# Possible Clothe the Soldier dropleg setup?



## LordOsborne (13 Mar 2007)

As some of you know, the CLS authorized a try-and-buy for new load carriage options for the army. An email I read about DLR sending some people to Afghanistan and conducting interviews and questionnaires about kit issues was awful to read. As usual the conclusion of DLR was that the kit wasn't inadequate- soldiers just weren't using it as they intended and were therefore to blame. 10 magazines? nope. We have to stop thinking we need to carry so much ammo, says DLR. I will try to see if I'm allowed to post the email in full. 

I digress, but some of the try-and-buy options that I read about included some new drop-leg items that were to be developed through CTS (in addition to that mythical C9-pouch divider I've heard about). I took a look at FellFab's website (they make the TV and the Small Pack) and they have posted an image of what looks like a dropleg M203 setup. 






http://www.fellfab.com/canada/military/index.shtml

Thoughts? Comments?


(Edited to include URL)


----------



## medaid (13 Mar 2007)

WHY MUST WE REINVENT THE WHEEL EVERY FREAKING TIME!!! Cant we just go with the systems that have been battle proven and have received thumbs up from the troops in the field rather then the ones in chairborne ops?! 


*sigh* *shakes head*


----------



## HItorMiss (13 Mar 2007)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> As some of you know, the CLS authorized a try-and-buy for new load carriage options for the army. An email I read about DLR sending some people to Afghanistan and conducting interviews and questionnaires about kit issues was awful to read. As usual the conclusion of DLR was that the kit wasn't inadequate- soldiers just weren't using it as they intended and were therefore to blame. 10 magazines? nope. We have to stop thinking we need to carry so much ammo, says DLR.



Less ammo HAHAHAHAHAHA yeah well since they haven't been in the situ how the hell would they know. My experience with DLR has generaly been them telling me what kit I need and of course telling me it's the best kit in the world I just don't use it right, they always justify thier failure with that little creveat. Ahh well it wont ever change so why even get worked up over it.


----------



## LordOsborne (13 Mar 2007)

I hear you, MedTech. I am, by no means, able to comment much since I don't have much Time In and i have no tours to speak of. However, I refuse to become a yes-man officer. It's not hard for me to see what's wrong with our kit today. I've read some of the excellent threads here and listened to those who are older and /or wiser than me about kit and how to fix it ("Tac Vest does not make the grade" was a good example). 

I think this dropleg thing is a bandaid solution, and a bad one at that. I think CTS has once again dropped the ball (and let it roll under the couch).


----------



## Farmboy (13 Mar 2007)

That junk looks like it's meant to replace a utility pouch/canteen pouch instead of being a drop leg.


----------



## HItorMiss (13 Mar 2007)

To add to my last post...Saw it, used it and like just about everything that comes from DLR....




                                                                                      *  JUNK!!!!*


----------



## Donut (13 Mar 2007)

HoM, tell us how you really feel   ;D

Have any grenadiers from TFA used as few as 7 rounds during a serious TIC?  (I mean without running back to the LAV to rebomb   :)

DF


----------



## medaid (13 Mar 2007)

Why must we have chairborne operators design our kit?? WHY WHY WHY???!  :crybaby:


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Mar 2007)

Thanks Clothe the clown. And DLR maybe should go out and get into an intense fire fight with ONLY 5 magazines and demonstrate to us that is all you need.


----------



## LordOsborne (13 Mar 2007)

After searching a bit on DWAN, I found the name of the Technical Assistance Visit that i was emailed and referred to earlier. If someone can find it, and post it, I think we'd all see just how backwards CTS and DLR is. From the DWAN page, it is an unclassified document. I can send the DWAN link to the page in question through PM.

"DLR 5-4 AFTER ACTION REPORT - TFA TAV (4-19 JAN 2006)" 

**Warning, if someone does actually post it, you may notice small to large amounts of vomit in your mouth after reading it.**


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Mar 2007)

...it got pulled...


----------



## HItorMiss (13 Mar 2007)

I know of 1 TIC where one guy when through 30 mag's, now granted that shows to some extent lack of fire discpline you most also take into account the lenght of the TIC being 5 hrs.

As for M203's well 10 was common.


G2G PM incoming on unrelated topic.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Mar 2007)

HoM, PM's not working from work computer.  Good to see you're home...well done!  

I'll PM you when I get home...until then, I'll keep you up at night burning JP-8!  ;D

G2G


----------



## MJP (13 Mar 2007)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> After searching a bit on DWAN, I found the name of the Technical Assistance Visit that i was emailed and referred to earlier. If someone can find it, and post it, I think we'd all see just how backwards CTS and DLR is. From the DWAN page, it is an unclassified document. I can send the DWAN link to the page in question through PM.
> 
> "DLR 5-4 AFTER ACTION REPORT - TFA TAV (4-19 JAN 2006)"



That TAV was before all the fighting started up when we were basically running only the PRT and moving massive amounts of equipment down from Kabul to KAF.  I'd be more interested in what came out of the DLR visit during TF1-06 and/or3-06 .  I participated with a few others in the company for TF1-06 and we hit some salients points and the DLR guy was pretty receptive.  Not that it means anything......


