# Soldier Body Armour - FPV, BRP, shoulder pads & throat protectors (Merged Thread)



## noreaga808 (24 Nov 2004)

This is from the Clothe the Soldier website. The actual vest is called the Fragmentation Protection Vest(FPV). The required insert is called the Bullet Resistant Plates(BRP). If the following information doesn't answer all your needs just check out the website which you can find from dnd.ca. The following information is from the User Guide for the FPV.



1.2.1.	Ballistic Protection.	The primary mission of the Gen III FPV is to provide soldiers with protection from ballistic fragmentation threats under combat conditions.  Ballistic fragmentation threats include fragments from bombs, shells and grenades that cause in the order of 80% of all casualties on the battlefield.  With the up-armour option of the BRP, the Gen III FPV will stop 5.56 mm armour-piercing rounds at point blank range and 7.62 mm armour-piercing rounds at 250 m.

1.2.2.	Camouflage Features	Based on operational requirements, the FPV outer shell material has been procured in the Canadian Disruptive Pattern (CADPAT) Temperate Woodland or Arid Regions to address battlefield signature management of the individual soldier. 

Personal ballistic protection clearly reduces casualties. Failure to use it increases the risk of wounding (and the severity of wounding) to soldiers.

1.3.	WARNING.	Your FPV and BRP are state-of-the-art SAFETY products designed for the modern battlefield.  They have been designed to provide fragmentation and ballistic protection to specific vital body organs.  A correctly sized, fitted and adjusted vest is ESSENTIAL for the protection of these organs.  NO ARMOUR PROTECTS FROM ALL BALLISTIC THREATS. Nevertheless, the advantages of wearing your FPV far outweigh any limitations. Due to the nature of the materials comprising your FPV and BRP they are subject to the following limitations:

1.3.1	The FPV alone is not designed to protect against rifle bullets, sharp edged or pointed weapons;

1.3.2	Protection from bullets and specific direct fire threats when worn with the BRPs;

1.3.3	Seek medical attention if you are shot while wearing your FPV - even if the bullet does not penetrate. Although body armour protects against blunt trauma from non-penetrating bullets, internal injuries requiring medical attention may still result; and

1.3.4	Replace your FPV and BRP immediately if a bullet has impacted or damaged it in any way. Ensure that you maintain a record of events and submit official documentation concerning the incident.

Your FPV will provide effective fragmentation protection against bombs, shell and grenade fragments for your neck, shoulders, chest, upper abdomen, and back.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (24 Nov 2004)

well then! much appreciated noreaga


----------



## zerhash (24 Nov 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> lol good points.No one has yet addressed my question about the effectiveness of the vests though =p Ive never been shot with one on or talked to anyone that has.Nor have I heard of any stories of anything like that.



lol sometimes thats a good thing


----------



## rw4th (27 Jan 2006)

I was looking through the new PSP site (does anybody know if they still make crap for the CF?) and found this page about Zylon. PSP armour contains Zylon. For those who haven’t been keeping track, Zylon was found to rapidly degrade and most manufacturers in the US who used it issued a recall (it contributed to the bankruptcy of Second Chance). For more info, here’s a link to some more info on Zylon  http://www.policeone.com/Zylon/.

From one of the reports: 



> The Justice Department tests showed that vests made with Zylon lose strength over time, well before their standard five-year warranty expires and even when the armor appears to be in good condition, according to the study released Wednesday by the department's National Institute of Justice.
> 
> "Visual inspection is not enough to tell you if there is a problem with the armor," said NIJ's director, Sarah V. Hart.





> The vests were subjected to six shots from 9-millimeter pistols and other weapons. Sixty vests, 58 percent of the total, were penetrated by at least one round.



I noticed that PSP took the link to their military products down, are they still the ones who make the armour and vests for the CF?

If the CF still buys from PSP and given the fact that the CF tends to keep crap in service way past it’s life expectancy does anybody else see a problem with this?


----------



## KevinB (28 Jan 2006)

Yes -- I inquired during the beginning of the Zylon issue if the PBA used Zylon -- it does.

Given that manufactuers using Zylon have been found CRIMINALLY responsible it does not surprise me that PSP is burying the Zylon issue.

  Worse yet the CF is now issuing the PBA without LevelIIIA soft armour (even with Zylon) but a thinner (and much less protective) Zylon Fragmentation inner...



Hmmm.....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jan 2006)

Thanks Kev.  Just when I was about to settle you have to spark my fears again.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jan 2006)

Good to know though, I must admit.


----------



## MG34 (29 Jan 2006)

And that my friends is why I wear my own Lvl IIIA Armour.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jan 2006)

Must be nice being a WO and only having to answer to 2 people.


----------



## KevinB (29 Jan 2006)

God and ?


  I bought my own Level IIIA Dyneema (what Paraclete sells as its armour) - its about as thick as the CF issue LIIIA - nd much thicker than the CF Frag insert for the PBA - as I had concerns about the armour my compnay issues (it contains zylon and is of a date that make me go hmmm...)

 Keep in mind Zylon is a strong fabric - just breaks down MUCH sooner than Kevlar/Aramid - so unless you want to chnage armour ever 10 months or so I woudl STRONGLY recommend against using Zylon...

 There is a rumour (some of the 1 VP board members here know it to be fact  :-X) that the CF started to issue the Frag insert due to liability issues with certifiying something to be Level IIIA...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jan 2006)

I was thinking more of the RSM and CSM.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jan 2006)

Whats the general rule on canadian soldiers using their own body armor while in afghanastan?

Is it CF stuff only or if a soldier is willing to put some money into something better, more power to them?


----------



## Big Red (29 Jan 2006)

How is anybody going to know what soft armour or plates are inside your Canadian carrier? If I were going to Astan with the army I'd just throw in IIIa and poly plates and keep my mouth shut.


----------



## COBRA-6 (30 Jan 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Yes -- I inquired during the beginning of the Zylon issue if the PBA used Zylon -- it does.
> 
> Given that manufactuers using Zylon have been found CRIMINALLY responsible it does not surprise me that PSP is burying the Zylon issue.
> 
> ...



Yep I noticed that when inspecting my plates and soft armour...

How long before the Zylon gets out in the papers up here?? 

Is the CF moving to introduce a replacement? Maybe Bomber would know...


----------



## KevinB (30 Jan 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Is the CF moving to introduce a replacement? Maybe Bomber would know...



About the same time as the TACVEST  


The CF just bought and is still buying these inserts...

[KevinB rant]
Typical CF incompetance to place DLR and CTS pers who are wholely out of their element in the field they are put into - but are solely rewarded for being a career kiss ass.
General Rick should put a swack of them out to pasture...
 Heaven forbid you put a SME who is interested in the the field in that role...  :
[/KevinB rant]


----------



## DBA (2 Feb 2006)

I came across some PDFs that provide more information. Seems a lot are ditching use of the fiber but the degradation itself has been know for years and should have be taken into account in the design of vests and inserts.

A FAQ from the manufacturer of the fiber. A Report of a survey of what police forces are doing about the issue. A US DoJ Q&A on Aug 24, 2005 about testing they did.


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Feb 2006)

Oh, great.  :'(


----------



## Cpl.Banks (3 Feb 2006)

Does anybody know when the oldest plates containing zylon, were purchased?  If the company had known about the durability issues of Zylon and were not mentioning it doesn't that make them criminally accountable...in a perfect world at least? Thanks.


----------



## MG34 (5 Feb 2006)

The issue is the vests,not the plates.


----------



## MG34 (13 Feb 2006)

After a couple of weeks wait I have received an answer from the equipment program manager for protective kit,the FPV does NOT contain Zylon but an amarid fibre known as KM2 which is also used in the US Interceptor vest.


----------



## KevinB (13 Feb 2006)

So this is in the new FPV insert rather than the initial Level IIIA soft armour insert?
  the SAI had zylon...


