED WITH A RIFLEMAN IN MIND WITH NO REAL CONSIDERATION FOR OTHER JOBS WITHIN A COMBAT ENVIRONMENT ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF INFANTRY SOLDIERS. RIFLE MAGAZINE POUCHES ARE USELESS FOR PERSONNEL ARMED WITH C9 AND C6 ETCETERA, AND THEREFORE ARE A WASTE OF SPACE ON THE TAC VEST. C9 POUCHES ON THE CURRENT TAC VEST ARE LOCATED IN AN AREA FROM WHERE IT IS DIFFICULT TO EXTRACT THE AMMUNITION ESPECIALLY IN STRESSFUL COMBAT SITUATIONS WHERE RELOADS MUST BE CARRIED OUT INSTANTANEOUSLY WITHOUT FUMBLING. C9 GUNNERS IN PARTICULAR ARE ABLE TO CARRY 2 EXTRA BOXES OF AMMO BUT HAVE LOST A LOT OF SPACE FOR OTHER MISSION ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT.  A MODULAR VEST AND POUCHES USING AN INTERNATIONALLY-ACCEPTED STANDARD SUCH AS MOLLE/PALS WOULD ALLOW THE ATTACHMENT OF THE C9 POUCHES IN LOCATIONS SUITABLE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER AND IN PLACE OF C7/C8 MAGAZINE POUCHES.  

THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CARRYING 40MM GRENADES IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THEY CAN BE READILY EXTRACTED FOR RAPID RELOADS, ESPECIALLY IN STRESSFUL COMBAT SITUATIONS WHERE RELOADS MUST BE CARRIED OUT INSTANTANEOUSLY WITHOUT FUMBLING. A MODULAR VEST AND POUCH SYSTEM USING AN INTERNATIONALLY-ACCEPTED STANDARD SUCH AS MOLLE/PALS WOULD ALLOW THE ATTACHMENT OF THE 40MM GRENADE POUCHES IN LOCATIONS SUITABLE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER.

THE BAYONET MUST BE MOVED FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEST.  WHEN A SOLDIER GOES INTO THE PRONE POSITION THE HILT OF THE BAYONET DIGS INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE RIB CAGE.  THIS DOES NOT ALLOW THE SOLDIERS TO TAKE UP A PROPER FIRING POSITION.  IT ALSO STICKS OUT AND GETS CAUGHT ON OBSTACLES OR VEHICLES AS SOLDIERS CLIMB OVER/ON THEM.  SIDE/REAR MOUNTING WOULD BE BETTER CONSIDERING THAT THE BAYONET IS RARELY EVER USED.  

THE GRENADE POUCHES NEED TO BE MADE LARGER AS THE GRENADES FIT BUT ARE VERY HARD TO GET OUT.  SEVERAL TIMES, I HAVE OBSERVED THE SAFETY CLIP FALL OFF WHILE A SOLDIER WAS FIGHTING TO GET THE GRENADE IN THE POUCH.  GETTING THE GRENADE OUT IN COMBAT IS A CHALLENGE AS WELL;  AS A SOLDIER FIGHTS TO GET THE GRENADE OUT HE WASTES VALUABLE SECONDS.  A MODULAR VEST AND POUCH SYSTEM USING AN INTERNATIONALLY-ACCEPTED STANDARD SUCH AS MOLLE/PALS WOULD ALLOW THE ATTACHMENT OF GRENADE POUCHES THAT FIT GRENADES, IN LOCATIONS SUITABLE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER.

THE TAC VEST IS NOT EASY TO ADJUST FOR SIZE WHEN ADDING OR REMOVING CLOTHING LAYERS. AN EASIER AND MORE RAPID METHOD OF ADJUSTMENT MUST BE INCORPORATED. THIS WILL MOST LIKELY REQUIRE A COMPLETE REDESIGN.

THE TAC VEST IS NOT STABLE ON THE BODY DUE TO AN INHERENT DESIGN FLAW THAT PERMITS IT TO SHIFT FORWARD AND THEREFORE DOWN ON THE FRONT AND UP ON THE BACK. THE ONLY REMEDY IS A COMPLETE REDESIGN."

IF DAMAGED, THE ENTIRE CURRENT TAV VEST MUST BE TURNED IN FOR REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR. A MODULAR VEST WOULD ONLY REQUIRE REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR OF THE SPECIFIC PART AFFECTED, THEREBY SAVING COST, TIME, EFFORT, AND STORAGE SPACE.

IT IS RECOGNIZED AND APPRECIATED THAT, HAVING EXPENDED CONSIDERABLE TIME, EFFORT, AND MONEY ON THE CURRENT DESIGN, A COMPLETE OR EVEN PARTIAL REVISION IS NOT AN ATTRACTIVE PROPOSITION. COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES, GENERALLY RUN, STAFFED, AND/OR ADVISED BY RETIRED OR SERVING SOLDIERS WHO HAVE DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF EQUIPMENT THAT MUST RELIABLY AND CONSISTENTLY SERVE THE NEEDS OF SOLDIERS IN INTENSE COMBAT, HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS WORK. A NUMBER OF SUCH CANADIAN COMPANIES HAVE DEVELOPED SOLID REPUTATIONS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF QUALITY EQUIPMENT, EASILY CUSTOMIZABLE BY INDIVIDUAL SOLDIERS ACCORDING TO THEIR JOB/WEAPON CARRIED, THAT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED THOROUGH TESTING BY SOLDIERS IN ACTUAL COMBAT CONDITIONS. FEEDBACK FROM THESE SOLDIERS HAS RESULTED IN RAPID IMPROVEMENTS TO ELIMINATE ANY PERCEIVED DESIGN SHORTCOMINGS. THIS PRODUCT-IMPROVEMENT PROCESS IS FAR QUICKER THAN THE CURRENT CUMBERSOME AND PLODDING CF SYSTEM THAT, FOR ALL OF ITS GOOD INTENT, ENSURES THAT DESIGN CHANGES APPEAR YEARS AFTER THEY ARE REQUIRED, AND PERHAPS LONG AFTER THEY HAVE CEASED TO BE RELEVANT. SOME OF THESE CANADIAN COMPANIES ARE: 

HTTP://WWW.ICETACTICAL.COM/

HTTP://WWW.CPGEAR.COM/DEFAULT.ASP?MN=1.19.2

CONCLUSION

EVERY SOLDIER HAS DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS BASED ON HIS FUNCTION ON THE BATTLE FIELD (RIFLEMAN, LMG GUNNER, GPMG GUNNER, SAPPER, MEDIC, SECT COMD, FOO, AHSVS DRIVER, ETC)

MODULARITY ALLOWS FOR LESS COSTLY REPLACEMENT OF LOAD CARRIAGE COMPONENTS TO SUITE NEW/RETIRED/UPGRADED KIT

MODULARITY BASED ON AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD WILL PROVIDE INDUSTRIAL BENEFITS AS CANADIAN BIDDERS WILL BE ABLE TO MARKET THEIR PRODUCT TO OUR ALLIES

MODULARITY BASED ON AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD CAN PROVIDE REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL BENEFITS AS DIFFERENT CANADIAN CONTRACTORS WOULD BE ABLE TO COMPETE FOR DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM

MODULARITY REDUCES LIFE CYCLE COSTS AS DAMAGED COMPONENTS MAY BE REPLACED AS OPPOSED TO COMPLETE ITEMS

MODULARITY PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY (& REDUCES RISKS) BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEM TO BE ADAPTED TO THE THEATER OF OPS.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOSNIA WERE NOT THE SAME AS CYPRUS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF AFGHANISTAN ARE NOT THE SAME AS BOSNIA, AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR NEXT THEATER WILL NOT BE THE SAME AS AFGHANISTAN.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 May 2008)

MJP said:
			
		

> Maybe your CoC's will be faster than mine in doing actual substantiation.



I'm on it.


----------



## KevinB (1 May 2008)

MJP -- I like the UCR -- your 2004 PPT is still relevant too - perhaps showing it to others or finding a host for it so units or members can dowload it to show their COC.
and if I may be so bold, talk to some of the surgeons as well and see if they will support the idea of a releaseable vest and releaseable armour set up.


----------



## Infanteer (1 May 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> talk to some of the surgeons as well and see if they will support the idea of a releaseable vest and releaseable armour set up.



Careful, we may end up like the USMC did with their debacle.


----------



## MJP (1 May 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> MJP -- I like the UCR -- your 2004 PPT is still relevant too - perhaps showing it to others or finding a host for it so units or members can dowload it to show their COC.
> and if I may be so bold, talk to some of the surgeons as well and see if they will support the idea of a releaseable vest and releaseable armour set up.



Thanks but I really can't take that much credit for the UCR.  There was a great deal of input from many people on content, wording, grammar, NDHQ speak.  I had a framework and a first draft and it was polished into the finished product you see today.

The powerpoint is a bit out of date.  It is on my list of things to revamp as soon as I have it fixed I'll post it/host it somewhere so people can grab it.


----------



## medaid (1 May 2008)

The USMC incident happened because a general decided to listen to their troops...


----------



## Greymatters (1 May 2008)

Well written, pretty hard not to understand the problem, implications, and current impact...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 May 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Careful, we may end up like the USMC did with their debacle.


Elaborate plesase


----------



## RCR Grunt (1 May 2008)

I'm going to steal the UCR write up, but I'm adding the fact that sternum straps from packs impede access to the mag pouches.


----------



## McG (1 May 2008)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> I'm going to steal the UCR write up, ...


Just remember:





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> If you ever get a chance to comment officially make this [Modularity... MOLLE] the first and last point your audience hears.


If you stick this message right up front, right at the back and reference it a few times in between then it will not be missed or overshadowed by other observations you may make.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (1 May 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Elaborate plesase



_Marines Call New Body Armor Heavy, Impractical
FoxNews article by Jennifer Griffin Wednesday, February 27, 2008

BAGHDAD, Iraq — 

The Pentagon and Marine Corps authorized the purchase of 84,000 bulletproof vests in 2006 that not only are too heavy but are so impractical that some U.S. Marines are asking for their old vests back so they can remain agile enough to fight.

Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway wants to know who authorized the costly purchase of the nearly 30-pound flak jackets and has ordered the Marine procurement officers at the Quantico base in Virginia to halt the rest of an unfilled order, FOX News has learned.

"I’m not quite sure how we got to where we are, but what I do know is it is not a winner," Conway told FOX News at the end of his recent trip to Iraq.

"I think it is foolish to buy more."


Twenty-four thousand more vests were scheduled to be shipped to Iraq in the coming months, but Conway halted that order during his trip.

"I’ve asked them to tell me — to walk me through — the whole process ... how it evolved," Conway said.

"It goes back a couple of years. I think the vest has its advantages. It fits pretty well on the waist. The weight is distributed more evenly on the hips than shoulders, but Marines don’t like it. I didn’t like it when I put it on."

The protective jackets, manufactured by Protective Products International in Sunrise, Fla., are known as Modular Tactical Vests, or MTVs. With heavy plates, known as sappis, on their sides, they provide more coverage than the older vests. That makes them much safer but also much heavier. The MTVs have more protection than the older "Interceptor," made by Point Blank, and they distribute weight more evenly.

The new vests, weighing in at about 30 pounds each, are three lbs. more than previous regulation body armor. Marines, who are already carrying up to 95 lbs. depending on the mission, say they feel the difference.

The vest slips over the head, but one Marine said that because of its weight, it often rips the skin off one’s nose and scrapes the ears.

It also has a rip cord that allows for quick release should the fighter fall into water. But many Marines say the cord is hard to reach and often gets caught on equipment in their vehicles. They say it literally falls apart; one Marine said it was like getting caught in battle with your pants around your ankles.

Marines are issued an instructional video to learn how to use the vest properly.

The Marine commandant and his sergeant major, Carlton Kent, became aware of the problem during a Thanksgiving visit to Iraq. At town hall meetings, few Marines raised their hands when asked if they liked the new equipment.

Conway and his team refused to wear the vests during their visit to Iraq last week due to their weight and impracticality.

Marine Corps Systems Command, in a written statement to FOX News, said it responded in January 2006 to an Urgent Universal Need Statement from the field for better protective gear and awarded the contract in September 2006 after a series of user conferences at Quantico and in consultation with the Marine Expeditionary Forces.

The order was placed before Conway became commandant in November 2006.

Marine spokesman Lt. Col. TV Johnson said the problem with the vests is not that they are unsafe or impractical.

"Marines are still able to run and climb walls with the gear. The fact that the additional protection adds weight, and that the means of getting in and out of it "over-the-head" seem to be the chief complaints," Johnson told FOX News in an email.

"In Desert Storm, we wore flack jackets that were a fraction of the weight of the lighter vest we wore before the MTV. They wouldn't, however, stop a bullet or even a knife, so if I were going to a gunfight, I know what piece of gear I'd take," said Johnson.

FOX News National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin was traveling with the Marine Commandant to Iraq and Afghanistan last week. This report is part of a multi-part series also appearing on Special Report with Brit Hume at 6 pm ET._

_Marine Commandant Halts Purchase of New Tactical Vests
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, Feb. 29, 2008 – Marine Commandant Gen. James T. Conway halted purchases of the Marine Corps’ new modular tactical vest after Marines complained about the equipment’s design. 
Marines said the new vests are heavier and more impractical than the outer tactical vests they had been wearing. 

“The feedback on the vests is that the Marines don’t like the pullover design,” said Lt. Col. T.V. Johnson, the commandant’s spokesman. “A lot of the guys get scraped about the ears and face when they put them on. 

“The commandant wore it during a trip over there for Thanksgiving, and he absolutely did not like it,” Johnson said. “He made the call to not buy more until perhaps they find a way to mitigate the issues the troops are raising. That’s typical of our commandant. He listens to the Marines, and where it makes sense, he executes based on their feedback.” 

The tactical vests have saved many lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are stories of Marines getting struck by 7.62 mm rounds and walking away with just bruises. Johnson said most of the casualties in Iraq are Marines struck in the extremities. 

Both the old and new vests are built around small-arms protective inserts, ceramic plates that fit in pockets in the vests. 

“I would trust my life to either one of these pieces of gear,” Johnson said. “Safety has never been an issue. If anything, the MTV is a refined edition of the OTV. It doesn’t open in the front, but it provides refined protection around the shoulders. 

“The ceramic plates are integrated into the vest,” he continued. “You don’t have to strap those on and adjust them like you do in the OTV.” 

Weight, however, is a problem. The basic load of a Marine is anywhere between 40 and 60 pounds, and that doesn’t include crew gear. 

The Marine Corps ordered 84,000 of the new vests in 2006. The service has received 76,000. All Marines deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan are wearing the new vests, Johnson said. “Some very senior discussions are going to take place on what the way ahead is going to be,” the colonel said. 

Among options are adding features to the MTV to mitigate the annoying features or for the Corps to jump to the next-generation vest, Johnson said. Marine Corps Systems Command continually looks at and suggests ways to improve gear. _


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 May 2008)

MJP said:
			
		

> As usual bang on...so to help others a recent UCR on the Tac Vest.  Feel free to use and send many many times to DLR.  Maybe your CoC's will be faster than mine in doing actual substantiation.



Substantiation is now complete.


----------



## KevinB (1 May 2008)

Not claiming to be an expert on USMC affairs -- but their SOF who I worked with breifly while here (two missions we had overlapped) are using the Eagle CIRAS Martime.  For the conventional USMC, the MTV is enormous.  Side Plates, Bicep protection, thigh and calf protection, groin protection, neck protection, and buttock protection extensions can all have their time and place -- and the vests should be set up to accomodate them easily -- however not all those forms of protection are practical for all, and all duties.

A properly designed releasable vest like the CIRAS or Paraclete RAV is not additionally encumbering - nor the is the release prone to snagging -- I have worn the RAV in Afghanistan for almost a year - and the CIRAS in Afghan and Iraq for more than than two years combined.

 FYI the USMC has an optional Armor policy in some ares of Falluja in order to better interact with the populace -- however I did not see ANYONE when I was there taking advantage of that option.  I understood some areas of the town it was being used -- time and place for everthing.


----------



## NL_engineer (1 May 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...they retain warmth even when wet and still give you a degree of dexterity.  However, the stitching of the leather seems poor and I have the leather seperating in multiple places after 5 weeks of hard use; I intend on submitting a UCR on what is otherwise a fairly decent piece of kit.  What was that site again?



I was going to submit one for the same thing, but I didn't make it half way through the form before I was lost/frustrated with the form and gave up  :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 May 2008)

UCR
Line 23
Equip ID for the TV is what?


----------



## medaid (1 May 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> I was going to submit one for the same thing, but I didn't make it half way through the form before I was *lost/frustrated with the form and gave up*  :



I think that was the response it was supposed to incite in the people who attempt to fill one of those things out  ;D


----------



## NL_engineer (1 May 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I think that was the response it was supposed to incite in the people who attempt to fill one of those things out  ;D



Well next time I have nothing to do at work, I will try it again  :


----------



## Greymatters (1 May 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> I was going to submit one for the same thing, but I didn't make it half way through the form before I was lost/frustrated with the form and gave up  :



Sounds like the standard 'customer service' tactics many organizations out there use:

_"If they're not willing to comply with our process, then they're not serious about their complaints..."_


----------



## LordOsborne (1 May 2008)

I liked that UCR very much. Clear, concise and it repeated (arguably) the most important deficiency with the TV concept, the lack of modularity. If i would have added one thing, it would have been to tie into the difficulty in adjusting the TV - mine tends to loosen up at random moments, and it's a PITA to get buddy to help cinch me back up.


----------



## MJP (1 May 2008)

Ok for those filling out UCR's

On my comp as I can't figure out Screen capture I'll walk you through it.

Page 1-  Most is self explanatory

OPI- assigned by your ETQMS or unit UCR coordinator
UCR#- Given to you by your UCR Cordinator.  Usually in the format UIC/year/UCR # (1849/2008/0001 as an example)
Nomenclature- TAC VEST
NSN- Read it off the vest or 8416-21-920-3711

That is all for Page 1

Page 2

Line 23- Equip ID 87-382-A00 (Go see your version of Unit stores, they will be able to get this for you if it isn't the tacvest your writing on).

Subject of report- VEST,TACTICAL LOAD CARRYING

That is it for page 2

Amplification details

Fill this out as clearly as possible.  Provide examples, proofread and ensure clarity

Next step is to get your CoC to substantiate the UCR.

Voilia!  It is done.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 May 2008)

Thanks MJP

What's the flash to bang from "CoC to substantiate the UCR." to CTS or DLR or whomever it is to get this in there inbox?


----------



## MJP (1 May 2008)

I'm trying to get a handle on that now.  I posed pretty much the same question to the ETQMS today via email.  Hopefully will have an answer soon.


----------



## Teflon (1 May 2008)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> I liked that UCR very much. Clear, concise and it repeated (arguably) the most important deficiency with the TV concept, the lack of modularity. If i would have added one thing, it would have been to tie into the difficulty in adjusting the TV - mine tends to loosen up at random moments, and it's a PITA to get buddy to help cinch me back up.



He touched on that issue (adjustment)



> THE TAC VEST IS NOT EASY TO ADJUST FOR SIZE WHEN ADDING OR REMOVING CLOTHING LAYERS. AN EASIER AND MORE RAPID METHOD OF ADJUSTMENT MUST BE INCORPORATED. THIS WILL MOST LIKELY REQUIRE A COMPLETE REDESIGN.


----------



## McG (1 May 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> What's the flash to bang from "CoC to substantiate the UCR." to CTS or DLR or whomever it is to get this in there inbox?


I suspect the tac vest has already been handed-off from the project, so this UCR will go to an Lifecycle material manager (LCMM) within DSSPM.  The UCR will have a due date on it (automatically determined by submission date. If the LCMM has not responded by that time, there is an option for the CoC to send "hasteners" (emails formally saying "hurry up!").


----------



## Gunner98 (1 May 2008)

A question from the peanut gallery concerning - 

"THE BAYONET MUST BE MOVED FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEST.  WHEN A SOLDIER GOES INTO THE PRONE POSITION THE HILT OF THE BAYONET DIGS INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE RIB CAGE.  THIS DOES NOT ALLOW THE SOLDIERS TO TAKE UP A PROPER FIRING POSITION.  IT ALSO STICKS OUT AND GETS CAUGHT ON OBSTACLES OR VEHICLES AS SOLDIERS CLIMB OVER/ON THEM.  SIDE/REAR MOUNTING WOULD BE BETTER CONSIDERING THAT THE BAYONET IS RARELY EVER USED.

Isn't the latest location (in many TV kit shots) recommending the 'new bayonet' to be attached on the side, horizontal, above the pouches?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 May 2008)

Bayonet location:  I think that is maybe attributed to troops moving it on there own.

If the TV has been handed off will any further UCR's make a difference?


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 May 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Not claiming to be an expert on USMC affairs -- but their SOF who I worked with breifly while here (two missions we had overlapped) are using the Eagle CIRAS Martime.  For the conventional USMC, the MTV is enormous.  Side Plates, Bicep protection, thigh and calf protection, groin protection, neck protection, and buttock protection extensions can all have their time and place -- and the vests should be set up to accomodate them easily -- however not all those forms of protection are practical for all, and all duties.
> 
> A properly designed releasable vest like the CIRAS or Paraclete RAV is not additionally encumbering - nor the is the release prone to snagging -- I have worn the RAV in Afghanistan for almost a year - and the CIRAS in Afghan and Iraq for more than than two years combined.
> 
> FYI the USMC has an optional Armor policy in some ares of Falluja in order to better interact with the populace -- however I did not see ANYONE when I was there taking advantage of that option.  I understood some areas of the town it was being used -- time and place for everthing.




Optional armour policies: I've been part of that practise before and it works great. Armour on is always recommended for urban areas  where channeled blast, fragments, and close range contacts are the usual threat, but if you're in the mountains with a big ruck on for several days, armour is an inasnely impractical addtion to the soldier's load. Armour that you can wear UNDER your combat jacket is a good option, like the UK's INIBA vest. Makes you look big and strong and hides the armour from the view if civvies while allowing you access to all your pockets. Beret instead of helmet, and no sunglasses, is a good idea as well when working on building up a rapport with the locals, I found that it makes a big difference, but of course this depends on the threat.

Heavy Duty Armour: A good idea for gate sentries and others in static sentry-type positions, like sangers, but obviously madness for troops on mobile patrols.


----------



## Gunner98 (1 May 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Bayonet location:  I think that is maybe attributed to troops moving it on there own.
> 
> If the TV has been handed off will any further UCR's make a difference?



Cobra-6 posted a photo in Reply #118 on: August 31, 2005, 08:58:17 - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33641.0.html showing a location.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 May 2008)

Never seen official direction on the movement of the bayonet.  I think what happens is someone sees it, does it and then other people see it and it catches on.  It may be official but like I said I have never seen or heard anything official.


----------



## Fusaki (1 May 2008)

> Cobra-6 posted a photo in Reply #118 on: August 31, 2005, 08:58:17 - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33641.0.html showing a location.



I've found that when mounted there, it sticks out too far behind and gets caught up on the straps of the small pack. 

The best solution I've come up with is to have the left C9 pouch mounted vertically, and have the bayonet's "molle" ran over the leftmost ladder lock then weaved down into the the bottom cell of "small pack webbing". A little bit of guntape to secure the molle's snap in place and you'll have the bayonet mounted vertically between the Tacvest's small pouch and the Smoke grenade pouch.

Mounted like this it is secure, easy to draw, and out of the way.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 May 2008)

You know what they say about pictures....


----------



## Fusaki (1 May 2008)

Heh, I don't have my TV set up like that and I don't have any pics laying around.

At the moment I'm not running either C9 or Canteen pouches on my TV.  I don't see the point.

I have first aid stuff in a ziplock bag stuffed into my right small pouch with a TQ on top and held in place with the flap and side release buckle. If I need it, the ziplock bag comes out and I can dig through that in whatever position is convenient - similar to the philosophy behind an ATS or ICE IFAK.

Flex cuffs, BUIS, and BFA are in my left small pouch. The side release buckles are off my mag pouches and the flaps are tucked in, with friction providing retention.

My TV is stripped as light and low-pro as possible - as any fighting order should be. For my new set up, I have the bayonet mounted similar to the way Cobra 6 described but all the way at the bottom of those two rows of daisy chains, horizontally along my waistline and out of the way of the small pack straps. If you want pics of that, I'll snap some tomorrow at work.

**EDIT**

I guess if I were super hard I could mount my C9 pouches and fill them with sand or something. Attempt to simulate the weight of 5 more mags, frags, ect. But then again, I'm not super hard - only somewhat hard.


----------



## George Wallace (1 May 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> ........ But then again, I'm not super hard - only somewhat hard.



 ;D

Can't resist.......A quarter tab of Viagra can fix that.


----------



## Fusaki (1 May 2008)

> Can't resist.......A quarter tab of Viagra can fix that.



I'm in Petawawa... It'll take more then a 1/4 tab. ;D


----------



## medaid (1 May 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I'm in Petawawa... It'll take more then a 1/4 tab. ;D



Dirty! Dirty!  ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr (1 May 2008)

As for the mounting of the bayonet in such a position.  I remember during work up training having put it there and getting the "why isn't your bayonet in it's (parade square) proper position??" from my SSM.  I put it back in to it's authorized spot until I got overseas. 

I tend to set my TV up to have both C9 pouches on as they can be multitasked.  Mind you, my TV also tends to sit in my turret bin and I use my chest rig when dismounting.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> As for the mounting of the bayonet in such a position.  I remember during work up training having put it there and getting the "why isn't your bayonet in it's (parade square) proper position??" from my SSM.  I put it back in to it's authorized spot until I got overseas.
> 
> I tend to set my TV up to have both C9 pouches on as they can be multitasked.  Mind you, my TV also tends to sit in my turret bin and I use my chest rig when dismounting.



My RSM  at the time asked me that as well.  I told him why I moved it and he said well done.


----------



## McG (2 May 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> If the TV has been handed off will any further UCR's make a difference?


One well written UCR by itself will not do much.  1000 UCRs declaring "the tac vests sucks" but with no explanation of the deficiencies will do even less.  However, if enough well written UCRs accumulate and a common deficiency (or series of deficiencies) starts showing then this provides the argument for the LCMM to propose a replacement or major modification effort.

As the user submitting a UCR, your single most important job is getting that narrative right.  Don't present solutions without first clearly defining the problem.  Don't assume that the problem (or solution) is fundamentally obvious because it might not be obvious to the people that will have to fund the solution.  Do attempt to provide examples to validate your opinion (eg: item x is not durable enough for combat operations as a third of them had broken within a month of normal use).  You do not need to recommend a solution; you absolutely must define the capability deficiencies.  Do not waste your time selling/recommending a brand name product because we can't go shopping that way.


----------



## LordOsborne (2 May 2008)

Teflon said:
			
		

> He touched on that issue (adjustment)



Teflon: Ack. I meant to suggest that in addition to the requirement for the vest adustments being easier to be made by the wearer, they should also be done in such a way that the setting will remain that way and not loosen up.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 May 2008)

It appears that the unblousing of pants while outside the wire is over. According to what I've seen, trousers are to be bloused. It appears that "how you look" is more important than "how you fight" or principles of ventilation in a hot climate etc...
Having said that, we must now enforce it.


----------



## MG34 (7 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> It appears that the unblousing of pants while outside the wire is over. According to what I've seen, trousers are to be bloused. It appears that "how you look" is more important than "how you fight" or principles of ventilation in a hot climate etc...
> Having said that, we must now enforce it.



Don't forget that the tie must be in a proper Half Windsor Knot for NCOs and a Regimental Ascot will be worn by all officers . :


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 May 2008)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Don't forget that the tie must be in a proper Half Windsor Knot for NCOs and a Regimental Ascot will be worn by all officers . :



Half Windsor? Harrumph... standards must be slipping.

Now, about those puttees....


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 May 2008)

You guys going over the hills and far away get the new kevlar neck stocks yet?  How about the CADPAT shakos?


----------



## OldSolduer (7 May 2008)

I thought the tie was a full Windsor?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 May 2008)

I wonder if the guy giving this directive to all soldiers serving abroad has spent anytime in Afghanistan but more specifically more then a week outside the wire in Afghanistan.  We might as well break out the Scarlet's while we are at it.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 May 2008)

:warstory:Listen closely and I'll tell you a story that will show you the mind set of some of the people in the Army, and they are at all rank levels, not just the MWO and up:
Years ago, a buddy of mine (yes I have one) was on a winter ruck and toboggan march and undid his parka to ventilate, as per training. His section 2 I/C ordered him to zip his parka up as he "was in the public eye". So much for training.
This mind set still exists. As I told my Bde Comd not long ago, flexibility in thought is far more important than physical flexbility. It's unfortunate that some of the people in my age group (50+) are stuck in the 70's (Cold War)mindset.


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I wonder if the guy giving this directive to all soldiers serving abroad has spent anytime in Afghanistan but more specifically more then a week outside the wire in Afghanistan.  We might as well break out the Scarlet's while we are at it.



Now that would turn a few heads.....Especially if there are any ancients around......."The British are coming, the British are coming!".   ;D


----------



## Gunner98 (7 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> It appears that the unblousing of pants while outside the wire is over. According to what I've seen, trousers are to be bloused. It appears that "how you look" is more important than "how you fight" or principles of ventilation in a hot climate etc...
> Having said that, we must now enforce it.



Get it writing from the chain of command to explain the shins splints and attach to your pension submission to VAC.


----------



## aesop081 (7 May 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I wonder if the guy giving this directive to all soldiers serving abroad has spent anytime in Afghanistan but more specifically more then a week outside the wire in Afghanistan.  We might as well break out the Scarlet's while we are at it.



I hate to break it to you but it doesnt take a week in Afghanistan to figure out that unblousing the pants is better. I'm sorry that whoever came out with this directive is being an idiot but not all of us who havent been to the sandbox act like dumbasses.


----------



## logan7979 (7 May 2008)

Anyone else feel let down by the army? I mean i understand why things are this way, fact is im really upset that my equipment doesnt allow me to train how i will fight. If only CDS Hillier could become commander of CTS, he wouldnt put up with bullshit, and would find a way to get the right kit to the soldiers who partake in combat. Let the cooks use the heaps of very good webbing left over, combat arms should have superior kit, point finale, its also an incentive, works both ways. 

Someone very high up should be analyzing this problem, 
all you had to do CTS is sew the MOLLE system on 

but no... you guys fucked up!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 May 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I hate to break it to you but it doesnt take a week in Afghanistan to figure out that unblousing the pants is better. I'm sorry that whoever came out with this directive is being an idiot but not all of us who havent been to the sandbox act like dumbasses.



I was being generous.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (7 May 2008)

CTS has nothing to do with boot blousing.

That is a ridiculous order and an unfortunate one.  Once outside the wire, I am sure most likely troops will still play the "hide and seek" game that we have started since we started war fighting.

Once again, it is too bad that some higher ups still have a parade square mentality.  I am pretty sure the Afghan nationals are not too concerned with the look of unbloused pants.  I believe I have seen British and American troops with their pants loose and I don't remember questioning their abilities.

I hope the fat guys we have running around don't reflect negatively on the military, they are so much less obvious than unbloused boots.


----------



## blacktriangle (7 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I hope the fat guys we have running around don't reflect negatively on the military, they are so much less obvious than unbloused boots.



100% agree we need to sort out some priorities. Whoever comes up with this crap must be VERY bored.


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

This is retarded _silly_.

Holy crap over -- we even have troops unblousing during a 5km BFT workup here _IN_ Canada ... yet now the troops can't unblouse in the middle of the friggin' desert??

Someone needs some serious map work (although I'm sure someone, somewhere will justify this as cause to perform a 'lil bit more _'military tourism_' to substantiate a necessity for unblousing).  :brickwall:

_Vern shakes head in amazement at how some people's brains don't work. _


----------



## Yrys (7 May 2008)

Small hijacked



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> It appears that the unblousing of pants while outside the wire is over.