----------



## LordOsborne (13 Mar 2007)

MJP: I probably quoted the wrong TAV. It's hard to say, since i couldn't actually see the document proper. I'm still trying to find a copy of the email though. 

Some of the conclusions i read were simply astonishing. The report chastised troops and junior leadership for pushing what DLR felt were unnecessary loads onto combat soldiers. They stated that although some M203 gunners insisted on 24 rounds, they felt it was excessive. They also said one thing while doing another: Despite 10 mags being "too many", they still promised to field the C9 pouch divider to increase loads. 

The TAV also looked at the shoulder pockets. They said the mods were expensive and inefficient from "a bio-design" standpoint. They then quoted a USMC study saying arm pockets added a "10% effort increase". What got my goat was that they then suggested to look into making an armoured shoulder brassard that would have a pocket and a velcro patch for IR patches. Somehow, they must have concluded that that was less expensive.... I really wish i had it in front of me to quote from though.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2007)

It would seem the best way to deal with this is put DLR on "ignore" and use DIY kit with the support/concurrence of the Sergeant Major. Of course if you are stuck with a dinosaur, this might not work for you.

As for DLR, keep pushing the rope, send UCR's on issue items and well written suggestions on alternatives. Use the CoC so everyone from the Pl 2I/C to the CO are aware (they might even have useful suggestions too). They might finally give up and listen when they watch CTV "Newsnet" and can't see anyone wearing issue kit..........


----------



## HItorMiss (13 Mar 2007)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> Some of the conclusions i read were simply astonishing. The report chastised troops and junior leadership
> MJP: I probably quoted the wrong TAV. It's hard to say, since i couldn't actually see the document proper. I'm still trying to find a copy of the email though.  for pushing what DLR felt were unnecessary loads onto combat soldiers. They stated that although some M203 gunners insisted on 24 rounds, they felt it was excessive. They also said one thing while doing another: Despite 10 mags being "too many", they still promised to field the C9 pouch divider to increase loads.



That divider doesn't help the real situation anyway sure I can carry 10 mags but where does my 2 quart go now?  The point is the TV is useless! 



			
				PatrickO said:
			
		

> The TAV also looked at the shoulder pockets. They said the mods were expensive and inefficient from "a bio-design" standpoint. They then quoted a USMC study saying arm pockets added a "10% effort increase". What got my goat was that they then suggested to look into making an armoured shoulder brassard that would have a pocket and a velcro patch for IR patches. Somehow, they must have concluded that that was less expensive.... I really wish i had it in front of me to quote from though.



I saw these on the some of the newest roto that they were trialing, lets just say that the shoulder pads made it hard enough to get the rifle into the shoulder (it's why I don't use them plus a button and some Velcro is going to stop Sh1t) Let alone this to the elbow monstrosities, seeing guys on the range try and get into the prone ans shoot was almost comical if it hadn't been so damn frustrating and sad.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (13 Mar 2007)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> The TAV also looked at the shoulder pockets. They said the mods were expensive and inefficient from "a bio-design" standpoint. They then quoted a USMC study saying arm pockets added a "10% effort increase". What got my goat was that they then suggested to look into making an armoured shoulder brassard that would have a pocket and a velcro patch for IR patches. Somehow, they must have concluded that that was less expensive.... I really wish i had it in front of me to quote from though.



I'm USMC and never heard of that arm pocket study, and if the design was that inefficient, then why's it being carried onto the new Marine FROG uniform?  Most Marines that I know like the arm pockets on the Combat Utility Blouse, although personally I'd have preferred a zippered style similar to the Crye Combat Shirt or Dropzone's Ops Shirt, as those types are a bit easier to get into and re-secure, but the fact that the current design of arm pockets were put on is better than no arm pockets.


----------



## LordOsborne (13 Mar 2007)

HoM: I agree with you on the divider issue. It's not ergonomic at all. It's much more natural to get at mags when they're in front of you, not on your hip. I also think it'd be tough to re-insert a mag under stress. I think that shoulder/upper arm protectors might have some merit (although i'm sure it's a topic of some contention), since the US army uses them. Naturally that starts the big debate on how much armour is too much, etc etc.

Matt: I think there is now no question that our combat uniform needs a redesign and overhaul to reflect the changing nature of operations. I was impressed with the FROG setup that the USMC came up with. I'm envious of how they can push things out much faster than we can... *sigh* If I can track down the email, I'll make sure to quote the study that DLR cited.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Mar 2007)

Just a quick question. no offence intended...

How many afghanistan Vets would be willing to take a posting to DLR ?

I know in some trades, being posted away from the line units to a office-type job is seens as undeirable by most members, therfore how many combats arms guys with recent time in the sandbox would accept a posting to Ottawa with DLR ?


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (13 Mar 2007)

CDN Aviator, thanks for that - the "choice factor" is one that I forgot to work into my post above.  Yet another factor...


----------



## HItorMiss (13 Mar 2007)

Honestly for 1 year I would go to DLR if only to stop some of the projects I have seen.

And Patrick no rig is design for putting the mags back in, thats why I preach dump pouch. When in contact gross motor skills only and jamming into dump pouch is easy and quick.