----------



## YeOldFootman (22 Sep 2006)

Just purely out of curiosity, what is the NIJ threat level of the FPV (soft armour) by Pacific Safety and Bullet Resistant Plates by Gallet issued to our troops?  I checked the CTS site and public documents; it does not give a specific level but from the description I can render a guess that the BRP is Level III.  The PSP site (http://www.pacsafety.com/products/4100.htm) simply gives a range of what's available for configuration & purchase.

Of course, I know civies won't be given an answer if this is something not suitable for discussion here (happy, para?  ).


----------



## KevinB (23 Sep 2006)

The soft armor is no longer NIJ certified to any level.

Do search - we discussed it before.  

The stuff I was issued was IIIA Soft by Pacific Safety Products and the plates by Ceramic Protection Corp where III.

Field Force soft armour is not NIJ rated -- but simply a fragmentation vest (hint search Zylon here etc )


----------



## soulful (6 Apr 2007)

Yes, I'm new, and thinking that this is mentioned somewhere, though I didn't see it in a search as yet, so what the hell.

For reg/reserve infantry, what level of armour is the standard issue vest? 

Though they must be boiling in the field in certain locations, I (for the life of me) don't know why EVERYONE wouldn't have theirs on all the time while on duty. It's like seeing a cop/Brinks guard without one. I just shake my head.

Thanks 'all.


----------



## medaid (6 Apr 2007)

The level of the body armour has previously been discussed and was locked down. OpSec reasons the last time I believe. Aagain, why do you want to know anyways?


----------



## KevinB (6 Apr 2007)

Go to the US National Institute of Justice website.  The tables etc are there...

Certification of Body Armor
The National Institute of Justice has a rating system for body armor (NIJ Standard 0101.03, 0101.04 and the interim 0101.05). As you add layers of a ballistic fiber, such as DuPont Kevlar®, you add protection. Vests are tested not just for stopping penetration, but also for blunt trauma protection – the blow suffered by the body from the bullet's impact on the vest. Blunt trauma is measured by the dent suffered by a soft clay backstop to the vest – a maximum of 1.7" (44 mm) is allowed.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Apr 2007)

As your original question is a matter of OPSEC, please accept the Open Source information that Infidel-6 has provided you as being the industry standards for the various levels.

AS THIS IS AN OPSEC MATTER, further discussion has ended.

TOPIC LOCKED


----------



## joesmom (1 May 2007)

I am in need of advice, and hoping it is appropriate to ask here - my apologies, if not. I have a family member who is in line for deployment. I have heard that some personnel are buying their own body armor, and there is conflicting information everywhere. What is your opinion of the current armor? Would you advise the personnel / family to buy additionally? If so, what would you recommend?


----------



## MG34 (1 May 2007)

Depending on where your family member is being deployed and what they will be doing it may not be necessary to purchase anything. If they are staying in KAF then nothing additional is needed (except for some free Timmie's coffee certificates), if they are deploying with a Battle Group or certain elements of the CSS or Prt then there may be a need. Find out what they will be doing before spending hundreds of dollars on a piece of kit that will not be used.


----------



## RHFC_piper (1 May 2007)

Word of advice:
During my tour, and most other tours, the use of after market protective equipment is not allowed.  There are many articles on these forums regarding reasons and examples.  

From my personal experience;  A fellow soldier in my section had a 'bullet proof' vest his parents gave him as a gift, our platoon WO told him that he was better off leaving it at home, since he still had to wear issued gear.

Essentially, you can buy what ever protective equipment you want, but you still have to wear the issued helmet and vest.  Thus, buying a second vest would be pointless as the issued one still has to be used.  I doubt any soldier would want to wear 2 vest during operations.

As for goggles, gloves, and tactical equipment; the use is dependant on the CoC (Chain of Command) and the standard warnings apply; If damaged, lost, stollen or destroyed, the military will assume no responsibility.  If it becomes contaminated with blood, it will be destroyed (burned).  So it becomes a 'use at own risk' situation.

I wouldn't advise buying any body armour unless the soldiers CoC has specifically cleared its use... but I doubt that will ever happen.


----------



## Farmboy (1 May 2007)

We talk guys out of buying armour if they are going overseas as said above, they will be wearing what is issued.

That said, I do know of a few guys who are wearing their own helmets over there however this is very rare, and most will not be allowed to.

Most family purchases for soldiers are comfort items like insoles and BLSS helmet systems. Other items include iPod cases, patches, shirts (other clothing), gloves, goggles and such things.


----------



## RHFC_piper (1 May 2007)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> Most family purchases for soldiers are comfort items like insoles and *BLSS helmet systems*. Other items include iPod cases, patches, shirts (other clothing), *gloves*, goggles and such things.



This is all good gear.  

My gloves and BLSS kit were probably the best items I bought for overseas. 

And Farmboy's probably the best person to talk to for both.

Besides that, there's lots of gear out there, both tactical and comfort, all of which is very very usefull and usable.  Just search around and you're bound to find various threads about the best gear, as well as valuable information from soldiers who have been there and have used all kinds of gear.

Here is a list of online retailers:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26745.0.html

And you'll find a great deal of info on various pieces of equipment here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/board,21.0.html


----------



## Sig_Des (1 May 2007)

As is brought out, it depends on where they are, what they're doing, and who they're with.

They'll know what they need. If you want to get them anything, comfort items as mentioned would be best. As far as protective equipment, they'll know what they need, and if they should get it.

IF you're looking for augmenting their issue kit for your own ease-of-mind, you should talk with your family member, and they can best explain the situation to you.


----------



## joesmom (1 May 2007)

Thanks and best wishes to everyone. I appreciate your time!


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (10 May 2007)

Some After Market kit was Authorized on my tour Task Force 3-06,  But After Market Body armour was Not and will never be!! Its a Liability issue
We were allowed to wear Whatever we wanted with in reason, IE: Chest Rigs, Drop Legs, TAC VESTS, Eye Wear, Boots, Gloves etc...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 May 2007)

There can be some legal issues with body armour as in DVA not following through on claims and such.  That said one way around using issued kit is buying better and lighter armour plates that slip in one's flak vest.  But should the plates fail and you want to get your insurance you may find problems.


----------



## MG34 (14 May 2007)

There are no issues with SISIP, with regards to the wearing of aftermarket kit whatever it may be,DVA MAY be another story but so far none of their reps could provide an answer WRT Non issued kit.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 May 2007)

That's who I was thinking of (DVA) when I made that post.  Sorry.


----------



## MG34 (15 May 2007)

Talking to DVA reps,I've gotten answers from "what do we care what kit you were wearing" to "I don't know the answer",it seems to be a grey area,but if you are wounded rather than killed by wearing better armour,who give a damn what they say,at least you will be alive to fight for your compensation package.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 May 2007)

You would think wouldn't you.  Kev............


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 May 2007)

How is it looking for future rotos wearing non-issued chest rigs?


----------



## McG (21 May 2007)

joesmom said:
			
		

> I am in need of advice, and hoping it is appropriate to ask here - my apologies, if not. I have a family member who is in line for deployment. I have heard that some personnel are buying their own body armor, and there is conflicting information everywhere.


Don't buy armour.  The CF issues armour that it has tested & trusts.  Anything else will not be allowed (and may actually provide your family member less protection).


----------



## Donut (21 May 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> How is it looking for future rotos wearing non-issued chest rigs?



The messages are mixed, FD.  The BG commander has reportedly gone on record as saying he approves, my CoC has okayed it for the deployment and for Fd Tng (but not for use in garrison tng).  Others are crapping at the mere thought of someone leaving the holy-grail of CTS in their BB.   :-X

I was genuinely surprised at the dearth of off-the-shelf gear visible in the 2VP biv in Shilo.

DF


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 May 2007)

I was told that they are trialing about 20 different sets.  I'm not sure what the garrison policy is but I believe its the issued junk for now.


----------



## Donut (21 May 2007)

Yeah, one of the guys at Drop Zone was saying they'd sent out a modular vest design for trials, it sounded like a platoons worth, but I can't recall exact numbers.