Francophone civilian here : Pray tell, what is unbloused ? The translator that I use says the same word in French.
I've got a few guesses, but a few words of explanations would be better... It's not in the spell check either


----------



## rifleman (7 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> It appears that the unblousing of pants while outside the wire is over. According to what I've seen, trousers are to be bloused. It appears that "how you look" is more important than "how you fight" or principles of ventilation in a hot climate etc...
> Having said that, we must now enforce it.



Has there actually been direction to that effect, because I am definitely interested in it.


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Small hijacked
> 
> Francophone civilian here : Pray tell, what is unbloused ? The translator that I use says the same word in French.
> I've got a few guesses, but a few words of explanations would be better... It's not in the spell check either



Pants bloused (ie - tucked up & in over tops of combat boots):

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/v/Operations/FallenCdnSoldiers1.jpg.html?action=gallery

Pants unbloused (ie - not tucked in/hanging loosely to dispel heat):

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/v/Operations/KA2003B015A_lg.jpg.html?action=gallery


----------



## Bzzliteyr (7 May 2008)

Having been over there, my guess is this:

Soldier "Bloggins" comes in to KAF on a break from a FOB or Patrol Base after a long hard fight/week.  He offloads his kit and heads straight for a nice cold Tim Hortons Iced cappuccino. He does not have his pants bloused as he is still (most likely) wearing his war kit/uniform (including the 5 day old underwear).  Officer/ desk jockey sees him and makes the point of ensuring that no one will be caught with their pants down.. literally!!  Message is passed all over and there we go, no more unbloused pants.

Yrys: "bloused" pants are when someone takes an elastic and tucks their pants in so that they do not drape over the combat boots they are wearing.  if they are unbloused they hang down over the boot.  

Example: in this photo the people on the left have their pants "unbloused", the gentleman with the black bag on his front has his pants bloused.

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_e.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=34503&site=combatcamera

Disregard the chestrig on the second guy from the left, is it not officially issued and does not exist... hehe


----------



## Yrys (7 May 2008)

Ah, thanks ArmyVern!

Well, I'll stray a bit out of my lane to comment that is it sad if it's true that it's not permitted, 
that soldiers can't decided which way they want it...


add :

Does the army clothing stores give elastics ?


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Ah, thanks ArmyVern!
> 
> Well, I'll stray a bit out of my lane to comment that is it sad if it's true that it's not permitted,
> that soldiers can't decided which way they want it...



It'll last until the first soldier dies of heatstroke in Afghanistan and the BOI reveals that he had his pants unbloused (or had asked to unblouse) and someone within his CoC had to enforce this newest "policy" and tell him to "blouse", thereby possibly contributing to his death from such. OR, until someone overrules the latest and injects some "common sense" into this area once again.

 :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 May 2008)

It is offical.  We got the word here in Shilo about it with regards to overseas.


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Ah, thanks ArmyVern!
> 
> Well, I'll stray a bit out of my lane to comment that is it sad if it's true that it's not permitted,
> that soldiers can't decided which way they want it...
> ...



Boot bands ... available at Canex.


----------



## Armymedic (7 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It'll last until the first soldier dies of heatstroke in Afghanistan and the BOI reveals that he had his pants unbloused (or had asked to unblouse) and someone within his CoC had to enforce this newest "policy" and tell him to "blouse", thereby possibly contributing to his death from such.



I haven't seen any heat exhaustion cases over on this side of the pond who had thier pants unbloused. I have however, seen dozen or more cases of people dropping out from overheating...with thier pant legs properly bloused.

Not to say that was a contributing factor (as opposed to the actual cuase: rucking in a humidex of 45C)

But I am sure a PMed will be by sometime to say that blousing does lessen the chances of you getting bugs (sand flys etc) up your legs.


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any heat exhaustion cases over on this side of the pond who had thier pants unbloused. I have however, seen dozen or more cases of people dropping out from overheating...with thier pant legs properly bloused.
> 
> Not to say that was a contributing factor (as opposed to the actual cuase: rucking in a humidex of 45C)
> 
> But I am sure a PMed will be by sometime to say that blousing does lessen the chances of you getting bugs (sand flys etc) up your legs.



I wonder if anybody will be tracking stats of those cases of heat exhaustion etc to see if the rate increases _over there _ with this newest directive. I can imagine that it certainly won't be going "down" any. Perhaps it would stay status quo, but I can't see it occuring less; one would think it would rise. It's only habit that when people feel themsleves overheating that buttons start being undone, belts loosened, pants unbloused -- I wonder what's next on the list of "don'ts." It's almost as if people aren't allowed to "know their own bodies/limits" any more.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 May 2008)

Well, as long as you can still wander around with your fly open, without a set of skivvies on,  I guess that's OK


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, as long as you can still wander around with your fly open, without a set of skivvies on,  I guess that's OK



No one does that!! Regs say we *have* to wear skivvies.


----------



## Yrys (7 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> But I am sure a PMed will be by sometime to say that blousing does lessen the chances of you getting bugs (sand flys etc) up your legs.



If there is a civy that want to start a petition for the aemy to conduct a little study on the advantages/desadvantages of both,
I would probably sign it.

Well, what are skivvies   ?


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Well, what are skivvies   ?



Underwear. Passion killers. etc


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> But I am sure a PMed will be by sometime to say that blousing does lessen the chances of you getting bugs (sand flys etc) up your legs.



Well, now I don't have to.  I'm sorry to say that I don't think the little bit of ventilation afforded by unblousing pants is going to ward off heat exhaustion.  The heat, humidity and the extra kit (flak vest, etc) couldn't have anything to do with it, now could it?


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 May 2008)

In the British Army they're known as 'skiddies', but I'm too polite to explain why (finally).


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Someone needs some serious map work (although I'm sure someone, somewhere will justify this as cause to perform a 'lil bit more _'military tourism_' to substantiate a necessity for unblousing).  :brickwall:



It will no doubt be a tour of US and UK and Dutch bases (a week each), followed by a week and a half in Mirage, followed by three weeks in KAF (but never outside the wire), followed by another week in Mirage - oh look!  More than 30 days in theatre! - and the end result will be a two page briefing note stating "The situation is complex, and requires further study".

Damn.  I've already written up the conclusion - there goes that jammy go...


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In the British Army they're known as 'skiddies', but I'm too polite to explain why (finally).



Uhhmmm, highly doubt any explanation is required --- every anglo Canuk should understand that term.


----------



## Yrys (7 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Uhhmmm, highly doubt any explanation is required --- every anglo Canuk should understand that term.



I think I do


----------



## rifleman (7 May 2008)

I'm not sure if the direction is getting out there properly, I've heard about utilizing the trouser flaps in order to keep sand flies out. I know it works for mosquitoes.


----------



## Fusaki (7 May 2008)

> Quote from: daftandbarmy on Today at 16:37:04
> Well, as long as you can still wander around with your fly open, without a set of skivvies on,  I guess that's OK
> 
> 
> No one does that!! Regs say we have to wear skivvies.



Unless you're going commando, that is. In which case oakleys must be worn, sideburns must be grown out, and underwear is prohibited.

Trust me. I know a guy who knows a guy who knows these sorts of things. I just can't wait untill the big army catches up!! ;D


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Unless you're going commando, that is. In which case oakleys must be worn, sideburns must be grown out, and underwear is prohibited.
> 
> Trust me. I know a guy who knows a guy who knows these sorts of things. I just can't wait untill the big army catches up!! ;D



Heck, I know CHICKS who do this (all of your above)!!  :-X


----------



## Bzzliteyr (7 May 2008)

Rifleman, I always used my leg "flaps" over seas, even when unblousing my pants, though it still seemed to allow better air circulation.  We took turns showing off our swollen legs to each other the day after we entertained the chain of command by listening to the rules.  That's where you can see the difference, the bright red line on peoples legs from wearing the elastics...

Mind you, I was one of the only guys in my patrol that was not eaten by sand fleas in Ghundy Ghar, maybe I taste too bad for them?


----------



## vonGarvin (7 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Heck, I know CHICKS who do this (all of your above)!!  :-X



Ummm...you have phone numbers?  :rofl:

(j/k)


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Rifleman, I always used my leg "flaps" over seas, even when unblousing my pants, though it still seemed to allow better air circulation.  We took turns showing off our swollen legs to each other the day after we entertained the chain of command by listening to the rules.  That's where you can see the difference, the bright red line on peoples legs from wearing the elastics...
> 
> Mind you, I was one of the only guys in my patrol that was not eaten by sand fleas in Ghundy Ghar, maybe I taste too bad for them?



There you go.  I guess if you're using the leg flap, I don't care if your pants are bloused or not!  
I never understand the whole "my boot bands are too tight" thing.  I realize in the heat, you may get some swelling but why not try wearing two hooked together?  ???


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 May 2008)

Those type of ladies prefer guys that get more then a pitty pass.  :rofl:


----------



## Shamrock (7 May 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> There you go.  I guess if you're using the leg flap, I don't care if your pants are bloused or not!
> I never understand the whole "my boot bands are too tight" thing.  I realize in the heat, you may get some swelling but why not try wearing two hooked together?  ???



Or blouse them on your boots.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (7 May 2008)

Well, my skinny little legs are too small for two boot bands.. I suppose I could use the very impressive looking cords they put in the pants...besides, I never got the red marks myself, I always won the contest!!

Yeah.. on my boots.. I have seen people try that.. I am thinking... not a good idea if we are trying to project a good image of the forces... kinda dorky looking if you ask me.

I have seen people use those wide black elastics, they are interesting.  I am not sure if they make a difference or not.

I always said to myself, and have vocally mentioned it to higher ups "Why *do* we wear boot bands?".  No one can ever seem to answer me.

Meh.


----------



## Fusaki (7 May 2008)

> Rifleman, I always used my leg "flaps" over seas, even when unblousing my pants, though it still seemed to allow better air circulation.  We took turns showing off our swollen legs to each other the day after we entertained the chain of command by listening to the rules.  That's where you can see the difference, the bright red line on peoples legs from wearing the elastics...
> 
> Mind you, I was one of the only guys in my patrol that was not eaten by sand fleas in Ghundy Ghar, maybe I taste too bad for them?



If the sand fleas were going to get you, they would have got you regardless. I figure the reason some guys get craploads of bug bites and others don't is that some people are allergic and others arn't.

I wore my pants unbloused, with the sandtraps flipped up and buttoned in place underneath the pantleg. My socks were rolled down over the top of my boot to keep my laces in place. I should have been the worse case for sand fleas, but never suffered a single allergic reaction.

A guy who rode in my boat however was not so lucky. The antihistamines (or whatever the docs gave him) wern't strong enough so the ANA offered him their own cure: a strange smelling oil in a small unmarked green bottle sealed with plastic wrap and a metal cap. Handsome boy that he was, we all suggested that the ANA had given him "Love Potion No. 9".  He never did try it.


----------



## rifleman (7 May 2008)

I normally use the strings for blousing in the field, over the boot. I find that helps preventing the legs of the pants from getting snagged. And I don't have to do the "where the heck is that boot band" 

As for the wide black elastics I found them a pain in the butt as the end up rolling and just as bad as the typical boot bands.

I never understood the unbloused look, but the open fly, it should be in the dress regs


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> If the sand fleas were going to get you, they would have got you regardless. I figure the reason some guys get craploads of bug bites and others don't is that some people are allergic and others arn't.
> 
> I wore my pants unbloused, with the sandtraps flipped up and buttoned in place underneath the pantleg. My socks were rolled down over the top of my boot to keep my laces in place. I should have been the worse case for sand fleas, but never suffered a single allergic reaction.



*Getting* bug bites is *not* an allergic reaction.  How you *react* to bites (e.g. swelling, itching) is an allergic response.

Anybody wearing repellent on exposed skin?  Hope the uniforms are treated, too.


----------



## Shamrock (7 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Yeah.. on my boots.. I have seen people try that.. I am thinking... not a good idea if we are trying to project a good image of the forces... kinda dorky looking if you ask me.



Or tuck your pantleg into the boot.  I use the velcro/elastic bands and find them much more comfortable than the boot bands.



			
				Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I always said to myself, and have vocally mentioned it to higher ups "Why *do* we wear boot bands?".  No one can ever seem to answer me.



Allegedly, it's to keep the creepycrawlies off your legs.  I've seen more and more police are doing this as they're spending more and more time chasing clients into grass and wooded areas.  That said, I'll often go camping and hiking in shorts with little to no effect.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (7 May 2008)

I was going to write it but didn't.... the sand traps are there to protect you.  Even if the pant leg itself is not bloused the sand trap functions as a barrier.

Funny you should mention the tucked in style.  Before and during my tour (the last one, BTW) we, as crewman were told not to wear our pants like "jumpers".  I assume it's a Para thing?  Is it in the dress regs??  Well, neither are boot bands nor most combat kit.. go figure.

On a side note, in the CFP 265 (dress regs), it is mentioned that combat kit will be left up to the discretion of local commanders.. (paraphrasing, I don't have my pdfs with me).


----------



## Fusaki (7 May 2008)

> Getting bug bites is not an allergic reaction.  How you react to bites (e.g. swelling, itching) is an allergic response.
> 
> Anybody wearing repellent on exposed skin?  Hope the uniforms are treated, too.



I knew that, but I should have been clearer.  It's a layman thing. Most guys will say "arrgh! These mosquito bites are so itchy!" instead of "Arrgh! The allergic response I'm having to the saliva left by the mosquito after it bit me is soooooo itchy!" It's possible I was covered in bites the same as everyone else and I just didn't notice.

I can't remember if anyone was wearing permethrin or other bug repellant. I know I wasn't. All combats were treated with permethrin, though.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Allegedly, it's to keep the creepycrawlies off your legs.  I've seen more and more police are doing this as they're spending more and more time chasing clients into grass and wooded areas.  That said, I'll often go camping and hiking in shorts with little to no effect.



And to keep the sand and other crap out of there too.
Wear what you like when you're camping.  I'm pretty sure we don't have malaria and leishmaniasis (Google it) here, but we do have West Nile virus and Lyme disease.

You know, there's eventually going to be a soldier, who does nothing to prevent an arthropod-borne disease while on tour, who is going to try and sue the military (or make a claim) for something they got on said tour.  I'm just surprised it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## Ecco (7 May 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I wonder if the guy giving this directive to all soldiers serving abroad has spent anytime in Afghanistan but more specifically more then a week outside the wire in Afghanistan.



The dress regs in theater are decided and enforced by:  the theater commander and his RSM.  Therefore, yes, the guy who takes those decisions is in theater, much longer than typical troops too.     It does not make that decision smart or anything, but it answers your question.  Even CEFCOM would not tell theater leadership how to do dress regs, it's up to local commanders and NCO, as it should be.


----------



## Fraz (7 May 2008)

Thanks for the arthropod threat brief update, et al...
So, considering that you're sleeping in the dirt, (chasing mice out of your bag) and you haven't had a shower in 2 months+, using only baby wipes to maintain some semblence of hygiene, that blousing your pants is going to make a huge difference?  Yes I am fully aware of the possible afflictions due to the arthropod threat however, lets just it tone down a bit shall we?  I'll take my chances with unbloused pants for I would rather ventilate as opposed to chafing/rash and sore shins, etc...


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

Guess you didn't read my remark about the blousing.  I could care less, it's the inside flap tucked in the boot that's important.  Or at least wearing socks high enough to cover exposed skin.  And repellent.


----------



## Armymedic (7 May 2008)

Fraz said:
			
		

> So, considering that you're sleeping in the dirt, (chasing mice out of your bag) and you haven't had a shower in 2 months+, using only baby wipes to maintain some semblence of hygiene, that blousing your pants is going to make a huge difference?



Nope, not a difference at all...until you show up at KAF for that Ice Cap.


----------



## Armymedic (7 May 2008)

But on that, 
how many of us tear out those dust flaps in our pants?

Speaking of extra fabric, why do we have big cargo pockets on the bottom of our cbt shirts? Shouldn't we tuck in the shirts into our pants under armour?


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Speaking of extra fabric, why do we have big cargo pockets on the bottom of our cbt shirts? Shouldn't we tuck in the shirts into our pants under armour?



We could just get rid of those pockets, because that went over so well last time.


----------



## Fraz (7 May 2008)

Agreed, once you get into KAF we all know garrison mode kicks in as you're inside the wire.   
(plus all that access to hot showers, A/C and real food) 
Dust traps have only ever been a hindrance in my experience, the lower cargo pockets are about as useful as t%#s on a bull with PPE and FFO on.
However, we all must understand that once you mount up to go back outside the perimeter it's game on and that all goes out the window, Dress out there is an operational necessity as in being effective to do your job... Not for the sake of uniformity.


----------



## rifleman (7 May 2008)

Fraz said:
			
		

> However, we all must understand that once you mount up to go back outside the perimeter it's game on and that all goes out the window, Dress out there is an operational necessity as in being effective to do your job... Not for the sake of uniformity.



Bingo.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 May 2008)

Thanks Echo.  That said its great they SEEM more concerned as to how we are looking out the wire then how we are feeling. 

Pre Med are the combats that we exchange when we are over there treated?


----------



## Armymedic (7 May 2008)

Fraz said:
			
		

> However, we all must understand that once you mount up to go back outside the perimeter it's game on and that all goes out the window, Dress out there is an operational necessity as in being effective to do your job... Not for the sake of uniformity.



While I may agree with you, I don't wear a coat of arms on my slip on. Those who do, however, seem to not entirely agree with your statement. Hence the reason for this lengthy thread.


----------



## Armymedic (7 May 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> We could just get rid of those pockets, because that went over so well last time.



Perhaps that line of clothing was too far ahead of it time... no?


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Perhaps that line of clothing was too far ahead of it time... no?



Or not, it was done with the same reasoning, i.e., that they were unnecessary for doing the "real job" when soldiers "always" wore their web gear/flax vests.


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Perhaps that line of clothing was too far ahead of it time... no?



They did make the hips look slimmer ... so based upon that I'd back up a move to remove them again!

Added the pockets back onto them AND graced we women with those gawd awful CF DEU pants with the maternity waistbands and pleats!! Ni-ice. Not. 

Glad I still fit into my originals ... and have spares!!


----------



## McG (7 May 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Or not, it was done with the same reasoning, i.e., that they were unnecessary for doing the "real job" when soldiers "always" wore their web gear/flax vests.


We're in a different Army now ... well, in a figure of speaking.  Different people & different experiences guiding us now.  You might be surprised what would be accepted now but was not accepted then.


----------



## HItorMiss (7 May 2008)

Seems to work well for the CANSOF guys (the pockets on the arms remove the lower pockets).


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 May 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> We're in a different Army now ... well, in a figure of speaking.  Different people & different experiences guiding us now.  You might be surprised what would be accepted now but was not accepted then.



Perhaps, but the previous experience only shows that the justification and groundwork have to be done properly and completely, else we're just in an endless loop.


----------



## rifleman (7 May 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> We're in a different Army now ... well, in a figure of speaking.  Different people & different experiences guiding us now.  You might be surprised what would be accepted now but was not accepted then.



I'd say leave them on. I hated that Garri-shirt with all the pen pockets and room to spare for the belly. I always thought that shirt was a combat maternity smock.


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 May 2008)

Fraz said:
			
		

> Thanks for the arthropod threat brief update, et al...
> So, considering that you're sleeping in the dirt, (chasing mice out of your bag) and you haven't had a shower in 2 months+, using only baby wipes to maintain some semblence of hygiene, that blousing your pants is going to make a huge difference?  Yes I am fully aware of the possible afflictions due to the arthropod threat however, lets just it tone down a bit shall we?  I'll take my chances with unbloused pants for I would rather ventilate as opposed to chafing/rash and sore shins, etc...



Hey All,

Just a completely outside question from a now civvy unfamiliar with the clothing worn.

How high are the boots in relation to the legs?  Do we now wear ankle boots?

If not, how is ventilation and such maintained from the top of the boot down?  What type of socks are worn?

My question being if we blouse our pants, right at the end of the boot, what are we ventilating?

Don't get me wrong, I loved to where the pants un-bloused when I was in due to ventilation, and the LCF factor. However with the new combats and boots, what is the difference?  Do we still have the sand traps to tuck in the boot, or are they gone too?

dileas

tess


----------



## dangerboy (7 May 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Hey All,
> 
> Just a completely outside question from a now civvy unfamiliar with the clothing worn.
> 
> ...



Tess the boots I wore overseas are the same height as the MKIII's we wore in the 48th together.  The arid pattern cbts still have the sand traps, the socks however are longer than the old grey wool ones.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (8 May 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Or blouse them on your boots.



This is how we do it in the Marines, and I believe the Brits (when they are in the habit of blousing boots) do it as well, although they seem to blouse their cuffs quite a bit lower on the boot.  It does help with not having the circulation to your foot cut off as much as blousing it above the boot on the calf, and I do find that my cuffs didn't get worn out at the back as much as civilian trousers, due to the heel of my boot/shoe stepping on it, therefore extending the lifespan of the trousers a bit.

When I was in Iraq, the commander of 1st Marine Division, Gen. Mattis, put in place an order that all Marines trousers were to be bloused at all times, and we were not allowed to roll our sleeves more than one cuff length up our arms, as he didn't want us to portray an unprofessional image.  Chickensh*t is pretty universal in the military.


----------



## KevinB (8 May 2008)

Oddly enough the dress pam actually allows for boots to be unbloused and zippers opened in hot weather...

   I would think that whomever wrote the pam understood reality.


----------



## RHFC_piper (8 May 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Oddly enough the dress pam actually allows for boots to be unbloused and zippers opened in hot weather...
> 
> I would think that whomever wrote the pam understood reality.



Damn it!!   Stop it with the "common sense" stuff already!!   The military isn't supposed to make sense, it's just supposed to look as good in the field as on the parade square...  :


Every once in a while, I find something in some official documentation that seems to make sense and I question weather or not it's a typo...  My suspicions are always confirmed when someone of greater tactical importance produces a directive to contravene these "sensible" directives...  I'm glad someone's on the ball, or we'd look unprofessional in the field.













btw... note the sarcasm.


----------



## Greymatters (8 May 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Oddly enough the dress pam actually allows for boots to be unbloused and zippers opened in hot weather...
> I would think that whomever wrote the pam understood reality.



A certain ammount of discretion in what can and cannot be done to modify dress standards is pretty much up to the local commander, as I've seen in past operations.  In one deployment in Central America, the commander authorized all personnel to wear t-shirts (only valid in work areas, not off the airfield, but including on parades; except for the airfield security members who wore full TV, armour and weapons load while on duty).


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2008)

Herein lies the solution:

Allow the local commander, in consultation with his/her Sergeant Major, decide on dress. Now there are certain items of kit you WILL wear, ie BEW, Ballistic Vest, Gloves etc, but as for ventilation by unblousing pants....that should be up to the local commander, not some NDHQ/Land Staff desk warrior.
I'm a bit more concerned about HOW the troops do their jobs (ie fight it out with the enemy) than how they look doing it.


----------



## McG (13 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> ....that should be up to the local commander, not some NDHQ/Land Staff desk warrior.


But we've already determined it is commanders in theater making decisions about blousing or not.


			
				Ecco said:
			
		

> The dress regs in theater are decided and enforced by:  the theater commander and his RSM.  Therefore, yes, the guy who takes those decisions is in theater...


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2008)

Not according to the Army RSMs notes.....from what I've heard and read, this is Army wide, including Afghanistan.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 May 2008)

You are correct (at least from my O Group)


----------



## McG (13 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> .... this is Army wide, including Afghanistan.


Totally different CoC.  CEFCOM is not Army.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2008)

That may be so, but you know as well as I do that higher ranks love to tread on each others toes. Like I said, I've heard that the troops in Afghanistan are being told the same thing. You WILL blouse your pants.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (13 May 2008)

I've been following this thread with interest for a while, and have sat on the sidelines, cheering on the 'non-issue kit' crowd. Now that it has evolved into a debate about whether you blouse your trousers in theatre or not, I will chime in with one thing. 

Whoever seriously concerns themselves with whether a soldier blouses his trousers or not has FAR TOO MUCH TIME on his hands. We are at WAR, not on parade. Take a look at the brits, in particular the paras/RM, I dare you to show me a photo of 2 british soldiers who look identical. And I doubt anyone questions their fighting prowess.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2008)

Do not confuse me with the "kitosaursus" crowd that seem to inhabit the senior CWO appointments. I am merely stating what I have seen and heard.
I do not agree with the statement that the un blousing of pants is "fashion". It is in fact a function of ventilation and comfort. In addition, boot bands  cut of circulation to the lower legs and feet. 
I think if you are in field on a tac ex, or on ops in Afghanistan, then unbloused pants should be blessed. 
Make no mistake about, we in Canada are going to get our marching orders, and that is you WILL blouse your pants at all times. As Snr NCO's and WO's, we can express our views, but once the chain of commands says "Make it so", then we ARE DUTY BOUND to "make it so".


----------



## Teeps74 (13 May 2008)

With ya all the way on that CSM. Us WOs sometimes have to do the things which we do not want to do. We give our advice, and sometimes even fight hard for it... But once the command is given, we enforce it like it was our idea. That is the job. It is the thing that seperates us from mercenaries and irregulars.


----------



## Old Sweat (13 May 2008)

At the risk of being considered just a tiny bit cynical, take a look at the cover of Christie Blatchford's book Fifteen Days. The first two troops both have unbloused trousers and no doubt present an unmilitary impression, if one discounts the time and place. The picture on the back cover is more of the same.

Heck, while you're at it, take a look at the picture of the South Albertas and the Argylls in the action where David Currie won the VC.  Not too many pretty soldiers in evidence there either.


----------



## Teeps74 (13 May 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> At the risk of being considered just a tiny bit cynical, take a look at the cover of Christie Blatchford's book Fifteen Days. The first two troops both have unbloused trousers and no doubt present an unmilitary impression, if one discounts the time and place. The picture on the back cover is more of the same.
> 
> Heck, while you're at it, take a look at the picture of the South Albertas and the Argylls in the action where David Currie won the VC.  Not too many pretty soldiers in evidence there either.



No one is arguing otherwise. I posted much earlier in this thread, and went on about several kit deficiencies (holster, tac vest). I do not think many would argue against such deficiencies ... What it comes down to though, us at the middle level Chain of Command can not pick and choose which orders are enforced. We can fight battles behind closed doors, but when we lose (and on occasion we do), we come out the door, and the command is made into our idea, and it is enforced (short of unnecessary loss of life).

Just remember. If it goes against common sense, and the CSM or WO is saying it anyways... Chances are, we already fought and lost the battle. Keep your notes for the AAR, and document things properly (AAR, UCR etc etc). Griping, and pushing back at the WO/CSM will get you no where... Bring it here or into the mess.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2008)

Teeps is absolutely correct. We sometimes forget that the Army is not a democracy, and we don't vote on what piece of kit we should wear or how we should dress.
No one asked me my opinion on any kit issue, but I have voiced my concerns. Now that I've voiced them , I've been told to get on with it.
By the way, does anyone know and quote me the regulations regarding fleece as an outergarment? I will attempt to find that and have a look. If it comes to pass that it is acceptable, I'll pull my horns in.


----------



## armyvern (13 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Teeps is absolutely correct. We sometimes forget that the Army is not a democracy, and we don't vote on what piece of kit we should wear or how we should dress.
> No one asked me my opinion on any kit issue, but I have voiced my concerns. Now that I've voiced them , I've been told to get on with it.
> By the way, does anyone know and quote me the regulations regarding fleece as an outergarment? I will attempt to find that and have a look. If it comes to pass that it is acceptable, I'll pull my horns in.



From the PIP (]Project Implementation Plan - Linked Here[DIN only]) 

Top Garments = Sweatshirt/coat/parka, but that's all it says WRT fleece.

*57. * The ICE is designed to be worn in the
same fashion as the CTS IECS. In general,
the ICE shall be worn as a system with
matching sizes for top garments
(sweatshirt/coat/parka) as well as matching
sizes for bottom garments sweatpants/
trousers/overalls). Each garment is designed
to fit over the one that is under it which
accounts for a five inch difference in 
circumference for example, between the
sweatshirt and the last layer, the parka.

I know there was a ref somewhere that said the sweatshirt was "not intended for wear as an outer garment in garrison." I'm still hunting for it.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2008)

Thanks Vern. Again, well researched as always.
This is only part of the answer, as the CTS answer if you will. What, specifically, if anything has the Land Staff RSM said? Outer garment or not?
Personally, I hate it when troops wear fleece over top of their combat shirts. In my company, it doesn't happen. Period.


----------



## armyvern (13 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Thanks Vern. Again, well researched as always.
> This is only part of the answer, as the CTS answer if you will. What, specifically, if anything has the Land Staff RSM said? Outer garment or not?
> Personally, I hate it when troops wear fleece over top of their combat shirts. In my company, it doesn't happen. Period.



I thought the ref may have been in the PIP, but apparently is not.

I've had to quote it to RSMs before when they were queried, but damned if I can remember now where "_it was written_".

I'm still looking for it, but I can't say for certain that it was LF, Area, Base at this point in time. I know that the fleece was deemed acceptable as outer garment in field conditions, but not "in Garrison."

I'll keep hunting --- tomorrow ... it's 1624 here; I need some supper.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 May 2008)

Ecco should chime in on the DLR/CTS side of this.. I think he has contacts and is very well versed on the avoidance of "misinformation".

I do remember the discussion of static electricity being passed on in a safety digest issue with regards to wearing the sweatshirt as an outer garment.


----------



## aesop081 (13 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I do remember the discussion of static electricity being passed on in a safety digest issue with regards to wearing the sweatshirt as an outer garment.



I was still in the engineers when this came out but the direction was in reference to wearing both the fleece and gortex at the same time. You could wear either or but not both when doing explosives work.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 May 2008)

That sounds right.. I knew it had something to do with the fleece though.. being a tanker and handling ammo it came in to play...


----------



## armyvern (13 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Ecco should chime in on the DLR/CTS side of this.. I think he has contacts and is very well versed on the avoidance of "misinformation".
> 
> I do remember the discussion of static electricity being passed on in a safety digest issue with regards to wearing the sweatshirt as an outer garment.



The PIP *is* the CTS/DLR guidance. That's not the regulations though -- CTS/DLR doesn't make them.

There is something in writing around here ... I'm just not sure if it's LF/Area/local as I said before. When I manage to run accross it again -- I'll post it up.


----------



## TN2IC (14 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> That sounds right.. I knew it had something to do with the fleece though.. being a tanker and handling ammo it came in to play...



Try checking the refuellers on the airfield. I nearly pass out the first time I seen it. What a light show! 

And they say smoking is not okay when fueling, gee, I've been missing something then.  ;D


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (14 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I think, and I could be wrong here -- it's been a few years, the original PIP stated that it was "not intended to be worn as an outer garment_ in garrison_."
> 
> Oldheimers (sometimes forgetting the smaller details of past directives) ... good thing I'm on course in Halifax next week; I need beers.



I can't get access to the DIN right now (I'm on lve and have no intention of going to work before my course starts next week) but there was a canforgen in 02 I think it was, maybe 99/02 perhaps, that stated the fleece was auth for use as outerwear. I could be wrong, if you ask the wife it happens more often than not.


----------



## BernDawg (14 May 2008)

Sgt  Schultz said:
			
		

> Try checking the refuellers on the airfield. I nearly pass out the first time I seen it. What a light show!
> 
> And they say smoking is not okay when fueling, gee, I've been missing something then.  ;D


Fleece ist verboten on all the airfields I've been on.


----------



## geo (14 May 2008)

Heh... I remember showing up at Greenwood to catch a service flight to Ottawa.....right off my Sr NCOs Part something or other in Aldershot..... wearing ankle boots that were fully shod....

All of a sudden I<m walking across the tarmack with my boots in my hands and only my trusty grey wool socks as footwear

NOW THAT WAS VERBOTEN!