----------



## RHFC_piper (13 Mar 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Just a quick question. no offence intended...
> 
> How many afghanistan Vets would be willing to take a posting to DLR ?
> 
> I know in some trades, being posted away from the line units to a office-type job is seens as undeirable by most members, therfore how many combats arms guys with recent time in the sandbox would accept a posting to Ottawa with DLR ?



I would in a heart beat... But I think my motivation comes partly from the lack of civilian employment I'll be facing once I'm released from my extended class C contract.  

I'm very interested in defence R&D and have a background in Manufacturing and CAD/CNC...  I also have a vested interest in getting the best gear to the troops.

All this coupled with the fact that I may never get another shot at a combat tour with a front line unit (long reserve waiting list with 'luck of the draw' selection), pretty much leaves me open to postings elsewhere without remorse.

With all this said; the chances of a reserve cpl. with one combat tour (only 3 weeks of), no other trades training in the forces, and only college trades courses, getting a position at DLR are pretty slim... at best.  oh well... back to the machine shop.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Mar 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Honestly for 1 year I would go to DLR if only to stop some of the projects I have seen.



One year is rather insufficient for someone to get trained and familiar with his/her employement.  I'm not trying to be condescending but why do i have a feeling that next time you see your career manager, you wont be volunteering for a posting to DLR ?

You have Afghanistan experience and beleive you can do a better job so why not do it......it can only help everyone out, right ?



			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I would in a heart beat... But I think my motivation comes partly from the lack of civilian employment I'll be facing once I'm released from my extended class C contract.
> 
> I'm very interested in defence R&D and have a background in Manufacturing and CAD/CNC...  I also have a vested interest in getting the best gear to the troops.
> 
> ...



Piper, i realise what you are saying.  But as a general principle, if someone who has experience in recent ops, beleives they can do a better job, and is in an apropriate rank, would they go to DLR ?  Seems to me that would be the best way to make a change.  its like postings to the schools.  Everyone bitches about the quality of students/training but no one wants to get posted there.


----------



## HItorMiss (13 Mar 2007)

No worries on the condesending issue CDN we know eachother to well for that to be misconstrude  

As for 1 year being to short I think it's just right, any longer and you will loose touch with current op's 1 yr would get constant new experience while making ensuring the cbt arms member does not end his career and rotates back for a deployment after a good break. Plus although the time is short it is long enough to create and or stop a kit precurment or project.

All IMO of course


----------



## MJP (13 Mar 2007)

I know of people that have expressed interest in going to DLR, CMTC, LFDTS etc etc.  Wanna know what they are told by the career manager?  It isn't ok we will look into it for you.  Reality is most of the time you are told your options (or lack thereof) and they usually consist of one of the schools.  Which is fine, the schools need a steady turnover of personnel fresh from operations to stay current and relevant just as much as any other unit.  But don't try and tell me it's as easy as pie to just raise your hand and whammo your in DLR or any of the other non school units CSA 105 mentioned.

HOM 1 year is a drop in the bucket. You need to be there for some time.  While you may lose touch with the small changes in TTPs over a year or two, I don't think you'll be missing much overall.  Especially if your part of a regular TAV going over and getting the lessons learned from the front.


----------



## RHFC_piper (13 Mar 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Piper, i realise what you are saying.  But as a general principle, if someone who has experience in recent ops, beleives they can do a better job, and is in an apropriate rank, would they go to DLR ?



What would be considered an apropriate rank?  I only ask as I figure the best ranks to send to DLR would be the ones who use the equipment directly and see the effects first hand; Pte. Cpl. MCpl. Sgt.  These are the ranks who use the kit to it's fullest, in an evironment where, if the kit doesn't perform, it can cost lives.  I'd sooner want a cpl with Op experience designing my gear rather than a Captian with the same amount of Op tours.  It's first hand knowledge from front line soldiers.

I think this kind of posting should be offered to troops who've been in the worst fire fights, on the worst tours and have first hand knowledge of what is needed on the battlefield.  And with that said, it should be encouraged and supported by peers and their CoC.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Seems to me that would be the best way to make a change.  its like postings to the schools.  Everyone bitches about the quality of students/training but no one wants to get posted there.



There's quite a stigma attached to school postings, and I've heard it from Regs and reserve alike.  I agree with you on this one; the only way things will get better is if this attitude changes.  IMHO, I believe it is the duty of soldiers with Operation Experience to train those who have none, and prepare them for what's to come.  And I think it should be the same with the development of operational equipment.

I'm glad to see that the CF is trying to sort out drop leg rigs, as misguided as the attempt might seem. If nothing else, atleast it may ease the tension in the ranks about using non-issued drop leg with the arguement that, now that there is one in the system how bad is it for a soldier to use an aftermarket one that performs better but looks the same.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Mar 2007)

Look, i'm not familiar with DLR or what ranks should be posted there...i was just offering something for discussion...get some thoughts.

In my line of work, if i even utter "MP&EU" in front of my career manager ( that our T&E unit) ...i will be there faster than the speed of sound........wether i like it or not !!!