Matt from CP was fairly unhappy that his MoFOCR hadn't been included, and I seem to recall a really low number of Canadian suppliers in there, too.

DF


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 May 2007)

Can't even begin to speculate how they went about choosing who to use but if its anything like the ruck trialing I'll be RSM before we get something new.


----------



## LordOsborne (24 May 2007)

If anyone wants to see the list of some of the gear they are trialling, I can send the TAV AAR to you. It doesn't include some of this apparently new stuff, like the dropzone vest, since it isn't mentioned in the AAR. I'm sure they've added things to their trials. I just wish the process was transparent.. or that they'd take the time to update the CTS website.


----------



## MG34 (26 May 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Don't buy armour.  The CF issues armour that it has tested & trusts.  Anything else will not be allowed (and may actually provide your family member less protection).



The CF buys the cheapest available kit for use, not the best.  There is armor out there that is far superior, you would be hard pressed to find worse.


----------



## McG (26 May 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> The CF buys the cheapest available kit for use, not the best.  There is armor out there that is far superior, you would be hard pressed to find worse.


You are making generalizations based on cynicism.  It is true that in the past many things have been purchased based on lowest cost compliant (Note: "compliant" means there was still a minimum performance threashold).  However, you will find that more often we are now looking for value of cost (so we will pay more to get something that is better).

I've seen some of the armour we've subjected to ballistic testing & I've heard some the the results.  There are some sexy brand-name armours that folks like to talk about, but they did not stand-up to the ballistic testing (I won't be giving names as I suspect certain commercial confidentiality issues are at play).  Our stuff is good & there are Canadian soldiers alive today because of it.


----------



## Dissident (26 May 2007)

op:

 :clown:


----------



## armyvern (26 May 2007)

Dissident said:
			
		

> op:
> 
> :clown:



Why the popcorn?  MCG is exactly correct. There have been some huge changes made to procurement policies as of late, including the ones he's mentioned. Have you forgotten the Globemaster purchase already?


----------



## Dissident (26 May 2007)

Dunno, maybe I am wrong. I just see the early signs of the pattern of the CTS/DLR/Procurement bashing thread starting up.

I do enjoy those and like to tune in and watch, hence the popcorn.


----------



## Spr.Earl (26 May 2007)

Right now in the U.S. there is a big stink over Dragon's Skin Body Armour.
Why it is not being supplied to the boy's as many aspouse it is better than issue body armour.


----------



## McG (26 May 2007)

Maybe it is not "better."  The US DoD likely has the resources to test the performance of the armour & to determine if it will stop the threats that soldiers are being exposed to.


----------



## Douke (26 May 2007)

The "dragon skin" was tested by the US military and tests showed huge problems with the glue keeping the scales in place in hot environments. That alone is enough of a good reason not to issue it to personnel leaving for tours of duty in the middle east in my opinion, regardless of the performance reliability is always (or should always be) the number 1 factor for military equipement.

Douke


----------



## KevinB (26 May 2007)

Well I'm running DragonSkin in Iraq and have not had any disk "migration".  However I am not running the version that the US Mil tested (keep in mind they also soaked the armor in diesel fuel)

As for CF body armour -- two words --CONTAINS ZYLON -- 

do a search on Second Chance / Richard Davis and see where the zylon trail leaves you...
  

Secondly Plates should be subject to X Ray examination (ideally every 6 months) - and especially after incident or fall -- and most definitely after an impact.  TF1-06 guys can explain how the armour issuance went for replacements.

I know from my experience I've seen Supply Tech's in Mirage toss plates one on top of each other...


----------



## Douke (26 May 2007)

Very interesting, I am not very well versed in the different versions of the Dragon Skin, what does yours have that is different ? Linking system a-la chainmail ? Or just a different glue ?

I must admit the Zylon thing is very disturbing  :-\ . If I understand correctly it looses strengh quikly over time ?


----------



## KevinB (26 May 2007)

Yup.

  I won't get into all my rants about CF body armor due to OPSEC issues.
But IMHO - in the last year it took a step back.


----------



## HItorMiss (26 May 2007)

Zylon bad.....

Not sure on the plate reissue myself though that's out of my lane. As for the body armour itself the base vest is not bad to wear add on the stupid shoulder pads (which do SFA) and now they have them coming down to your elbows which is comical when you get to see people try to shoot with it on and you can see where my thoughts on it start to lead. I for one never wore and will never wear those things not even for the sake of avoiding a charge. I would rather pay the fines etc etc and be comfortable and able to do my job then wear them and not be able to do what it is I am paid to do.

On a personal note yup I got hit where these new shoulder/elbow things come down and they wouldn't have done SFA for me so I, at he very least I have personal experience in what is I commenting about.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 May 2007)

To be fair not much will do anything against an A-10


----------



## HItorMiss (26 May 2007)

Wasn't the A-10, it was the day before


EDIT: And on that note that was my 1000 post, not much of a mile stone reply LMAO but hey can't have everything  ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 May 2007)

Seen my apologies.


----------



## HItorMiss (26 May 2007)

You are right though had it of been the A-10 I would not have related my personal experience seeing as well like you said not much is going to stop the main gun of an A-10 firing HErounds LOL. However as I said my experience is different.

And no worries Quag those 2 days get blurry all the time.


----------



## teddybear (26 May 2007)

On a side note, no kit is 100% fool-proof. My husband was wearing his Tac vest but it didn't save him. Sometimes it's all in the angle that the rounds/shrapnel come in. He said that he should be the most protected in his section b/c he was the smallest, hence the plates would cover more of his torso than the other guys. However the shrapnel came from above and got him above the plates. But it did save his WO during a rocket attack.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 May 2007)

Your right TB nothing short of not deploying is foul proof.


----------



## HItorMiss (26 May 2007)

Absolutely Teddy

There is always a certain amount of assumed risk in these types of things, I find though that the CF is trying to remove it all and the by product to the mods I have described is the lessening of ability to the soldier which when you face it the adage "Best defense is a good Offense" really comes into play with our job. If I cannot shoot then I might as well not be wearing anything as I will surely eat a round.

As for the WO I saw his plate stopped a fair number of pointy bits from making him even more of a pin cushion  ;D


----------



## teddybear (26 May 2007)

The 1st thing hubby said to me when the incident with the WO happened was that the PPE does work! You could hear the relief in his voice. He was confident that the equipment was worthy. I'm actually glad that he didn't worry about the vest. As soon as the attack happened, he grabbed his kit and got it on. Just goes to show that when it's your time, it's your time.


----------



## Douke (26 May 2007)

I am not going to drift this thread away from this subject anymore then it already is, but I just wanted to applaud your attitude toward the sad experience you had to endure. My total respect and I wish more people would have your kind of courage and positivism toward life.  

Douke


----------



## MG34 (27 May 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> You are making generalizations based on cynicism.  It is true that in the past many things have been purchased based on lowest cost compliant (Note: "compliant" means there was still a minimum performance threashold).  However, you will find that more often we are now looking for value of cost (so we will pay more to get something that is better).
> 
> I've seen some of the armour we've subjected to ballistic testing & I've heard some the the results.  There are some sexy brand-name armours that folks like to talk about, but they did not stand-up to the ballistic testing (I won't be giving names as I suspect certain commercial confidentiality issues are at play).  Our stuff is good & there are Canadian soldiers alive today because of it.



Actually I am making a statement of fact, not at all based on cynicism. Our plates are good, I know that from personal experience, I have seen what they can and in cases cannot take.but the vest it's self has some issues that I will not get into here for OPSEC issues. As KevinB has stated in the last couple of years we have taken a step backwards in protection. No doubt these tests were under very specific conditions with an allowable rate of failure and the option to retest, etc...we don't have that luxury on the battlefield. As for the cheapest solution possible..talk to DLR-5 on the C7A2 project


----------



## McG (27 May 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> As for the cheapest solution possible..talk to DLR-5 on the C7A2 project


So, you are going to argue a sweeping generalization based on dropping the name of one project?  I think you know that does not work.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> IMHO - in the last year it [protection] took a step back.