----------



## BinRat55 (14 May 2008)

LOL!! Damn clickers!! Try it with just the TOPS of your socks on... don't ask...


----------



## BernDawg (15 May 2008)

Yup.  I've seen many a clicker go into the trash can in various AMU's during my time.  Mine bit the dust when we had a CoC parade on the apron in Cold Lake.  (I'm lucky enough to have 2 pairs of boots so I still have a wicked set of full clickers at home)


----------



## Ecco (21 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Ecco should chime in on the DLR/CTS side of this.. I think he has contacts and is very well versed on the avoidance of "misinformation".





			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> This is only part of the answer, as the CTS answer if you will. What, specifically, if anything has the Land Staff RSM said? Outer garment or not?



About fleece as an outer garment:

I checked the status of ICE/IECS on the Capability Investment Database today.  It has recently passed FOC (Final Operating Capability) stage.  In other words, the project has completed its deliveries and the implementation, and the Chief of Land Forces, as the Sponsor, has signed a document that says that this capability is now completely integrated into service.  The Project Implementation Plan will stay as a useful resource, but is not anymore the document that should dictate how the item is used.  It's the Land Forces, through its network of RSM, etc...  that are now the resource.  As far as I know, there is no formal direction from the LF RSM about how this item should be used.  In my opinion, this is the best situation:  Let the decision makers, at any levels, adapt the standards according to the situation/their experience.  

I know the Air Force have static electricity concerns that are typically ignored by Land people.  If they say no the fleece as outer garment, don't wear it near their birds.  If your CSM says no, then you should listen to him, etc...

OldSolduer:  Sorry to correct: The Land Staff Sergeant Major is currently a MWO whose job it is to try to organize the officer-heavy bunch of people that work at the NDHQ Land Staff.  I believe you were referring to the Army Sergeant Major, who is the highest ranked CWO of the Land Forces, and the senior soldier amongst us all.


----------



## armyvern (21 May 2008)

Just to add,

And, if you don't want to listen to your CSM/RSM as the case may be ...

Please please please be the same rank as me (or higher) and at the same location as me ... I could do with my name falling *off* of duty lists for a change instead of falling into being placed on them!!


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Just to add,
> 
> And, if you don't want to listen to your CSM/RSM as the case may be ...
> 
> Please please please be the same rank as me (or higher) and at the same location as me ... I could do with my name falling *off* of duty lists for a change instead of falling into being placed on them!!



Some sage bit of advice for some of our "barrack room lawyers" who think they run the army and not Sergeant Majors!


----------



## OldSolduer (22 May 2008)

Thank you Vern and 2CDO. 
Now, to all those who wish to debate this, please go on.


----------



## MG34 (2 Jun 2008)

Oddly enough I don't remember any duty lists other than a sentry/OP shift , patrol schedule list on my last 2 trips to A'stan.
  You have to leave the garrision mentality at home where it belongs. Garritroopers/ KAFites/Fobbits and their rantings should be ignored as the nuisance they are, at least you can swat the sandflies and not face a jail sentence.
  At home you work to solve the problem, in the theatre you take corrective action as required to allow you to do the job.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jun 2008)

MG 34 I would have to agree with you, BUT, there are powers higher than you and I still regard the Current Operating Environment as a super Cyprus tour. I'm surpirsed we don't have to starch things and spit shined things and present arms to NATO vehicles...I'm joking.


----------



## Armymedic (2 Jun 2008)

MG34 said:
			
		

> You have to leave the garrision mentality at home where it belongs.



I agree with your statement and the concept. But We all have to remember we are only in A'stan (or elsewhere) for 6-8 months every 2-4 years. The rest of the time we are at home "in garrison" even when we are in the field.

Instead of leaving the one mentality behind, there should be an instutional shift to merge it all into one focused mindset.


----------



## MG34 (2 Jun 2008)

Roger that, but I'll take the small victories for now and hope to win the war on that front. It takes time to make an institutional change, the Bns get it for the most part, it is the higher HQ (Bde and up)that is not .


----------



## geo (2 Jun 2008)

Gotta remember that we were a UN police force for some 30 years... we ended up behaving like what we were asked to become... takes a bit of time to break old (bad) habbits.


----------



## Armymedic (2 Jun 2008)

In (a small) defense of the "old" habits, not all of them are bad. As there is definately a place and time for the "parade square" mentality. For instance, my personal opinion is all Jr NCO courses up to and including PLQ should emphasis "sameness" as a standard, if to, for no other reason as to reenforce "attention to detail" that is so critical at higher ranks.


----------



## MG34 (2 Jun 2008)

I agree as long as the Parade Square is not brought to the "field of battle".


----------



## KevinB (2 Jun 2008)

Ironically I was speaking to a former South African SF guy today - and the issue of drill, attention to detail and discipline came up.  He beleived in garrison life at a certain standard -- and combat work taking lessons from it -- but entirely focused on the mission.


----------



## MG34 (2 Jun 2008)

One only need look at archival footage of the Selous Scouts of the Rhodesian heyday, the best looking regiment in the Army on parade drill and deportment wise , but knew enough to allow their troops to tailor their kit to the mission at hand when in the field.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Jun 2008)

Attention to detail is vital for the profession of arms.  Having said that, attention to detail does NOT imply sameness among many.  Imagine if you will a section of soldiers in Canada, on parade, in Fighting Order.  The sergeant comes by, and they all look the same.  Finding faults would be easy.  Now imagine the same section on parade, C9 gunners wearing C9 "stuff", same with riflemen.  This rifleman has an M 203, that one doesn't.  This rifleman has a special med kit, the others don't.  Big friggin deal.  The sergeant doing the inspection (imagine it's at WAATC, or any other battle school for that matter) checks each soldier's kit.  Not for sameness, but for functionality (and cleanliness, of course, and all that other jazz).  So-and-so has dust in his pistol grip.  Big deal, right?  I mean, it's not going to affect his weapon's function.  Having said that, given that it's a garrison parade in barracks, that soldier just demonstrated that he didn't pay attention to detail (see above).


And as MG 34 said, functionality of kit is also important.  Looking the same is "okay" if you're on parliament hill on a sunny Saturday, parading for the 125th anniversary of the founding of your respective regiments, but looking the same for sameness' sake in the fields of Panjwai is a potentially fatal error.


----------



## KevinB (3 Jun 2008)

Pretty sad that this issue need to be explained since the Army has technically been at war for over 6 years...


The land of "I went to war, and a garrison broke out"


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Jun 2008)

Its taken that long to get the dinosaurs weeded out.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jun 2008)

Just saw a picture relating to Op Rolling Thunder on ctv.ca with someone that had a vest on that was not a TV. Is there someone from the current roto kicking around that can quietly confirm the absolute no non-issue kit rules have be laxed?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 Jun 2008)

I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in this thread that the tour was going to be allowed to "play" with their kit once the RSM switch was made.  I am also pretty darn sure that they started right from the beginning out in the FOBs...


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Jun 2008)

Not all the dinosaurs have been weeded out....they now occupy positions of influence at various HQs across the country. Let's hope the troops outside the wire have the sense to filter out the dinosaur crap.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Jun 2008)

The= guys from 2VP where trialing 10 different rigs.  If you were in 2VP you could get away with using one of the trial rigs even though you may not have been picked.  Or at least that is what I would have done.


----------



## LordOsborne (4 Jun 2008)

So is that trial finished now? Or are they still 'collecting data'?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Jun 2008)

They (to my understanding) are collecting data up to the end date of the Roto.


----------



## Spartan (5 Jun 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in this thread that the tour was going to be allowed to "play" with their kit once the RSM switch was made.  I am also pretty darn sure that they started right from the beginning out in the FOBs...


Having talked with a member from my unit currently over: Inside and Near KAF = STRICTLY Issue kit; Fob's = Free game. As applicable to people based out of KAF (as he is Force Protection/Gate) Perspective.


----------



## blacktriangle (9 Jun 2008)

Are troops in the PPCLI (any of the Bn's) allowed to wear personal rigs, rucks etc during field ex's and at the range? When I was in Petawawa I saw only issued stuff with the RCR. I had heard the PPCLI were very modern thinking in this area, so just checking.

Thanks


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Jun 2008)

All depends on who is running the show at the time.


----------



## prarie chimo (18 Jun 2008)

when I touched down it was issued kit only, but as soon as we left the hole they call kaf, we've been wearing whatever, its all about being combat effective. our issued kit isnt.

chimo


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jun 2008)

prairie chimo said:
			
		

> when I touched down it was issued kit only, but as soon as we left the hole they call kaf, we've been wearing whatever, its all about being combat effective. our issued kit isnt.
> 
> chimo



I've seen and heard that song before.  Hopefully common sense has come around full circle again.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (18 Jun 2008)

Well, from the images I have seen in the news lately with the whole prison incident it seems that even the PRT are relaxed on kit.. or they are in their "trial" rigs.. At least I can still recognise them as Canadians.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (22 Jun 2008)

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but TF 3-08 Battle Group (if not the TF complete, i'm not totally sure what the other elements were told) have just been given the green light on non-issued load bearing equipment. The only stipulations were that the kit has to be brown or tan, able to accommodate the kit list, and it has to work. I'm pleased i'll be able to wear my own kit, but i can't help but wonder if those arcs aren't a little too wide. I guess we'll just have to wait 'till we see what people show up with after summer leave. It'll be up to the NCOs to discriminate what kit makes the grade, and what's a piece of shit that's going to fall apart.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jun 2008)

Any reason given?


----------



## Ham Sandwich (22 Jun 2008)

TF-3-08 BG just got the go-ahead for non-issued lead bearing kit. The CSM delivered the policy personally on pde so we know it's credible. The only restrictions are that kit has to be brown/tan, able to accomodate the kit list and has to "work".


----------



## Loachman (22 Jun 2008)

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> TF-3-08 BG just got the go-ahead for non-issued lead bearing kit. The CSM delivered the policy personally on pde so we know it's credible. The only restrictions are that kit has to be brown/tan, able to accomodate the kit list and has to "work".



Excellent. All that TUAV Flight's been officially told so far is that non-issue pistol holsters are authorized. We don't fall under the BG, but this is still encouraging.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (22 Jun 2008)

See, i have a feeling that it's a TF wide thing because the director of the Infantry corps visited us in Wainright and told us that authority to permit the use of non-issued kit lies with the TF RSM (not the BG RSM). So if we're allowed to wear it, it sounds like the TF RSM had a change of heart. Keep your ear to the ground, it may just be that it hasn't filtered down to you yet.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (22 Jun 2008)

Not really. It's always been widely acknowledged that the issued TV isnt suited for the mission, and the BG has been trying to find a soloution for months. We've been told that the VP were trialling a few different models but i think the concern is that there aren't enough of them in theater to outfit everyone in the BG (let alone the TF), and that there was some concern that the VP were going to take them home with them (LOL!). This BG was never gloing to let us deploy with the issued TV. 
As far as i can tell, this just sounds like a matter of the decision makers having tried to find a solution, running out of time, and then just resorting to the next best thing which is letting troops procure their own stuff (within reason).


----------



## blacktriangle (22 Jun 2008)

Any guess if upcoming rotos will be allowed to use non issued rigs during work up as well as deployment?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jun 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Any guess if upcoming rotos will be allowed to use non issued rigs during work up as well as deployment?



 ;D

Do you really want a "guess"?  That could cover a lot of points, that would not be anywhere near fact, or even rumour.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jun 2008)

I think "watch and shoot" is the way to go with that question.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (22 Jun 2008)

Yeah, like i said, it appears that this latitude has been granted for lack of a better solution. It was believed that the Patricias were going to provide that solution via the new rigs they're trialling (hence the head shed held out this long before giving us the green light) but it didn't come in time. That tells me that the army's solution is coming, just not quick enough for TF-3-08. Expect the army to have sorted this out sometime in the near future.

Short answer: Don't hold your breath.


----------



## dan005e (23 Jun 2008)

Well here at 2RCR I know the coy that is going in september has been told issued vest only. Also my platoon which is deploying july have been told from our DSM issued kit or else. 

Gotta love it right?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (23 Jun 2008)

Interesting to see the same unit avatars.. 

"On the bus, off the bus"?? We can't even standardize a single unit?


----------



## armyvern (23 Jun 2008)

dan005e said:
			
		

> Well here at 2RCR I know the coy that is going in september has been told issued vest only. Also my platoon which is deploying july have been told from our DSM issued kit or else.
> 
> Gotta love it right?



Make room for your incoming visors too ...


----------



## dan005e (23 Jun 2008)

I believe it has something to do with 2RCR being....well 2RCR. I know that is no real explanation but that is the one I've been given.

We can get away with whatever boots we want, gloves, eyewear at times, but so far our own loadbearing gear is a no-no. We have been okayed for aftermarket holsters, patrol bags,  the pad kits and even mods to the tac vest. But we just dont seem to be able to ditch the damn tac vests. I'll make do with a W.I.M.P from CP gear and a triple mag pouch.

And yes Vern we have the posters for the new Visors. I'm pretty sure we are gonna get out the door before those get issued thank christ.


----------



## armyvern (23 Jun 2008)

dan005e said:
			
		

> And yes Vern we have the posters for the new Visors. I'm pretty sure we are gonna get out the door before those get issued thank christ.



Uhmmm nope. Theatre has already shipped them back here (well to Pet) to be issued to you all -- we're just awaiting yours to get in from there. As for The 2RCR thing -- you're augmenting ... it's not a Bn deployment -- keep fingers crossed for Mr. Sense to walk through the door shortly.


----------



## McG (23 Jun 2008)

dan005e said:
			
		

> We can get away with whatever ... eyewear at times, but so far our own loadbearing gear is a no-no.


I am surprised & disturbed that you can't select anything of your load carriage equipment, but your CoC is letting you pick your own PPE.  You might want to do some reading before you gamble with your eyes:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33365/post-686730.html#msg686730



			
				dan005e said:
			
		

> .... we have the posters for the new Visors. I'm pretty sure we are gonna get out the door before those get issued thank christ.


You might find this of interest too: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33365/post-707416.html#msg707416


----------



## dan005e (23 Jun 2008)

Out on ex guys, myself included, have been known to wear Oakleys in the field although it definatley seems to depend on the person in charge.  I like my M Frames they are definatley alot more comfortable and dont scratch to shit like the issue BEW. But I suppose once i deploy ill throw on the issue eyewear just to be safe.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (23 Jun 2008)

for the BG, there are specific types of eyewear you're allowed to use. I couldn't recite the list but i know some ESS and Oakley models are on them. I guess it's not an arbitrary list either becuase they just pulled a certain model of wiley X off of the list being that they didnt meet a certain standard. Don't ask me what the standard is, i have no idea.

And in Wainright they actually handed out a whole bunch of glasses and goggles to crew comds, sect comds and air sentries - wiley x, desert locust, ESS crew goggles etc. They told us we'd have to select our favorite and whatever the consensus was would be what the BN distributed on general issue. Then they told us that wasn't going to happen and to just to keep the ones we liked, and give the others back so they could be handed out to others. I already has a set of ESS crew goggles, so i kept those ones. Now i've got a set with clear lenses and a set with dark lenses - no more swapping out lenses for me LOL.


----------



## Fusaki (23 Jun 2008)

> for the BG, there are specific types of eyewear you're allowed to use. I couldn't recite the list but i know some ESS and Oakley models are on them. I guess it's not an arbitrary list either becuase they just pulled a certain model of wiley X off of the list being that they didnt meet a certain standard. Don't ask me what the standard is, i have no idea.
> 
> And in Wainright they actually handed out a whole bunch of glasses and goggles to crew comds, sect comds and air sentries - wiley x, desert locust, ESS crew goggles etc. They told us we'd have to select our favorite and whatever the consensus was would be what the BN distributed on general issue. Then they told us that wasn't going to happen and to just to keep the ones we liked, and give the others back so they could be handed out to others. I already has a set of ESS crew goggles, so i kept those ones. Now i've got a set with clear lenses and a set with dark lenses - no more swapping out lenses for me LOL.



Score one for the good guys. 



> Quote from: popnfresh on Yesterday at 22:05:46
> Any guess if upcoming rotos will be allowed to use non issued rigs during work up as well as deployment?
> 
> 
> ...



True, but...

I'll eat my beret if the guys in Petawawa arn't wearing non-issue load bearing gear en masse within the next 5 years. I havn't heard anything official of course, but I'm a betting man. Judgeing by the direction the army is moving, it's only a matter of time.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jun 2008)

Well with all the Operators walking around your probably right.


----------



## R031button (24 Jun 2008)

dan005e said:
			
		

> I believe it has something to do with 2RCR being....well 2RCR. I know that is no real explanation but that is the one I've been given.
> 
> We can get away with whatever boots we want, gloves, eyewear at times, but so far our own loadbearing gear is a no-no. We have been okayed for aftermarket holsters, patrol bags,  the pad kits and even mods to the tac vest. But we just dont seem to be able to ditch the damn tac vests. I'll make do with a W.I.M.P from CP gear and a triple mag pouch.



I'm never gonna understand this mentality that forcing soldiers to jerry rig shit to their existing kit is some how "more professional" looking, since that seems to be the prevailing reason behind this no non issued kit thing, then that soldier wearing something purpose built and designed for combat.


----------



## McG (24 Jun 2008)

From what you've posted, your BG's list contains eyewear that was not tested



			
				Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> ...  in Wainright they actually handed out a whole bunch of glasses and goggles to crew comds, sect comds and air sentries - wiley x, desert locust, ESS crew goggles etc. ...


"They" is DLR.  No model of Wiley X was handed out for the trial.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jun 2008)

R031button said:
			
		

> I'm never gonna understand this mentality that forcing soldiers to jerry rig shit to their existing kit is some how "more professional" looking, since that seems to be the prevailing reason behind this no non issued kit thing, then that soldier wearing something purpose built and designed for combat.



They don't force you to do anything and perhaps its because we do look like a bunch of pirates that they ban aftermarket chest rigs.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> From what you've posted, your BG's list contains eyewear that was not tested
> "They" is DLR.  No model of Wiley X was handed out for the trial.



Another disconnect.  If Ham Sand was there in Wainwrong and did receive Wiley's from someone outside his chain there is definitely something amiss.


----------



## RCR Grunt (24 Jun 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> They don't force you to do anything and perhaps its because we do look like a bunch of pirates that they ban aftermarket chest rigs.



You got something against pirates?

Next to ninja's, pirates are at the top of the awesome scale.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jun 2008)

lol


----------



## Ham Sandwich (24 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> From what you've posted, your BG's list contains eyewear that was not tested
> "They" is DLR.  No model of Wiley X was handed out for the trial.



No, "They" were the Battalion, not DLR. This was done at the unit level.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jun 2008)

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## medaid (24 Jun 2008)

Uck hmmm! LWQ I, be a pirate.


----------



## McG (24 Jun 2008)

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> No, "They" were the Battalion, not DLR. This was done at the unit level.


Interesting.  Tell me if this sounds familiar ... 1400 sets of BEW are issued out to 350 deploying pers at Ex MG.  The selected pers each get four types of BEW (from two different manufactures) in order to evaluate.  At the end of the trial each participant gets to select one set of BEW to keep and the rest are returned for re-distribution across the TF.  The BEW with the highest approval becomes the new standard for all troops deploying in the future.  

[Edit to clarify number of manufactures]


----------



## Run away gun (24 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Tell me if this sounds familiar ... 1400 sets of BEW are issued out to 350 deploying pers at Ex MG.  The selected pers each get four types of BEW (from three different manufactures) in order to evaluate.  At the end of the trial each participant gets to select one set of BEW to keep and the rest are returned for re-distribution across the TF.  The BEW with the highest approval becomes the new standard for all troops deploying in the future.



Man that sounds like a good idea.. maybe that should become the standard, have a few different pieces of kit, all designed to do the job, and each individual soldier can decide which one works best for them. Rather than doing it this way for evaluations only. No LBV is going to work for everybody, same with BEW, and neither is any other piece of kit.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (24 Jun 2008)

He says "sounds familiar".. I wonder what McG is going to surprise us with?  I am trying to think back in my mind as to what piece of kit was selected in such a way?

Problem with that process is that the guys in Toronto don't get to run all those fancy tests of biometric human engineering things...like they did with the new rucksack.. (oops, did they forget to test for body armour in conjunction with it, oh well..at least they probably got good money to run the tests....)

I certainly hope the army has "woken up and smelled the coffee".. we'll find out in due time...


----------



## R031button (25 Jun 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> They don't force you to do anything and perhaps its because we do look like a bunch of pirates that they ban aftermarket chest rigs.



Really, the army doesn't force you to do anything? I always though being ordered to do something amounted to be told you had to do it, which to me is being forced to do it. Ergo,  since we're ordered to carry 5 more mags then our tac vests can carry in the mag pouches, so we are forced to jerry rig shit up, or buy aftermarket rigs.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jun 2008)

No you CAN get by with the TV.  Its been done.  Not well but its been done.  And you know I meant the Army doesn't force us to augment our kit.  We do it to be more effective and comfortable.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (25 Jun 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Tell me if this sounds familiar ... 1400 sets of BEW are issued out to 350 deploying pers at Ex MG.  The selected pers each get four types of BEW (from two different manufactures) in order to evaluate.  At the end of the trial each participant gets to select one set of BEW to keep and the rest are returned for re-distribution across the TF.  The BEW with the highest approval becomes the new standard for all troops deploying in the future.
> 
> [Edit to clarify number of manufactures]



I can confirm everything but the last sentence, yes, that's what happened. But AFAIK, the only people who recieved these were within the BN, and i was told by someone with reasonable credibility that this was ramrodded by the BN.


----------



## McG (25 Jun 2008)

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> .... and i was told by someone with reasonable credibility that this was ramrodded by the BN.


He was in error.  DLR was the source of the trial.


----------



## Gunner98 (26 Jun 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Problem with that process is that the guys in Toronto don't get to run all those fancy tests of biometric human engineering things...like they did with the new rucksack.. (oops, did they forget to test for body armour in conjunction with it, oh well..at least they probably got good money to run the tests....)
> 
> I certainly hope the army has "woken up and smelled the coffee".. we'll find out in due time...



It is nice that you like to continue to bash the DRDC guys/gals but most if not all kit is field-trialled with soldiers just like you.  As has been stated it is the time that DLR and Supply and Services Canada take to contract that leads to the inadequacies of the kit.  The kit we are now wearing went through trials during the Balkans era.  Most of the DRDC staff are permanent and don't get paid gazillions of dollars to screw around soldiers.  They have to work within the Statement of Requirement and Statement of Work dreamed up by our HQs- they don't make it up themselves.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Jun 2008)

You're right.. hindsight is 20/20.. 

It's just that things like that are a little frustrating after the matter.  I have a tendency to make digs when I can yet really would love to be proactive and help DLR as often as possible.  I used to be the first to volunteer with T&E in Gagetown and feel that during the times I have worked with them, I have given the input necessary to make changes and then seen the changes happen before my eyes.  

I apologize to the gang at DRDC Toronto for having to work for the people that make them do the things they do.  Pass the word people, when doing a trial of any item do it for real and make your input known!!  (though we say that on courses when discussing course reports but then do them all on a friday afternoon, after grad!!  We all know what results that gives.)


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Jun 2008)

Our processes remind me alot of how GM does business. We could learn alot from Toyota in our development processes for kit:

The Open Secret of Success
by James Surowiecki May 12, 2008 

In the current atmosphere of economic tumult, the announcement that Toyota sold a hundred and sixty thousand more cars than General Motors in the first three months of this year might seem like a minor news item. But it may very well signal the end of one of the most remarkable runs in business history. For seventy-seven years, in good times and bad, G.M. has sold more cars annually than any other company in the world. But Toyota has long been the auto industry’s most profitable and innovative firm. And this year it appears likely to become, finally, the industry’s sales leader, too.

Calling Toyota an innovative company may, at first glance, seem a bit odd. Its vehicles are more liked than loved, and it is often attacked for being better at imitation than at invention. Fortune, which typically praises the company effusively, has labelled it “stodgy and bureaucratic.” But if Toyota doesn’t look like an innovative company it’s only because our definition of innovation—cool new products and technological breakthroughs, by Steve Jobs-like visionaries—is far too narrow. Toyota’s innovations, by contrast, have focussed on process rather than on product, on the factory floor rather than on the showroom. That has made those innovations hard to see. But it hasn’t made them any less powerful.

At the core of the company’s success is the Toyota Production System, which took shape in the years after the Second World War, when Japan was literally rebuilding itself, and capital and equipment were hard to come by. A Toyota engineer named Taiichi Ohno turned necessity into virtue, coming up with a system to get as much as possible out of every part, every machine, and every worker. The principles were simple, even obvious—do away with waste, have parts arrive precisely when workers need them, fix problems as soon as they arise. And they weren’t even entirely new—Ohno himself cited Henry Ford and American supermarkets as inspirations. But what Toyota has done, better than any other manufacturing company, is turn principle into practice. In some cases, it has done so with inventions, like the andon cord, which any worker can pull to stop the assembly line if he notices a problem, or kanban, a card system that allows workers to signal when new parts are needed. In other cases, it has done so by reorganizing factory floors and workspaces in order to allow for a freer and easier flow of parts and products. Most innovation focusses on what gets made. Toyota reinvented how things got made, which enabled it to build cars faster and with less labor than American companies. 


http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/05/12/080512ta_talk_surowiecki


----------



## amastermason (28 Jun 2008)

First things first, EACH unit is different.  Just because your unit RSM allows the wearing of non issue kit, doen't mean the TF RSM will.  Also, don't forget the CO, he may be told by higher that it would be unacceptable.  Plus, the D&S platoon currently here, isn't just on "Gate", they rotate with NSE Force Protection, so they all dont' get stuck doing body cavity searches.  Another thing is, are you BG, RC South, OMLT, PRT,  each one has slightly different rules.  Some guys here right now must wear the CADPAT glove outers, but not the ballistic eyewear.   The rules may not make sense, but if you don't spend all your time in KAF, then the rules do become somewhat overlooked.  I'm not saying that people lie or disobey, but if you're told you are not allowed to wear Oakley's in KAF, then don't.  See the bridge over that one?  A lot of time it comes down to "I don't want to catch you wearing that".  There also is a process of "Trialing" kit overseas, it just has to be put through the sausage grinder in your home unit.  Buy what will make your job easier, and you more efficent, not just cool crap to look good, and out of sight, out of mind.  Cheers, 3 months till I go home.
*AND HAPPY CANADA DAY!*


----------



## customdeluxified (29 Jun 2008)

I normally don't post anything on this site because it usually results in  me getting jacked up, but here it goes. I did the trials on the piece of garbage TV and it along with the other vests that were pretty much identical were all crap. We just picked the one that was the least crappy. They didn't want to hear any suggestions on how to improve the vest as they already had the one they wanted picked out. We actually had to spend hours trying to convince them to put velcro on the mag pouches. They didn't want to do that because they thought it would be too loud. They're mag pouches, if yoiu are changing mags I think the bad guy knows that you are there. The bottom line is that the vest is dangerous. I will be ordering a rig that holds more than 4 mags and has pouches that are secure and accessable. As for the TF RSM. If he don't like it charge me and send me home I am not going to spend time in the most dangerous place on the planet wearing a vest that can get me killed.  Same goes for Balistic eye wear, boots and gloves. If I can afford a better product that increases the chances of me coming home in one piece then I am going to do it. As for the DRDC people Lets just get rid of them and use the money to order kit that is already out there. They have been churning out complete garbage ever since they started. Somebody name a good piece of kit that has been issued lately, and for the sake of all things good don't say the rucksack, I got , it sucks.  I guess you could say the new gortex raingear, but it still isn't that good.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jun 2008)

customdeluxified said:
			
		

> As for the DRDC people Lets just get rid of them and use the money to order kit that is already out there. They have been churning out complete garbage ever since they started.



Ok, heres the part where you get jacked up :

DRDC did not design the TV. When they did their tests on it, they test it against the specifications provided to them by CTS.

Maybe you should make f'ing sure you take aim at the right taget before openning your oral apperature.


----------



## Teeps74 (29 Jun 2008)

customdeluxified said:
			
		

> Somebody name a good piece of kit that has been issued lately, and for the sake of all things good don't say the rucksack, I got , it sucks.  I guess you could say the new gortex raingear, but it still isn't that good.



Ok, how about that BEW you seem to loath so much. Fact is, they do what they are designed to do, and that is protect your eyes. There are guys and gals coming out of the sandbox today with their vision intact only because of the BEW.

Is there stuff as good or better on the market? Sure. Would any of that be as viable as a mass produced product? I do not know. Would we all like the Sawflys or other such item? Not a bloody chance. The government has done it's due-dilligence in bringing these things in for us, and I for one am happy to see it. Are there problems with other peices of kit? Sure (Tacvest being one problematic at best peice).

As for DRDC, smearing the unit on the basis of your ignorance is not a very good way to earn brownie points.


----------



## Gunner98 (30 Jun 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Is there stuff as good or better on the market? Sure. Would any of that be as viable as a mass produced product? I do not know.



There is a good chance if the product is on the market it is being mass produced.  Take the Cadpat day pack with external add-on pouches which cost the CF almost $500 a piece from a Hamilton-based company, I think MEC and/or its suppliers could have done as good a job for a lot less.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Jun 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> There is a good chance if the product is on the market it is being mass produced.  Take the Cadpat day pack with external add-on pouches which cost the CF almost $500 a piece from a Hamilton-based company, I think MEC and/or its suppliers could have done as good a job for a lot less.



Which seems to lead to the question: _Why didn't they bid on the contract with a better option that met all specifications at less cost?_


----------



## KevinB (30 Jun 2008)

As for DRDC - I had the priviledge or being told by a few of their scientists that I was wrong and they new that my gear was not ergonomically correct for what I was doing.  They have made a disaster of/in/at Ft. Benning and other tests down south.


----------



## R031button (30 Jun 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Is there stuff as good or better on the market? Sure. Would any of that be as viable as a mass produced product? I do not know. Would we all like the Sawflys or other such item? Not a bloody chance. The government has done it's due-dilligence in bringing these things in for us, and I for one am happy to see it. Are there problems with other peices of kit? Sure (Tacvest being one problematic at best peice).



I'd like to make the point that in the PRT FP coy, there's probably more Tactical Tailor MAV's being worn then Tac Vests, Tactical Tailor is known as _the_ mass production after market kit manufacturer, and seem to have no problem keeping up with that demand. Doing a couple of hour's worth of research would turn that up. And doing a simple mass survey of combat arms soldiers would probably point the army in the direction of the MAV, if only as a guide line.


----------



## Gunner98 (30 Jun 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> As for DRDC - I had the priviledge or being told by a few of their scientists that I was wrong and they new that my gear was not ergonomically correct for what I was doing.  They have made a disaster of/in/at Ft. Benning and other tests down south.



The challenge of the Bio Sci of today is:  Do you make something:
- comfortable - ergonomically correct
- protective and practical - who needs comfort if you are going to die
- cool - it just looks dapper and GI Joe, Rambo and Chuck Norris would be proud to wear it
- to the DLR specifications - the buyer
- for the Battlefiled of the moment - which has chnaged every 5 years or so
- as part of an ensemble - which would require many things to come to fruition at the same time - CTS
- with a clear balance between all of the above - where no one is completely happy, but it has something for everyone to like and to complain about - ergo this thread


----------



## armyvern (30 Jun 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> There is a good chance if the product is on the market it is being mass produced.  Take the Cadpat day pack with external add-on pouches which cost the CF almost $500 a piece from a Hamilton-based company, I think MEC and/or its suppliers could have done as good a job for a lot less.



In the "sane" world that is federal contracting (coupled of course with Canadian Business' greediness for profit and the knowledge that "we" *must* use the bidding process), you can rest assured that, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of items we end up with in the system are at inflated pricings.

That's the downfall of being held prisoner to the Treasury Board Act: If the suppliers who ante up their product during the bidding process all inflate their prices by 250% --- we ARE paying 250% more than the item is worth/or available for to a civ market. That's the law - we don't get to like it, but we do have to comply with it.