----------



## brihard (13 Mar 2007)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> As some of you know, the CLS authorized a try-and-buy for new load carriage options for the army. An email I read about DLR sending some people to Afghanistan and conducting interviews and questionnaires about kit issues was awful to read. As usual the conclusion of DLR was that the kit wasn't inadequate- soldiers just weren't using it as they intended and were therefore to blame. 10 magazines? nope. We have to stop thinking we need to carry so much ammo, says DLR. I will try to see if I'm allowed to post the email in full.
> 
> I digress, but some of the try-and-buy options that I read about included some new drop-leg items that were to be developed through CTS (in addition to that mythical C9-pouch divider I've heard about). I took a look at FellFab's website (they make the TV and the Small Pack) and they have posted an image of what looks like a dropleg M203 setup.
> 
> ...



Am I the only one to whom that looks like an M203 panel for the tacvest? The straps look configured about right for the buckles...


----------



## Spartan (13 Mar 2007)

Related to company - not dropleg specific.
Rucksacks are contracted since Nov 06 - 
http://www.fellfab.com/canada/news/110906.shtml


> FELLFAB Limited Awarded $22.6 Million Defence Contract
> 
> November 9, 2006 - Hamilton, Ontario - FELLFAB Limited has recently been awarded a $22.6 million contract by the Department of National Defence to produce the newly developed Rucksack.  This is the third contract award to FELLFAB Limited in support of the Load Carriage System under the Department of National Defence’s Clothe the Soldier Project.  The project, established in 1996, was implemented to provide 24 items of operational clothing and equipment to Canadian Forces personnel conducting land operations.  The Rucksack is the 21st item to reach contract award under this project.
> The Rucksack incorporates the advanced Canadian Disruptive Pattern (CADPAT™) digital camouflage.  CADPAT™ is a significant step forward in camouflage, concealment and deception on the battlefield.   The Rucksack will be a basic issue item to selected dismounted Regular and Reserve CF personnel conducting land operations.  It will provide the primary load carriage means in operations where soldiers are required to carry combat supplies and sustainment items for greater than 24 hours and sufficient for up to 72 hours.  Additionally, the Rucksack has been designed to be worn over fragmentation protection if necessary.
> ...


I'm just wondering - 11M for the Tackvest and 19M for a backpack with detachable pockets - doesn't that seem a tad pricey ?


----------



## RHFC_piper (13 Mar 2007)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Am I the only one to whom that looks like an M203 panel for the tacvest? The straps look configured about right for the buckles...



Now that you say that... and upon closer inspection...  I agree...

But what then? sacrifice a utility pouch?

Too many problems with the TV,  too many 'band-aid' solutions.


----------



## MJP (13 Mar 2007)

That is exactly what it is.  I have a trial one hanging around my tickle trunk somwhere.  IMHO it's pretty useless as it just takes away a pouch that could hold a 2 quart, box of C9 or other things a rifleman has to carry and replaces it with 7 M203 rounds that are hard to get at under the best of conditions.  Not to mention using buckles that are almost impossible to use when you lose all fine motor control during a firefight.


----------



## HItorMiss (14 Mar 2007)

Yes it does attach the vest I was remiss in not making that clear...


----------



## LordOsborne (14 Mar 2007)

Good eye for pointing that out. I wasn't looking closely enough. I think this item went from being a badly-concieved dropleg item to being an even worse pouch replacement idea    I bet once this comes out, CTS will start marketing the vest as being "more modular than ever before!!"


----------



## westie47 (14 Mar 2007)

Well i know what I will be using, and it won't be the TV. It would have to have some MAJOR changes for me to use it.  As far as carrying too much, we carry what the bosses give us...enough stuff to do the job. That is why the ESSTAC BOAR and CP GEAR MOFOCR will be my two rigs.


----------



## Kunu (14 Mar 2007)

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> Gents, some of your comments about "chairborne in DLR" result from actions taken by the different land element Corps.  Ask around - for officers and Sr NCOs, a tech posting is often seen as streaming into a purely tech world; there is very little mixing between the streams of officers and NCOs that continue to go back and forth serving in Bns and Regts and those in technical postings.  Part of this is the fault of the chain of command - those in tech positions tend to go from tech position to tech position - DLR, T&E Gagetown, DREV, DRES, DRDC Toronto, Picatinny Arsenal, etc - tech trained personnel, who the Army has made a significant investment in, tend to move in this stream.  There are exceptions to this, but as a generalization it is a noticeable trend.  One can say "we need to send recent combat veterans to technical jobs", however look at all the places that are all looking for officers and Sr NCOs with recent operational and combat experience:
> 
> CTC Gagetown - Inf/Armd/Arty/Engr schools
> CFSEME, CFSAL, CFSCE, other CS/CSS schools
> ...



I'm relatively new and inexperienced CF-wise, but speaking from my design engineering experience in the civvy world, I'd have to agree DLR has dropped the ball here.  And any lack of experienced combat personnel at DLR there may or may not be is NO EXCUSE.  

When designing any product, there are many different considerations and stakeholders who must be taken into account.  Considerations such as cost, manufacturability, safety, environmental effects, ease of use, comfort, and performance in service.  Every stakeholder will also be pushing for their own agenda: beancounters will want it cheap, the supplier will want it easy to make, and troops will want it effective and comfortable.  The role of the designer is thus to develop a solution that satisfies all these criteria as best as possible, and unfortunately here, compromises often need to be made.  I'm sure everyone will agree that even the best Tacvest in the world would do little good if it cost $20 000 a piece.  Extreme example, but you see my point.  That being said, for each criteria, there are lines that just cannot be crossed.  One of which is a minimum standard of performance in service, which in this case is being able to hold 10 C7 mags, among other things.  And everyone knows they booted this one.  