			
				MG34 said:
			
		

> ... in the last couple of years we have taken a step backwards in protection.


So, you think the old flak vest is better?


----------



## armyvern (27 May 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> As for the cheapest solution possible..talk to DLR-5 on the C7A2 project



A project that, granted, occured years ago under the old system of procurement. Did you miss the part where it was noted that the procurement process has changed and that the "cheapest item that still meets the milspecs" rule (that _fact_ which is no longer a fact??) is out the window??


----------



## MG34 (28 May 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, you are going to argue a sweeping generalization based on dropping the name of one project?  I think you know that does not work.
> So, you think the old flak vest is better?



I provided the first example that popped into my head, if I think about it I can come up with more, but why waste the time to do so when you have bought into the party line and obviously don't considerthe fact that the system is still flawed.
I never said I liked the old flack vest, but the current issued one is different from the previous generation of the same style WRT  the protection offered. We were issed the Vest Protective Small Arms in the past, now we have the Vest Protective Fragmentation, a definate downgrade of protection values.Couple that with the choice of ballistic material used in the Vest Protective Fragmentation the protection performance has downgraded. This is simply fact, not conjecture.

Librarian: Sure the system has changed on big ticket items yet boots, weapons acessories, clothing, and other systems have not benifitted from this so called new system. A one shot deal on Aircraft and RG 31 (although the vehicle has some major faults...smaking of the "old system" )doesn't mean the system has changed, nothing in the military happens overnight.
You may disagree but that is the view from the trenches, it may be different on the supply warehouse floor.


----------



## Farmboy (28 May 2007)

It is still the lowest compliant bidder.  Unless of course I've been reading all the tenders wrong that come out.   :

Which means as long as the item complies with the specs that are written, then it comes down to the cheapest.

Now the key is, who is writting the specs, and what are they basing the knowledge on?  

I've seen some screwed up specs written for gear and I know it comes down to marketing.  Get the tender written for gear and you're good to go.  The tender comes out on the market with the specs written for your gear, it's open for a few weeks and no one else can get in because of the short time frame, and bamm, you're stuck with what was marketed effectively to the CF.

You'll notice there are still the POS "patrol sling" being purchased.  That's because the tender was written for it, even though it's junk.  The Vickers sling can't be purchased in bulk by the CF because there needs to be a tender written specifically for it.


----------



## McG (28 May 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> I provided the first example that popped into my head, if I think about it I can come up with more, but why waste the time to do so when you have bought into the party line and obviously don't consider the fact that the system is still flawed.


I’ve never suggested the system is not flawed (I know there is room to improve).  You on the other hand suggested that everything is purchased at lowest cost compliant.  I’ve called you on this falsehood and you’ve obfuscated and avoided the issue since.  You’ve made false appeals to authority (SARP II and then “more”), but have not shown how these prove all things are bought lowest cost.  In a final attempt to snow job your readers, you’ve also resorted to ad hominem in suggesting I’m some sort of boogey-man selling the party line.  However, the end of it is that you are wrong; not everything is purchased lowest cost compliant.  In fact, the bullet proof plates (BPP) were not lowest cost compliant.  They were cost-performance based (meaning spend more for something that will do more).  You don’t have to take my word though, find the CID through the DWAN and look-up the project.



			
				MG34 said:
			
		

> I never said I liked the old flack vest, but the current issued one is different from the previous generation of the same style


Thank you.  I knew there had to be some disconnect in my understanding of what you’d said.



			
				MG34 said:
			
		

> We were issed the Vest Protective Small Arms in the past, now we have the Vest Protective Fragmentation, a definate downgrade of protection values.  Couple that with the choice of ballistic material used in the Vest Protective Fragmentation the protection performance has downgraded. This is simply fact, not conjecture.


Soldiers complained that the Gen 0 FPV was too inflexible & inhibited movement.  The changes made were not driven by cost so much as the soldiers’ opinion as was being communicated to Ottawa.  However, the only mention of protection that I have found is that both generations are equivalent.

Do you know protection has been sacrificed, or is it assumption & rumour based on a change of manufacture’s labelling?


----------



## KevinB (28 May 2007)

The insert "Small Arms Protective" was Level IIIA and provided protection from pistol round and rifle rounds at a low velocity.
The new one is thinner and less protective --- 

I run Level IIIA soft under my plates - and I know a few people that have been saved by the soft armour when AP ammo has pentrated their vehicle.

I find it hard to beleive that soldier opinion mattered on the FPV -- when it does not on the Tac Vest, C7A2 - and countless other projects.


----------



## Farmboy (28 May 2007)

> Soldiers complained that the Gen 0 FPV was too inflexible & inhibited movement.  The changes made were not driven by cost so much as the soldiers’ opinion as was being communicated to Ottawa



 So how many years apart were the two ballistic vests made?   There has been a huge advancement in armour in that time period .

The conversation with the company went something like this...?

"Yes, our soldiers are saying the 30yr old armour is to bulky and stiff so we want to down grade the armour level instead of looking at newer, lighter, more flexible armour with the same or more protection"




> You on the other hand suggested that everything is purchased at lowest cost compliant



Every tender I have seen come out in the last two yrs is still lowest compliant bidder.


----------



## armyvern (28 May 2007)

The rules have been changed recently farmboy.

MG34, I have never said once that there were not problems with the procurment system. Quite frankly, your remark about the "Supply warehouse floor" also does little to substantiate what you are saying and is utter tripe. I said it (the system) was getting better. And yes, we do indeed have the capacity to purchase better and more effeciently with those changes to the system...and not just the big ticket items either. The items you have cited in your post below...were all contracted under the old system and we be brought in under those vaild contracts that apply to them until they expire. I suggest you re-read my posts.

Most people on this forum should know by now that I am a very strong advocate of the soldier first mentality, and that includes their kit, and I voice those soldiers opinions on that same kit when I attend those WGs etc, and your insinuation otherwise is, quite frankly, BS. I'll go back to my warehouse now, you can fend for yourself. I am quite aware of which kit is not appreciated by you infanteers...I'm married to one...and count a great many of them amongst my friends.


----------



## McG (28 May 2007)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> So how many years apart were the two ballistic vests made?   There has been a huge advancement in armour in that time period .


The difference is less thatn 5 years.  As MG34 pointed out, the "older" vest he has been talking about was just the first run of the current vest.  Your 30 year comment is moot.



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> Every tender I have seen come out in the last two yrs is still lowest compliant bidder.


How many Requests for Proposal have you seen from PWGSC, and what where they for?  I know you have a distributor, but what type of things do we send your way?


----------



## Farmboy (28 May 2007)

> The rules have been changed recently farmboy.



I'll be interested to see what happens.

edited to add:  This one came out today:



> INSOLES, FOOTWEAR
> 
> Trade Agreement: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)
> Tendering Procedures: If 3+ bids offer Canadian goods/services
> ...



Very detailed specs as well so even if there is something better, it won't be accepted.




> How many Requests for Proposal have you seen from PWGSC, and what where they for?  I know you have a distributor, but what type of things do we send your way?



 Can't say how many RFP's I've seen as it's not just DND stuff I look at.  I get only about 5% of the stuff I carry from a distributor, everything else I either am the distributor, or I deal direct with the Mfg.  Nothing has been specifically sent my way.