Want a better idea of it's rampantness for those business' who know our hands are tied? Take a walk downtown into that store which currently holds the Federal National Standing Offer for office furniture and stationary:  Pick out a desk on their floor and note the advertised price on the floor and the price marked in their annual catalogue along with the model number. Now, go back to your local procurement cell and ask them to order you the same desk off the NSO ... I guarantee you right now that the price quoted back from the company (and listed in the NSO) is 15-20% higher than what that desk cost via the store advertised price or their store catalogue price (like they weren't making any profit with those two prices either - NOT). Try it with a box of pencils too ... the same thing will happen. But guess what? That particular store were the lowest bidders/best suppliers when it came to SO set prices - that's why they now hold the NSO.

Canadian business' make a fortune off supplying federal entities. The law allows them to. And, as soon as a Canadian business lists one of their products up with PWGSC in consideration of the bidding process ... the price they ante it up as is always more than what that product's cost is today off their shelf. Corporate greed - it's the Canadian way.

I'm not sure if MEC bid on the SPS or not, but if they did -- they obviously had a higher price listed for their contractual obligations to be met OR they did not have the best value product (not necessarily the cheapest). This is not unusual.


----------



## armyvern (30 Jun 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Which seems to lead to the question: _Why didn't they bid on the contract with a better option that met all specifications at less cost?_



That is how it works.

Problem is, what the companies inflate their prices to in those bids. Then they bitch and whine when another company ends up winning the contract. So sad says I, perhaps if you'd only inflated your "offered for contract" bid price at a mere 20% over what it costs you like the winning bidder did instead of at 38% -- you'd find yourself with the contract. These companies put a lot of time, effort, and resources into figuring out exactly how high they can list (ie the maximum - not the minimum price) a product up for contract bid at. Sometimes, their greed bites them in the ass. Sometimes, they happen to be the "less" greediest of the greedy. 

Such are the facts of life in Federal Procurement - where apparently, buying at inflated contract prices (which could very easily see you buying the exact same item downtown as a civvie for 20% less [although I've seen a desklamp from the NSO as much as 60% cheaper in another store's catalogue]) are a by-product of ensuring CanCon.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Jun 2008)

Don't we get discounted prices from select stores.  Where I work there are two companies that we order from.  One for paper/pen type stuff and another for tools.  I was under the impression we were more or less restricted to these companies because we had a deal with them and got big discounts.  Have I  been under the wrong impression (which was related to me by QM staff).


----------



## armyvern (30 Jun 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Don't we get discounted prices from select stores.  Where I work there are two companies that we order from.  One for paper/pen type stuff and another for tools.  I was under the impression we were more or less restricted to these companies because we had a deal with them and got big discounts.  Have I  been under the wrong impression (which was related to me by QM staff).



Stationary - yes we all have to buy from that company with the NSO. "Big Discounts" ... That's discounts off the "contracted" price, which is still a lot more than what we pay to walk into that store as a civilian and buying the same item. Having to buy from them though has nothing to do with "big discounts" (_from the contracted price_), you have to buy from them because they have the National Standing Offer (much like a contract) - it's the law.

Even guys using their acquisition cards for LPO have to, by law, purchase any stationary/office supplies/furniture from that same company. A guy using an acquisition card to buy any of the above from any other store (regardless of whether another store is 60% cheaper or not) is BREAKING the law.


----------



## customdeluxified (30 Jun 2008)

DRDC, CTS, what ever. Still results in us getting garbage kit. Shut ém down spend the money on something worthwhile. As for the BEW's, I could wear a bucket over my head and my eyes would be protected. Doesn't mean it's good kit. Every single pair of non-issued BEW's I have seen have straight arms so that when they are folded they don't scratch the lenses. Not ours, No matter what you do they end up with scratches right in the centre of the lens. Awesome kit, and the replacement pile of used scratched lenses at QM is great. I think that maybe the people praising the garbage we get issued aren't the ones that have to live in it, and by live in it I don't mean one weekend a month or during your PWT. I mean Live in it. I think that the biggest problem is that we are trying to creat kit for everyone, which being the army and all is completely understandable. The problem is that for the few that are outside the wire the regular stuff just isn't good enough. Maybe we should leave the civilians and bio-whatever scientists out of it and let the troops on the ground figure it out. As for the oral aperature target thing, uh, yeah.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2008)

customdeluxified said:
			
		

> DRDC, CTS, what ever.



Thats funny. Next time, try and have you facts straight when arguing against something.



> As for the oral aperature target thing, uh, yeah.



You agree or just don't understand ?


----------



## armyvern (30 Jun 2008)

customdeluxified said:
			
		

> *DRDC, CTS, what ever. Still results in us getting garbage kit. Shut ém down spend the money on something worthwhile. As for the BEW's, I could wear a bucket over my head and my eyes would be protected. Doesn't mean it's good kit. * Every single pair of non-issued BEW's I have seen have straight arms so that when they are folded they don't scratch the lenses. Not ours, No matter what you do they end up with scratches right in the centre of the lens. Awesome kit, and the replacement pile of used scratched lenses at QM is great. I think that maybe the people praising the garbage we get issued aren't the ones that have to live in it, and by live in it I don't mean one weekend a month or during your PWT. I mean Live in it. I think that the biggest problem is that we are trying to creat kit for everyone, which being the army and all is completely understandable. The problem is that for the few that are outside the wire the regular stuff just isn't good enough. Maybe we should leave the civilians and bio-whatever scientists out of it and let the troops on the ground figure it out. As for the oral aperature target thing, uh, yeah.



Still speaking I see?

You have much to learn about federal purchasing requirements before you keep "ill informedly" slamming people based on your lack of knowledge.

DRDC, CTS et al are federal entities. As are YOU in the CF. Shut them and the procurement system down? That would take an act of parliament my friend. It's the law -- we just get to follow it. You are still shitting in the wrong spot.

When it's taxpayers money that's being spent - YOU don't get the choice, you get contracted stuff. It is the way it is and you're bitching about the people and entities forced (that's right "forced" - it's not like they have a choice in the matter even if OTS "item X" is better) to work within that legal contracting requirement for federal kit. 

You want to run downtown and buy civ gear -- you'll just have to keep doing it with your own money. With taxpayers money, there's a process that needs to be followed both inside the CF in concert with other federal departments buying via "contract" on our behalfs such as PWGSC.

It's nice to dream, but it's not reality.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (30 Jun 2008)

A happy middle ground may be a limited annual clothing allowance and a list of approved off the shelf manufacturers. That should be enough to accomodate the "everyone is different, and everybody's kit must therefore be different" camp, while also keeping a tight leash on what people buy/use. Or failing that, just have the list and let ppl spend their own money if they want to. Just a thought.


----------



## armyvern (30 Jun 2008)

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> A happy middle ground may be a limited annual clothing allowance and a list of approved off the shelf manufacturers. That should be enough to accomodate the "everyone is different, and everybody's kit must therefore be different" camp, while also keeping a tight leash on what people buy/use. Or failing that, just have the list and let ppl spend their own money if they want to. Just a thought.



Allowances (such as footwear allowances) have been discussed in threads on the site before.

It's a grand idea, but one must take into consideration that each and every piece of kit that you want to make it onto that "authorized list" MUST be put through the exact same process to determine it's "ballistic" capabilities, it's compliance IAW with mil specs etc. It'll have to go through all the rig-a-ma-rolls of "certification" and acceptance by the system before anyone is "officially" going to "authorize" it's compliance and use by Canadian soldiers by placing it on a list of "authorized OTS".

There are a few OTS items currently undergoing trials with the above suggestion in mind, but again - it's not the CF that ultimately gets to decide. It's a world of policy and obtaining the proper "authority" and consent to go outside the system like this. It's a RARITY and the capability to to meet and obtain approval for "authorized to purchase outside of law [ie: outside of federal contract]" is extremely limited and hard to come by. Authority for that flows from the respective CF sections and outwards of the CF and onto TB and PWGSC. If they say "no" - then it's "no" (such as was the case for footwear allowances). Contracting law _*is*_ contracting law; like I said before, it would take an Act of Parliament to change it (in this case, to change the Treasury Board Act and the Financial Administration Act).

You want to effect change to those Acts - you'll have to talk to your local political representatives and get them involved, and all your friends and fellow soldiers too -- it's just a small CF in the big world of Canadian vote counts and taxpayers money being spent.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Allowances (such as footwear allowances) have been discussed in threads on the site before.



Oh i dont know about that. 111 pages in this thread and it was the first i have heard of it.

 ;D


----------



## armyvern (30 Jun 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Oh i dont know about that. 111 pages in this thread and it was the first i have heard of it.
> 
> ;D



Freak.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Oh i dont know about that. 111 pages in this thread and it was the first i have heard of it.
> 
> ;D



I think it may have been mentioned back when you were in Hawaii.   ;D


----------



## KevinB (30 Jun 2008)

Frostnipper Elf -- the issues I have are trying to tell me that my weapon manipulation methods are wrong -- as they seem to be reading out of the pam (right hand cock etc.) not what is done or taught anymore.


----------



## Armymedic (30 Jun 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Frostnipper Elf -- the issues I have are trying to tell me that my weapon manipulation methods are wrong -- as they seem to be reading out of the pam (right hand cock etc.) not what is done or taught anymore.



The nerve of yourself. Like you are some sort of weapon expert? Of course those guys know how things are done.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jun 2008)

customdeluxified said:
			
		

> I normally don't post anything on this site because it usually results in  me getting jacked up, but here it goes. I did the trials on the piece of garbage TV and it along with the other vests that were pretty much identical were all crap. We just picked the one that was the least crappy. They didn't want to hear any suggestions on how to improve the vest as they already had the one they wanted picked out. We actually had to spend hours trying to convince them to put velcro on the mag pouches. They didn't want to do that because they thought it would be too loud. They're mag pouches, if yoiu are changing mags I think the bad guy knows that you are there. The bottom line is that the vest is dangerous. I will be ordering a rig that holds more than 4 mags and has pouches that are secure and accessable. As for the TF RSM. If he don't like it charge me and send me home I am not going to spend time in the most dangerous place on the planet wearing a vest that can get me killed.  Same goes for Balistic eye wear, boots and gloves. If I can afford a better product that increases the chances of me coming home in one piece then I am going to do it. As for the DRDC people Lets just get rid of them and use the money to order kit that is already out there. They have been churning out complete garbage ever since they started. Somebody name a good piece of kit that has been issued lately, and for the sake of all things good don't say the rucksack, I got , it sucks.  I guess you could say the new gortex raingear, but it still isn't that good.



You have a total of 3 posts. I am curious on how you usually get jacked up? The lonly one that you got jacked up for was for trolling comments that the site owner called you out on. I wait eagerly for your reply.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## chrisf (3 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Problem is, what the companies inflate their prices to in those bids. Then they ***** and whine when another company ends up winning the contract. So sad says I, perhaps if you'd only inflated your "offered for contract" bid price at a mere 20% over what it costs you like the winning bidder did instead of at 38% -- you'd find yourself with the contract. These companies put a lot of time, effort, and resources into figuring out exactly how high they can list (ie the maximum - not the minimum price) a product up for contract bid at. Sometimes, their greed bites them in the ***. Sometimes, they happen to be the "less" greediest of the greedy.



So the question of course is begged, why companies aren't offering goods at the retail prices? They'd be generally garunteed as winners of the bidding process since everyone else is inflating their offers, and they'd still realise a profit, as they're already (presumably) making a profit at retail price... price fixing anyone?

Plus, here's a question, any idea if military members are precluded from bidding as suppliers? I can see it being a conflict of interest, but after hearing what our SQ is paying for a certain item (At a 500% markup from the walmart price) it's almost tempting!


----------



## amastermason (3 Jul 2008)

The overall answer to this problem is simple, nothing is perfect.  It may be hard to believe but there are people out there who do like the TV, but not me.  The BEW is actually a great item, it does it's job, they just get scratched too easily.  The old style desert boot is far better than the new Vibram sole one, but both are availiable.  Not everything we have sucks, some does, some doesn't. Combine what works with stuff personally procured, and you are combat effective.  I'v met alot of pers here who've bought stuff only to find it's just not right, here right now.  It boils down to trial and error for everything, some guys hate the foreward handgrip, but you can trade that to the marines who love them more than their issued crap as they see it.  No one thing can make everyone happy, it's the way of the gun.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Jul 2008)

Maybe you should be issued with the kit from the 1970's. What I see is a bunch of spoiled children who aren't happy with anything given them, but want more more more. If  you don't like the kit, get out. Stop whining and get on with the job.
As for taking the TF RSM to task...go ahead try it out. I've known the man for 20 years and he'll cut YOU down to size in about 3 seconds, and that is on his slow day.


----------



## RCR Grunt (4 Jul 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Maybe you should be issued with the kit from the 1970's. What I see is a bunch of spoiled children who aren't happy with anything given them, but want more more more. If  you don't like the kit, get out. Stop whining and get on with the job.
> As for taking the TF RSM to task...go ahead try it out. I've known the man for 20 years and he'll cut YOU down to size in about 3 seconds, and that is on his slow day.



Right on, way to help solve the problem.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Jul 2008)

It may not solve the problem, HOWEVER, there is far too much complaining and whining. If you don't like what I have to say, too bad. It's true. The kit issued these days is far superior than what was issued even 10 years ago. 
WSe weren't even allowed to wear sunglasses, now we're issued them. What do I read? A bunch of whiners complaining about them and how Brand X is far superior and we should have bought them instead.
You may not realize this, but TF RSMs take orders from the TF Commanders. If the Commander gives an order pertaining to dress, its the TF RSM's duty to enforce it, no matter what he thinks.
Like I said, try to take any TF RSM on.....go ahead.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> HOWEVER, there is far too much complaining and whining.



And, in the good for the goose/good for the gander department, one could readily point out that you are "complaining and whining" too, just about something different.

I really do not think that you mean that we should not constantly seek improvement in all matters - personal performance, tactics, training, and, yes, _*kit*_, but it does rather sound like that. Improvement generally starts with an acknowledgement of a deficiency, more commonly referred to as a "complaint".

Had people not complained about that kit from the seventies, we wouldn't have the better kit that we have now, would we? And if people do not point out the deficiencies of current kit - and there are many - now, then we'll never see anything better over the next twenty to thirty years. Nobody will be saying on Starfleet.ca in 2038 that "Maybe you should be issued with the kit from the 2000s. What I see is a bunch of spoiled children who aren't happy with anything given them, but want more more more. If  you don't like the kit, get out. Stop whining and get on with the job." because they'll still have the same non-modular TV that won't carry the fuel cells for their30 GigaWatt Plasma Rifles and a thirty-year-old rucksack that weighs twenty pounds empty, requires a four-hour course, is miserable to wear over body armour, and falls apart in the field.

You are, essentially, advocating for the end of innovation and improvement. And if everybody who wants something better in order to make their job easier, more effective, or more readily survivable took your advice and got out, we'd be left with mindless drones more suitable for forming squares and fixing bayonets rather than modern warfare.

We need people at the pointy end today who can think. The problem that goes along with that is that they think.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

George Bernard Shaw


----------



## Sig_Des (4 Jul 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Maybe you should be issued with the kit from the 1970's.



In the 1970's, I would have worn this goalie mask on the ice :







Today, I wear something like this:






It's a natural evolution. I understand and am aware that in the 70's, the equipment was different, and that today's is different. I respect the guys that had to use that older equipment. But I don't think the "you should see what we had to use back the day" argument is fair here. The nature of warfare, like hockey, has changed. But I'm willing to bet, that even in the 70's you had guys *****ing about the equipment, and buying some of their own stuff.



> What I see is a bunch of spoiled children who aren't happy with anything given them, but want more more more. If  you don't like the kit, get out. Stop whining and get on with the job.



Oh, I'll do the job with what's given me. And I'll do it as effectively as I can with what I'm given. But I can be more effective, and more comfortable, with a lot of aftermarket kit. And I'm not talking PPE. I'm talking basics, such as:

-a holster that actually properly fits the pistol issued to me
-a load carriage system that efficiently carries all the rifle magazines issued to me
-desert boots that are not only more comfortable on my feet, but have a higher standing composite safety toe than anything else I'm issued.
-a sling that actually slings my weapon in a proper way, and doesn't have cords that fray and break in a matter of a couple weeks.

How is that gonna bode with me on my next go, I'm not sure. We'll see in Feb. But the way I see it is, if I'm gonna spend 9 more bloody month in theater, I'm gonna try to make sure I'm as comfortable and effective as possible. Confidence in my equipment is a big one for that.


----------



## noneck (4 Jul 2008)

LOACHMAN-

"You are, essentially, advocating for the end of innovation and improvement. And if everybody who wants something better in order to make their job easier, more effective, or more readily survivable took your advice and got out, we'd be left with mindless drones more suitable for forming squares and fixing bayonets rather than modern warfare."

+1 I couldn't have said it better.

Noneck


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Jul 2008)

You have misread me.
There comes a time when we have to shut up and do the job with the kit we're issued. If you have any doubts about my thoughts, you haven't read my past posts.
I am for improvement and efficiency. Kit is a priority, and as such we should pursue improvements.
Rome  was not built in a day, and no TV, BEW etc is going to make everyone happy. Best thing you can do is work with the CoC and not against it.
Now as a CSM, if my OC says only issue TV are to be worn, that's an order from a Major to his company.....I have to enforce it, despite what I have said to him/her.  One day many of you will be in that position.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2008)

I have read your posts, which is why I said "I really do not think that you mean...", and I am fully aware of the imperfections of this medium, but that's the way that it came across.

I see no indication that anybody is not "doing the job", but people are still allowed to comment on deficiencies or shortcomings of anything job-related.

I appreciate your position in the chain-of-command regarding this issue. I do not like being "caught in the middle" as you must feel sometimes.

Good luck with your balancing act...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Allowances (such as footwear allowances) have been discussed in threads on the site before.
> 
> It's a grand idea, but one must take into consideration that each and every piece of kit that you want to make it onto that "authorized list" MUST be put through the exact same process to determine it's "ballistic" capabilities, it's compliance IAW with mil specs etc. It'll have to go through all the rig-a-ma-rolls of "certification" and acceptance by the system before anyone is "officially" going to "authorize" it's compliance and use by Canadian soldiers by placing it on a list of "authorized OTS".
> 
> ...



Yet the Federal government does this already with a boot allowance, the only standard is they must be CSA approved. The military could have a standard boot for issue and a allowance to purchase an approved option, removing the contracting requirements.


----------



## amastermason (4 Jul 2008)

This argument will go on for as long as there is an army, and as always, there will be people complaining about something.  As for the current TF RSM, this is not the first time I've worked for him, and hopefully not the last.  The man's eyes say "I'll swallow your soul", and he can be, tough.  I'm not going to take him on, but he is allowing some liberal allowances with kit, which I appreciate.  As for the "back in my day" crowd, shut up!  Back in your day you did the same thing, so cut the two faced banter.  It's always going to be like this, you did it, I did it, am doing it, and others will do it.  End of sermon.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2008)

My last breath will probably be a rant at something.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jul 2008)

amastermason said:
			
		

> As for the "back in my day" crowd, shut up!  Back in your day you did the same thing, so cut the two faced banter.  It's always going to be like this, you did it, I did it, am doing it, and others will do it.  End of sermon.



OK, I just blew a puttee off laughing at that one. Thanks.


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2008)

You have puttees _already_?

We'll be lucky if we see puttees in the next ten years, unless we buy them ourselves.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Jul 2008)

If you're lucky, you will never see puttees in the next ten years. The major use of the puttee was to provide amusement in the troops when one began to unwind on parade, although the socks, circular also were neat for cutting off circulation and causing varicose veins. (Or so we believed at the time.)


----------



## Haggis (5 Jul 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> You have puttees _already_?
> 
> We'll be lucky if we see puttees in the next ten years, unless we buy them ourselves.



I still have mine.

When I leave KAF after my next tour, I'd be happy to hand them off...provided I get them back when we leave Afghanistan.


----------



## armyvern (5 Jul 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yet the Federal government does this already with a boot allowance, the only standard is they must be CSA approved. The military could have a standard boot for issue and a allowance to purchase an approved option, removing the contracting requirements.



There is no boot allowance. We buy boots for medical purposes & for pers who do not fit into standard sizes. Those pers don't often get a choice of what boots they want purchased either - they go to whatever store we have the SO with and then they get to choose from styles/models that store carries. There's a few more standards (mil specs) as well (black boot, black stitching, mid calf height, ...). Far from a boot allowance; it's very controlled and restricted to select pers meeting the above requirements.

Getting a boot allowance has already been tried - and the request was rejected ... that's already been mentioned before.    The only thing we currently have that's close to a boot allowance -- is the BTU (bra) allowance whereby women buy 4 bras per year at Crown expense. 

I think though ... we need it. It will address soldier's footwear requirements/needs MUCH better than forcing 50 000 different sets of feet into 1 style of stocked boots. Someone out there just needs to realize that -- just as all boobs are different ... so are all feet different.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (5 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There is no boot allowance. . . .



He may have been referring to a "footwear allowance" paid to federal government civilian employees who may be required to wear safety footwear due to workplace hazards or a uniform, such as indicated at these sites.

http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/doc.php?did=267&lang=en


> PROTECTIVE FOOTWEAR ALLOWANCE
> The approved change, which will be found at Part XII of the new directive, has been approved for implementation no later than January 1, 2006. The Personal Protective Equipment Directive currently provides a rate for reimbursement for protective footwear. This rate will no longer be provided.
> 
> The following wording will be found in the new directive:
> ...



http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/cdshtm/351-1gl-eng.shtml#_footwear


> Footwear Allowance
> 22. All uniformed CSC personnel, including officers working at Healing Lodges, will receive an annual footwear allowance of $100, payable during each fiscal year.
> 
> Any employee requiring special orthopaedic footwear must rely on the Public Service Health Care Plan (PSHCP) for additional financial support. The institutional liability is limited to the portion of expenses not totally funded by the plan less the $100 allowance that is already provided. For those staff not in the PSHCP, reimbursement will be limited to what benefits the employee would receive if they were a member of PSHCP.
> ...


----------



## armyvern (5 Jul 2008)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> He may have been referring to a "footwear allowance" paid to federal government civilian employees who may be required to wear safety footwear due to workplace hazards or a uniform, such as indicated at these sites.
> 
> http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/doc.php?did=267&lang=en
> http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/cdshtm/351-1gl-eng.shtml#_footwear



Seen.

We refund the purchase price of our civ employee's safety boots in DND as well.

Unfortunately, the CF has a Supply system in effect, and we have been directed to use it.


----------



## Greymatters (6 Jul 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Maybe you should be issued with the kit from the 1970's. What I see is a bunch of spoiled children who aren't happy with anything given them, but want more more more. If  you don't like the kit, get out. Stop whining and get on with the job.
> As for taking the TF RSM to task...go ahead try it out. I've known the man for 20 years and he'll cut YOU down to size in about 3 seconds, and that is on his slow day.



Ive been gone from this thread for a month and the argument hasnt changed an inch...


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jul 2008)

I know I was less than diplomatic about it. IF you want change work within the system, It's slow and cumbersome, but it does work.
I was briefed a few years ago and one of the topics was the issue of the Gerber multi tool. The officer stated that it was the 80% solution, which is about as good as it gets. 
The subject of kit is always contentious, but laws have tp be obeyed etc. 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there aren't better things out there, however, when the government has spent millions, sometimes bilions of dollars, its not going to change its mind overnight and spend more to replace what they just purchased.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (7 Jul 2008)

But when it's one's own life that's possibly being put at risk by said equipment, that's not satisfactory, thus people feel inclined to break the rules.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (7 Jul 2008)

...what's that saying? Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 8?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2008)

I'm on the same page as you HS for the most part.  However there is also the possibility of troops putting their lives and teammates in danger by using substandard equipment because they either aren't educated or are just looking for the LCF.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jul 2008)

I can agree with that sentiment HS. What I object to is the "I don't like our kit" and no solution crowd.


----------



## Old and Tired (7 Jul 2008)

I must admit that I've been doing a fair bit of Ghosting on this thread.  Not because I'm just interested in watching the discussion (read occasional dog fight), but mainly because it has been fairly educational as well.  Everything from "*Discband/discard DLR-CLS to getting rid of DRDC*" to the other end of the spectrum that says, "*Suck it up, that's the way it is, and that's the way it will always be*"  Given the type and rate of Todays tempo neither one of those solutions will solve the immediate and pressing problem.

I've had occasion to be tasked out to 2 trials before.  The first was in the early nineties for TCCCS.  Suffice to say that the suggestions that we made for relatively minor additions, deletions or alterations to the kit weren't acted on.  The second and more pertinent to this thread is the Phase Two Trial of the TACVEST.  My take on the trial, due to the attitude of those conducting it, was that the final decision had already be made.  Nothing we said, unless it was good, was going to make it anywhere past the weekly debrief/questionnaire.

If you take a look at history within the Army you will rapidly notice that what is passed down from on high as THE WAY IT WILL BE, rarely, if ever survives contact with your average Canadian Soldier.  Take a good look at photographs from any war (not Peacekeeping) that we've fought.  How many variations of kit do you see.  In WW I, we had soldiers literall throwing away their Ross Rifles if they found an abandoned Enfield.  Am I advocating this. NO, Let me say that again to be sure, NO.  We have almost always been behind in load carriage systems, and probably will be given the country we live in.

I think we are selling our Snr NCOs short in suggesting that they don't know what is required to step into the current battlespace.  Likewise I think we are selling our junior leadership short doing the same thing.  This passed Jun 30 maked the start of year 28, and I look around at some of the soldiers and the vast amount of experience that they have.  I feel like one of the Kafasoureses that we all complain about at times.  These guys are far better prepared to deploy than I ever was at their age, career point.  Exercising a modicum of common sense as far as PPE goes, I think we should be leaning toward "Use that Kit that works for you."  Yes, some old time CWO/MWOs may not like the lack o uniformity, but as I noted, historically its not something that we've been overly concerned with anyway. 



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I can agree with that sentiment HS. What I object to is the "I don't like our kit" and no solution crowd.



Here is one of the problems that I see, and have suffered from.  It's not that we complain but have nothing to offer in the way of solutions.  It's the attitude that troops run into when offering solutions.  I, too, dislike those that whine, moan, b****, and complain just because they can.  When troops offer up solutions or ideas, and get shot down because someone in a staff position somewhere has wedded themselves to one idea and there will be no deviations, I think that's were we start to have trouble, and the previous 113 pages of too and fro.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jul 2008)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> He may have been referring to a "footwear allowance" paid to federal government civilian employees who may be required to wear safety footwear due to workplace hazards or a uniform, such as indicated at these sites.
> 
> http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/doc.php?did=267&lang=en
> http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/cdshtm/351-1gl-eng.shtml#_footwear



Thanks that is correct, it commonly called the boot allowance as that is what it was used for. I can see a parallel system where basic boots are issued for garrison and an allowance for approved footwear for people deploying. We have the Brits, Canadians and US deployed in similar combat zones, i can't imagine it would be hard to find good information on decent footwear.


----------



## Ecco (8 Jul 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I can see a parallel system where basic boots are issued for garrison and an allowance for approved footwear for people deploying. We have the Brits, Canadians and US deployed in similar combat zones, i can't imagine it would be hard to find good information on decent footwear.



It's so easy...   :
Could you please name one canadian-manufactured combat boot which, in your opinion, would fit the requirements of the Land Forces?  In order to start building that list of approved footwear, I mean...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Jul 2008)

Ahh the 80% solution.  Since 80% of the CF isn't Combat Arms, perhaps we should look at the 20% solution.  Of course within the 20% there won't be 100% agreement but I bet it we would have more effective kit for those most often in harms way if those who are outside the wire drive the progression of new kit.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jul 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> It's so easy...   :
> Could you please name one canadian-manufactured combat boot which, in your opinion, would fit the requirements of the Land Forces?  In order to start building that list of approved footwear, I mean...



Listen to the soldiers, you have combat vets from 3 NATO countries all who have tried out different footwear, which is a popular subject by the way considering I see long threads here, Arrse, Tanknet, etc,etc. I suspect it would take a couple of smart individuals about 2 months to get a short list, and it does not have to Canadian made, just available in Canada.


----------



## Ecco (8 Jul 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect it would take a couple of smart individuals about 2 months to get a short list, and it does not have to Canadian made, just available in Canada.



Wishful thinking that only exists in imagination.  :'(

Unfortunately, there are laws that regulate the way the Canadian taxpayer money is invested into capabilities (none of them are CF limitations, they are Canadian govt laws).  
Long story short:
-If there are more than 1 manufacturer in Canada that can build something, then you have to compete it in Canada.  There are at least 4 manufacturers of footwear in Canada that can make the kind of numbers the CF are interested in (namely, in alphabetical order, Boulet, CanWest, STC and Terra, and there are smaller others).  Thus, combat boots must be Canadian manufactured.  It's a law.  Furthermore,
-For any procurement contract of over 1M$, there must be 100% industrial regional benefits.  It's also a law and it's dutifully enforced by PWGSC and Industry Canada.  This would block any attempt to use Canada-based retailers of foreign made boots.  (This rule explains how certain small contracts can go through, like LPO or stuff for Special Forces...  their amount are under 1M$, so they go under the radar...  no, it's illegal to contract-split).  Furthermore,
-There is also rules concerning the minimal amount of Canadian Content in the actual boot.  I won't go into details here, but it also blocks us from using non-Canadian boots.  Also,
-For Canadian manufacturers, CF boots are about 50 to 60% of their annual market share.  Politically, this makes it impossible to ask for exceptions or such, that MAY, under special circumstances, be allowed for out-of-rule procurement.
(BTW, US procurement laws are very similar)

The "magic solution" of boot allowance for LF footwear is only wishful thinking, as there is no COTS or MOTS market for combat boots in Canada.



			
				Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Ahh the 80% solution. Since 80% of the CF isn't Combat Arms, perhaps we should look at the 20% solution.



I guess that's the beauty of having multiple choices.  I personally believe there is no single type of combat boot that would provide 80% user acceptance, wherever they are manufactured.  However, offering multiple choices might be a potential, realistic solution.  For example, let's say we have 3 types of combat boots, each with 60% user acceptance, and the soldiers is still issued 2 pairs of boots.  He can choose any two pairs amongst the 3 types offered.  With such a setup, 80% user acceptance may be achieved.  Now the biggest challenge is to find 3 pairs of Canadian-manufactured boots that can be offered, that meet Land Forces requirement, while not increasing unduly the log stocks, the supply risks or the monetary expense of the Crown.  It's still a monumental task, but it makes much more legal sense.

Let's stop the hijack here, this thread is not supposed to be used to offer solutions.  >


----------



## Towards_the_gap (8 Jul 2008)

errm....we could also simply allow people to wear the boots they feel work best for them. As long as they are black and mid-calf/above the ankle. EDITED TO ADD: or tan for use in the sandbox.

I myself swear by Altberg boots. Not canadian made, but until a canadian company manufactures a boot that matches the low-weight, comfort, support and toughness of these boots I will buy foreign. That's globalisation.


VERY QUICKLY EDITED TO MODIFY LEG LENGTH!!!


----------



## medaid (8 Jul 2008)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> As long as they are black and mid-thigh.




Err.... I don't know what military you're in... but it must be rather kinky. Mid-Thigh you say? I mean, even the cavalry didn't wear mid-thigh boots. What a scary scary thought...


Vern? Take it away with the Mid-Thigh boot talk!


----------



## Schafer (8 Jul 2008)

I believe "Towards_the_gap" is referring to the Germans in WW2 with there boots.... But I'm not sure just taking a guess. ;D


----------



## armyvern (8 Jul 2008)

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> But when it's one's own life that's possibly being put at risk by said equipment, that's not satisfactory, thus people feel inclined to break the rules.