The trick to being able to find effective solutions to problems with this many different considerations is to work concurrently with all stakeholders.  This includes going out and getting the honest, candid input from those who are going to be using the product, AND ACTUALLY LISTENING TO THEM.  No matter how well-intentioned the designers may be, and how much they try to imagine being in the user's shoes, they will NEVER understand the task to the same level as those who are actually doing it.  Now, again, compromises will often have to be made, but if concurrent design (as known in the field) is sincerely practiced, there can really be only two outcomes:

1/ a product that everyone agrees is at least good enough or,
2/ somebody was asking the impossible when specifying what they wanted in the product


----------



## PhilB (14 Mar 2007)

westie47 said:
			
		

> Well i know what I will be using, and it won't be the TV. It would have to have some MAJOR changes for me to use it.  As far as carrying too much, we carry what the bosses give us...enough stuff to do the job. That is why the ESSTAC BOAR and CP GEAR MOFOCR will be my two rigs.



I will see you Boar/MOFOCR and raise you a custom kydex retention trimmed bush and a MOFOCR! >

Seriously though I think one of the intrinsic issues with this topic is that we are looking for a be all end all solution. Perhaps adopting a system similar to that of the USMC is what is needed. Have, for instance, the infantry school, or some other learned body develop a list of sanctioned kit. i.e. TT MAV, MOFOCR, Eagle, incl pouches etc. From there, a soldier is given an allowance equal to the cost of a TV. I know that I set up my MAV on 1-06 completely for approx $300 Canadian. I know that the argument to this is idea is resupply however I feel that two points address this;

a) Approved after market kit is much more durable than anything we currently issue. My MAV went 9 months in the desert with absolutely no issues. The same cannot be said for my TV
b) The TV could be retained in the system for those who do not require a different rig i.e. purple trades in theater. If there is some drastic failure of the personal purchase kit it could be replaced with the TV. Although not a good option, better than nothing at all

The question would be how far to take this policy. Who should this program apply to? Troops earmarked to deploy? Reg force combat arms trades and reservists set to deploy? Who knows. Additionally should there be a replacement allowance?

I think that this idea has merit because it ;

a) Seems to be a somewhat lower cost alternative to completely redesigning our load bearing system, particularly if the program was limited to reg force combat arms, and those reservists who are deploying.
b) It addresses an individuals preference far better than a one size fits all solution
c) It allows for the input of those with current operational experience. (They could assist in compiling the "list")
d) Would see quality, usable kit placed in the hands of troops sooner rather than later.
e) Has the ability to keep pace with changes in the kit industry. (If the list were updated and altered as things changed)
f) Is not a band-aid solution, nor a complete Canadian re-design the wheel process. It takes into account the large amount of operational experience on both sides of the border


----------



## KevinB (14 Mar 2007)

Hire BigRed and I ,on a contract basis and we will redo DLR and CTS...


----------



## RHFC_piper (14 Mar 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Hire BigRed and I ,on a contract basis and we will redo DLR and CTS...



I second that motion...   Sort it out.. design us some kit that's actually usefull.  ;D


----------



## Farmboy (14 Mar 2007)

> Am I the only one to whom that looks like an M203 panel for the tacvest? The straps look configured about right for the buckles...



 Beat you to it, check page 1    :-*

Phil

 Is that whole concept not how the US does it.   That wouldn't be accepted, it's to american!!!


----------



## medaid (14 Mar 2007)

oooo FarmBoy can design my going to the sand box kit anyday... how much do you charge an hour? Would a bottle of Johny Walker do?  ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Mar 2007)

And once again.. we are back to bitching about the tacvest.. hehe


----------



## Bomber (14 Mar 2007)

A drop leg platform has been designed, and will be on trial with the Van Doos in Texas shortly.  The platform uses the same panel as the canteen and C9 pouch on the TV.  So far, I have seen..... The M203 attachment, a molle style attachment, and double mag pouches.  I gave a prototype a whirl on a little walk, strapping a CTS platform with 4 mags to my left leg and a well known aftermarket companies 4 mag leg pouch on the other leg.  The unnamed one almost pulled my pants off, but the CTS one stayed put.  So, pending a positive result from the gents in Texas, there may be a new piece of kit coming down.  It doesn't address everything on the TV, but nothing short of a complete re-design and re-issue will.  There is a DLR rep in KAF on every roto, seek him out and provide clear information on any inservice item from tanks to trucks to TV's.  They can send the info back to O-town, and it can get looked at.  Once again, a UCR is far more effective than complaining on the interweb.  DLR personnel don't read these pages, but do read the UCR's.  I know that ArmyVern linked the UCR form to this site a while ago.  Use it.  If you have a specific complaint that you would like me to bring up to the DLR fols, shoot me a PM, I eat lunch with them, and get to try almost every piece of kit that comes in.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Mar 2007)

Hmm, I was checking out everyone in Texas for their droplegs.. seeing as I wasn't allowed to wear my CP Gear holster unless we left the camp.  I didn't see anything "high speed" that caught my eye. Was it a whole holster system?  Or just a drop leg panel?


