# Tac Vest does not make the grade.



## Britney Spears (13 Nov 2004)

> Secondly if one is in the Mooolitia and is only doing 3 section attacks fine - but if one is a regular force light infanteer going to afghan I put it to you that the majority of our kit does SUCK - and as such members are forced to buy aftermarket gear - why they feel the kit we issue is so inferior that their lives are in jeopardy.



No argument there, its a different matter when one's ass is on the linel, although to be honest, for the first few month I thought the TV was the greatest thing the army ever gave me.



> I'd ignore Military photo's for int - a buddy of mine (he's a Lt Col in Bragg) confirmed that they play the issue game during the Q course (well not the instructors obviously) but that many phases of the Pineland excusion they are in civies etc to facilitate the guerrilla nature.



Ooooh, "int" make it sound so serious. Regardless, it does illustrate the point that for 90% of training (esp. for reservists), kit doesn't matter, so all the reserve ptes who whine incessantly about the 82ptn webbing on their weekend exs should stop and get on with their jobs. The Sgt Maj.'s job isn't any easier that your's(the ptes, that is) and if he can live with the webbing so can you.


----------



## KevinB (13 Nov 2004)

I agree to a point- however these days the PTE's have the shittiest loads - the C9 gunner and M203 grenadiers are not accomodated by the TV.

 I for one prefer the 82 pattern webbing to the TV...  But I have a Paraclete RAV and SOTech Hellcat vests that make my use of the 82 pattern moot  ;D.

The troop makes the gear work the gear does not make the troop - but thers is no need to saddle troops with useless items - as (IIRC) PBI mentioned our gear system is 10-15 years behind the times - the TV would have been a good vest to walk around Crotia/Bosnia with.
It is not a good vest to do ops in Afghan or perhaps Iraqi or Sudan...


----------



## D-n-A (13 Nov 2004)

KevinB, for the M203 grenadiers, could they use a US grenadier vest for the 40mm grenades?




picture is of the ALICE grenadier vest, been in use with the US since the Vietnam War, but now MOLLE has replaced it.


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Nov 2004)

> It really bugs me when people who are not in our line of work try to second guess the kit needs and wants.



You give them far too much credit. When I meekly inquired where one was suppose to keep M203 ammunition, the answer was "*shrug*, I dunno, but you better figure something out". I'll be happy when they actually "try to second guess our kit needs and wants" (which really isn't that hard, if you think about it), instead of completely ignoring them.


----------



## KevinB (13 Nov 2004)

AoS, but then where does your water, ammo and other mission essential kit go?


Right now CTS is fielding a replacement pouch for the TV that replaces the utility pouch - well great but now the grenadier has no spot for extra mags etc.

 Guys in Afghan are wearing them as leg pouch drop loads (which is fine if you dont go anywhere with them but not if you are going in and out of buildings or up and down a moutain.

The C9 gunners are in an equal boat.

Unfortunately even some of the officers and senior NCO's in the trade dont seem to get it.


----------



## D-n-A (13 Nov 2004)

KevinB, you'd still be wearing your webbing, but you'd also be wearing the vest with it.


----------



## McG (13 Nov 2004)

AoS said:
			
		

> KevinB, you'd still be wearing your webbing, but you'd also be wearing the vest with it.


Then what good is the vest, that you've recomended, as a replacement for the TacVest or for webbing?

With the old webbing, you could replace the C7 mag pouches with utility pouches for the C9 gunner to carry more boxes.  The TacVest does not give us this option, or a suitable alternative.

There is absolutely no modularity to the new TacVest (being able to alternate the canteen carrier & the utility pouch does not cut it).    It has no convinenet place for the light assault radios.  The C7 mag pouch has become the cool place to carry a pistol, but it is really not functional.  Many guys seem to be moving the bayonet from the front of the vest to the side of the utility pouch.  There is no system to carry M203 ammo (though I've never seen a purpose designed piece for this on the webbing either).

To top it all of, the zipper does not seem to work in the cold.


----------



## KevinB (13 Nov 2004)

I think the necessity is to mod the new Gen 3 PDA into a Gen 4 Molle/PALS system like the Paraclete RAV/Eagle FSBE etc.

It would be faily easy to do (just a carrier mod) -- When I get back home next week will post picks of my RAV and how I think the mod shoudl be done (then I'll pester CTS   ;D )


AOD - I tried wearing those grenadier vests - they can be used with a belt but not effeceitly with the webbign straps - it makes it very awkward and I don't find it an realistic alternative


----------



## D-n-A (13 Nov 2004)

McG

The grenadier vest is not a replacement for anything, just something that can be worn with the webbing to carry 40mm grenades.

If your wearing the '82 webbing and your a grenadier, if there is no good place to put them in your webbing, you could either wear the vest, or buy a pouch that can hold the grenades, or even a bandolier.


----------



## McG (14 Nov 2004)

but our soldiers do not use webbing anymore.