			
				Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> errm....we could also simply allow people to wear the boots they feel work best for them. As long as they are black and mid-calf/above the ankle. EDITED TO ADD: or tan for use in the sandbox.





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Listen to the soldiers, you have combat vets from 3 NATO countries all who have tried out different footwear, which is a popular subject by the way considering I see long threads here, Arrse, Tanknet, etc,etc. I suspect it would take a couple of smart individuals about 2 months to get a short list, and it does not have to Canadian made, just available in Canada.



Just to be clear.

These rules are the LAW. This is Canada, not another NATO country. The Treasury Board and Financial Administration Act are applicable to ALL federal departments. Like it or not, we are one of them too. There's a whole hell of a lot of people here who could make up a short list in about 30.5 seconds --- that does not make it implementable OR legal.

I think that Old Soldier's point is (and I've said it MANY times before) is that the soldiers need to understand where the blame lies and start doing something about it.

That means officially. That means by contacting your local politicians too - to get those laws changed.

The Supply Tech, CTS, DLR DLSS, the Army, nor indeed the CF has any say or control of the procurment laws which are applicable to us while spending TAXPAYERS money. So, take your arguement above to your local politician and present your case - ask them to pass it on and back you up. Challenge them to bring forth an Act of Parliament to change the way the CF can purchase/contract to supply it's personnel. That IS what it will take if you want to see change. Certainly 'lil old Miss Vern is not capable of effecting these changes, nor is the CLS, the CDS etc.

So, for those of you who keep insisting it's "so easy" to do this or that in contravention of those laws ... Do you keep missing that "it's the law and we in the CF have been DIRECTED to follow it by the government" part?? 

It's not as easy as you all seem to be insisting, and meanwhile - you all keep putting the blame on the wrong people/entities. It sure does come off as whines when there is a continued trend for 80% of you to ignore the facts of the matter - and that's that the law is applicable to us. Don't like it? Start doing something about that. That IS where the problem lies ... it does not lie with me or the old CSMs, or the purchasers, or the CTS guys, or the CDS who need to follow those laws as we have been directed to do.


----------



## armyvern (8 Jul 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Vern? Take it away with the Mid-Thigh boot talk!


I have two pair that I love, but must say --- there's no way in hell I recommend them as the new footwear mil specs.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (8 Jul 2008)

But on the other hand, what TB/fed gov't rules prohibit soldiers from purchasing, and then wearing their own equipment? Particularly in reference to boots, seeing as half of pet cut about in magnums that are surely not purchased using taxpayer money.

In my own case for non-issue kit, I find the new combat boot ok for garrison wear and field work. However, the boots I used to wear in my previous incarnation are far superior, and so I have had a new pair bought and currently en route from england. Where is the harm in that? 

And in regards to the thread, I honestly say I've yet to see one very valid reason for forcing soldiers to wear issue kit, particularly on deployments. Of course, apart from 'because you're ordered to'.


----------



## armyvern (8 Jul 2008)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> But on the other hand, what TB/fed gov't rules prohibit soldiers from purchasing, and then wearing their own equipment? Particularly in reference to boots, seeing as half of pet cut about in magnums that are surely not purchased using taxpayer money.



The point about this was that some here are "advocating" the "simple" making up of a list and it's implementation to be used as an "*authorized list*" from which persons can buy and wear their own kit. Totally different vein.

As also addressed before, any such "simple" list of OTR kit is not so simple (or even legal to be advocated) when one considers that in order to be "officially authorized" for wear -- kit must ALSO be tested and certified to be IAW Mil Specs *by federal entities * as per *the federal  laws/guidelines* that we *in federal departments * ARE subject to.

Ergo - the "you need to advocate this change in Federal Law" to the politicians if you ever want to see this "official authorization" occur.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (8 Jul 2008)

Ah right makes sense.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jul 2008)

Vern did you say I'm old? 51 going on 15 here...


----------



## armyvern (8 Jul 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Vern did you say I'm old? 51 going on 15 here...



Uhmmmm perhaps.  

You're old - I'm insane; consider us even.  >


----------



## Loachman (8 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The point about this was that some here are "advocating" the "simple" making up of a list and it's implementation to be used as an "*authorized list*" from which persons can buy and wear their own kit. Totally different vein.
> 
> As also addressed before, any such "simple" list of OTR kit is not so simple (or even legal to be advocated) when one considers that in order to be "officially authorized" for wear -- kit must ALSO be tested and certified to be IAW Mil Specs *by federal entities * as per *the federal  laws/guidelines* that we *in federal departments * ARE subject to.



What testing has been done on the various boots that Supply will purchase for those with foot problems or who cannot get boots that fit?

I just went through this process as the issue hot weather boots were too wide for me, especially at the heel, but the next smaller width was too small. They sent me into Angus yesterday to try Magnums and SWATs. I'm guessing that the selection will vary from base to base depending on what boot merchant is handiest and what said boot merchant carries.

Either there is or is not an official list of approved boots for those of us who occasionally require special sizing. If there is, what is the difference between that and what individuals could/should be able to purchase and wear? If there is not, obviously one is not _*really*_ necessary for official approval at some level.

I picked the Magnums over the SWATs for both fit and comfort, by the way. The Bates M9 Desert Assault boots that I bought earlier are even better on both counts, but what I'm getting courtesy of Her Royal Majesty are certainly acceptable at the cost to me.

On a related note, I took back the a** f**ce steel-toed cold wet weather boots at the same time, as their fit is not acceptable and they are so stiff that, even after three weeks of wear in Wainwright late March - early April I still could not walk properly in the field and my feet continued to hurt for three weeks after I ceased wearing them in favour of a pair of Magnums purchased from the SYT at the Wainwright kitshop. Supply gave me a pair of the Army ones instead, which fit much better and seem far better to walk about in. I generally avoid kit with a** f**ce in the name in favour of the Army equivalent, and this reinforced that custom.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jul 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> What testing has been done on the various boots that Supply will purchase for those with foot problems or who cannot get boots that fit?


TB has authorized the purchase of civ footwear *only* (ask Pet about the fallout they got from NDHQ, the TB, and the Auditor General with their bulk purchase of civ footwear for an entire TF outside of the regulations) for pers with medical problems & those who do not fit into stocked sizes.

Regarding specs: Cbt Boots: Black, unlined, leather, black stitching, mid-calf. Nothing to test.
Safety Boots: Must be CSA approved (to meet Mil Specs) and further must be black, leather, mid-calf;
Desert Boots: Tan, mid-calf. Unlined. Nothing to test.
Desert Safety Boots: Must be CSA approved (to meet Mil Specs) and further must be tan, mid-calf.
Specialty Boots: IE blast boots: (ie PPE): Foot must be molded & boot then custom ordered off the "Special Sizing Roll" and made for the individual by the contractor, vice purchased off the rack. 

Simply put, it's quite easy to determine which footwear is IAW Mil Specs when the mil specs are "CSA" standards. That's pretty difficult to find as "already CSA approved" on things like plates, body armour etc - even IF CSA ratings were what's applicable to that equipment, but it's not CSA ratings that are applicable in those cases.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> I just went through this process as the issue hot weather boots were too wide for me, especially at the heel, but the next smaller width was too small. They sent me into Angus yesterday to try Magnums and SWATs. I'm guessing that the selection will vary from base to base depending on what boot merchant is handiest and what said boot merchant carries.
> 
> Either there is or is not an official list of approved boots for those of us who occasionally require special sizing. If there is, what is the difference between that and what individuals could/should be able to purchase and wear? If there is not, obviously one is not _*really*_ necessary for official approval at some level.
> 
> ...



Do you see the difference now between boots (IAW with the specs above) and let's say ... BPVs? Plates? 

There is *not* an approved list of footwear from civ suppliers ... then again the specs for our footwear have just been given to you above and it's pretty easy for the Suppy paying the bill to determine if the style you chose is "black, leather, mid-calf" (& IAW CSA ratings in the case of safety boots). I have refused to pay for the boots members picked out -- and sent them back to the store to try again when they came in with a US model number for safety footwear ... no CSA approval rating IAW mil specs = no taxpayer paying for the item on your behalf. There is a vast difference between an item that requires "CSA" approval (for safety boots) in order to purchase, and one that must be certified with blast testing etc by a federal entity as a piece of kit that is deemed PPE - such as is the case with the blast boots.


----------



## blacktriangle (9 Jul 2008)

Well really I don't see anything except Snr Officers/RSM's etc stopping us from PAYING for and then WEARING our own boots. 

If the government wants to keep buying and paying for stuff that alot of us aren't going to wear thats fine, give it to the reserves, the people that don't have the money to buy their own kit/have no interest.

I guess it gets more complicated with rigs/PPE but anything can be solved if we really want it.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jul 2008)

popnfresh, a lot of the PRes people do buy their own boots. As long as they are black and are combat boot style, I'm good with that.


----------



## blacktriangle (9 Jul 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> popnfresh, a lot of the PRes people do buy their own boots. As long as they are black and are combat boot style, I'm good with that.



I know as I am one of them. I just find it funny that this sort of thing is even an issue in reg force deploying units. The army needs to start issuing some common sense.


----------



## Loachman (9 Jul 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> The army needs to start issuing some common sense.



That would still come from the lowest bidder, though.


----------



## medaid (9 Jul 2008)

Popnfresh... Stop. Just stop... YOU are making sense now. Stop making sense!


----------



## RHFC_piper (9 Jul 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> The army needs to start issuing some common sense.



They do... but it's war stock only...


----------



## Teeps74 (9 Jul 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> I know as I am one of them. I just find it funny that this sort of thing is even an issue in reg force deploying units. The army needs to start issuing some common sense.



My RQ shop once had "Common Sense" on the shelves... But, as there was an ATI coming up and he had to account for all the "Common Sense", hence he would not issue said "Common Sense" to the troops. After the ATI he discovered that Common Sense (known as SENSE, COMMON A1) was not on the scale of issue of my P Res unit, and so... He sent it all back.

We have a new RQ now. At least in that shop, there is common sense to be had, talked about and on occasion, issued.

EDIT TO FIX SPELLING


----------



## RHFC_piper (9 Jul 2008)

I was once issued common sense... but the spring was worn out and the follower was broken, which caused a lot of double feeds, so it was pretty useless.  I tagged it as NS and turned it in.  They gave me Brute Force and Ignorance (BFI) as a replacement.


----------



## Harris (9 Jul 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> You have puttees _already_?
> 
> We'll be lucky if we see puttees in the next ten years, unless we buy them ourselves.



Puttees?  In MY day we didn't have no fancy Puttees.  We wrapped bark around our shins and held them on with mud.  And were damn happy about it too.   :warstory:


----------



## Loachman (9 Jul 2008)

Luxury!!


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Jul 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Luxury!!



Now don't go dissing puttees! Standard issue in the British Army up to 1985. No good in the wet, of course, but awesome in rocky, desert mountainous regions. The Omanis I worked with would trade just about anything for a pair as the boots lasted for ages and the puttees gave great ankle support on crummy terrain while keeping the dirt out your boots (especially during long scree descents). Luckily I was an army cadet in Canada in the 70s, so I knew how to wrap them properly  

Whoa! Is that Fred and Barney already? Gotta make my car pool to the quarry....


----------



## Danjanou (9 Jul 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Luckily I was an army cadet in Canada in the 70s, so I knew how to wrap them properly



No you didn't 8)


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Jul 2008)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> No you didn't 8)



Bloody spies....


----------



## armyvern (9 Jul 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> My RQ shop once had "Common Sense" on the shelves... But, as there was an ATI coming up and he had to account for all the "Common Sense", hence he would not issue said "Common Sense" to the troops. After the ATI he discovered that Common Sense (known as SENSE, COMMON A1) was not on the scale of issue of my P Res unit, and so... He sent it all back.
> 
> We have a new RQ now. At least in that shop, there is common sense to be had, talked about and on occasion, issued.
> 
> EDIT TO FIX SPELLING



What kills me about the ignorance of this post is that:

YOUR RQ (no, not even your old one) does NOT decide what you can or can not wear in YOUR Unit; your CO does that -- with great input from the RSM.

Suprisingly ... apparently the ignorance of some still sees the "lack of common sense" put onto the Supply Tech. What, pray tell, in my last few posts did your NOT understand about it is NOT the Supply Tech - it's the damn law. It's not even the CF. It's the damn law.

If you want to insult the government system - that's one thing, but I, for one, am sick and f'n tired of people like you who can NOT seem to grasp the concept of putting the blame where it lies; not on tradepeople who can do SFA about government policy.

The CF DID try to get a boot allowance - the government said "no" (I've already said that here a few posts ago), so further comments of "it's simple to fix if we want to" are also bullshit. I already told you how it needs to be fixed - and that's an act of Parliament ... I wasn't joking.

Take your slams of Supply Techs and shove them, for the ignorance is not on them; it may certainly be on a few of them, but then ... I can point out of few of "those types" right here in this very thread as well.

Have a great night.


----------



## Teeps74 (9 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern, two things you should remember about my post... First, it was an attempt at humour... I figured that since "Common Sense" does not have any sort of serial, stock, or tracking number, this much would be apparent. Another is, that most P Res units (in Ontario at least) do not have supply techs as the RQs, and more often then not they are actually just someone (prefereably a senior NCO) who needs a full time job, and is willing to do it regardless of trade.

If you want to take it personally, fine... I apologize. It was not directed at supply techs, whom if you scroll through the pages of this very thread, you would find I have very deep respect for. Sometimes however, sorry is not enough, but you should know, I shant be beating myself up for trying to put a smile on a face or two.

(Oh, and it is not urban legend... We have had RQs and CQs in the past who would not issue kit, because it was easier to track on the shelves... It has happened, and it is worth poking a lil fun at that.)

Oh, and where did I talk about boots? 

Next time I will try to remember the smiley face.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jul 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> ArmyVern, two things you should remember about my post... First, it was an attempt at humour... I figured that since "Common Sense" does not have any sort of serial, stock, or tracking number, this much would be apparent. Another is, that most P Res units (in Ontario at least) do not have supply techs as the RQs, and more often then not they are actually just someone (prefereably a senior NCO) who needs a full time job, and is willing to do it regardless of trade.
> 
> If you want to take it personally, fine... I apologize. It was not directed at supply techs, whom if you scroll through the pages of this very thread, you would find I have very deep respect for. Sometimes however, sorry is not enough, but you should know, I shant be beating myself up for trying to put a smile on a face or two.
> 
> ...



My bad. Two responses to two posts rolled into one, but I only quoted yours.

The bit about the boots etc was to popnfresh who made this statement:



> I guess it gets more complicated with rigs/PPE but anything can be solved if we really want it.



As I said, it is complicated. It's been tried with the boots and the answer was a firm "no". We have _really _ tried over and over and over again. And, it's been more than Sup Techs trying ... but it is the law that we get to comply with. It's not like we haven't tried (ie it's not like _we_ don't have any common sense either). You just all need to convince your local politicians of that "requirement for common sense to be made available to DND/CF" by that Act of Parliament.


----------



## Teeps74 (9 Jul 2008)

With politicians, sometimes "common sense" can be found over a mess diner, and a few drinks. Regimental senates are really really useful in this regard.

EDIT TO ADD: It should go without saying, I do not mean bribing, as that is a good way to get a Regiment severely punished in the press at best, God only knows what Ottawa would do should such a thing happen. What I meant to say is talk it over with a nice meal. One can explain such things, and politicians are often invited and even expected to go to many military functions and mess dinners per year. END EDIT

And AV, I do feel for you, sincerely. I have done the CQ's job, and will again. I'm not saying I know what it is like, but I have spent enough time through these expereinces, in supply shops to know that there are some real "winners" coming up to the counter to flex their muscle and demand action. It should not be that way, but some people feel as though they are entitled to their entitlements (to bad they have no idea what those are).


----------



## RHFC_piper (9 Jul 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> some people feel as though they are entitled to their entitlements (to bad they have no idea what those are).



Quite honestly, this is probably 90% of the problem.   

Most of the troops in my unit have absolutely no idea what they're entitled to... or for that matter, not entitled to.  Me being one of them.  I have a pretty good idea, but I have never seen a solid list of what I _should_ have until I'm somewhere where I'm expected to have it... like deployment.  Granted, that was a quick fix, as it's a short walk from 1 RCR lines to base clothing stores.  But, it took 8 years before I had a shmeck of what I was missing, and I still don't have a solid list.

Needless to say, I've asked my unit RQMS for a list, but they can only give me a list of what I have on my docs... beyond that, I have a very basic idea of what I need to do my job.

Perhaps if it was made very clear, from the initial issue, what you are entitled to, even if you aren't issued it due to deficiencies in the system, then maybe there wouldn't be such an influx of people demanding what they aren't entitled to.  (I'M NOT BLAMING THE SUP TECHs or CQs).

I'm all about the idea of a "glass wall" stores system... No "favours", no "deals", no "hoarding"; just the issue and replacement of supplies when needed or requested by proper documented channels.  A member completes the proper requests and is given a prompt answer. If the stores are available, the stores are issued. If the member isn't entitled to the stores, they should already be aware and not request it.  Supply should be a 2 way street with co-operation from both end... and I have seen it quite the opposite in my unit; Requests go in late, and CQ/RQ can't accommodate... and in the past, requests go in and are ignored until the last minute until it is too late.    Some times I hope this is just a "my unit" thing, or a "PRes" thing... but I've seen it all over.  

I can't blame anyone directly cause some people just honestly don't know.   I don't bark at my CQ/RQ staff for kit unless I know I'm entitled to it and need it. Because of this, I'm sure I don't have absolutely everything on my trade scale of issue, but I obviously don't need it or I'd wonder why I don't have it.

Just my $0.02


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Jul 2008)

When I worked in CQ stores we did the very best to accommodate the troops.  I always figured it was easier to count stuff on the shelves when there was very little on them.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jul 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> When I worked in CQ stores we did the very best to accommodate the troops.  I always figured it was easier to count stuff on the shelves when there was very little on them.



As 99.99% of us do. Most QMs, RQs, CQs, TQs, SQs etc will go out of their way trying to do and get whatever they can for the troops.

The fallacy with the argument that stuff is easier to count while it's (individual kit items) on the shelves has always confused me ... for if you've issued that kit to someone via the CFSS ... it's no longer on your charge to account for. You aren't respoinsible for it anymore and do not have to report it's whereabouts.

For Temp Loan items ... I can count one on the shelf ... or count qty "1" on a temp loan card. The loan cards (meaning the kit is signed out) are easier to count, just flip the page ... they're all right there in one spot ... and I can sit on my ass drinking my XL Black while doing it!!  >

It's the .01% of assholes that ruin it for everyone ... and every trade has them.


----------



## Teeps74 (9 Jul 2008)

Lone Wolf, I'm with ya! Far easier to count TI cards and such then stuff on shelves.

Piper, next time you are at your ASU, ask at the counter if you can see the message for P Res infantry entitlements (as a matter of fact, I will do the same when I get a chance). There is a message that basically details what we are supposed to have generally, and what we are supposed to be brought up to for deployments.

This said, the supply system seems to be a little stressed for some items, but, do not worry, one definately will get what they need before deployment. The sup Techs I dealt with for my last hop over the pond were very good at finding me stuff either here at my base, or another to make sure I had the proper sizes for kit I needed.

Hmm, would it be proper or break any rules to post the list here? I do not believe the entitlement message is classified in any way...


----------



## armyvern (9 Jul 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Most of the troops in my unit have absolutely no idea what they're entitled to... or for that matter, not entitled to.  Me being one of them.  I have a pretty good idea, but I have never seen a solid list of what I _should_ have until I'm somewhere where I'm expected to have it... like deployment.  Granted, that was a quick fix, as it's a short walk from 1 RCR lines to base clothing stores.  But, it took 8 years before I had a shmeck of what I was missing, and* I still don't have a solid list*.
> 
> Needless to say, I've asked my unit RQMS for a list, but they can only give me a list of what I have on my docs (they CAN give you the scale - I just did!!)  beyond that, I have a very basic idea of what I need to do my job.



CFS D01-301 Land Force Operational Field and Equipment Scale - Reg & ResF.

Anyone should be able to obtain this from their CQ/RQ/QM upon asking for it. That is the listing of your entitlements.

I'm sending you a copy via email in approx 20 seconds - actually you should have it now.    Have fun with it. Ensure that when you read an item, you scroll to the right hand side of the document to see if any "scale notes" are applicable; if so, scale notes are found at the very beginning (scale notes are the caveats) of the document.

For example you'd see listed Ballistic Eyewear, and the applicable note would read:



> CTS item, for CC2 positions only
> and personnel from NON-CC2 unit
> listed at note 2 para (i). For
> NON-CC2 personnel deployed in
> ...


----------



## armyvern (9 Jul 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Lone Wolf, I'm with ya! Far easier to count TI cards and such then stuff on shelves.
> 
> Piper, next time you are at your ASU, ask at the counter if you can see the message for P Res infantry entitlements (as a matter of fact, I will do the same when I get a chance). There is a message that basically details what we are supposed to have generally, and what we are supposed to be brought up to for deployments.
> 
> ...



And, you should now have a copy as well.

Vern


----------



## armyvern (9 Jul 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Hmm, would it be proper or break any rules to post the list here? I do not believe the entitlement message is classified in any way...



I've already got it listed somewhere on this darn site ... not the message, just the list of items.


----------



## Teeps74 (9 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I've already got it listed somewhere on this darn site ... not the message, just the list of items.



Thanks a ton AV   ;D

And this here, is the reason why I love this place...

P.S. Vern, I just read the many, many, many, many hats you have listed under your name. Good grief. I will not complain about all the work and jobs piled up on my desk for at least another week now.

EDIT TO FIX SPELLING


----------



## armyvern (9 Jul 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> P.S. Vern, I just read the many, many, many, many hats you have listed under your name. Good grief. I will not complain about all the work and jobs piled up on my desk for at least another week now.



No worries, trust me - I broached the "pay raise" issue with the OC today when she noted that I had more points for passing on at the O Gp than she and the CO did.  > (Somehow - I doubt it will fly!! But, she did say she owes me some beer!!)

This is one girl ... who will be very _very_ glad when APS/Summer Leave is over ... and in desperate need of beer!


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> This is one girl ... who will be very _very_ glad when APS/Summer Leave is over ... and in desperate need of beer!



You Rang?









     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


dileas

tess


----------



## RHFC_piper (10 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> CFS D01-301 Land Force Operational Field and Equipment Scale - Reg & ResF.



Awesome.. Thank you  ;D

This document should be handed out to every soldier when they join... then when they ask for something they're not entitled to, the CQ/RQ/QM staff can just tap a sign on their desk that says; "You're not entitled. Ref: CFS D01-301, etc."...  They don't even have to put down their coffee.  
The member requesting should then just turn about and walk away.




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Anyone should be able to obtain this from their CQ/RQ/QM upon asking for it. That is the listing of your entitlements.



As much as this should be the case, as Teeps put it;


			
				Teeps74 said:
			
		

> most P Res units (in Ontario at least) do not have supply techs as the RQs, and more often then not they are actually just someone (prefereably a senior NCO) who needs a full time job, and is willing to do it regardless of trade.



Sometimes the info just isn't available...   And trying to find anything on the DIN is a friggin nightmare. 


Either way... thanks.   I've only been looking for this list for 10 years...  keep in mind, I only knew it existed for the last 6 years and only really cared about it in the last 3 years (since predeployment).  Which is why I say it should be handed out to all troops upon enrollment... then there are no excuses.  ;D


----------



## 2 Cdo (10 Jul 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> As much as this should be the case, as Teeps put it;
> Sometimes the info just isn't available...   *And trying to find anything on the DIN is a friggin nightmare.*



So I'm not the only one who finds the DIN search engine a f*cking joke. I wish I knew who did the programming for the DIN so I could beat him/her within an inch of their life, let them recover and then finish the job. :threat:

I've lost track of how often I have tried a search for a particular item only to have it come back with 0 returns or a link to something totally unrelated.

Sorry about that folks, back to your originally scheduled thread.


----------



## Old and Tired (10 Jul 2008)

2CDO

The guy your looking for is Sylvain something or other.  I have is name at home, and I'm on task in Gagetown.  Suffice to say that everyone involved in Army on Line was royally p****d when at the end of the whole process, SQFT stepped up and said " This is what we are going to do anyway, so we're finished"  I'll take the name down for you.  He's a Civi employee at G6 SQFT.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Jul 2008)

should make a deal with goggle


----------



## RHFC_piper (10 Jul 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> should make a deal with goggle



Heh... oddly enough, I've found things via a google search, at work, on my DWAN computer, faster than I could ever find them on the DIN search engine...

Including items which, in the document itself, state; "Although this document is not classified, it should not be distributed outside of the DIN"...  



			
				2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I've lost track of how often I have tried a search for a particular item only to have it come back with 0 returns or a link to something totally unrelated.



Exactly...  I typed in "CF 728" (document transfer form) and got 0 useful returns.... then I typed that into google and found a fillable PDF version... WEAK!!

The DIN search engine makes me want to punch babies.    :evil:


We _should_ have google sort this out for us...


And if this seems like it shouldn't be in this thread; it's issued (somewhat) and it's useless.... I think it fits.  ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr (10 Jul 2008)

On the bright side, you can probably never find the webpage that points to any of the official orders regarding non issue kit!!

If I have never physically seen the order, can I plead innocent?


----------



## geo (11 Jul 2008)

FWIW, I always give Google a try - even while on the DIN.  Works 99.9% of the time
Many of my coworkers have folowed suit... life is a lot better without the DIN's "stock" search engine


----------



## NL_engineer (11 Jul 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> On the bright side, you can probably never find the webpage that points to any of the official orders regarding non issue kit!!
> 
> If I have never physically seen the order, can I plead innocent?




Try that, and tell us what happened.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (11 Jul 2008)

Yeah... right.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (7 Jan 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> YOUR RQ (no, not even your old one) does NOT decide what you can or can not wear in YOUR Unit; your CO does that -- with great input from the RSM.



Our CO and RSM have never gone overseas...nuff said.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jan 2009)

Panzer Grenadier said:
			
		

> Our CO and RSM have never gone overseas...nuff said.


And I take it you've never been to Command and Staff College?

...nuff said.

Now, before I get flamed, I'm sick and tired of people poo-pooing their chain of command so flippantly.  Yes, I'm guilty of it; however, in the end, THEY are in charge.  This is a volunteer army, if you dont' like the system, change it or get out.  "This sucks" is not productive UNLESS it's followed up with some sort of suggestion.

For example

Suppose that your RSM and CO have never gone overseas (and by "overseas", I assume you mean Afghanistan).  They both have, however, attained their ranks not through incompetance, but the reverse.  Perhaps they see nothing wrong with the kit.  Maybe they are ignorant of any shortcomings.  Suppose for a moment that you, using the chain of command, you tell them "This sucks" and then follow up with "but this stuff doesn't suck", and then tell them why, perhaps using anecdotal evidence, unsatisfactory equipment reports, or whatever.  Perhaps when presented with enough compelling evidence AND offered an achievable alternate solution, they may change, whether they've been overseas or not.

Give it a try.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2009)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> And I take it you've never been to Command and Staff College?
> 
> ...nuff said.
> 
> ...



Ahhh ... such a refreshing read for a change.

As for the bold bit  ... ironicly, it seems to me that's one of the leadership items taught to us NCMs on all our leadership courses ... (_you know_ - a bitch is only a whine unless corrective courses of action are suggested with that bitch [which is also part and parcel of "proper military communications"]); that should be standard knowledge for every NCM type ...

Who'd have thunk it - troops improperly complaining about the COs and RSMs _allegedly_ performing their jobs improperly. Normal. Seems like a whine to me.


----------



## NL_engineer (7 Jan 2009)

Does anyone know what is the new vest issued over seas?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (7 Jan 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Does anyone know what is the new vest issued over seas?



The official CF issue vest in Afghanistan is a CADPAT AR version of the regular Clothe The Soldier Tac-Vest.


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Jan 2009)

Panzer Grenadier said:
			
		

> Our CO and RSM have never gone overseas...nuff said.



Have you?

I have no problem with people with experience offering viable suggestions to non-issue kit that may be superior to what is used. But if you came up with a suggestion, would it be ok for me to say that you don't know what you're talking about, because YOU haven't been overseas?


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (7 Jan 2009)

Mortarman Rockpainter,

The chain of command has been aware of the deficiencies for quite some time from members who have returned from Afghanistan and have given their reports through the chain properly and suggestions to remedy set situation. To no avail by anyone. Point of note, the CO and the RSM have not been overseas anywhere, not just Afghanistan as you are assuming. 

Beadwindow 7, 

Yes it would be ok. Hopefully soon I will get to go overseas.  I have done as much of the paperwork for application to TF 1-10 at this time as I can and am simply in wait out mode until I can complete the rest of the paperwork.  If at such time I do get on TF 1-10, I will look to members of this forum for advice for what works, provided I am allowed to use set items.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Jan 2009)

Panzer Grenadier said:
			
		

> Our CO and RSM have never gone overseas...nuff said.



So, what exactly is this statement saying?

How does it qualify as "nuff said".

Are you suggesting that no officer or NCO who has not deployed is capable of making any decision that affects you? Or just that the decisions they make which you don't like can be attributed to that (supposed) deficiency in their career and derided because of it?

I look forward to pulling up every comment like this in a few years the first time some young soldier, just like you, decries a chain of command decision because said he CO _"hasn't been anywhere since that A'stan thing long long ago."_

Stick around long enough in the service and you too can be mocked for being a dinosaur in your turn.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (7 Jan 2009)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> So, what exactly is this statement saying?



Michael O`Leary,

This statement is simply eluding to the fact that neither the CO or RSM have gone overseas in any capacity, so their understanding of what works and does not work (in relation to the Afghanistan theatre), would be limited to what returning members from Afghanistan, would be telling them, and their ignoring or refusal (not certain which would describe better) to allow individual members to wear (within reason) vests/rigs of their own configuration (from reputable sources, many which have been shared on this website), paid out of their own pockets hinders set individual member from the opportunity to train with a rig/vest which best works for them-the individual.  

Now there still is the requirement to train with the Tac-Vest, there should simply be the option to train with both.




			
				Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that no officer or NCO who has not deployed is capable of making any decision that affects you?



I simply take set decision affecting myself, and my fellow members, with a few more grains of salt than of those Officers and NCO’s who have deployed. Now that being said, there are Officers and Nco’s who have not deployed who fully understand and agree with set points of this thread (i.e.: use of non-issue kit relating to the Afghanistan theatre) who are stifled and cannot pursue using non-issue kit for training purposes whatsoever as, with every other unit, the buck stops with the CO and that's that. We can still whine about it though.


----------



## geo (7 Jan 2009)

Well Panzer grenadier,

You have a choice... if you are really and truly not happy with the decisions taken by your unit CO & RSM, you can either get out..... or bail out to another unit.... where you will probably also be dissatisfied by some (or all) of the decisions taken by your CO - under the RSM advice.

Don't want to be flippant, don't want to suggest that you don't know what you are talking about BUT, if you are prepared to criticize your leadership for the simple fact that they have not been deployed AND don't agree with you, then you are in one heap big load of crap.

As you were, carry on.....


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (7 Jan 2009)

No, I've said my peace on the matter. Im good.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jan 2009)

Panzer Grenadier said:
			
		

> No, I've said my peace on the matter. Im good.



WOW!  I must say that I am not too impressed with the crop of Ptes we are getting in some intakes.  To have just read a Reserve Pte, with no Tours, and no real TI, commenting on his C of C in such a manner is not at all what I would call "Refreshing".  

I really can't believe this.  





I am kinda curious why you call yourself "Panzer Grenadier" when you are a GGFG?


----------



## NL_engineer (7 Jan 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> The official CF issue vest in Afghanistan is a CADPAT AR version of the regular Clothe The Soldier Tac-Vest.



That's the one I figured I'd be getting, but we were told they were trying a new one.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Jan 2009)

Probably with the double sized mag pouches.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (8 Jan 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> That's the one I figured I'd be getting, but we were told they were trying a new one.