----------



## Bomber (14 Mar 2007)

Not a holster, just a panel, with two straps for around the leg and a long one on top for the belt loops.  the platform can have the M203  pouch on it, or the Molle panel, or the mag pouches, or the canteen, or the C9 pouch.  I don't know who actually received it in the south, but I was the one that loaded all of it onto a truck that went to Trenton to be shipped to Texas.


----------



## Bomber (14 Mar 2007)

Just found out that the stuff was not shipped to Texas, it is being held for a trial with a yet un named infantry company in the near future.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (14 Mar 2007)

Were there 125 of these drop-leg panels?  I think we may have an answer for the question about what/which vest/platform is going to a company in 3R22eme that Bzz mentioned earlier.


----------



## armyvern (29 Mar 2007)

This thread is being moved back to the main boards. Some posts containing some OPSEC/PERSEC information have been removed, as well as any posts that were in reponse to those posts.

Patrick O will be along shortly to post an update.

The Librarian
Army.ca Staff


----------



## LordOsborne (29 Mar 2007)

Thanks to Vern and the DS.

As I mentioned earlier, I am working on an electronic copy of the AAR and I am nearly finished with it. Any interested parties are welcome to PM me and I will send you a copy once it is ready. This way, the potentially sensitive information of the AAR will not be posted in a public venue. 

I'm very interested to see how these new CTS items will finally look and how they perform in the field. I'm not expecting a miracle either way, though. I side with the majority of the posters here who think that CTS is trying to use a bandaid solution, poorly executed, to solve a problem.


----------



## LordOsborne (29 Mar 2007)

Update: I have the AAR completed in an email-able file. I can send it as either a Zip file (9.05Mb) or as a Miliki supercompressed file (1.69Mb - you will need to get the free decoder for it to work).


----------



## HItorMiss (29 Mar 2007)

Patrick I would love copy Email to follow in PM


----------



## LordOsborne (29 Mar 2007)

Emails are on the way.


----------



## medaid (29 Mar 2007)

looking fwd to it Patrick O.


----------



## PhilB (30 Mar 2007)

pm sent.


----------



## dan005e (30 Mar 2007)

Now, just as a confirmation, with this drop-leg system and the corresponding panels; is the MOLLE panel or Dual Mag pouches capable of being attached to a side panel on the TV in lieu of say the water bottle carrier?

Maybe my concerns are unfounded but it sounds like having 4 mags or whatever strapped to your leg would make running, going into the kneeling position; fairly uncomfortable.


----------



## LordOsborne (30 Mar 2007)

I'm not sure myself, and the AAR doesn't go into detail, but if you were to look at the M203 panel on the first page, It would seem that CTS is continuing their proprietary and cumbersome modular attachment system. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if their verson of a drop leg panel turns out to have the same BS attachment method on it. 

What I do know is that the buy and try does seem to be evaluating both the CTS type of drop leg as well as a PALS-based alternative from off-the-shelf manufacturers.


----------



## Garett (30 Mar 2007)

LCol Lavoie made a comment on Wed in Gagetown at his presentation about wanting a dropleg mag pouch since guys always have their rifle but don't always have their vest on.  He also said the Tacvest was good, but that you just can't always access the mag pouches in the prone


----------



## KevinB (30 Mar 2007)

The only use for a Drop Leg setup is IMHO a 2 mag pouch for walking around a FOB.   
IF you dont run it up high - the weight become a drag chute and greatly adds to fatigue -- if it runs high -- it is hard to acess with armour on.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (30 Mar 2007)

Garett said:
			
		

> LCol Lavoie made a comment on Wed in Gagetown at his presentation about wanting a dropleg mag pouch since guys always have their rifle but don't always have their vest on.  He also said the Tacvest was good, but that you just can't always access the mag pouches in the prone



For something that meets those requirements, you're probably better off with something like a buttstock mag pouch.


----------



## Bomber (30 Mar 2007)

dan005e said:
			
		

> Now, just as a confirmation, with this drop-leg system and the corresponding panels; is the MOLLE panel or Dual Mag pouches capable of being attached to a side panel on the TV in lieu of say the water bottle carrier?
> 
> Maybe my concerns are unfounded but it sounds like having 4 mags or whatever strapped to your leg would make running, going into the kneeling position; fairly uncomfortable.



The platform has the same chunk of "hook and loop" on it as the TV, there is a "molle like" panel that attaches to this (and also on to your TV) that can then have the Molle style attachment system used.  So, if you wanted, you could pop your mag pouches on to your TV, in place of the canteen or C9 pouch.  And with a bit of effort, you could probably put any other Molle attached piece of kit on it.


----------



## LordOsborne (30 Mar 2007)

Sounds like it might therefore be possible to put a PALS dump pouch onto there as well, a la Lobster Trap. 

***Notice to all those who would like a copy of the AAR***

Please don't send me a DIN email address. I have been unable to send the Zip file through my DIN account because of the size. So, for that reason, please provide an alternate address. I will be sending an email out with the attachment this afternoon to those who I haven't gotten around to yet.