----------



## MG34 (28 May 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> I’ve never suggested the system is not flawed (I know there is room to improve).  You on the other hand suggested that everything is purchased at lowest cost compliant.  I’ve called you on this falsehood and you’ve obfuscated and avoided the issue since.  You’ve made false appeals to authority (SARP II and then “more”), but have not shown how these prove all things are bought lowest cost.  In a final attempt to snow job your readers, you’ve also resorted to ad hominem in suggesting I’m some sort of boogey-man selling the party line.  However, the end of it is that you are wrong; not everything is purchased lowest cost compliant.  In fact, the bullet proof plates (BPP) were not lowest cost compliant.  They were cost-performance based (meaning spend more for something that will do more).  You don’t have to take my word though, find the CID through the DWAN and look-up the project.
> Thank you.  I knew there had to be some disconnect in my understanding of what you’d said.
> Soldiers complained that the Gen 0 FPV was too inflexible & inhibited movement.  The changes made were not driven by cost so much as the soldiers’ opinion as was being communicated to Ottawa.  However, the only mention of protection that I have found is that both generations are equivalent.
> 
> Do you know protection has been sacrificed, or is it assumption & rumour based on a change of manufacture’s labelling?



 Do you want specific examples : OK here goes

The upgrade to the C7A2 was given a budget of $500.00 per rifle, hence the most inexpensive upgrade was done..not the best. The RG31 was purchased despite several known issues with the electric system, especially when the RWS was added resulting in vehs being removed from combat..once again the cheapest system not the best..the Bolle Desert boot is totally inadequate for the task, a great deal of discussion was generated here on the very same subject....cheapest, not the best.. TCCC bags made by a local rigger, not a dedicated manufacturer, which are inadequate to the task and have been discarded by all who were issued them...cheapest, not the best.I could go on through the catalog of items but you get the point, the system new or old is flawed and borderline incompetent.
   AS for the protection level being decreased yes it is a fact by any standard  body armour is judged and rated, Lvl II will never equal Lvl IIIA. you may want to look  up the NIJ Standards which are near universal as the "approved" armour rating system.  You know some of us actually may know what we are talking about here. 
I suggest you delete this thread as what you have demanded is a breach of OPSEC...then again I already told you that didn't I.


----------



## KevinB (29 May 2007)

keep in mind those of us with Merx account can go in and look at what the gov't is asking for


----------



## armyvern (29 May 2007)

Some people also do contracting & purchasing...

Frag Protective Vest

Para 1.2.1: Protection given

Para 4.3: (Ref'd in defense of HorM removing his shoulder pads)...

Under the heading of "Dress:"

4.3. The FPV shoulder pads may be removed.


It's also ref'd in this doc that this item did not go to the lowest bidder but was based on PVC (Performance Value Contract) which is defined as "the best technical performance per Unit cost."


----------



## Farmboy (29 May 2007)

Tender for 3L Bladders and Carrier out today.
Lowest bidder. 
Oh and it must be the exact style that DND has already purchased, which kinda limits your bidders as well.




> but was based on PVC (Performance Value Contract) which is defined as "the best technical performance per Unit cost



I've seen a few of these for LE agencies and basically you get points for the products performance between the min and max specs written (yes they do put in max specs).  So even if your product out performs a product meeting the technical requirments, it does not get bonus points, nor is there a way to evaluate this as a cost per unit.  Your product also has the meet the "entry" specs, which means it can be written for a specific material and if your product is not that material it does not get into the trials, even if it's better.


Basically with large DND purchases there is no way of getting a bunch of companies to send in a product you want/need, trial it, and then pick the best for the job.   Yes I know some "units" are exceptions to this.


----------



## KevinB (29 May 2007)

I'd also like to point out that very few independant armour companies exist -- Armour Holdings just buys them up.
 All the Cdn body armour and ceramic plate manufacturers where swallowed into one entity in the early 90's  -- by a partnership of people (in MGen Mackenzie) and then sold/boughtout by AH.

I'm not a techno geek on armour (but have an invested interest in following it) both lightfighter and professionalsoldiers have SME's in that field that have posted some invalubale info on both plates and soft armor


----------



## Farmboy (29 May 2007)

Global Armour which supplies my company is one of the few not attached to Armour Holdings. (thank god) 

Armour Holdings goes through R Nicholls which..................  Sorry almost got carried away again.


----------



## McG (29 May 2007)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> with large DND purchases there is no way of getting a bunch of companies to send in a product you want/need, trial it, and then pick the best for the job.   Yes I know some "units" are exceptions to this.


 I've seen it being done with goggles undergoing ballistic testing.  We've all seen trials with boots.  It is very easy when introducing a new item of kit to ensure trails & tests are done.  It is also possible to make a selection based on seller's specs & make the agreement conditional on the item passing a trial.   

. . . and there are things for which lowest cost does make sense: paper, staplers, 2 inch nails, etc.



			
				MG34 said:
			
		

> The CF buys the cheapest available kit for use, not the best.


You still have not shown this to be a universal truth despite continuing to argue it.  I have shown "cheapest available" not to have applied in the selection of our armour.



			
				MG34 said:
			
		

> The upgrade to the C7A2 was given a budget of $500.00 per rifle, hence the most inexpensive upgrade was done..not the best. The RG31 was purchased despite several known issues with the electric system, especially when the RWS was added resulting in vehs being removed from combat..once again the cheapest system not the best..the Bolle Desert boot is totally inadequate for the task, a great deal of discussion was generated here on the very same subject....cheapest, not the best.. TCCC bags made by a local rigger, not a dedicated manufacturer, which are inadequate to the task and have been discarded by all who were issued them...cheapest, not the best.I could go on through the catalog of items but you get the point, the system new or old is flawed and borderline incompetent.


These are examples of bad kit, but not cheapest available.  The RG-31 was a sole-source procurement; somebody in the Army decided we needed the RG-31 & we bought it.  However, we may have paid a premium compared to other options that might have been chosen.  I suspect, given our relation with Diemaco/Colt Canada, that the C7A2 was another sole-source endeavour.  There is no proof here of a universal adherence to lowest cost compliant.  You’ve constructed the lie in your head that every bad piece of kit was also the cheapest cost.  You’ve also fooled yourself into thinking that we only buy the cheapest & worst pieces of kit.

The Librarian & I have both stated we know the procurement system to have its flaws.  However, you are wrong in your assertion that the CF always by the cheapest.  Therefore, it is faulty logic to extend your premise to conclude the FPV is the cheapest & worst.  



			
				MG34 said:
			
		

> You know some of us actually may know what we are talking about here.


I know, but you strayed out of your lane into procurement & you don't seem to know what you are talking about there.  I'm certain you know kit, but argue kit based on the kit's merits.  Don't be weaving anecdotes that the procurement system is bad and therefore all kit is bad.  If you do feel the need to continue an attempt to prove that everything is purchased based on lowest cost, you might want to do some background reading first:  
http://contractscanada.gc.ca/en/biddin-e.htm#10



			
				MG34 said:
			
		

> AS for the protection level being decreased yes it is a fact


Thanks.


----------



## KevinB (29 May 2007)

The LCMM sent a tech note out via a CANFORGEN about the C7A2 upgrade being a POS (well not his words - his where "being contrained by budget".) 

 Not everything in the CF goes to the lowest bidder - sometimes it goes to the shadiest distributor, political payoffs etc.  

Part of the problems is a lot of different ideas goes into kit -- and unfortunately for the pointy end of the spear -- the CF insists on getting a lot of kit that is "universal"


----------



## Farmboy (29 May 2007)

> You’ve constructed the lie in your head that every bad piece of kit was also the cheapest cost.  You’ve also fooled yourself into thinking that we only buy the cheapest & worst pieces of kit.



 I've shown this is true, do mine not count?



> I've seen it being done with goggles undergoing ballistic testing.  We've all seen trials with boots.



How many different types of boots and glasses were tested?  Why did we not end up with the best?

Why the need for a trial if it's already been proven in combat or has NIJ ratings etc.  The LE agencies don't test the plates and helmets that I sell them, they go by the fact that it's already NIJ tested.


----------



## McG (29 May 2007)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> I've shown this is true, do mine not count?


You have shown that lowest cost compliant exists (which I have not denied) but you've not shown that it is the only way.  Here are three items which prove that lowest cost compliant is not the only way.




> VIDEO MOTION TRACKING SYSTEM
> 
> Trade Agreement: NAFTA/AIT
> Tendering Procedures: All interested suppliers may submit a bid
> ...