There was a _Mission Specific Load Carriage Trial_ done by the members of TF 1-08 that started during their work-up training around May/June of 2007 and then into their Afghanistan deployment.  From there, I understand that some of the rigs were left in Afghanistan for use by the follow-on TF, however, the trial was ended by the time of the hand-over.

The equipment procured for the trial was:

Arktis 'Rifleman' Vest (either the 1601 Ops Vest, or the 1602 Hybrid Marine Battlevest)
Arktis 1605 Minimi Battlevest (for C9 Gunners)
Fellfab 'modified' Tac-Vest
Pacific Safety Products DHTC Patrol Vest
Pacific Safety Products DHTC Chest Rig



			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Probably with the double sized mag pouches.



Again, the CADPAT AR version of the Tac-Vest which is issued to TF-Afghanistan pers, has the exact same load carriage capacity and configuration as the CADPAT TW one; 4 single mag pouches, 2 frag grenade pouches, 2 small utility pouches, Mini-Maglite pouch, whistle pouch, and a set of C9 and water bottle pouches with smoke grenade pouches to be attached to the sides of the tac-vest as per the user's desired configuration.


----------



## armyvern (8 Jan 2009)

Warning from Vern: 'Lil _hijack _ occuring here ...



			
				Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> ...
> The equipment procured for the trial was:
> ...



1 X Axeman cadpat nametape ...  > (which I really must thank you for Matt - I was told by the buddy who ordered/picked-up from CP Gear heard that you were curious as to the 'story'  >)


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Jan 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Again, the CADPAT AR version of the Tac-Vest which is issued to TF-Afghanistan pers, has the exact same load carriage capacity and configuration as the CADPAT TW one; 4 single mag pouches, 2 frag grenade pouches, 2 small utility pouches, Mini-Maglite pouch, whistle pouch, and a set of C9 and water bottle pouches with smoke grenade pouches to be attached to the sides of the tac-vest as per the user's desired configuration.



Matt a few years back when I was with trials and errors LFTEU they where looking at a double load TV (i.e. 4 double mag pouches) not sure how far they went with it though.


----------



## NL_engineer (8 Jan 2009)

Thanks Matt, 

Guess I'm stuck using the issued vest as we aren't allowed to have any non issued kit on  : (they went as far to say no underclothing other then CF issue  :), but there allowing non issued boots  ;D


----------



## R031button (8 Jan 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Matt a few years back when I was with trials and errors LFTEU they where looking at a double load TV (i.e. 4 double mag pouches) not sure how far they went with it though.


The modified vest that matt mentioned is exactly that. It's the tac vest with the mag pouches and small utility pouches swapped, and hte mag pouches have been extended to hold 2 (i saw three in a couple but I'm not sure if that was the intent) magazines each. The grenade pouches were also removed, and the side panels changed to molle as opposed to that god awful velcro / strap system. Overal it was not well recieved as the mag pouches were poorly designed and the small utility pouches interfered with drawing magazines.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (9 Jan 2009)

Speaking of what is and isn't allowed to be worn, what is the current state of affairs with TF 3-08 and beyond? What's the actual word from the sandbox and where are the follow-on BG's going with non-issued kit? It would be interesting to get a sense of the trend, preferably from someone in theatre at the moment.


----------



## PhilB (9 Jan 2009)

In my experience there is no trend. Every different task force has different rules. Each different BG RSM has a different pet peeve, and is receiving different direction from each different TF RSM. That being said some things that most likely remain the same;

- Usually non issue boots and gloves are good to go.
- Non issued ballistic eyewear is usually an issue. On both 1-06 and 1-08 there were issues with us wearing Oakleys. 
- In the BG and the OMLT non issue rigs are usually good to go, once in theater. Lots of guys are not allowed to wear stuff on work up.
- Any modification or change to your armour is a no go
- Helmet upgrades, like Skydex pads and different chin straps usually go unnoticed

Hopefully this helps. Keep in mind that your position within a roto is going to have a HUGE impact on what you are or arent allowed to use. Generally is you are in NSE you are going to have much more restrictive rules for dress.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (10 Jan 2009)

That's how I've read the situation as well ... adding to the confusion of what was and what is. I was trying to get a sense of what the current (3RCR) TF is working with and what is over the horizon. As trivial it may sound, the equipment policies (for the BG/OMLT at least) may have correlations with the flexibility of mind in the COIN environment and how each TF approaches the fight. Parade/garrison mentalities have a notorious disadvantage in the COE (stating the obvious, but I think it needs to be mentioned again), and how troops are kitted out is one indication of the approach the COs/RSMs take in a fluid, dynamic and highly unpredictable theatre of ops.

Just a professional curiosity on how various TFs approach the COIN fight, including how troops train and are kitted out.


----------



## brihard (7 Apr 2009)

I realize this thread has been dormant for a while, but like the Toronto Maple Leafs it revives itself for a sickly wheeze once or twice a year. A newer SITREP can't hurt the guys planning for their deployments.

I just got back from 3-08. I was with the NSE, force protection. I got to at least see what people were using in most of the organizations.

The battlegroup seemed to be completely good to go in terms of non issued rigs and boots. OMLT and POMLT likewise. I saw Oakleys worn frequently as the preferred non-issued ballistic eyewear, though orange lenses for BEW are getting issued now to pretty much everybody (assuming some joker doesn't give you the wrong size and then refuse to exchange them).

The Skydex and Oregon Aero pad kits are strictly Verboten, with many angry, prominent posters proclaiming said fact to everybody in KAF. In reality, it was one of those 'out of sight, out of mind' issues that most people who chose to use them got away with. Helmet pads aren't really hard to hide. However, it's also been publicized that the Roto 7 lads will be trialling some sort of new helmet suspension system. RUMINT has it that they're looking at moving to a pad kit for standard issue, but I'd watch and shoot on that. Common consensus from everyone who used a Skydex or Oregon Aero pad kit was that it was a phenomenal purchase, but consult with your chain of command.

I saw some of the CP Gear OTW shirts worn, and got away with it myself when there was no RSM around. They've also been deemed verboten, however eyewitness accounts attest to a sea can full of them or something effectively identical that is being held 'for summer rotos'; such decisions made, no doubt, by the cooler heads that prevail in an air conditioned environment. It is another piece of kit that is generally thought to shortly be issued, though I'm not sure who will get them or how many.

PSYOPS and CIMIC both appeared to have pretty close to free reign, as did the two regular force Force Protection platoons with the KPRT. The platoon that did mostly D&S out of CNS could wear non issued boots, but that appeared to be about it.

The NSE, inevitably, is more finnicky with regards to non-issued kit. They let us be in Force Protection regarding load carriage and boots, but they did enforce the restrictions on OTW shirts, helmet pads, and non-issued eyewear. Everyone else was able to wear their own boots, but just about everything else was 'issued-only'.

Hope that helps. I'll go crawl back into my hole.


----------



## Dissident (7 Apr 2009)

What about holsters?


----------



## Loachman (7 Apr 2009)

Dissident said:
			
		

> What about holsters?



There is everything from locally manufactured junk bought at the KAF market to Safarilands. Nobody worries about that.


----------



## brihard (7 Apr 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is everything from locally manufactured junk bought at the KAF market to Safarilands. Nobody worries about that.



Yup, forgot about this one. I never saw or heard of anyone getting crap for their holster selection.

IMHO, most of the people with junk holsters were those who didn't need pistols anyway. But that's a dangerous can of worms to be opening up, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Loachman (7 Apr 2009)

I would like to see somebody make shoulder holsters with six-foot straps to see if clueless sloppy people still let them dangle full-length.


----------



## brihard (8 Apr 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I would like to see somebody make shoulder holsters with six-foot straps to see if clueless sloppy people still let them dangle full-length.



Perfect! It would double as a leash!

Ever see the shoulder holsters a couple people had with the purple straps?


----------



## Loachman (8 Apr 2009)

Yes, I have.


----------



## NL_engineer (8 Apr 2009)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Ever see the shoulder holsters a couple people had with the purple straps?



Are these people still floating around? I want to point and laugh when I get there (soon)


----------



## Loachman (9 Apr 2009)

My guess is that the manufacturer used defectively-dyed webbing on a few, or ran out of OG. It's the back two straps only.

A batch was made with a strap going around the front as well, to cater to those who can't figure out that the holster and mag pouch are supposed to be just under the arm pits rather than somewhere between belly button and genitalia levels.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Apr 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> the holster and mag pouch are supposed to be just under the arm pits rather than somewhere between belly button and genitalia levels.



But what if you're scratching an itch when you suddenly need to draw your sidearm?  Good to have the holster at ball level!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 Apr 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> My guess is that the manufacturer used defectively-dyed webbing on a few, or ran out of OG. It's the back two straps only.



Didn't we have an issue with the 82 Pattern Webbing in that there was also purplish straps.


----------



## NL_engineer (9 Apr 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> My guess is that the manufacturer used defectively-dyed webbing on a few, or ran out of OG. It's the back two straps only.



Darn, I was hoping it was someones Idea of a joke, or a way to piss of the RSMs.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Apr 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Didn't we have an issue with the 82 Pattern Webbing in that there was also purplish straps.



Front straps of my 82 pattern sitting at home have dark purple straps.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Apr 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Darn, I was hoping it was someones Idea of a joke, or a way to piss of the RSMs.



I'm gigglin. DId they issue these holsters to the RMS clerks?


----------



## geo (9 Apr 2009)

purple holsters for purple trades ???


----------



## Farmboy (2 Mar 2010)

Where is the approved list of what guys can wear overseas?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Mar 2010)

From CANLANDGEN  012/09   CLS  038/09



> 7.  THE FIRST MFR ARE EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED FOR USE BY TF
> 1-10. SOLDIERS OF TF 1-10 WILL CONTINUE TO WEAR THE
> IN-SERVICE TACTICAL VEST, BUT AS AN INTERIM MEASURE DURING HIGH
> READINESS TRAINING OR OPERATIONS, THE DEPLOYING BRIGADE OR TASK
> ...


----------



## stealthylizard (6 Mar 2010)

If you are employed as a C-9 gunner, look at obtaining your own tacvest, or hope to be one of the lucky few that get a trial model.  The issued vest is wholly inadequate for carrying C-9 ammo.  They are issuing mag pouches that attach to the leg for being able to carry your extra C-7 mags (fits 6 mags but very tight fit getting them in there), horrible idea in my opinion for those that also carry a TCCC pouch on their leg, but they had to come up with some way to carry the extra ammunition that can't fit in the issued tacvest.  For drop pounches, what some have been doing instead of actually buying one, is using one of their pouches from the ruck, or daybag.  A lot of people are using their own boots, I can't say that I have had a problem with the issued ones, but I don't spend my days humping through the desert.  My average jaunt is down the hill to the mess hall.


----------



## Farmboy (6 Mar 2010)

Thanks Puckchaser

 Even though that came out, I've had a couple guys tell me their chain of command is dead set on the issue vest.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Mar 2010)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> Thanks Puckchaser
> 
> Even though that came out, I've had a couple guys tell me their chain of command is dead set on the issue vest.


Well, it does say "...BRIGADE OR TASK FORCE COMMANDER *MAY* APPROVE..."

Uniformity trumps utility -- otherwise some RSMs/Adjts, whose leadership skills peaked on the parade square, wouldn't know what to do with their time.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Mar 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, it does say "...BRIGADE OR TASK FORCE COMMANDER *MAY* APPROVE..."
> 
> Uniformity trumps utility -- otherwise some RSMs/Adjts, whose leadership skills peaked on the parade square, wouldn't know what to do with their time.



I couldn't have said it better myself. True uniformity does not exist - even on the parade square.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Mar 2010)

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> I couldn't have said it better myself. True uniformity does not exist - *even on the parade square*.


I sense a great disturbance in the force


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I sense a great disturbance in the force



Well TV its true! We have all kinds of non uniform stuff. Rank badges, trade badges, differing hat badges, different colour uniforms...so true uniformity is non existant.

Plus, even though some may consider me an extinct species, I am with the troops on the TV. There is no 100% solution.


----------



## GAP (6 Mar 2010)

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> ..so true uniformity is non existant.
> 
> There is no 100% solution.



Not True!! Not True!!

Have you ever ONCE seen/heard the White Clad Warriors (Empire?) in ALL the Star Wars Movies complain about kit?? NO!! Know Why?   ...............oh, I thought you might have...... ;D


----------



## medicineman (6 Mar 2010)

The gene that all non-genetically engineered soldiers have allowing them to complain was removed in their test tubes prior to birth.

MM


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Mar 2010)

But....but...


You _have_ to be uniform.  Otherwise, this:








Would become this:





Heck, even my cat would be shocked!


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Mar 2010)

Y'know, I'd be completely okay with that.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Mar 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Y'know, I'd be completely okay with that.


;D


(So would I)


 :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Mar 2010)

After a detailed review of the photographic evidence you have submitted we have determined that a deeper probe of the matter is required forewith.  :nod:

This could be the start of a "Girls of the Imperial Clone Army thread" similar to the "Girls of the IDF thread"


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Mar 2010)

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> Well TV its true! We have all kinds of non uniform stuff. Rank badges, trade badges, differing hat badges, different colour uniforms...so true uniformity is non existant.
> 
> Plus, even though some may consider me an extinct species, I am with the troops on the TV. There is no 100% solution.



I believe that the, admittedly extreme, 100% solution would be 'Total War' vs. 'Limited War'. 

In the former, you generally need to get thousands mobilized quickly and shuttled off to the front in large batches to fight for national survival. With the latter, there's alot of time (relatively speaking) to dwell on the minutiae of the military - and especially the combat arms - condition, so we can mix and match in a 'what not to wear' fashion.

Right, I'm off to jury rig something for my Tac Vest so I can carry a small unbreakable thermos on the next ex without having to lug around my fugly day pack thingy...  ;D


----------



## Duredain (8 May 2010)

I would just like to clarify that the vast majority of stormtroopers post Episode III, were not clones but simply recruits. They had to be human and fit certain size and height restrictions but only ~ 1/3 (circa A New Hope) were clones from the original Jango Fett DNA.


----------



## Sig_Des (8 May 2010)

Duredain said:
			
		

> I would just like to clarify that the vast majority of stormtroopers post Episode III, were not clones but simply recruits. They had to be human and fit certain size and height restrictions but only ~ 1/3 (circa A New Hope) were clones from the original Jango Fett DNA.



....

The IS helpdesk is strong with this one.


----------



## HItorMiss (8 May 2010)

Duredain said:
			
		

> I would just like to clarify that the vast majority of stormtroopers post Episode III, were not clones but simply recruits. They had to be human and fit certain size and height restrictions but only ~ 1/3 (circa A New Hope) were clones from the original Jango Fett DNA.




SERIOUSLY?


----------



## blacktriangle (8 May 2010)

"Imperial facepalm...for when a star trek based facepalm just won't cut it"


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 May 2010)

If only some would spend as much time figuring out how to rapidly defeat the Taliban as they would debating the utility of issue vs non-issue kit

I love the army, there are a lot of good things happening but there are some dinosaurs that need to disappear.

I was down in Fort Drum just last weekend, looking to buy a poncho so I don't have to try and fight someone for a blue rocket to write orders in and was amazed at the way the Americans procure kit.

The Bad = Americans buy all their own kit, everything from underwear, socks, combats, to pouches for there LB Vests

The Good = Because they are buying all their own gear the selection available is phenomenal.  They have 10 different pairs of ballistic eyewear which are DOD approved, as for boots, they had 12 different models approved for wear, as for gloves at least a dozen different types.  The Utility pouches could actually fit a belt of C9 ammo into them, under armour socks available for $5.95, they cost $30 dollars at sport check here.

Best of all the staff at both the quartermasters store and clothing were incredibly friendly and helpful, it was incredibly refreshing to get service like that and definitely a change from what I am accustomed too (Yah I will probably get a lot of flak for saying this but its the truth).

Yes, having to buy your own kit is a little bit of a pain in the rear but if done right, such as the way the Americans do it, I think it would alleviate many of the problems we currently experience with our supply system.

I would more then welcome buying my own gear if it meant I got everything for a reasonable price, I didn't have to deal with miserable people who seem to hate their job, and I got a wide ranging varied selection.  I also believe personnel would take a larger interest in maintaining and looking after their kit as it was bought on their own dime, and it is in their interest to look after it.


One additional thing that really amazed me, you could buy rifle magazines, remember all those times on training courses spent looking for a lost rifle magazine, remember the MP reports, difficulty dealing with stores, this could all be alleviated by having the candidate go down and buy another one on his own dime.


----------



## Gunner98 (15 May 2010)

So much to say here - yes the US PX-style clothing stores concept has been discussed throughout the last 1200+ posts in this very topic threa. (I am sure you read them all - right!).  The issue with much of the US kit is that it is not always the same quality and durability as ours.  Their clothing wears out in about 3-6 months.  The fact that they have 12 different models "approved for wear" means that there is no agreement on standards for quality or durability.  The Gucci sunglasses are generally not ballistic eyewear.  The reason for the complication of a lost magazine is obviously beyond your scope of experience - the loss of a controlled stores item needs to be investigated not replaced on your own time with your own dime at the PX or the corner store.

Instead of an unauthorized US poncho, why not buy some waterproof note pages or use a pencil.  Where the going gets tough you won't find many blue rockets to hide in while you write orders.  Perhaps you found a camouflage Harry Potter cloaking poncho at the US clothing stores.


----------



## Loachman (15 May 2010)

The problem with magazines is that they are prohibited under the Criminal Code, thanks to Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell.


----------



## Dissident (15 May 2010)

Indeed. Probably better for the Gun control mega thread, but in the vast majority of US states (not all, Ca comes to mind) 30 round mags are civilian legal. In Canada a 30 round centerfire rifle mag is a prohibited device. This makes it a bit more touchy to lose on our side of the border.


----------



## chrisf (15 May 2010)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> One additional thing that really amazed me, you could buy rifle magazines, remember all those times on training courses spent looking for a lost rifle magazine, remember the MP reports, difficulty dealing with stores, this could all be alleviated by having the candidate go down and buy another one on his own dime.



On the other hand, all that time on your belly crawing along looking for a lost mag gives you plenty of time to think about why you lost the mag, and how not to loose it again...


----------



## OldSolduer (15 May 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> On the other hand, all that time on your belly crawing along looking for a lost mag gives you plenty of time to think about why you lost the mag, and how not to loose it again...



Agreed. PLUS a 30 round magazine is prohibited for possession by a civilian. So look for your mags and stop complaining. Besides as a future leader, you expect orders to be obeyed, not just the ones they like,,,,but the ones they don't like. 
No one likes looking for a 30 rd mag. But you have to.....that is an order.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 May 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> So much to say here - yes the US PX-style clothing stores concept has been discussed throughout the last 1200+ posts in this very topic threa. (I am sure you read them all - right!).  The issue with much of the US kit is that it is not always the same quality and durability as ours.  Their clothing wears out in about 3-6 months.  The fact that they have 12 different models "approved for wear" means that there is no agreement on standards for quality or durability.  The Gucci sunglasses are generally not ballistic eyewear.  The reason for the complication of a lost magazine is obviously beyond your scope of experience - the loss of a controlled stores item needs to be investigated not replaced on your own time with your own dime at the PX or the corner store.
> 
> Instead of an unauthorized US poncho, why not buy some waterproof note pages or use a pencil.  Where the going gets tough you won't find many blue rockets to hide in while you write orders.  Perhaps you found a camouflage Harry Potter cloaking poncho at the US clothing stores.



Just the sort of response I expected

Firstly I will respond to the comment about the issue of kit, have you taken a look at some of the the stuff we are issued, case in point the combats, turn them inside out notice the poor sewing jobs done on the pants and the combat tunic, I have had to exchange my pants multiple times after they literally ripped at the seams due to poor production values.  I already pointed out part of the problem with the TacVest - C9 pouches being too small, Mag Pouches being on your upper chest as opposed to your waist, decreasing accessibility.  Or lets talk about the small pack being able to carry nothing more then a pillow as any weight in the bag causes the straps to loosen to the point where the bag is hanging below your buttocks.  Yes the kit we get is wonderful and totally functional blah, blah, blah

On to the issue of what is available at the PX, I can assure you all the glasses there were ballistic, they had both Revision Sawfly (the current issue of CF Ballistic) and different models of Wiley X ballistic, all of these not only meet but  exceed the ANSI Z87.1-2003 High Velocity Impact Safety & Optical Standards which is what the US army uses to gauge effectiveness of ballistic eyewear, available was a number of different models of Wiley X as well as Revision Sawfly, there were also different models of Wiley X goggles and Revision Locusts.

As for the issue of quality, from what I have seen and felt some of the new US uniforms, the material is heavier then ours, and the tailoring seems to be to a higher standard, I have frequently had my combats rip on me or get caught in a tree or brush and simply fall apart, I don't see that as being the case with the American combats, due to the thicker material.

As for the Poncho, you know that ranger blanket that everyone loves so much, This is the thing that goes over it, pretty nice piece of kit, I know a bunch of guys that use them,  the reason I bought one was exactly for the reasons you bring up "Where the going gets tough you won't find many blue rockets to hide in while you write orders."

On my Phase 3 Infantry I didn't have a blue rocket to hide in and with the amount of water we had downpour on us waterproof paper and a pencil were not enough, it was so wet one exercise that waterproof pens weren't even getting the job done.  

Try taking that waterproof paper taking a jug of water and then dumping it on the paper and trying to write, not only will the pencil not work but even the waterproof paper will eventually deteriorate.  The few people that actually had the poncho had a lot easier go of it as they simply put the poncho over their heads and went to work, I and many others did not have that luxury. 

Also if you combine the poncho with a small Coleman burner, they make sitting in a trench on defensive a little more comfortable 

As for my comment about the magazine point taken, I understand the importance of investigating the loss of controlled stores, especially with strict firearms control laws that exist in Canada.  I was just dreaming of a day when I didn't have to spend every waking moment of my time looking for someone's lost magazine. 

I obviously touched a nerve, sorry no hard feelings, I just get frustrated with the whole issued kit vs non-issued kit business.  I understand the importance of uniformity in a military organization but when uniformity plays a direct impact in what I see as diminished effectiveness and a trumping of common sense this is where I draw my line. 

Mid Aged Silverback, Sig OP, Loachman, and Dissident  - Point taken


----------



## OldSolduer (15 May 2010)

Get ready to remain frustrated. Every army the world has ever seen complained about its kit. You as an OCdt, Lt or Capt can't change it. 
Suggestions etc always welcomed, but more than likely your going to get told to STFU Lt!


----------



## greentoblue (15 May 2010)

I was going to post this story in Foreign Militaries but I think it would be more useful in this discussion.  As a useful contrast its interesting to note that the Brits are no happier with their kit than we are, and if this survey is to be believed, perhaps even less satisfied than the "average" Canadian soldier:

"Two out of three members of the Armed Forces believe they are not well equipped and just one in five believes morale is high, official research shows."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/7685601/Armed-forces-unhappy-over-kit-MoD-survey-finds.html

I wonder what a similiar survey in the CF would find?


----------



## Gunner98 (16 May 2010)

I have numbered your concerns that I would like to respond in 'fatherly" sort of manner.



			
				Stymiest said:
			
		

> Just the sort of response I expected
> 
> 1. I will respond to the comment about the issue of kit, have you taken a look at some of the the stuff we are issued, case in point the combats, turn them inside out notice the poor sewing jobs done on the pants and the combat tunic, I have had to exchange my pants multiple times after they literally ripped at the seams due to poor production values.
> 
> ...



Your responses were no surprise to me either - puppy meet dinosaur.  Hello puppy!

1. Yes I have looked at and worn the kit for the last 27 years.  It has improved a lot during that time. ;D

2.  Perhaps you are not wearing it correctly or have forgotten to tighten the waist belt.  I have done a few BFT work-up sessions with all essential kit in it and have had no issues. :nod:

3.  You must have a magic touch (or were a tailor in your teen years) because the dozens of US soldiers I served with over the last 10 years would differ with your tactile conclusion.  It is not all that it seems. 

4.  Thanks for educating me - I wasn’t sure – I always wondered when I could find a cover for the camo blanket I purchased in 1987. :

5.  Snivel kit seems like a luxury but it only keeps you weak.  Live, adapt, overcome your environment or it will always beat you.  Once a different set of DS or your post-course chain of command takes away your poncho because it is not authorized what will you do then.  Snivel I bet!  :'(

6.  If that is all it takes for you to draw the line, you have a short and uncomfortable career ahead of you.


----------



## HItorMiss (16 May 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> 5.  *Snivel kit seems like a luxury but it only keeps you weak*.  Live, adapt, overcome your environment or it will always beat you.  Once a different set of DS or your post-course chain of command takes away your poncho because it is not authorized what will you do then.  Snivel I bet!  :'(



Are you serious? No really is that your personal no crap opinion?


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 May 2010)

Yeah, pussy soldiers these days... rifles, helmets, body armour.  In my day we got buck nekkid, painted ourselves with woad, and went charging into battle with nothing but a sword and a smile, same for the women.


Oh, and whiskey.  Loooots of whiskey


----------



## rifleman (16 May 2010)

Back in the day if you had nothing they would take that away too.


----------



## HItorMiss (16 May 2010)

I find his statement remarkable coming from a Major....  :


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 May 2010)

Lol dude the ranger blanket comment was a joke, sorry I am still pretty bad at this whole internet sarcasm/smartass gig but you seem to have it down to a science

With that being said I would like to sincerely thank you for your "fatherly" opinion, especially in regards to my perceived sniveling, I'm glad you know me so well  :


----------



## Burrows (16 May 2010)

Simmer.


Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## OldSolduer (16 May 2010)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> Lol dude the ranger blanket comment was a joke, sorry I am still pretty bad at this whole internet sarcasm/smartass gig but you seem to have it down to a science
> 
> With that being said I would like to sincerely thank you for your "fatherly" opinion, especially in regards to my perceived sniveling, I'm glad you know me so well  :



Words of advice Stymiest: Stop trying so hard to fit in.  Your making an a$$ out of yourself.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (17 May 2010)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> If only some would spend as much time figuring out how to rapidly defeat the Taliban as they would debating the utility of issue vs non-issue kit
> 
> I love the army, there are a lot of good things happening but there are some dinosaurs that need to disappear.
> 
> ...



You're mistaken in regard to how the US supply system works.  Having been in both the CFs and US Marine Corps I can tell you this for a fact.

There are generally two different types of personal issue equipment and clothing:
1.  Initial Issue uniforms such as the US equivalent to DEU, as well as combats and PT uniforms, including footwear.  These are issued to a recruit/officer candidate when they first join the service.  Servicemembers are given an annual uniform upkeep allowance which is supposed to cover the cost of items as they wear out and become unserviceable.  Hence why the US military clothing stores carry such a large stock of uniform items.  There are some US units which will allow one-for-one exchanges of clothing and uniform items as they wear out, but they are more the exemption than the rule.

2.  Organizational Equipment.  This is all the stuff like webbing, helmets, body armour, rucksacks, mag pouches, sleeping bags, etc.  It is controlled at the unit level and issued to new members joining the unit, and is turned in when that member leaves the unit.  With this stuff wears out/breaks the servicemember turns it into the unit supply section and receives a one for one replacement.  The main reason as to why the US military clothing stores at the PX sells this type of stuff is for people who've lost their issued stuff and need to replace it with the cost borne out of their own pocket.  



			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> So much to say here - yes the US PX-style clothing stores concept has been discussed throughout the last 1200+ posts in this very topic threa. (I am sure you read them all - right!).  The issue with much of the US kit is that it is not always the same quality and durability as ours.  Their clothing wears out in about 3-6 months.  The fact that they have 12 different models "approved for wear" means that there is no agreement on standards for quality or durability.  The Gucci sunglasses are generally not ballistic eyewear.  The reason for the complication of a lost magazine is obviously beyond your scope of experience - the loss of a controlled stores item needs to be investigated not replaced on your own time with your own dime at the PX or the corner store.
> 
> Instead of an unauthorized US poncho, why not buy some waterproof note pages or use a pencil.  Where the going gets tough you won't find many blue rockets to hide in while you write orders.  Perhaps you found a camouflage Harry Potter cloaking poncho at the US clothing stores.



In regard to your comment about there being 'no standards' for US Ballistic Eyewear, you are wrong about that.  The US Army and Marine Corps have done testing and have an authorized list of models which units or individuals may purchase:  https://peosoldier.army.mil/pmseq/eyewear.asp
The reason the US military has done this, is because no one manufacturer has enough capacity to supply the needs of the entire military.  Also, the time it would take to develop a government owned design and contract it is not as fast as buying commercial off the shelf.  What they've done is said to industry is "Here is the benchmark standard of protection you must provide.  If you can meet that standard, then we'll authorize that model for purchase." 

With respect to boots, the US Army is a lot more liberal than the Marine Corps in terms of what boots meet uniform regulation standards.  The US Army dress regulations has a pretty broad set of characteristics that a boot must possess and ultimately it's up to the unit commander to decide what is ok or not.  The Marine Corps has a section within it's uniform procurement office which is responsible for authorizing various aftermarket items, ranging from dress shirts to cap badges to combat boots.  Once an item is deemed acceptable, it is given a type approval serial number which must be on a label on that item.  With the boot issue, the US long ago decided that rather than do this epic search for the 'one boot' they decided that it was alot easier to let the troops decide what works for them, and with the size of the US military market as it is, US footwear manufacturers have realized that it can be profitable to step up and provide a superior product using the Darwinian principles of free market economy.

In regard to the quality of US issued equipment vs. Canadian, I've seen excellent and shoddy workmanship both sides of the border, so you've got to be careful in terms of how broad a brush you paint with.


----------



## KevinB (17 May 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Instead of an unauthorized US poncho, why not buy some waterproof note pages or use a pencil.  Where the going gets tough you won't find many blue rockets to hide in while you write orders.  Perhaps you found a camouflage Harry Potter cloaking poncho at the US clothing stores.



The one comment that jumps out at me specifically, is that fact that the above is not from a Infantry perspective, as not only will the poncho cover the ranger blanket, it will also help reduce light spillage when writing your orders.


 Smart Ass comments do nothing especially when one does not have the background to appreciate the rationale.


----------



## Gunner98 (17 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The one comment that jumps out at me specifically, is that fact that the above is not from a Infantry perspective, as not only will the poncho cover the ranger blanket, it will also help reduce light spillage when writing your orders.
> 
> Smart Ass comments do nothing especially when one does not have the background to appreciate the rationale.



Sorry to disappoint if the smart ass comment reference was aimed me I-6. I had 14 years in the Artillery, three of which were spent in Germany while the wall was coming down.  I hope that counts.  Six of my years were also spent at Arty Sch and RCA Battle School watching young officers pretending to be ninjas with ponchos that DS quickly nixed.  Since the original poster is heading off to DP1.2 (or so his profile asserts), I was suggesting that the snivel kit may not be the best replacement for hiding in a Blue Rocket to write orders while on course. Perhaps he should wait until he reaches a unit and learns the unit dress standards.

Since the standard at most (if not all) Army (and training) Bases is the DND ballistic glasses only, having Gucci US authorized glasses seems unnecessary again until one leaves Canadian airspace.

I will go back on radio silence (or perhaps to my blue rocket office) as I am unworthy of trying to bring anything to a thread with 1200 posts that restates the same complaints and solutions over and over again, albeit by newer folks who have not taken the time to read a little history.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 May 2010)

greentoblue said:
			
		

> I was going to post this story in Foreign Militaries but I think it would be more useful in this discussion.  As a useful contrast its interesting to note that the Brits are no happier with their kit than we are, and if this survey is to be believed, perhaps even less satisfied than the "average" Canadian soldier:
> 
> "Two out of three members of the Armed Forces believe they are not well equipped and just one in five believes morale is high, official research shows."
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/7685601/Armed-forces-unhappy-over-kit-MoD-survey-finds.html
> ...