Thanks for your co-operation.
Pat


----------



## KevinB (30 Mar 2007)

I STRONGLY recommend NOT using a butstock mounted pouch for a mag.  - Its a typical US FOBBIT device designed to secure a mag while on a FOB (FOB's here in Iraq are different that Afghan) -- but it removes the ability to do proper weapons drills - especially stoppgae IA's.  

 That and the CMAG have probably killed more troops than any other idiot gadget deployed.

If you want an extra mag --- use a redimag


----------



## Matt_Fisher (30 Mar 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I STRONGLY recommend NOT using a butstock mounted pouch for a mag.  - Its a typical US FOBBIT device designed to secure a mag while on a FOB (FOB's here in Iraq are different that Afghan) -- but it removes the ability to do proper weapons drills - especially stoppgae IA's.
> 
> That and the CMAG have probably killed more troops than any other idiot gadget deployed.
> 
> If you want an extra mag --- use a redimag



For what the LCol was requesting, the buttstock mag pouch is decent way to carry a mag in a non-tactical setting, i.e. KAF on the way to the boardwalk or DFAC, a buttstock mag pouch is a decent alternative.  Beta CMAGs have came a LONG way since their inception and HK has done wonders addressing feed issues with the current production models as compared to the older ones.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (30 Mar 2007)

Wow, that report from the TAV AAR shows me where the TF commander got his replies to my questions from.  I sure hope I can get my bioscience degree soon so I can be a better soldier!! 

Were you not able to send that email to yourself at home then make the necessary revisions (like putting it in text form) before sending it out?  It's heavy!! haha


----------



## KevinB (31 Mar 2007)

Matt -- some of the guys here have BRAND new clear back CMAGS -- they still are not fit for duty...  maybe fine on a range - but as soon as you get the dust in them from driving or chopper rides they seize and gag.
 and I disagree on the mag pouch on the buttstock -- sicne guys wont take them off leaving KAF -- why had a pice of kit that hinders the weapon on it anyway?
  Dont want a redimag -- buy a belt pouch or toss a mag in a pocket.


----------



## Dissident (31 Mar 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> and I disagree on the mag pouch on the buttstock -- sicne guys wont take them off leaving KAF -- why had a pice of kit that hinders the weapon on it anyway?



We have the but pouch here. I use it so that I always have a mag close by with my rifle, even though it tends to sit in the rack more than anything else. The but pouch has been issued to everyone here, I think, and people use them inside KAF. I have yet to see it still attached to a rifle while outside by any canadian, which is good and somewhat unexpected if you ask me.  

Apparently, some of the US army guys here in the RTC use it everywhere.


----------



## NL_engineer (31 Mar 2007)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Wow, that report from the TAV AAR shows me where the TF commander got his replies to my questions from.  I sure hope I can get my bioscience degree soon so I can be a better soldier!!



Me too  :

So according to DLR, gear from HSGI for example is trash :

On an other note, after reading the AAR, did anyone else become sick to the stomach?


----------



## LordOsborne (31 Mar 2007)

NL, I did post a warning regarding the sickness symptoms back on page 1  :blotto: bad stuff, eh?

As far as retyping the whole AAR to make it a text format, this would take some time on my part seeing as I'm not all that great at speed typing or data entry. Taking pictures provided a decent compromise, and I do offer a much smaller version as well, albeit with the caveat that you have to get the free decoder from the company's website in order to decompress it.

It sounds to me like CTS and DLR are using the aspect of "bio-design" and "bio-science" to hide from the criticisms.. I don't see what makes the TV any better than the other options out there, from a comfort standpoint. As far as bio-*design * is concerned, I think even CTS can admit that they messed up when it comes to the issue canteen pouch and trying to re-insert the canteen vertically! I think if they were asked about it though, they'd probably respond by saying it was designed so that a buddy could re-insert it for you and that we were merely using it incorrectly.


----------



## riggermade (31 Mar 2007)

1 RCR reconized the ammo problem before last tour and were going to have droplegs made for all the troops to carry extras and it was cancelled by Ottawa because it was part of a weapons system and could not be bought locally


----------



## Bzzliteyr (31 Mar 2007)

It doesn't matter anyhow.. according to the AAR, we shouldn't have all that ammo anyway.  It's not bio-friendly!!  Darn all those soldiers in the world that continue to defy the laws of bio-science by using "non-approved" kit and being functional!!!  Damn them all!!!

I shook my head in disbelief when I read that, it's scary.  

Patrick, did you not get an email copy of that at work?  If so, all you would have to do is forward it to your home email then cut and paste into a new email or text file.


----------



## LordOsborne (31 Mar 2007)

I didn't get actually get a copy of the email, but another officer in my unit did and then passed me a printed copy. He unfortunately deleted the email after printing it, so I photographed the printed copy.


----------



## riggermade (31 Mar 2007)

I find it funny that the majority of soldiers they talked to had no problem with the TV and the smallpack....couldn't have been anybody from Petawawa because everybody I deal with hates both....must have been all the staff weinies who don't leave camp?