> CC115 BUFFALO
> 
> Trade Agreement: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)
> Tendering Procedures: All interested suppliers may submit a bid
> ...





> R&O Mast Kit, telescopic
> 
> Trade Agreement: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)
> Tendering Procedures:
> ...






			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> How many different types of boots and glasses were tested?  Why did we not end up with the best?


Well, I don’t know about boots (it has been years since I’ve seen guys newly trialing a pair) but I hear they are now getting into the system.  The eyewear I saw tested was not glasses.  It was goggles that would be MNVG compatible.  Don’t know when we will be seeing them.



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> Why the need for a trial if it's already been proven in combat or has NIJ ratings etc.  The LE agencies don't test the plates and helmets that I sell them, they go by the fact that it's already NIJ tested.


There are a number of reasons.  The requirements of the Canadian Army differ from those of a law enforcement agency, and they differ from those of other nations' armies.  We’ve bought eqpt on the notion that it was good enough for the US only to find that it fell apart in Canadian winter.  We should also be careful not to assume that used in combat means it is good.  Another element is that certain armours had been very well designed to pass standardized testing, but did not hold-up once exposed to a broader threat spectrum.


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2007)

I will agree with MCG wrt the armour and the fact that having a NIJ is not necessarily a meaning it will sucessfully work within an Army environment -- since LE do not have a fragment or blast requirement -- thus the V50 ratings testing etc.


----------



## Brockvegas (11 Mar 2009)

Hey guys, been a while since I posted. I've been on course for most of the last 6 mnths. Does anybody know if there are MOLLE/PALS plate carriers available that will also take the ballistic panels from the issued frag? It'd be nice to combine two peices of kit into one easy on/easy off system for tour. Any ideas would be appreciated.


----------



## dangerboy (11 Mar 2009)

Be advised even if you do find a system that fits CF plates the chances of your C of C letting you use it instead of the issued Flack Jacket are slim to none.  Wearing non-issued boots is one thing but protective gear is a whole other mater.


----------



## Brockvegas (11 Mar 2009)

Yeah, I'm just looking around to see if it's out there before I even send the question up.


----------



## Love793 (11 Mar 2009)

Your best bet would be to talk to a Mat Tech, but then you'll probably be buying your Frag Vest after words.


----------



## Eric_911 (11 Mar 2009)

+1. Not many CoC's that'll support the modification of your PPE in any way.

But to answer your question: A commercially available armor carrier which will accept Canadian ballistic inserts is Unlikely.  There's something like 15-17 different sizes of vests available, all with different inserts.

I dont believe it would be financially lucrative enough for any company to go into production for this specific pattern of insert. (Unless they were awarded a Gov contract)

On the mat tech / rigger / custom made front: be careful. Placement of the BRP and the ballistic inserts is crucial. This is why you're sized at clothing stores by pers who have been trained to properly size the vest.

Cheers,
Eric


----------



## RHFC_piper (11 Mar 2009)

Some have resorted to having MOLLE/PALs sewn onto the existing Ballistic Vest... but I would advise reading some of the posts here regarding the downsides to having a MOLLE BV; specifically the necessity to remove load bearing gear occasionally without removing the BV itself... but there are quite a few other topics on here covering that.


----------



## Brockvegas (15 Mar 2009)

Thanks for all the help guys. After thinking about it, you're right, there are actually quite a few times that I need to drop my vest but keep the frag on. I'll probably end up going with a modular plate carrier with the frag underneath. Cheers.


----------



## HItorMiss (15 Mar 2009)

Brock

Looking at your profile I am going to make the assumption you are with 1 RCR. Having spent the vast majority of my career there I have come to know one clear thing. YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED  I say again WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to not wear the issued PPE. That means you will wear the CF issue Frag vest with the plates inside. People had a hard enough time on previous tours wearing non issued CSA rated ballistic glasses (Oakley's, ESS etc etc) And on tours before that it was a fight to wear non issue gloves. Granted the BN has come a long way but it will never come far enough as to allow you to wear your own civi bought PPE rig. Yes I know you plan to wear the issue inserts and the issue plates but sadly the carrier is what is going to matter.

Hate to burst you bubble my friend but you would be better off looking at chest rigs and webbing off the private market that you might have a chance to wear.


----------



## Eric_911 (15 Mar 2009)

Brockvegas said:
			
		

> Thanks for all the help guys. After thinking about it, you're right, there are actually quite a few times that I need to drop my vest but keep the frag on. I'll probably end up going with a modular plate carrier with the frag underneath. Cheers.



Ummm... you'll never be in a situation over there where you'll be required to wear the FPV _without_ plates, so getting a modular plate carrier pretty useless, since you will be required to wear the plates inside your FPV.

And since most plate carriers (the Wasatch for example) don't ride properly without plates inside, you might as well just go with a plane-jane modular vest or chest rig, or maybe something with fixed pouches.

Cheers,
Eric


----------



## RetiredRoyal (19 Apr 2009)

So, are these Frag Vests the best body armour available to our troops or simply a product produced in canada by the lowest bidder?


----------



## brihard (19 Apr 2009)

Office Linebacker said:
			
		

> So, are these Frag Vests the best body armour available to our troops or simply a product produced in canada by the lowest bidder?



They work, and fairly well it seems. More than one soldier has taken an AK round center of the chest and been knocked over, only to get back up (slightly more pissed off) and continue returning fire.

I'm unqualified to say whether they're the absolute best on the market, but if there were any glaring deficiencies I'm sure they'd have come under scrutiny by now.


----------



## McG (19 Apr 2009)

Office Linebacker said:
			
		

> So, are these Frag Vests the best body armour available to our troops or simply a product produced in canada by the lowest bidder?


If you are not going to read the thread, don't waste our time posting in it.  It has already been made clear that the current armour was not the result of a lowest cost compliant competition.


----------



## KevinB (20 Apr 2009)

Office Linebacker said:
			
		

> So, are these Frag Vests the best body armour available to our troops or simply a product produced in canada by the lowest bidder?



The best is relative.

 I'm not the biggest fan of the FPV or the Plates, but they do perform.
I don't like the cut, the curve or the weight of the plate, nor some other aspects I won't dicsuss here.


----------



## brihard (20 Apr 2009)

This is as good a place to ask this as any. My chances of getting issued training plates are about nil, so has anyone got some experience as to an expedient way to fake a couple up to simulate the approximate weight of the loaded vest? As much as I have a lazy streak in me, I'd rather continue to train using the vest and the appropriate weight thereof. Where I am, I've got a snowball's chance in hell of getting training plates through the system. Surely someone here has seen or used something that would work?


----------



## KevinB (20 Apr 2009)

Steel plate -- does not need to be AR500 or anything - but chop some to size, and gun tape the corners so it does not fubar the vest.


----------



## brihard (20 Apr 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Steel plate -- does not need to be AR500 or anything - but chop some to size, and gun tape the corners so it does not fubar the vest.



Duh. Stupidly simple. Any idea of the curve to the plate is all that necessary to maintain comfort while wearing it?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Apr 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Steel plate -- does not need to be AR500 or anything - but chop some to size, and gun tape the corners so it does not fubar the vest.



We did a similar thing to replicate loaded magazines, to put in our Tac Vests for BFT Trg.  You just need the proper dimensions and know someone who will cut the metal.


----------



## MedCorps (21 Apr 2009)

This is a timely topic, as I just spent a good portion of my day dealing with post attack personal kit analysis and effectiveness briefings. I even had the chance to fire a few rounds at some CF PPE, which was an educative process. 

As you may (or may not, as  I work in the system but had not idea at the dearth of our PPE epidemiological program) be aware that every time a CF member in Afghanistan is a "trauma casualty" his (or her) personal kit is examined by a Nursing Officer and/or Bioscience Officer for effectiveness and logging the post-attack results into the database(s). 

If there is evidence of any sort of penetration (good or bad outcome), failure, and/or non-issued kit being used it may be (based on criteria) forwarded to DRDC for post-attack human factors and engineering analysis.  Interesting stuff is coming out of this work...  two notables for public consumption. 