Fond memories of British soldiers/marines complaining about their kit e.g.,:


"These puttees are too long, I've had to cut them in half so I can put them on faster"

"This bergen [rucksack, SAS] is wank, I'm off to Cotswold Camping to get me a Berghaus Roc"

"This bleedin' KF shirt is a scratchy nightmare... luckily I picked up some Norgie shirts on my last trip to Silverman's"

"The Yanks get issued roll mats. I'm off to the shops to buy one"

"I'm off to NI next month, better get down to Arktis to pick up a chest rig"

"They're not issued by Pusser, so I had to half inch a set of yaffling spanners from the galley"


I hate to sound like I've just stepped out of the 5th Legion ca. AD 1, but the kit the British have now is such an amazing improvement over what they had even 15 years ago I can't even imagine why anyone could complain about it... unless you happen to be a Gex X/Y/Nexter of course! Oh, kind of like our kit too I guess... :


----------



## TN2IC (17 May 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I hate to sound like I've just stepped out of the 5th Legion ca. AD 1, but the kit the British have now is such an amazing improvement over what they had even 15 years ago I can't even imagine why anyone could complain about it... unless you happen to be a Gex X/Y/Nexter of course! Oh, kind of like our kit too I guess... :




I second that, even if I'm the Generation X era. I honestly love the British DPM stuff. CADPAT hurts my eyes...  ;D


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jun 2010)

A new CANLANDGEN has been published detailing over its six pages and 30 paragraphs numerous items that have been or are in the process of being procured and updated to better serve soldiers (and those serving on land-centric operations).

There is no classification indicated on the message, however, to err on the side of caustion, I will not post it here.  Those interested can find it on the DWAN.  Go to the Army homepage, select "CLS" from the right-hand menu, then look for CANLANDGEN 20/10, titled "APRIL 2010 UPDATE ON OP CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION".


(The title says April, the message date is Mya, and that it's been released in June...)


----------



## McG (3 Jun 2010)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> On to the issue of what is available at the PX, I can assure you all the glasses there were ballistic, they had both Revision Sawfly (the current issue of CF Ballistic) and different models of Wiley X ballistic, all of these not only meet but  exceed the ANSI Z87.1-2003 High Velocity Impact Safety & Optical Standards which is what the US army uses to gauge effectiveness of ballistic eyewear, available was a number of different models of Wiley X as well as Revision Sawfly, there were also different models of Wiley X goggles and Revision Locusts.


There are serious flaws in the US standards and a lot of the eyewear on the shelves in the PX would fail catostrophically when tested by Canada. Don't buy your own PPE.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 Jun 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A new CANLANDGEN has been published detailing over its six pages and 30 paragraphs numerous items that have been or are in the process of being procured and updated to better serve soldiers (and those serving on land-centric operations).
> 
> There is no classification indicated on the message, however, to err on the side of caustion, I will not post it here.  Those interested can find it on the DWAN.  Go to the Army homepage, select "CLS" from the right-hand menu, then look for CANLANDGEN 20/10, titled "APRIL 2010 UPDATE ON OP CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION".
> 
> ...



Could somebody email me that CANLANGEN?

Cheers,

Matt
matt@cpgear.com


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Jun 2010)

I can't find the damn thing.....


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Jun 2010)

Done.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (4 Jun 2010)

pfft, I didn't even bother writing "done" cause I had it sent to him before he finished pressing "post"...

Yeah, I'm that good.

BM: here you go, intranet only - http://vcds.mil.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=7276


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Jun 2010)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> pfft, I didn't even bother writing "done" cause I had it sent to him before he finished pressing "post"...
> 
> Yeah, I'm that good fast.



What was it Chandler Bing said before he and Monica slept together?    When they're getting undressed under the covers:

Monica: Wow! You are really fast!
Chandler: It bodes well for me that speed impresses you.


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Jun 2010)

Thanks Bzz

I looked there and it wouldn't ;oad previously now I am good to go thanks brother


----------



## armyvern (4 Jun 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> What was it Chandler Bing said before he and Monica slept together?    When they're getting undressed under the covers:
> 
> Monica: Wow! You are really fast!
> Chandler: It bodes well for me that speed impresses you.



I had Bzz figured out long ago. Everyone with a _Toy Story _ generation kid knows full well that Bzzliteyr had to be bailed out by the real _Woody_ each and every single time. 

"To infinity and beyond" my ass.  


Edited so that my "infanty" is now "infinity" as it was orginally intended to be; take it in whichever sexual context you wish 'ya pervs.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 Jun 2010)

Received and Received.  

Cheers,

Matt


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jun 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I had Bzz figured out long ago. Everyone with a _Toy Story _ generation kid knows full well that Bzzliteyr had to be bailed out by the real _Woody_ each and every single time.
> 
> "To infanty and beyond" my ***.



To infantry and beyond?  The motto of the cougars at the gate to Gagetown, I guess.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jun 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To infantry and beyond?  The motto of the cougars at the gate to Gagetown, I guess.



There, I fixed my damn typo ... and, no, it wasn't "infantry".


----------



## Spañiard (13 Aug 2010)

Wow I ready like 50 posts and I couldn't stop laughing, like in your face and many *******. Complaining about Canadian Issue personal equipment in many cases I do understand.

In my time, 77 complaining was not an option take what you get and suck it up. Waking up in a damp sleeping bag was part of the deal, now you have Gore-Tex.

The web gear was horrible in those days and the combat boots we called them ankle breakers. your feet would get wet very fast. The Rock-Sacks ect.

I was told Canadian personal are not allowed to wear non issue gear?

As for Ballistic glasses goes, I have two sets of Advancer V12 ESS as two low profile ESS goggles but I have two lenses of 2.4 fitted into one frame and a set of Flakjak, the Foaklies aka Oakley glasses and others of that type are not recommended, yes you do look cool in them.

The US S.F. Oakley SI Ballistic Goggles Array are not bad but $100.00 US ++. IMO The Turbo fan are junk for the price.

And theres one set I can't remember there name the lenses Pop inward not even recommended for paint ball.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2011)

How about new fur hats? The CF will get them soon, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/troops-to-receive-distinctly-canadian-fur-hats/article2191297/


> Troops to receive ‘distinctly Canadian’ fur hats
> 
> INGRID PERITZ
> MONTREAL— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...










Many, many years ago (1930s), when the former Royal Canadian Corps of Signals operated a wireless network across the Yukon and North West Territories I believe the soldiers were equipped with RCMP buffalo coats and fur hats.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2011)

This picture, from a (1970s?) Canadian War Museum collection, I think (Michael O'Leary may be able to confirm), shows a Royal Canadian Corps of Signals NCO in the RCMP buffalo coat and fur cap.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Oct 2011)

OK. We need the coat too. 8)



> Lesley Fox of the British Columbia-based Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals says muskrats are known to chew off their limbs to free themselves from leg-hold traps.



Which is why most are caught with conibear traps instead. :


----------



## ballz (5 Oct 2011)

And the mittens!

I would even be willing to wear the puttees to get that hat/coat/mitten combo


----------



## dimsum (5 Oct 2011)

All we'd need is a jewel-encrusted walking stick!


----------



## KevinB (5 Oct 2011)

$65,000 ? for 1,000, $65 dollar hat? 

 WTF over yeah shocker the CF toque sucked -- get Fleece and a Wind barrier -- if is that stupid cold, pull up the hood on a parka (yeah okay the CF GreatCoat or Canex parka suck for really cold too - but last time I recall you could wear the Cold Weather Parka, Combat CADPAT or whatever its called these days in really fricken cold weather).

Money would better spent on bullets IMHO


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Oct 2011)

KevinB said:
			
		

> if is that stupid cold, pull up the hood on a parka



Parka?  Oh right, still in the bag it came in.  The jacket is good enough for me.   :nod:


----------



## KevinB (5 Oct 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Parka?  Oh right, still in the bag it came in.  The jacket is good enough for me.   :nod:



Yeah I forgot the already 8 million Tease the Soldier layer system that are around these days.  The neck fleece, and facemask, the StormTrooper hood etc.  Gawd, I found a ton of kit this summer visiting my parents that the CF refused to take back as they did not accepted I was issued it  :


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Oct 2011)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Yeah I forgot the already 8 million Tease the Soldier layer system that are around these days.  The neck fleece, and facemask, the StormTrooper hood etc.  Gawd, I found a ton of kit this summer visiting my parents that the CF refused to take back as they did not accepted I was issued it  :



Oh, the parka is probably great, but it's still made for people about 5'9" and taller.  When I want to wear something past my knees, I'll wear a dress or a skirt.  Non-CF issued.   ;D


----------



## brihard (5 Oct 2011)

I wonder if the clothing/dress folks appreciate the amount of glee (for the wrong reasons) that is spreading over these Yukon hats. I know a lot of troops who can't wait to get the damned thing on their heads just for shits and giggles. Only the British have a term for the reaction I'm seeing when troops discover this is about to exist- "gobsmacked".

I'm also gonna be the first to go on the record and predict a dramatic increase in Marko Ramius impersonations. I may or may not fully intend to take part in skewing this statistic.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm also gonna be the first to go on the record and predict a dramatic increase in Marko Ramius impersonations. I may or may not fully intend to take part in skewing this statistic.



Definitely required. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWPBr4L1eyE


----------



## brihard (5 Oct 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Definitely required. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWPBr4L1eyE



Hell yes.


----------



## Lowlander (5 Oct 2011)

On the Logistic Unicorps site it says that the Yukon Hat was only authorized with No. 1, 2, 3 Orders of dress, not Operational as the article would suggest.


----------



## brihard (5 Oct 2011)

The potential for Highlanders to make everyone around feel awkward has only improved.  We now have the Sovietsky hat added to the already potent combination of CF greatcoat worn over (and covering) a kilt.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Oct 2011)

The British and the Norwegians used to issue a hat like that, but synthetic, for arctic warfare. It did the job but, as I recall, was pretty cold when the temperature plunged below minus 30. We never allowed the troops to put hoods up, for obvious reasons, so I'm thinking that a fur hat would be a great idea.

And on those long cold winter nights it would remind you of your favourite date... ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The potential for Highlanders to make everyone around feel awkward has only improved.  We now have the Sovietsky hat added to the already potent combination of CF greatcoat worn over (and covering) a kilt.



Da Comrade Brihard! Ees gude day for Soviet man no?


----------



## Scott (6 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The potential for Highlanders to make everyone around feel awkward has only improved.  We now have the Sovietsky hat added to the already potent combination of CF greatcoat worn over (and covering) a kilt.



Something that Highlanders take great pride in.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2011)

Scott said:
			
		

> Something that Highlanders take great pride in.


That, and sometime wearing the hair sporran UNDER the kilt to make a different impression  

Sorry - couldn't help myself.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (7 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Da Comrade Brihard! Ees gude day for Soviet man no?



'Een US of A one can always find party. Een Soviet Russia, Party can always find YOU!' 

I ordered one, but Hell will have frozen over by the time I get it. I do regret not getting one when I worked up at CFNA though.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Oct 2011)

0tto Destruct said:
			
		

> 'Een US of A one can always find party. Een Soviet Russia, Party can always find YOU!'
> 
> I ordered one, but Hell will have frozen over by the time I get it. I do regret not getting one when I worked up at CFNA though.



I am taking treep to US and A to find funny American fur hat! Soviet hat not gud for new Soviet man!!


----------



## aesop081 (7 Oct 2011)

In Soviet Russia, hat wears you !


----------



## TN2IC (7 Oct 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_mMKgc5snc



 ;D


----------



## FlyingDutchman (22 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> In Soviet Russia, hat wears you !


In soviet Russia, I can find no comrad will reenact the germans.

 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bismarck_pickelhaube.jpg


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 May 2013)

I bet this went well overseas.

M1 tactical shortsword.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 May 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I bet this went well overseas.
> 
> M1 tactical shortsword.



Where do I get one......


----------



## PuckChaser (19 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Where do I get one......



Ask and ye shall receive: http://www.millerbrosblades.com/Items_For_Sale.html


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 May 2013)

Should have a bayonet lug on it. Lol


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 May 2013)

Actually, a blade that big should have a rifle lug on it...


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 May 2013)

I see your tactical short sword (looks positively Hoplite-like) and raise you a Tomahawk:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=371246

 MY NAME IS SFC KENNETH X. XXXXX, I AM IN X Co (HEAVY WEAPONS) X/XXX PIR 82 ND ABN DIV. I RECEIVED A TACTICAL TOMAHAWK AS A GOING AWAY GIFT FROM 5th RTB IN JANUARY 0F 2002.

 SINCE THEN IT HAS BEEN WITH ME THROUGH FTX’S JUMPS AND A DEPLOYMENT TO AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ. I HAVE USE IT TO PRY LOCKS, CHOP DOWN DOORS, BUST WINDOWS, CUT FIRE WOOD, DIG, AND AS SUBSTITUTE FOR MY ASP BATON.

ON 18 OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR IN AFGHANISTAN, I USED IT TO SAVE A FELLOW TROOPERS LIFE. WE WERE CLEARING AN OBJECTIVE WHEN MY #2 ENTERED A CLOSET UNDER A STAIRWELL AND CAME FACE TO FACE WITH TWO ARMED ENEMY. DUE TO THE TIGHTNESS OF THE SPACE, HE WAS UNABLE TO USE HIS M-4, SO HE ENGAGED THEM HAND TO HAND. MY #3 WAS ABLE TO KILL ONE MAN, BUT I COULD NOT GET A SHOT AT THE SECOND, SO I HIT HIM WITH THE HATCHET EDGE OF THE TOMAHAWK JUST ABOVE THE OCCIPITAL BONE. THE TOMAHAWK PENETRATED ALL THE WAY TO HANDLE, INSTANTLY DROPPING THE ENEMY. NO KNIFE SHORT OF A MACHETE WOULD HAVE MADE SUCH SHORT WORK OF A MAN. THANK YOU FOR MAKING SUCH A GREAT BIT OF KIT, AND SUPPORTING THE TROOPS. RLTW.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 May 2013)

I don't think a lot of these items would make it back from KAF international Airport


----------



## Dissident (20 May 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I don't think a lot of these items would make it back from KAF international Airport



Mail them home. Knives are not illegal unless carried as a weapon.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 May 2013)

Pretty sure gravity knives and blades like switch blades are illegal.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 May 2013)

My wife tried to mail a knife to me in Afghanistan but Canada post wouldn't send it.

Canada post however didn't have a problem with a .45 pistol being sent to me through the mail and left on my front step all day on the most notorious street in my home town  :facepalm:



With the improvements to body armor and PPE along with it becoming more easily accessible to _bad guys_ it's only a matter of time before we need to start issuing shortswords  ;D


----------



## J.J (20 May 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Pretty sure gravity knives and blades are like switch blades are illegal.



Very true, illegal under the Criminal Code and the Customs Act.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 May 2013)

Back on topic, I had an amusing exchange with one of the base Loggies regarding the Rucksack, Huge, Unusable. 

I told her that, despite being fitted 'properly', it seemed about 2 or 3 inches too long for me and I wanted to try on some others to see if I could get a better fit. 

She then told me she could help me out if I really wanted, but it might be best not to bother as it was being replaced soon. She also told me some horror stories about how it's been grinding holes in people's hips and lower backs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 May 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Back on topic, I had an amusing exchange with one of the base Loggies regarding the Rucksack, Huge, Unusable.
> 
> I told her that, despite being fitted 'properly', it seemed about 2 or 3 inches too long for me and I wanted to try on some others to see if I could get a better fit.
> 
> She then told me she could help me out if I really wanted, but it might be best not to bother as it was being replaced soon. She also told me some horror stories about how it's been grinding holes in people's hips and lower backs.



The magic formula tells me I take a large size bag. I've recently swapped it out for a medium but might even drop it down to small.

I still get a kick out of this;
BFT kitlist.
http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/London/SiteCollectionDocuments/ENGLISH/Fitness/Specialty%20Tests/BFT%20KIT%20LIST.pdf


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 May 2013)

The ruck itself weighs around 25 lbs doesn't it?


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 May 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> The ruck itself weighs around 25 lbs doesn't it?



I weighed it in at 12 lbs, empty, dry i.e., not in a state that would be normal for infantry.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 May 2013)

Was that with all the bells and whistles such as compression sack, metal bars etc?


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 May 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Was that with all the bells and whistles such as compression sack, metal bars etc?



Just the ruck.

About the same weight as a liner of 7.62mm link


----------



## acen (21 May 2013)

The magic formula says I should also have a large frame, and I was sized by the CTS staff. It didn't seem right as I have Gregory and Arcteryx packs, all in small. My 5'6" 145lb well proportioned frame also led me to believe that the sizing was off. Of course, I couldn't change the sizing right then and there so I had to wait for a 3 years to receive my ruck (not exaggerating). Upon putting it on, the waistbelt was more of a "junk belt" and the hip pad was midway down my backside. 

I went to clothing stores and got the runaround because they did not have any staff that were qualified to measure me so they could not give me another ruck, but luckily, after a bit of talking, they let me exchange it for a small so long as I would get the pieces from the racks. 

The waistbelt is still junk (changed it to an MEC Ibex waistbelt as it uses the same fastening mechanisms) and this doesn't result in the chafing that plagues many others. I have a feeling many people have been sized inappropriately as well, which leads to the lower hip chafing.

I haven't found a source to confirm this yet, but someone in procurement told me the CF signed an 80 million dollar contract with Mystery Ranch to provide rucks for everyone. I'm hoping to speak to Dana Gleason (the owner of Mystery Ranch) if he is at CANSEC to confirm this. This seems a little too good to be true as it stands and there is still tons of time for it to be screwed up by procurement, but it seems that we may be going the way of the Aussies and just buying excellent COTS kit. With that amount of money, my basic math would indicate that this is enough for a ruck and day pack for every member of the CF, or ruck and day pack for all who are currently issued rucks and replacements/stores for years to come. Again, I still do not have a hard copy source to confirm this though.

Here's hoping!


----------



## MikeL (21 May 2013)

For the people who have switched to a smaller bag,  was there a noticeable difference in the height and carrying capacity?  I was sized for a XL bag,  but after awhile I trade it for a large but didn't notice any difference.  I'm considering getting a medium pack instead of the large when I am able too.



			
				acen said:
			
		

> The waistbelt is still junk (changed it to an MEC Ibex waistbelt as it uses the same fastening mechanisms) and this doesn't result in the chafing that plagues many others. I have a feeling many people have been sized inappropriately as well, which leads to the lower hip chafing.



I'll be looking into that belt,  the issue one isn't too bad for me compared to others,  but it could be a lot better.




			
				acen said:
			
		

> I haven't found a source to confirm this yet, but someone in procurement told me the CF signed an 80 million dollar contract with Mystery Ranch to provide rucks for everyone.



I heard MR was making packs to carry the C16 system.   This procurement you are talking about,  was it specifically for the Regular CF or perhaps CANSOF?



			
				acen said:
			
		

> I'm hoping to speak to Dana Gleason (the owner of Mystery Ranch) if he is at CANSEC to confirm this.



If you can get confirmation and post here that would be great.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (21 May 2013)

I do my BFT with the small pack.  

I don't even know why anyone bothers with the rucksack?  Anytime I have seen anyone using it, they've managed to pack it so full of shit that it's way over the limit.


----------



## acen (21 May 2013)

Skeletor - everything as best as I know, minus the quotations (don't know how to use those yet).

There is definitely a capacity difference. I have a small, and it pales in comparison to the large and XL rucks. I call it the "mini-ruck" but in reality its just shorter than the others. To give you a comparison, others can load a packed up small pack into the main compartment of their rucks standing up, whereas I cannot. It simply doesn't fit. I would rate the capacity as about the same as the 82 pattern.

You might have a tough time to find the Ibex waistbelts now, as it has been phased out I think. The Arcteryx Bora waist belt uses the same mechanism as well (velcro, but not nearly as much) but the Ibex was green, cheap (23$ on clearance) and I didn't want to ruin the preformed goodness of my Bora belt. I think the key is to have it sized right first and also to have it turned the proper way (yes, I have had to correct people on this). 

Mystery Ranch provided consulting on the harness system for the C16 pack, but the actual construction was done by Fellfab. It is a system that is similar to the NICE frame, with a big foam slab attached to it for the sighting systems in a cadpat wrap. I handled one a few years ago and it was alright, but not up to true MR quality. Also, that was done years ago, whereas this is a new contract as of the last two months. My info came from someone on the CANSOFCOM procurement side that said that the contract for rucks was done for the entire green army. CANSOFCOM has been using their gear for years.

I'll post as soon as I find out. I'm working on a range for the canadian importer of MR (who brought Dana down for CANSEC a couple years ago) for the CANSEC show, so I will ask him if Dana isn't down this year.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 May 2013)

acen said:
			
		

> Skeletor - everything as best as I know, minus the quotations (don't know how to use those yet).
> 
> There is definitely a capacity difference. I have a small, and it pales in comparison to the large and XL rucks. I call it the "mini-ruck" but in reality its just shorter than the others. To give you a comparison, others can load a packed up small pack into the main compartment of their rucks standing up, whereas I cannot. It simply doesn't fit. I would rate the capacity as about the same as the 82 pattern.
> 
> ...



 I've abandoned the issue ruck and gone back to my PLCE Bergen... which is smaller and more sensible! If we get MR stuff I might have to wear a helmet so I don't get injured jumping for joy


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 May 2013)

How do you get to decide what ruck you can use?


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 May 2013)

acen said:
			
		

> Mystery Ranch provided consulting on the harness system for the C16 pack, but the actual construction was done by Fellfab. It is a system that is similar to the NICE frame, with a big foam slab attached to it for the sighting systems in a cadpat wrap. I handled one a few years ago and it was alright, but not up to true MR quality. Also, that was done years ago, whereas this is a new contract as of the last two months. My info came from someone on the CANSOFCOM procurement side that said that the contract for rucks was done for the entire green army. CANSOFCOM has been using their gear for years.



The current 3-person harness system I've seen  for the C16 is made by Mystery Ranch.  It doesn't come across as very well made, pretty shoddy quality. The harness lets you carry the C16 but it's not practical at all.




I love my Low alpine Saracen and can pack alot of weight in there. The eberstock rucksack that the humint source handlers had issued seemed really good too, if a bit small.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 May 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> How do you get to decide what ruck you can use?



It's camouflaged  ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 May 2013)

But doesn't the leadership frown on that when your not the same as everyone else?


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 May 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> But doesn't the leadership frown on that when your not the same as everyone else?



My unit's direction is to use issued kit only and if it's shitty and it sucks then keep submitting those complaint forms and hope someone does something about it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 May 2013)

Gotcha. So like most units. I thought u were saying you used a non-issue ruck and wanted to know how you pulled it off.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 May 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> My unit's direction is to use issued kit only and if it's shitty and it sucks then keep submitting those complaint forms and hope someone does something about it.



I was in a company like that - "thou shalt use issue kit only" despite Niner telling us the 64 pattern ruck was good to go. 

I got seven "corrective training" sessions because I wore non issue boots in the field.


----------



## dangerboy (22 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I was in a company like that - "thou shalt use issue kit only" despite Niner telling us the 64 pattern ruck was good to go.
> 
> I got seven "corrective training" sessions because I wore non issue boots in the field.



It was a "good" time to be in A Coy, having coloured bungee cords was almost a hanging offence and we have the privilege of having stand by your trench inspections in the morning.  Because after all everyone knows that having sand on your air mattress is a sign of a lousy soldier. :


----------



## OldSolduer (22 May 2013)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> It was a "good" time to be in A Coy, having coloured bungee cords was almost a hanging offence and we have the privilege of having stand by your trench inspections in the morning.  Because after all everyone knows that having sand on your air mattress is a sign of a lousy soldier. :



And abandoned by the company to run a Machine Gun course. We sure had fun shooting that stove.
Full of .50 and 7.62 holes, plus "lone pine" was pretty much done in.


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 May 2013)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> It was a "good" time to be in A Coy, having coloured bungee cords was almost a hanging offence and we have the privilege of having stand by your trench inspections in the morning.  Because after all everyone knows that having sand on your air mattress is a sign of a lousy soldier. :



I remember us guys in mortars laughing at A Coy on that ex!  8)


----------



## OldSolduer (23 May 2013)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I remember us guys in mortars laughing at A Coy on that ex!  8)



It was pitiful and it was not good for morale.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 May 2013)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> It was a "good" time to be in A Coy, having coloured bungee cords was almost a hanging offence and we have the privilege of having stand by your trench inspections in the morning.  Because after all everyone knows that having sand on your air mattress is a sign of a lousy soldier. :



Let me guess.... the OC went on to do very well career-wise

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/the-generals-tom-ricks_n_1979201.html


----------



## blacktriangle (24 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I was in a company like that - "thou shalt use issue kit only" despite Niner telling us the 64 pattern ruck was good to go.
> 
> I got seven "corrective training" sessions because I wore non issue boots in the field.



I fear we are going back to that...after years of non issue boots sliding, I am starting to see the return of the "Boot Police" in some places. 

To any CSM/RSMs out there - what would you prefer on your soldiers: Polished and well kept black boots (non issue) or the new ugly brown boots that are starting to come out?


----------



## MikeL (24 May 2013)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> To any CSM/RSMs out there - what would you prefer on your soldiers: Polished and well kept black boots (non issue) or the new ugly brown boots that are starting to come out?



I'm not a CSM/RSM but IMO,  that is a moot point.  At some point you will no longer be allowed to wear black boots as the Army decided it will wear brown boots.  

I wouldn't be surprised if a message with a end date for the wear of black boots comes out in the future - once the brown boots are in large stocks everywhere and being issued out.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 May 2013)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I fear we are going back to that...after years of non issue boots sliding, I am starting to see the return of the "Boot Police" in some places.
> 
> To any CSM/RSMs out there - what would you prefer on your soldiers: Polished and well kept black boots (non issue) or the new ugly brown boots that are starting to come out?



Not a CSM/RSM, but I'd expect to have my parade boots highly polished. Combat boots? Not so much....


----------



## Bzzliteyr (24 May 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Not a CSM/RSM, but I'd expect to have my parade boots highly polished. Combat boots? Not so much....



Wasn't polished combat boot/pressed combat uniform an artillery thing?


----------



## dapaterson (24 May 2013)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Wasn't polished combat boot/pressed combat uniform an artillery thing?



But do your socks match?  For the love of god, who's doing sock inspections?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 May 2013)

RCR thing.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 May 2013)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I fear we are going back to that...after years of non issue boots sliding, I am starting to see the return of the "Boot Police" in some places.
> 
> To any CSM/RSMs out there - what would you prefer on your soldiers: Polished and well kept black boots (non issue) or the new ugly brown boots that are starting to come out?



Once the brown boot is issued to everyone, my troops will conform to the dress regulations. They will wear the issue brown boot and not whatever they feel like, unless they have a valid medical reason or higher blesses the wearing of non issue brown boots.

Yes I am one of the boot cops.


----------



## DirtyDog (24 May 2013)

The day I'm told I have to wear issue boots (regardless of colour) is probably the first time I will get in any real sh1t in the army.


----------



## Haggis (24 May 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> The day I'm told I have to wear issue boots (regardless of colour) is probably the first time I will get in any real sh1t in the army.



Even if they are of better quality and more comfortable than your current boots?


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 May 2013)

If troops don't want to polish their combat boots in garrison then they can save their combats for the field and wear Deus with parade boots in garrison  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (24 May 2013)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Even if they are of better quality and more comfortable than your current boots?



That'll be the day. I love my SWATs but I'd wear issue boots if they weren't trash every iteration.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 May 2013)

Cmbt boots aren't supposed to be polished but blackened.  Unless your RCR.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> The day I'm told I have to wear issue boots (regardless of colour) is probably the first time I will get in any real sh1t in the army.



Then have a chit to back it up. IMO for the first while after these are issued it will be "issue boots only unless medically excused".

Besides, in the Army we obey orders. This is not to say you have to agree.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2013)

I have LPO/COTS boots and they are my "issued boots", I don't have a chit to carry around like previous years.   My SCA just indicates "boots, combat, special size" or something.  I had to return my "standard issue" boots to receive my entitlement of LPOs.

I haven't even touched on how much of a gong-show _THAT_ process was last time I went thru it.    :facepalm:


----------



## krustyrl (25 May 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I have LPO/COTS boots and they are my "issued boots", I don't have a chit to carry around like previous years.   My SCA just indicates "boots, combat, special size" or something.  I had to return my "standard issue" boots to receive my entitlement of LPOs.
> 
> I haven't even touched on how much of a gong-show _THAT_ process was last time I went thru it.    :facepalm:



I completely understand where you're coming from. I had worn Magnum Stealths for 10 yrs due to pain and suffering from different foot conditions that were documented and a pensioned condition. At the time, these boots were pretty much the only thing that kept me vertical despite trying different boots the service had to offer. No luck in being able to wear (for any great length of time) what WSupply had so the sent me downtown during my posting in Trenton.
  
Then I get posted to a Wing in BC and my boots needed to be changed. The i/c  was not entertaining buying my the boots that worked as best as possible for me and despite going and getting 2 yes 2 chits from the MO (the first chit wasn't worded properly). This Supply clerk asked my why I needed these boots and I indicated the reason and also politely suggesting why would I change boot style from finally finding a pr that worked for me the last 10 yrs, to a pr that clearly had been tried, that would be going back 10 yrs in foot therapy also. This person suggested specially made boots that costed 1500.00 a pr (that are *not* guaranteed to work for me) vice a pair of 125.00 boots that were not only available but authorised for the past 10 yrs.   
In the end, I ended up NOT getting my boots I needed and released 3b 1.5 yrs later wearing old Stealths that had frayed laces, cracks and in poor condition.  
I too shook my head about the whole thing  :facepalm:


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2013)

Again, in my tiny pea brain, if the MEL  is written correctly, why is a Sup Tech questioning it? 

I know when one of my troops presents his CoC with a valid medical chit I do not presume to question the MO.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 May 2013)

I have not carried a boot chit for years. Anyone needing clarification of my allowance can go check my clothing docs.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 May 2013)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> This Supply clerk asked my why I needed these boots



I'm wondering who the heck this Sup Tech thought they were, asking about someone's medical condition? There's a reason why MELs don't list the condition the person has, thats private information and shouldn't change the level of service you receive.  :facepalm:


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 May 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm wondering who the heck this Sup Tech thought they were, asking about someone's medical condition? There's a reason why MELs don't list the condition the person has, thats private information and shouldn't change the level of service you receive.  :facepalm:



For sure. I'm not one to often take the "none of your f***ing business" route but stuff like this really gets my chicken.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 May 2013)

Oh I see what you did there. Lol


----------



## krustyrl (25 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Again, in my tiny pea brain, if the MEL  is written correctly, why is a Sup Tech questioning it?
> 
> I know when one of my troops presents his CoC with a valid medical chit I do not presume to question the MO.



In all fairness, my chit indicated "must wear orthotics and accommodating LPO boots" which was written in 2000 and the point the Supply Tech was "discussing" was the chit was outdated, presumably as the chits from the MIR were only valid for 30 days etc. I indicated to the MO that the Magnums were of a rockered heel and toe and lightweight that made my conditions bearable during the workday and had worn them for the past 10 yrs no questions asked. 
The Supply Section at CYTR had a section of files for those that used LPO footwear and when you needed a new pair, they simply checked the files to see if you in fact did use LPO footwear. IMHO a very efficient user-friendly system that eliminated needless re-authorization and wasted time , not to mention any bun-fights.
  My MEL's indicated must wear orthotics however no mention of which type of footwear. Yes, something that maybe should have been clarified but there really wasn't any issue during that posting.  Maybe a new or different location and archaic systems ...I dunno.!   :dunno:

An interesting point here was the Supply Tech mentioned that these boots were not authorised for AVN Techs as the did not have "full leather uppers". This was made very clear to me.  I then questioned why or how was it that in all the documentation at my previous Wing, why was I not informed that these boots were not "safety" boots and why was I permitted to wear "unsafe" boots for the past 10 yrs.?  Who would have been responsible for issuing me these boots despite all the safety features should I have suffered a serious foot inury. 
There comes a point when one is close to releasing and was fed up of the constant roadblocks and wasting the MO's time and my time playing this ridiculous game of providing this info... great now you need to find a buyer, now the chit is expired .....yada yada.