----------



## LordOsborne (31 Mar 2007)

Hey, when you tweak the definition of "had a problem with", you can make anything sound good. An example that springs to mind is the Congressional investigations on Defence looking into the discrepancies with the Patriot missile during Gulf War I. 



> When the Army claimed that the Patriot had intercepted Scuds, the congressional chairman said: "Well, what do you mean by intercept?" The general testifying said: "Well, by intercept we meant that they passed each other in the sky." The chairman said: "Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. 'Intercept' doesn't mean it actually hit it; it just means that they passed each other like ships at sea."  "Yes," said the general. "That's correct." That little exchange lasted about ten seconds. It made the nightly news, and it actually hurt this general's career.



-Great Military Blunders; Geoffrey Regan 2004, Pg. 160


----------



## Bzzliteyr (31 Mar 2007)

Um, did you see who they went out with?? 6 days with the PRT, 4 days with the NSE and 2 at camp mirage.. I can see how the majority of them had no problems.  Any of those units happen to be front line?  I ask as I haven't been over yet...the closest I can see is the PRT.. they go outside the wire on foot and might be expected to encounter enemy.


----------



## riggermade (31 Mar 2007)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Um, did you see who they went out with?? 6 days with the PRT, 4 days with the NSE and 2 at camp mirage.. I can see how the majority of them had no problems.  Any of those units happen to be front line?  I ask as I haven't been over yet...the closest I can see is the PRT.. they go outside the wire on foot and might be expected to encounter enemy.




Bzzz that was my thought exactely


----------



## PhilB (31 Mar 2007)

At the time of the TAV it was B Coy 3VP at the PRT. That being said it was roto 0, prior to starting kinetic ops. Not that the boys in the 3rd didnt see and do a lot, but I would deduce that the time frame is why that perspective is absent from the report.


----------



## NL_engineer (31 Mar 2007)

riggermade said:
			
		

> I find it funny that the majority of soldiers they talked to had no problem with the TV and the smallpack....couldn't have been anybody from Petawawa because everybody I deal with hates both....must have been all the staff weinies who don't leave camp?



This information was probably gathered from the survey.  For those that don't know anything about survey design; you can design one to get the answers you want.  For example, it could questions like these:
Rated on a scale of 1-5 (5 being the best)

1. What do you think of the quality materials used in the TV
2. What do you think of the front pockets on the TV

Notice how the first question is loaded.  Out of all the survey questions, I don't think that there would be more then 5 related to mag carrage/placement.  

Even if the feed back was not what they wanted, the report would still be the same, IMHO.  Also, I would like to see the information on the collection, and the respondents.  I think they may have had senior officers conducting the surveys (no influence there : ), and the majority of respondents officers, that don't leave the wire (why ask the end user, as they don't know what they want : ); and pte's, as they are easily influenced by a Senior officer.


----------



## KevinB (2 Apr 2007)

Since 3VP may URC's before INC B COY -- My guess is DLR/CTS did ther typical.  Having been the "victim: of the CTS discusion -- they ignored the entire thing and reporteed their own thing.
   Sorry Steve -- better find a new job...SNIFF


----------



## Bzzliteyr (4 Apr 2007)

Okay boys and girls:  I have in my posession, a very nice piece of "Army Lessons Learned Center" paperwork that just blows this stupid AAR out of the water!  Dated September 2006, it has all the goodies we seem to be whining about.. yet somehow, I think it got lost in the system.  I direct your attention to scan004 as that's where the goodies about the TV are.  Peruse the whole thing and let's start FUMING!!  

One of my favourite lines "Many of the observations are not based on <b>empirical data</b>, however they are based on the corroboration of multiple sources, common held beliefs throughout the TF-K and never from a sole source."

Oh yeah.. I am not going to post it here.. you'll have to PM me or email moi at bzzliteyr at hotmale dot com. 

When requesting, tell me if you want the big 5.12MB size - very legible or the smaller, slightly less legible 929Kb version, thanks


----------



## Bzzliteyr (4 Apr 2007)

Hmm, seems like posting something in here seems to have brought the whole conversation to a halt.  I am hoping it's just the server acting up..

Anyone feel free to discuss the new AAR?


----------



## PhilB (4 Apr 2007)

I just received the AAR. I think that all of the points that they are making are quite valid, and suprising considering it is coming from an RCR battalion! 

Of course no one is going to listen to it because to accept what the AAR is saying would be to admit that CTS and DLR are fucked


----------



## LordOsborne (4 Apr 2007)

I haven't gotten the new AAR just yet, but I look forward to reading it


----------



## Bzzliteyr (5 Apr 2007)

If anyone else has not gotten it, add me to your hotmail/MSN lists and I will send it tomorrow.


----------



## NL_engineer (5 Apr 2007)

I found it quite intersting, but DLR is always right  :


----------



## LordOsborne (6 Apr 2007)

I just sat down with the new AAR and had a read. Very encouraging; certainly easier on the eyes than the TAV AAR. Hopefully someone 'up there' will take it to heart and action the recommendations.


----------



## medaid (10 Apr 2007)

I read the one that Bzzzz sent. Well... surprise surprise that the FINALLY figured that 'Hey! Not everyone's feet are the same... lets move to a points/allowance system' now THAT'S an improvement!


----------