There still are CF members wearing and being injured / killed non-issued PPE.  Some of which works very well, and some of which does not work so well. I was somewhat surprised to see non-issued PPE being used to the extent it is being used overseas (which is still in terms of whole sample size very small). The "man" is watching and the CoC is aware that non-issued PPE is being used overseas.  

The surveillance of kit failure is so methodologically sensitive that we even watch for statistically significant sizing irregularities from point of issue to determine if a particular geographic QM mis-sized PPE for a group of casualties. Also watched is PPE usage compliance rates by unit, type of operation, weather and a bunch of other demographic and non-demographic factors.    

Rest assured if something is not working, the CFHS is watching and it will be corrected in short order. Note the continuing progress being made in the issued PPE.  We need to stay one (or two) steps ahead of the enemy. Lots of high-paid, pointy-head, science types doing this work in real-time behind the scenes to keep the warfighter safe. 

It was an interesting day to say the least... 

Cheers, 

MC


----------



## rw4th (21 Apr 2009)

Brihard said:
			
		

> This is as good a place to ask this as any. My chances of getting issued training plates are about nil, so has anyone got some experience as to an expedient way to fake a couple up to simulate the approximate weight of the loaded vest? As much as I have a lazy streak in me, I'd rather continue to train using the vest and the appropriate weight thereof. Where I am, I've got a snowball's chance in hell of getting training plates through the system. Surely someone here has seen or used something that would work?



I've seen "airsoft" replicata plates that are made of plastic, are hollow, and can be filled with sand to simulate weight. No clue where I saw them though.


----------



## medaid (22 Apr 2009)

Search for TOYSOLDIER replica plates.

Also search lightfighter. There was a good post there.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jun 2009)

From the keeners at Defence Research & Development Canada (102 page .pdf)....

Abstract:


> *A fit and confirmatory design trial was conducted at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa May 28 to June 1 2007 to evaluate the differences between the current shoulder cap and brassard shoulder fragmentation protection designs.* Twenty-five regular force personnel from 3rd Royal Canadian Regiment and 2nd Field Ambulance were required to undertake a battery of human factors tests while wearing the current shoulder cap and brassard conditions in a balanced, repeated measures design. A progressive four-day testing protocol was used, from static anthropometric measurements, to live fire, to dynamic discrete military activities tests, and finally dynamic military battle task tests. Evaluations included live fire range, obstacle course, mounted fighting task, dismounted fire and movement, FIBUA, and compatibility testing. Participants rated the designs in terms of manoeuvrability, ease, stability, compatibility, and comfort. Data collection included live fire target performance, acceptability ratings after each task, thermal discomfort ratings, physical discomfort ratings, fit sizing ratings, exit questionnaire acceptability ratings, and guided focus group discussions. *Overall, no highly meaningful significant differences between the two conditions were seen in target engagement performance, compatibility, or task acceptability ratings for different tasks carried out in this trial. It is recommended that brassard should be implemented for improved shoulder fragmentation protection. Design improvements to the brassard design are discussed in the report.*


----------



## Canadian Mind (21 Jun 2009)

Good to see. Just hope the guys in charge don't balk at the slight thermal and comfort deficiencies, which can be addressed.

Any word on research into a different collar setup for the vest? I personally find the current split design to be inefficient for the following reasons:

- Not enough protection, especially to the front and most sensitive areas of the neck

- When in the prone position, collars will push on back of my helmet, causing it to ride forward and obscure my vision.

- When applying FFO, it is hard to prevent the collars from getting caught under the shoulder, and most my peers don't bother making sure the collars are upright when applying the tac vest. In a normal everyday situation this could be attributed to laziness, but at times when rapidly applying FFO, getting the gear on is more important than making sure everything is 100%. But this causes two problems: Reduced protection, and over time an untucked collar will cause painfull pressure points, especially while on a ruckmarch or firing in the prone.


What I'd suggest to fix this problem would be a one-piece, neck-hugging, mandarin-like collar design with a split front. A second smaller piece of varying sizes could be wrapped around the front and attached via clips or buttons (better than the buttons currently on the FPV) to protect the throat area of the neck. Size would be to the comfort preference of the soldier wearing it, with not wearing it at all being one of the acceptable options available.

Benefits to this design would be increased protection and a lack of interference with other PPE, such as causing the helmet to ride forward or getting caught under the shoulder straps.

My personal experience with the FPV is pretty limited, being a couple small field exes in Petawawa, 6 weeks in Suffield, and IBTS. So while these are my 2 cents, I'll leave it to more experienced members to shoot down my ideas and reasonings for them should they disagree with them.



My only other gripe is that the back plate causes pressure points on the bottom tip of my shoulder blades, but that can't be helped.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jun 2009)

After wearing the vest for 7 months.... I would have really loved the brassard kevlar vice the buckle shoulder piece. There's really no point in a shoulder pad that comes apart with simple movements, especially just climbing into a Bison. I can't imagine what the pointy end had to deal with.

For the collar, I didn't notice the split collar getting in the way too much, it didn't get into the way while wearing a helmet and vehicle headset. My vest arid cover was fairly worked in, and if you play with the pads inside around the neck part, it works itself into a comfortable position so that it doesn't get in the way, or moves quickly.


----------



## Canadian Mind (21 Jun 2009)

I have no problem with the collar during vehicle operation, my vice with it as far as interfering with performance while training, specifically on ranges. Before I was issued the thing on m basic training and DP1, my accurracy with the C-7 and C-9 were much higher when I didn't have the thing on. Hard to shoot within a given timeframe when the vest keeps pushing the front edge of the helmet down my nose everytime I go prone.

I have noticed that after time the vest seems to break in. It used to be a pain in the ass to get it on right, now it just seems to fal into place every time I put it on.


----------



## MAC- (4 Jan 2011)

I am currently deployed on TF 3-10 and my group of guys is having difficulty with the new shoulder pads and throat protector. It is now mandatory PPE. Now I don't want to seem like I'm bitching but I hate it as well.

We are writing an extended memo trying to explain that the PPE does not allow for full range of movement necessary for combat. As well as the added protection (which the U.S. Army has now gotten rid of) has not changed any stats as far as battle related injuries. I have read an article by the U.S. medical system showing these stats but I am having trouble finding information at my SP. We rarely go back to KAF.

I have a few articles already showing that the increase of kit weight has significantly risen the number of NBI and sports injuries. The recommended weight for kit per soldier is 50lbs. At the moment my group is carrying 90 lbs of kit on average. I know this isn't alot compared to the older rotos.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## kincanucks (4 Jan 2011)

I agree with you with regards to the throat protector since it is damn near impossible to get it in the right position to actually provide any protection.  The shoulders are absolutely necessary and while they caused frustration when putting on your tac vest they do provide added protection.  I am not sure where you are getting the increased weight issue from though, the shoulder pads and throat protector are not that heavy.  Cheers from TFK 5-10.


----------



## TN2IC (4 Jan 2011)

I'm currently using the new pieces with no problems. Just a pain in the butt putting it together.  ;D

Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## MAC- (4 Jan 2011)

Im looking  for stats not personal opinions on the kit, some like it, I do not. 

The weight issue is not from the shoulder pads or throat protector its in general. More weight and attachments does not mean more protection.

From what I have seen, the throat protector is incorrectly mounted on most people's vest and just becomes an annoying flap that gets in the way.

We finally have a mod chest rig system that WORKS, is comfortable and does not have to be the same as everyone else, why continue with improved kit.

As for the shoulder pads, I understand there was an incident that sparked the use of them. But there is nothing to say that shoulder pads would of prevented that incident. There are design flaws to all armour, but why not get the best and lightest PPE available not matter the cost. 

I am not an expert on PPE but I know there's alternatives and despite being told that we have the best PPE available to us, we are seeing record injuries and deaths.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jan 2011)

The American body armour system is different from ours. Why would you want to cite their statistics to prove your point? Since this is an open forum, I really a doubt a discussion and specifics on why our PPE is good/bad is conductive to keeping troops safe, regardless of the system.