Yep, they walk among us.

Note: I had no previous business with the WSupply section before this incident/fiasco as I had been relatively newly posted in so it's not like I went in and was demanding this and that and being a pain in the arse, I just needed to do my job in a comfortable fashion.


----------



## DirtyDog (25 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Then have a chit to back it up. IMO for the first while after these are issued it will be "issue boots only unless medically excused".
> 
> Besides, in the Army we obey orders. This is not to say you have to agree.


I haven't had to wear issue boots since I was in the training system.  I figured those days were long gone but now I'm hearing rumours of issue boots being enforced.

I long ago figured out my foot issues and lower leg issues and have managed them.  Part of managing them is not wearing heavy, clumsy, inflexible issue boots.  I can just imagine the hoops I'd have to jump through, and time I'd have to waste (which I don't have) getting a chit. Would I have to present a problem? (ie. go back to hurting myself).  :

In the training system and early in my career I suffered through some pretty brutal foot and lower leg issues.  I got on with the job but why would the army force me back into that?  Do they really think I wanted to spend literally thousands of dollars on my own boots for the feck of it?  

Where does this "issue boots only" policy originate from anyway?  How high up the chain?  Do you enforce issue only black boots?  Why would that change for these new brown ones?  Why would enforcement only be implemented for the "first while" after they are issued?

The army can keep making stupid decisions, and it can keep going downhill (and it is), and more and more good people will be leaving.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 May 2013)

My suggestion would be to give them a try. If they don't work then go to plan B


----------



## DirtyDog (25 May 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> My suggestion would be to give them a try. If they don't work then go to plan B


My local clothing stores is only issuing black GPs at the present.  I tried them a long time ago and will not ever wear them again.

I will try any new boots that come out, but I can pretty much guarantee they will be either junk, or not suited to me.

I get it, this is the Army and we do what were told.  But in this instance I say screw that and will wear whatever punishment or fight whatever fight I have to.


----------



## krustyrl (25 May 2013)

> I long ago figured out my foot issues and lower leg issues and have managed them.  Part of managing them is not wearing heavy, clumsy, inflexible issue boots.  I can just imagine the hoops I'd have to jump through, and time I'd have to waste (which I don't have) getting a chit. Would I have to present a problem? (ie. go back to hurting myself).  :



This was exactly what my point was. Yes, the Supply clerk mentined the summer/winter goretex boots came in something like 75 different sizes (so I was told, I don't know for sure if this was the case) but why in any reasoning (would I go back ten yrs in my case) in my foot therapy. I suffered bad from Achilles Tendonitis and bad Plantar Faciitis from those black ankle boots from before. I had found something that works for me, I wasn't going back to excruciating pain and discomfort. 
I had a pair of winter and summer goretex boots, I tried them and they didn't work in my case so however many sizes they came in, was not the issue. 
FYI, I am retired now and they sit under my workbench. Supply didn't even want them back when I turned my kit in.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 May 2013)

Thats the funny thing, when I went to get sized for custom boots, I was looked at like "What do you mean they don't fit, we have 75 sizes!" My heel is narrower than the pad of my foot so something that fits the front part of my feet results in my laces joined together in the middle, and my heel raising out of the boot every time I step. Still waiting for my sizing as well, a year later. I'd go and buy myself another pair of SWATs, but with 2 kids and a mortgage I should be spending that $150 a year on things for them, not stuff the CF should issue me.

I'm not sure who these 95% percentile people are that fit issued kit properly, I can't even get combats that fit anymore (and its not a portable keg issue  >).


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I haven't had to wear issue boots since I was in the training system.  I figured those days were long gone but now I'm hearing rumours of issue boots being enforced.
> 
> I long ago figured out my foot issues and lower leg issues and have managed them.  Part of managing them is not wearing heavy, clumsy, inflexible issue boots.  I can just imagine the hoops I'd have to jump through, and time I'd have to waste (which I don't have) getting a chit. Would I have to present a problem? (ie. go back to hurting myself).  :
> 
> ...



That's quite the post.

If you don't want to take the time and "jump through the hoops" to get medical clearance, that is your business. I suggest you may want to jump through the hoops ,and get the chit.

My business is enforcing policy, and one of them is dress policy. If it comes to pass, and it has not yet, that the order "issue boots only"  order comes down, then I will enforce it. Until then, I will let the troops wear black combat style boots.

I may or may not agree with the policies, and yes I do push back on policies that are inherently silly, but and the end of the day, if my CO tells me "RSM, get on with it" I get on with it.


----------



## blacktriangle (25 May 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> My local clothing stores is only issuing black GPs at the present.  I tried them a long time ago and will not ever wear them again.
> 
> I will try any new boots that come out, but I can pretty much guarantee they will be either junk, or not suited to me.
> 
> I get it, this is the Army and we do what were told.  But in this instance I say screw that and will wear whatever punishment or fight whatever fight I have to.



Yup. In my recruit training we were told by our Sect Comd 

"Don't go wasting your money on dumb stuff from the kit shop. The army will issue you what you need, for the most part. Except for boots. If the boots they give you don't work for you, go buy your own. You are an investment, and you have to protect your body to ever pay off"

I haven't worn issue boots for about 6 years now. I have never missed a day of work, have kept in great shape, and have no problem running the BFT. I did my first BFT in issue boots and couldn't walk normally for a few days after that...same with my first week in the field. Never had that issue since...

But yup - rules are rules. No matter how moronic the people inventing them may be.


----------



## DirtyDog (25 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> That's quite the post.
> 
> If you don't want to take the time and "jump through the hoops" to get medical clearance, that is your business. I suggest you may want to jump through the hoops ,and get the chit.
> 
> ...


Fair enough...

If I seem a little cynical it's because lately I've been getting sick of working myself to the bone making up for the shortcomings of the army and the many idiots it employs.  Doing more with less wears you down eventually and in this climate I'd hate to have someone get in my face and question me about something like my boots.

EDIT - And at my last posting, getting a "boot chit" per se was next to impossible.  I have no idea what it's like where I am now, but I don't imagine it being a simple process nor can I afford the time.


----------



## 2 Cdo (25 May 2013)

As someone who has worn both issue and non-issue I see both sides of this issue. The biggest problem I find is that "some" troops embellish their discomfort/injury wearing issue boots in order to have something different. The problem with wearing your high-speed Gucci boots overseas is replacing them when they crap out. Are you going to claim that you can't wear issue boots now? 

As for DirtyDog, you sound like you've already made up your mind





> but I can pretty much guarantee they will be either junk, or not suited to me.


 :


----------



## DirtyDog (25 May 2013)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> As someone who has worn both issue and non-issue I see both sides of this issue. The biggest problem I find is that "some" troops embellish their discomfort/injury wearing issue boots in order to have something different. The problem with wearing your high-speed Gucci boots overseas is replacing them when they crap out. Are you going to claim that you can't wear issue boots now?
> 
> As for DirtyDog, you sound like you've already made up your mind :


I think it's a fair assumption.

And I'd say 8 out of 10 guys I worked with overseas didn't wear the issue junk.  It was a non-issue.  Personally, if mine had sh1t the bed I would then go to my 2nd pair.  After that my third.  After that, I'd suffer through issued boots.  It's not an argument worth making IMHO.

Yes there are clowns, but I can think of far worse things that people take advantage of in the army.  I know I'm getting a little tired of shelling out $260 every time I need a new set, which can be frequent depending on the field abuse they get.


----------



## cupper (25 May 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> at my last posting, getting a "boot chit" per se was next to impossible.  I have no idea what it's like where I am now, but I don't imagine it being a simple process nor can I afford the time.



Two points.

One: Until you actually go through the process, you really won't know how difficult it is. Imagination and reality are sometimes two different things.

Two: If foot problems lead to a medical release, do you think you could afford the time then?


----------



## DirtyDog (25 May 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> Two points.
> 
> One: Until you actually go through the process, you really won't know how difficult it is. Imagination and reality are sometimes two different things.
> 
> Two: If foot problems lead to a medical release, do you think you could afford the time then?


One:  I've been down the road before and ended up more confused then anything.  Current situation could be better, sure.

Two: Ha.  I doubt my exit from the forces will be predicated by foot problems.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 May 2013)

To the replacement issue, when I was in the desert in 06 I got boots quicker from Canada then I did through supply. Common size etc


----------



## dapaterson (25 May 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> To the replacement issue, when I was in the desert in 06 I got boots quicker from Canada then I did through supply. Common size etc



In that late 90s, I had a friend in Africa (one of two or three Canadians on that mission).  His boots went missing.  When he managed to get someone in the DCDS shop to take his call, after hemming and hawing he was finally told that his stolen boots couldn't be replaced until the MP report was received.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> One:  I've been down the road before and ended up more confused then anything.  U



Please describe the process you went through.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 May 2013)

Was boot quality as much of a problem when we only had the Mk IIIs? 

I wore those things for thousands of miles without a problem, as did lots of other guys I know in various UK units who were glad to get their feet in a pair (including guys who used them Falklands War and various SF units).

The Mk IVs and CWWB are just awful in comparison IMHO, which drives people into spending a fortune on civvy boots. Or maybe I'm just getting older and crankier?  :nod:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 May 2013)

The Mk 3 with a different sole was an excellent boot


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2013)

I had to stop wearing Mk IIIs as they cannot for orthotics, and my back would go wonky within 30 minutes.

The new GP boot is ok, but too heavy.


----------



## Haggis (25 May 2013)

I may be an anomaly in this thread, but I actually like the GS boots.  Yes, they're heavier than SWATs, but they're quite comfortable (with my orthotics) and the price is right.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 May 2013)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I may be an anomaly in this thread, but I actually like the GS boots.  Yes, they're heavier than SWATs, but they're quite comfortable (with my orthotics) and the price is right.



I'm like you.  I use the GS Boots for everything including field work.  The only time I pull out my SWATs if for BFTs and marching PT because I find it has countered my shin splints.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 May 2013)

If only DLR would find a way of writing an SOR where the actual answer was Mk III with Vibram sole.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 May 2013)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If only DLR would find a way of writing an SOR where the actual answer was Mk III with Vibram sole.



Our 'combat boot' Mk I, II, III were non safety versions of Greb Kodiaks made in black.

I wonder if anyone asked Greb to just change the sole.


----------



## cupper (26 May 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Our 'combat boot' Mk I, II, III were non safety versions of Greb Kodiaks made in black.
> 
> I wonder if anyone asked Greb to just change the sole.



That would be expecting the procurement system to use logic and reason.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 May 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Our 'combat boot' Mk I, II, III were non safety versions of Greb Kodiaks made in black.
> 
> I wonder if anyone asked Greb to just change the sole.



Kind of like these?

http://www.military1st.co.uk/bbooass-british-army-assault-boots.html


----------



## PuckChaser (26 May 2013)

Those assault boots don't look breathable at all, but that sole is leaps and bounds above the Mk3 boot sole.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 May 2013)

Funny thing is, you see some people trying to find old Mk3s in the system (or elsewhere) for the "been there, done that" factor these days.

I have a pair of Haix P9 desert boots the military bought for me in 2007 and I still wear them in civvies.  The sole is indestructible, the goretex still functions and I love them.  The fabric on the back has split but is still functional.  It was the most simple process to get them: we were being fitted for desert boots, I approached the counter to mention to them that I had special issue boots for my orthotics and happened to get the MWO in charge, he looked at me, wrote the LPO and sent me into town to pick the boots I wanted.

Smple. And this is in Valcartier!


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Sep 2013)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Like the 'Tiger Team' report that a former CLS put together to 'Fix the Tac-Vest Problem' only to have that initiative quashed by budgetary cutbacks?  ...UCRs were submitted, DLR became aware of the equipment shortcoming and started a corrective course of action, then program scaled back and now effectively terminated.



Well we're not fighting a war, why do we need warfighting equipment now? Fishing vest will work just fine....


----------



## x_para76 (5 Sep 2013)

Alternatively why not just issue certain kit to certain troops ie. only issue front line troops with the high speed webbing, plate carriers and the rest. The rest of the army, navy, and airforce rear echelon and support trades can carry on using the old tac vests and what ever else they're issued to carry to their desks.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (5 Sep 2013)

If only there were still fron lines in battle... COIN won't allow that to happen and a clerk can suddenly find themselves on the pointy end in a heartbeat.


----------



## x_para76 (5 Sep 2013)

Fair enough but that's not a clerks main function. I'm sure if they have to they'll make do with what they have. However, troops who's job it is to be in harms way should have the correct kit for the job they're doing.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Sep 2013)

The problem lies in attempting to define what "the correct kit for the job they're doing" is.  Ever watch a kit discussion here (or in unit lines)?  Every kit slut is convinced that their setup is perfect and anything else is hopeless.  There is no consensus - other than "Issue kit sucks", which, when you press the topic, results in no useful insights as to why it sucks, or how to make it better.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> Alternatively why not just issue certain kit to certain troops ie. only issue front line troops with the high speed webbing, plate carriers and the rest. The rest of the army, navy, and airforce rear echelon and support trades can carry on using the old tac vests and what ever else they're issued to carry to their desks.



That is fine if there is a "Defined Front Line"; but what of the case of which there is none, as in Afghanistan?


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Sep 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is fine if there is a "Defined Front Line"; but what of the case of which there is none, as in Afghanistan?



A clerk should be able to make due with a tacvest even if they are going to a FOB. It wouldn't be economical to give them a SORD riflemen style chest rig. They'll be handicapped in a firefight more by their lack of training than the difference in rigs.

I know the big mantra is that the frontline is everywhere/there is no more frontline but realistically speaking there are a lot of trades who don't need the same stuff that combat arms need.


Boots are more 'common to all' than chestrigs and rucksacks.


----------



## x_para76 (5 Sep 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The problem lies in attempting to define what "the correct kit for the job they're doing" is.  Ever watch a kit discussion here (or in unit lines)?  Every kit slut is convinced that their setup is perfect and anything else is hopeless.  There is no consensus - other than "Issue kit sucks", which, when you press the topic, results in no useful insights as to why it sucks, or how to make it better.



Which is why you issue a plate carrier and pouch system that is modular. If you look at the issued tac vest it becomes rather apparent that it's design was never derived from anyone who'd been in combat or who'd even served in the combat arms. If you look at CANSOFCOM they don't issue completely different kit for each soldier but instead issue kit that can be configured to suit individual preferences. Moreover they trial and select their own kit. You don't have a Log tech in the navy trialling kit that will then be primarily used by the combat arms.


----------



## armyvern (5 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> Which is why you issue a plate carrier and pouch system that is modular. If you look at the issued tac vest it becomes rather apparent that it's design was never derived from anyone who'd been in combat or who'd even served in the combat arms. If you look at CANSOFCOM they don't issue completely different kit for each soldier but instead issue kit that can be configured to suit individual preferences. Moreover they trial and select their own kit. You don't have a Log tech in the navy trialling kit that will then be primarily used by the combat arms.



CTS began in the mid-90s ... long before 9/11/01.  Yepper, it takes that long for Army-trialed kit to come into service here in Canada for anyone who isn't SOFCOM.  And guess what??  All those UCRs on the tacvest _post_ 9/11 recommended ... MODULAR or chest.  Do you really think we are fucking st_oo_pid?

Cripes, I was a Sgt in clothing stores a full decade ago (crap - that just hit me like a tonne of bricks  ) when the CTS trials began for new combat boots ... and they ain't issued to the force yet.  

SOFCOM procurement process & policy is not = to either the Cdn Army, the RCAF or the RCN outside-of-the-CF mandated process and policy for same.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> Which is why you issue a plate carrier and pouch system that is modular. If you look at the issued tac vest it becomes rather apparent that it's design was never derived from anyone who'd been in combat or who'd even served in the combat arms. If you look at CANSOFCOM they don't issue completely different kit for each soldier but instead issue kit that can be configured to suit individual preferences. Moreover they trial and select their own kit. You don't have a Log tech in the navy trialling kit that will then be primarily used by the combat arms.



Every point you've tried to argue, about kit, has already been discussed in a whole bunch of places.....ad nauseum.

Will you please....please, go back and read the threads, see where your point has been discussed, digest that first and stop bringing things back to where we were ages ago.

People here, entering into reasonable discourse, are expected to understand the threads they participate in, including all the stuff that's gone before.

Quit showing up at the pool, yelling "I'm here!" and cannon balling into the conversation.

---Staff---


----------



## McG (6 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> Which is why you issue a plate carrier and pouch system that is modular. If you look at the issued tac vest it becomes rather apparent that it's design was never derived from anyone who'd been in combat or who'd even served in the combat arms. If you look at CANSOFCOM they don't issue completely different kit for each soldier but instead issue kit that can be configured to suit individual preferences. Moreover they trial and select their own kit. You don't have a Log tech in the navy trialling kit that will then be primarily used by the combat arms.


It was trialed by infantry, but thanks for coming out.


----------



## McG (6 Sep 2013)

I was not there, but you could dig back through this thread to find opinions of those who were either there or close enough to observe.


----------



## Lightguns (6 Sep 2013)

Canadian designed kit takes a long time from concept to issue.  The current tac vest is better than the previous tac vest which was an improvement on the webbing, it self an improvement on the 64 pattern webbing.  Yes, modular is the way to go but was only discovered by the Canadian military during the recent confrontation.  You will have modular very soon......by 2025...... 6 months after the US Army issues robotic tac gear carriers to it's troops.  Relax, it's coming and all Canadian made too!!!

Seriously, trials are done on a very limited range of concepts, the infantry guys were thinking that this was the best of the options presented.  Take the tac vest, it was comfortable, close fitting and distributed the weight nicely, our webbing pulled on the back of the belt because more weight was at the rear in our peace army than ran around with empty magazines.  The other tac vest was a ill fitting sleeveless bag that sagged anywhere you put weight in the pouches.

As for the ruck, I cannot comment on it other than to say it looks like a kit bag with shoulder straps.  But I can say that as a young soldier, we all hated the P64 ruck, it was a shoulder buster.  We longed for the big frame hiking pack or comfy internal frame pack.  We debated it often in the common rooms of Kapyong Barracks.  Now that we have that, the troops prefer the ruck we hated.  I sometimes whether it is the equipment procurement system or our wants that is problem.......


----------



## armyvern (6 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> Well that what were the infantry guys thinking who passed it?



They thought it was awesomely suited for those blue beret peacekeeping missions that were their 'deployments' at the time; they recommended some changes, trialed it, and out it came years & years later when - suddenly - it wasn't about blue berets anymore.  Perhaps though, you have ESP?

Word up; I am not infantry, but it seems to me that you may think you are the only competent apple in the bushel.  I have a different opinion on that and am now setting you to [/ignore].


----------



## DirtyDog (6 Sep 2013)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> If only there were still fron lines in battle... COIN won't allow that to happen and a clerk can suddenly find themselves on the pointy end in a heartbeat.


Oh c'mon, man!


----------



## DirtyDog (6 Sep 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> They thought it was awesomely suited for those blue beret peacekeeping missions that were their 'deployments' at the time; they recommended some changes, trialed it, and out it came years & years later when - suddenly - it wasn't about blue berets anymore.  Perhaps though, you have ESP?
> [/ignore].


Not only that... when some DLR clown has you trialing something that has effectively been his baby for months or years, and you tell them it's crap, they tend to ignore you and tell you how *you're using it wrong*.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Sep 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Not only that... when some DLR clown has you trialing something that has effectively been his baby for months or years, and you tell it's crap, they tend to ignore you and tell you how you're using it wrong.



I think you've found the biggest problem IMO in our procurement system. People have been allowed to build their careers around a certain piece of kit and refuse to admit mistakes.


----------



## armyvern (6 Sep 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Not only that... when some DLR clown has you trialing something that has effectively been his baby for months or years, and you tell them it's crap, they tend to ignore you and tell you how *you're using it wrong*.



Yepper, but that was also post 9/11.  I think that bunch should be retired shortly.

I think the failure was that while wonderful for peacekeeping ... it absolutely was 500% wrong for warfighting and everyone who had to do _that_ bit was able to figure it out about 1 minute into the very first TIC of that conflict.

 ;D


----------



## KevinB (6 Sep 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The problem lies in attempting to define what "the correct kit for the job they're doing" is.  Ever watch a kit discussion here (or in unit lines)?  Every kit slut is convinced that their setup is perfect and anything else is hopeless.  There is no consensus - other than "Issue kit sucks", which, when you press the topic, results in no useful insights as to why it sucks, or how to make it better.



I says pardon...

   Oh clearly you never read one of my UCR's -- I had 15 pages of how I hate the TacVest and what should be done to fix the issue.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Sep 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I says pardon...
> 
> Oh clearly you never read one of my UCR's -- I had 15 pages of how I hate the TacVest and what should be done to fix the issue.



I have just lived through a detailed explanation by a senior person (who shall not be named, and who has zero operational experience) who described exactly why the wonderful life saving tac vest is EXACTLY the piece of kit we need - because it stops the body armour from 'billowing' up when your vehicle is htt by an IED. Chest rigs are death.

Hoo rah


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Sep 2013)

Sorry this person does not deserve to have their name redacted.


----------



## MJP (7 Sep 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I have just lived through a detailed explanation by a senior person (who shall not be named, and who has zero operational experience) who described exactly why the wonderful life saving tac vest is EXACTLY the piece of kit we need - because it stops the body armour from 'billowing' up when your vehicle is htt by an IED. Chest rigs are death.
> 
> Hoo rah



I was told the exact same thing.  Pure rubbish.  Like Kev I wrote with a great deal of assistance from various folks a UCR that gained some great traction and comments from my CoC.  I can't echo enough that complaining is one thing, but people need to write UCRs to really start the ball rolling.  I am pretty sure that I wrote up a how to in this  thread a few years a go for anyone looking.  An example UCR and a how to are on page 58/59 of this thread.


----------



## Dissident (7 Sep 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I says pardon...
> 
> Oh clearly you never read one of my UCR's -- I had 15 pages of how I hate the TacVest and what should be done to fix the issue.



And your UCR was when? 2006? 

On a tangent, The MP branch at least solicited advice through email for the upcoming replacement of the issued ballistic vest and carrier. I did some research and asked advice from a reliable sources and gave supporting documentation. I am REALLY curious if any of my suggestions will be taken into consideration. Actually I never even got confirmation that my suggestions ever made it beyond Coy level.


----------



## KevinB (9 Sep 2013)

2003-2004

I know that MJP's made it beyond 1 VP and beyond 1 CMBG.


However I was talking to Bill Morley (rank not used as I thought he was a MWO, but recently another told me he is now a Capt)  at Warrior East and he explained how an idiot in DLR/CTS managed to fuck the whole replacement program up.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> ... an idiot in DLR/CTS managed to fuck the whole replacement program up.


How?


----------



## KevinB (9 Sep 2013)

When lost one simply buys a new map and starts over, as the old map might be wrong.
  Apparently in-action is in fact a course of action.

See PM.


----------



## MJP (9 Sep 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> 2003-2004
> 
> I know that MJP's made it beyond 1 VP and beyond 1 CMBG.



Yea We got a response from NDHQ.  It pretty much said they are aware of the problem and had scheduled trials for modular gear.

If any one wants to read it.

http://dgmssc.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/ucrs/frameset.asp search by temp Id 10664


----------



## Bzzliteyr (9 Sep 2013)

Search where?

Nvermind, found it.  Click "UCR" and it expands.


----------



## KevinB (9 Sep 2013)

DWAN/DIN only I take it?


----------



## myself.only (27 Sep 2013)

Does anyone have a currently working non-DIN link to the UCR / CF 777 form and the policy / directive WRT completing same?
Thanks


----------



## myself.only (4 Oct 2013)

OK disregard my post above.  Managed to get on the DWAN last night long enough to track down the handbook for online reporting.


----------



## McG (2 Jun 2015)

So, the CAF has decided to modify all bivy bags by cutting them open and putting a zipper in place.
I guess somebody complained that the current bags work for keeping water out.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jun 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, the CAF has decided to modify all bivy bags by cutting them open and putting a zipper in place.
> I guess somebody complained that the current bags work for keeping water out.



But it makes the bag heavier and noisier as well. Isn't that important to you either?  ;D


----------



## Dissident (2 Jun 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, the CAF has decided to modify all bivy bags by cutting them open and putting a zipper in place.
> I guess somebody complained that the current bags work for keeping water out.



Gah! You can have my bivy bag from my cold dead body!


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Jun 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, the CAF has decided to modify all bivy bags by cutting them open and putting a zipper in place.
> I guess somebody complained that the current bags work for keeping water out.



Too many good idea fairies. I'm somewhat glad I'm near CRA but at the same time I fear for the young soldiers coming up. So much talent will be wasted.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jun 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> I guess somebody complained that the current bags work for keeping water out.



Or somebody wasn't slender enough to slide into one and bring their arms in over their head. We do have the FORCE test now, time to modify the kit for those unable to lift their arms above their head.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jun 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or somebody wasn't slender enough to slide into one and bring their arms in over their head. We do have the FORCE test now, time to modify the kit for those unable to lift their arms above their head.



Does that mean armless combat tunics now? for greater range of movement?  >


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> PuckChaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wonder if it is the kit that is limiting their motion, or their physique?  Some people can't lift their arms above their head without any cloths to restrict their motion.  However, the numbers of 'house apes' in the service are low, so it shouldn't be a major concern.   >


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 Jun 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, the CAF has decided to modify all bivy bags by cutting them open and putting a zipper in place.
> I guess somebody complained that the current bags work for keeping water out.



Can we get a confirmation on this? Email, photos??


----------



## Rheostatic (3 Jun 2015)

The original bivvy bag presented a suffocation hazard to our younger members. It was determined that a warning label would diminish the visual effect of the CADPAT material. The preferred option was to recall the item and enhance it with an "egress, zip fastener, tactical".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2015)

:facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jun 2015)

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> The original bivvy bag presented a suffocation hazard to our younger members. It was determined that a warning label would diminish the visual effect of the CADPAT material. The preferred option was to recall the item and enhance it with an "egress, zip fastener, tactical".



I really hope its rumint, but we got told the new bivy bag was because an individual couldn't get out of it when their tent caught fire...


----------



## McG (3 Jun 2015)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Can we get a confirmation on this? Email, photos??


I have seen it, but took no pictures.  You can look it up in CGCS under the following NSNs:
    8465-20-007-2648 
    8465-20-007-2649 
    8465-20-007-2650 
    8465-20-007-2651 



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Too many good idea fairies.


The PM or LCMM (I am a few relays along in the telephone game) is pointing the finger back at the field force for this.  Apparently it was an infantry focus group that made the recomendation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> I have seen it, but took no pictures.  You can look it up in CGCS under the following NSNs:
> 8465-20-007-2648
> 8465-20-007-2649
> 8465-20-007-2650
> ...



This kind of FOCUS group?   ;D

F**k
Off
Cause
Ur
Stupid


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Jun 2015)

To be fair,mothers are plenty of Waterproof bivy bags with zippers civvie side.


----------



## acen (3 Jun 2015)

Well, searching for the NSN via the googles has yielded the following document: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2013/05/29/8c32aa745770d95dcfede4ff5e00e580/ABES.PROD.BK__PR.B758.E61897.EBSU000.PDF

The contract is for the modification of the exiting bivy bags and installation of a waterproof zipper. There are photos in the bid document, and it's basically the existing bivy with a zipper on the side. Nothing ground breaking. 

Stated reason for the modification is "The Director Soldier Systems Program Management (DSSPM -3) would like to modify the existing Bivy Bags to have a water repellent slide fastener installed in order to insert the new Extreme Cold Weather Sleeping System with greater ease.
Note: The new Sleeping System is difficult to insert into the exisiting Bivy Bag. " Typos are not mine.

I wonder when we'll see the new Extreme Cold Weather Sleeping System?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Jun 2015)

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> The original bivvy bag presented a suffocation hazard to our younger members. It was determined that a warning label would diminish the visual effect of the CADPAT material. The preferred option was to recall the item and enhance it with an "egress, zip fastener, tactical".


----------



## VIChris (14 Oct 2015)

We were all issued knives and sewing kits. Why is this being outsourced?  >


----------



## c_canuk (15 Oct 2015)

[rant]how is it hard to get in and out of the bivy bag? it's like twice the size of the sleep system!

I'm 6'2" 220lbs, I don't have a problem getting in and out of the biv bag, I have a problem with the sleep system. 

The beauty of the biv bag was that it gave an impermeable barrier to liquid while allowing moisture out... you put a zipper on that, no matter how repellent it is, and you've made it useless.

Mine is not being modified.[/rant]


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Oct 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> [rant]how is it hard to get in and out of the bivy bag? it's like twice the size of the sleep system!
> 
> I'm 6'2" 220lbs, I don't have a problem getting in and out of the biv bag, I have a problem with the sleep system.
> 
> ...



You mean how some who have had an ND blame the weapon, even though the armourers found nothing wrong with them?   :nod:

What's the saying, "a poor craftsman blames his tools?"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> you put a zipper on that, no matter how repellent it is, and you've made it useless.



My Gortex jacket has a zipper on it and it is actually quite useful.   ;D

Another crappy bivy with zippers!


----------



## c_canuk (15 Oct 2015)

uh,

not quite sure if serious.

first review "I have owned two of the Advanced Bivy. I don't recall what happened to the first, but this one, which I have cared for like my life depends on it, lost all of the seal coat on the floor at the beginning of an 18 day trip in the Smokies, leaving my down bag at the mercy of the elements. This critical failure could have been disastrous, if the weather hadn't turned mild for the last half of the trip. I will be looking for a new bivy without a more permanent floor material. Heck, this one is [$] more than it was last time I bought it. Yeesh."

And the fact that most camping supplies aren't geared towards people who prioritize concealment above comfort. No Zipper, no matter how repellent it is, is going to keep out pooled water or soaked moss. 

That said, nice replacement for the ground sheet maybe... stand to would be a bitch though.


----------



## Teager (15 Oct 2015)

Hmm zipper boots and zipper bivy bags. What's next zipper socks and long johns? They should just make combats one big zipper to get in and out of.


----------



## dimsum (15 Oct 2015)

Teager said:
			
		

> Hmm zipper boots and zipper bivy bags. What's next zipper socks and long johns? They should just make combats one big zipper to get in and out of.



Um...


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Oct 2015)

Inspiring Air Force photo: some at the Air Force Attention position, some at the Air Force Stand At Ease position, and some cute berets.

She always looks good.


----------



## RocketRichard (15 Oct 2015)

That's awesome. Need to show that to my RCAF (retired SGT) dad.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Um...



Good point... no zippers required if you wear a skirt


----------



## cupper (15 Oct 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Good point... no zippers required if you wear a skirt



:rofl:

Now I need to clean off my screen and keyboard.

Thanks D&B, that just made my otherwise thoroughly frustrating day.

Milpoints inbound, if the system will let me. For some reason it says I do not have access to assess milpoints. :dunno:


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Oct 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Now I need to clean off my screen and keyboard.
> 
> ...



Thanks, but no worries mate. A recent ego check verifies that my GAFF requires no top up a this time


----------



## sidemount (16 Oct 2015)

Well not that I trust the army to actually get a waterproof zipper for the bivy bag (i will not be exchanging my non-zippered one)
There does exist a waterproof zipper and they can be found on the drysuits that us divers wear. I have yet to have one fail. (Although when they do fail it makes life miserable when you are hanging doing deco stops in some cold water). That being said the zip gets extremely cared for to avoid leaks/failures.
I can see the water resistant zip on the new bivy bag being rendered completelyy useless after a bit of dirt gets in it.


----------