You're not an expert on PPE, but the scientists that are testing our stuff probably are, and deem it safe to use. What's your alternative? Dragonskin????  :


----------



## ArmyGuy99 (5 Jan 2011)

MAC-

We had a guy on our tour (I won't say which to protect his ID) who was wounded severely in the upper arm/shoulder by shrapnel and was evacuated home.  The Bio-science officer determined that had he been wearing the new Arm Brassard (Supply refused to issue it to him) he would only have had minor injuries and possibly could have finished his tour.

I know that this piece of kit is annoying and cumbersome.  Personally I don't like it either, but IT DOES offer increased protection and there is a reason for it.  Does it need to be refined? Most definatley it does.  So write your complaints down, had it over to your Med Tech and they can pass it on to the Bio-Science Officer.  Send it up your CoC command as well.  Just make sure it's constructive and not just, "We don't like it".  Nothing is likely to change on your tour, but possibly subsequent tours will end up with better kit.

As for the Neck guard.  I didn't wear one so I can't complain about it, but I know everyone who I worked with that did, didn't like it either.


----------



## MAC- (5 Jan 2011)

I am the medic for the group, and I know the guy sent home. We are filling out the paper work for the proper CoC. This is why I am looking for the document that was done by the americans.

It showed that battle injuries did not decrease despite all the extra protection and in fact it increase NBI.

As far as what is better then our armour, Im not sure what is. But there are ceramic plates that have greatly increased ballistic protection and are actually a bit lighter then our own, problem is the cost. Plates that stop AP 7.62 x 54 at 0 meters.


----------



## McG (5 Jan 2011)

MAC- said:
			
		

> ... there are ceramic plates that have greatly increased ballistic protection and are actually a bit lighter then our own, problem is the cost.


Beyond cost, what other trade offs come with your _better_ plates?  Do they cover the same surface of the body, do they cover more, or are they lighter because they cover less?  Do they have comparable durability to regular wear?  How are they effected by environmental conditions (heat, cold, humidity, etc)?

There are elements of our military that have chosen different plates than most of us wear (they may still have something different - I don't know).  They made this choice knowing that some performances were sacrificed for increases in other performances, and they made this choice recognizing that their threats were different than what the average Battle Group member needed to worry about.                             



			
				MAC- said:
			
		

> Plates that stop AP 7.62 x 54 at 0 meters.


Do we need that level of protection?  If the enemy is in a position to put his muzzle into your chest before shooting, then your problems are probably bigger than the type of vest & plates that you are wearing.



			
				MedTech32 said:
			
		

> So write your complaints down, had it over to your Med Tech and they can pass it on to the Bio-Science Officer.  Send it up your CoC command as well.


If there is a concern with the performance of an item of kit, that should be pushed through a UCR.


----------



## ArmyGuy99 (6 Jan 2011)

MAC-

Trust me the extra protection on the arms IS necessary, and you won't notice your plates after about a week.  Our Armour system is completely different from the American system, and I am not sure if you can compare the two.  Although, I would be interested in reading it and seeing where it leads. 

Perhaps, depending on where you are, you could talk to your American counterpart?

Talk with your bio-science officer if you get the chance or converse over e-mail, I know ours was really good and had a great open mind.  I know I brought the decrease ROM issue up with her more than once.

The more constructive feedback we can give them and the DRDC the better our gear will get.

Good Luck and keep safe.


----------



## ArmyGuy99 (8 Jan 2011)

Well a quick Google Search for "American PPE Study" returned 161,000 results.  I scanned 3 studies, one by the American Army, one by the Marines, and one from a southern Univerisity

And they all advocated more armour not less.  The Army and Marine Studies attributed NBI not to the increase in weight but to lack of training properly.  They both advocated always training with Full Body Armour and Plates, and to maintain a high state of physical fitness to compensate for the increase demand on the body.

IMHO it's not the weight of the armour, but the increased weight of our Chest Rigs, LBV etc.  I know that mine wieghed more than my Body Armour.  And that I never trained with my full gear load out until I got overseas.  I did notice (in the first few months) that guys had their rigs packed to the max (incl me) with ammo, and kit.  And then after a few patrols/convoys, they changed their load out and got more specific and lightened the load a little.  I know once I did that things got a lot easier.  

Although my Med Bag never to seemed to get lighter  :-[

Marine Study
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_201009/ai_n55486149/

US Army Study
ftp.rta.nato.int/public/PubFullText/RTO/MP/.../MP-HFM-181-P02.doc

In silico investigation of intracranial blast mitigation with relevance to military traumatic brain injury (that's one where we got our face shields from)
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&biw=1503&bih=607&q=American+military+PPE+Study&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=1&cad=b

Google Results
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&biw=1503&bih=607&q=American+military+PPE+Study&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=6a0673dc5c3f3912


----------



## MJP (8 Jan 2011)

MedTech32 said:
			
		

> IMHO it's not the weight of the armour, but the increased weight of our Chest Rigs, LBV etc.  I know that mine wieghed more than my Body Armour.  And that I never trained with my full gear load out until I got overseas.  I did notice (in the first few months) that guys had their rigs packed to the max (incl me) with ammo, and kit.  And then after a few patrols/convoys, they changed their load out and got more specific and lightened the load a little.  I know once I did that things got a lot easier.



* hijack*

That is good example of were leaders should have been stepping in too ensure their troops were overburdened.  Most guys will self regulate but there will always be the one or two either through lack of knowledge or inflated abilities that will push the boundaries.  Although my experience is dated (2004 and 2006) the same thing happened to my platoon overseas.  We as Sect Commanders became ruthless in ensuring troops were only carrying the essentials.  But we also made sure in work up that guys were carrying realistic loads to ensure that they and in some cases their kit could stand up to the rigors.

* hijack ends*


----------



## MAC- (9 Jan 2011)

I'm glad you mentioned the word "scanned" when referring to these articles because they had absolutely nothing to do with having more armour. Obviously you did not even look through it.

Quote:
The use of body armor was associated with decrements in cardiovascular, balance, strength and functional field test performance. The decrease in aerobic capacity was not expected.

It does go on to say that proper build up training is essential to be efficent later.

Even with pushing a memo with studies attached to CoC and bio science officer, I kept getting the same general answer: If it saves one life it is worth it.

But if it inhibits someone from being effective at there job thus potentially saving anothers life... Never even thought of

My personal opinion is it should be leave it to the soldiers to decide what PPE to wear. They are smart enough to know that eyewear is necessary but the other crap is just hindering performance.


----------



## KevinB (10 Jan 2011)

Mission drives the gear, someone exposed in a hatch needs more PPE than a troop inside.

As the enemy generally does not have a great amount of IDF capability, dismounts generally should be less armoured.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jan 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> After wearing the vest for 7 months.... I would have really loved the brassard kevlar vice the buckle shoulder piece. There's really no point in a shoulder pad that comes apart with simple movements, especially just climbing into a Bison. I can't imagine what the pointy end had to deal with.



Agreed - I found mine easier to wear than the floppy original thing that always came undone; I actually found it comfy.  

Infact, I ordered and enforced wear of the shoulder brassards after the guy I RIPed told me two of his soldiers had arms because of them.

PS.  Realized this was a couple years old - my point still stands.  Your soldiers will get used to the brassards.


----------



## LordOsborne (12 Jan 2011)

I've seen pictures of the PPE brassards, but haven't seen the throat protector. Can someone steer me towards a photo?


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Jan 2011)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> I've seen pictures of the PPE brassards, but haven't seen the throat protector. Can someone steer me towards a photo?



Pretty sure this is it (someone that's worn one can confirm/deny for me):

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/ap/afghanistan%20canada%20-1398847961.grid-6x2.jpg


----------



## LordOsborne (13 Jan 2011)

Puckchaser: Thanks


----------