----------



## Yeoman (14 Nov 2004)

I'm a C9 gunner
I've had no problems with the TV, I've loved it so far.
I just suck it up, and throw the excess boxes over my shoulder and hump it.
it's a helluva lot better then the webbing for carrying c9 boxes (I was also a c9 gunner in the molitia before I transfered to the regs)
I always hated the webbing, maybe I'd like it if I also had the TV on as well, maybe I'll try that the next exercise I have coming up and see how it is.
as for 203's guys, I'd have to say that the TV doesn't do the job, but I know they'll do something about that eventually in the next 20 years.
Greg


----------



## pappy (14 Nov 2004)

When you guys getting these? (Vest, Load Carrying, Patrol, Gen. 4)
Modular design, C7/C9 pouches on front interchange, (i.e. both for C7, both for C9 or one each),additional pouches and loops for 40mm ammo, etc, etc, etc.....
I'm guessing   ;D these are JTF issue for now...

But I agree the current Tactical vest is lacking...

Maybe the Patrol Vest in in your future...

Oh and yeah to the comment about ALICE "looking uncomfortable" it's more then just uncomfortable looking......


----------



## pappy (14 Nov 2004)

opps... %$#%@! computers.....


----------



## D-n-A (14 Nov 2004)

McG said:
			
		

> but our soldiers do not use webbing anymore.



The Reg Force yes, but myself and most of 39 CBG an I'm sure other Reserve brigades still have the '82 webbing.


----------



## Britney Spears (14 Nov 2004)

pappy: But if we got those, what would we bitch and complain about all day? The food?




> I think the necessity is to mod the new Gen 3 PDA into a Gen 4 Molle/PALS system like the Paraclete RAV/Eagle FSBE etc.



We can't do that, we'll be mistaken for Americans!

I've seen lots of troops from other nations ( US, Dutch, etc) simply attach pouches to their armour, instead of using a separate vest.  It seems to make perfect sense to me, since it would have the added benefit of forcing troops to train with armour at all times so they can get use to it. Sure it will cost a lot, but the payoff  in training realism alone would be worth it. Also, watching Lts and Capts run around with the vests and plates will boost morale.  The bulletproof recce det types can go buy their own vests, which they do right now anyways.


----------



## zerhash (14 Nov 2004)

Hey troops, Im just wondering how you people have set up your tac vests or other new CTS equipment to improve them

any interesting mods out there?

i know peacekeeper sells some interesting things

lemme know

Spr. Richmond
CHIMO!


----------



## Redeye (14 Nov 2004)

AoS said:
			
		

> The Reg Force yes, but myself and most of 39 CBG an I'm sure other Reserve brigades still have the '82 webbing.



Most of the Reserves have been converted to the Tactical Vest - my unit is the last in 33 Brigade not to be converted, but that's because of an administrative error that had our allotment sent to North Bay instead of Trenton and onward to us.  I'm supposed to pick mine up Thursday.

The LFQA Reserve Bdes got them first, and Atlantic Area units also were getting them in the spring in small quantities.

I agree with the ongoing discussion - the lack of modularity is very frustrating, as is the foolish decision to keep with only four mags in the vest with no means of altering that allotment in an easy way.  A vest which was MOLLE or by some other means modular would have made a great deal more sense.  Consider, as I just have, that the 82 pattern webbing is MORE modular and more customizable/adaptable - despite its shortcomings it is in some ways superior.

Hopefully they'll rush the Small Pack System to market to make up for the loss of load carriage capacity that has also come with the TV.


----------



## Britney Spears (14 Nov 2004)

To get things started:

The torso adjustment buckle system at least in the version I used, was an abomination. The bizzaremetal buckles and thin straps made any kind of on the fly adjustment (e.g., suppose you put on a jacket, or armour)  impossible.

Solution: Simply loop bungie cord in place of the straps. Makes for a snug fit no matter what you wear underneath.

 Also, I've never used the 1qt canteen pouch, and I haven't used my issued 1qt canteen for years.


----------



## 4CDO PARA (14 Nov 2004)

So far, I have removed the canteen pouch and added the 2nd utility pouch, preferring the extra load carriage and replacing the canteen by rigging my camelback to the vest. The camelback is attached by simply threading the shoulder straps through the back loops, therefore making it easy to remove in a hurry and attach it the outer of my jump ruck when rucking up to avoid squeezing and bursting the bladder by wearing it underneath( which just wouldn't be comfortable anyway ). I have added some OD bungee to the back loops also ( worked great for the webbing ) for lashing on rain gear/fleece, whatever with ease of access. I have added my pace beads and a tiny squeeze function red LED to the front, and added on a D-ring and para cord for the rifle and another to quick hook a pair of gloves ( when not in use ). Still looking for a keen way to replace the load carriage of the butt pack though....


----------



## Fusaki (14 Nov 2004)

> Still looking for a keen way to replace the load carriage of the butt pack though....



The modular pouches on the Small Pack System attach to the daisy chains on the back of the tac vest. I havn't tried it in the field yet, but it looks like a viable option.


----------



## KevinB (15 Nov 2004)

Pappy - Currently the CSP's Patrol vest is SOF only.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Nov 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I think the necessity is to mod the new Gen 3 PDA into a Gen 4 Molle/PALS system like the Paraclete RAV/Eagle FSBE etc.
> 
> It would be faily easy to do (just a carrier mod) -- When I get back home next week will post picks of my RAV and how I think the mod shoudl be done (then I'll pester CTS  ;D )



Kevin,

I remember one of the Iraq guys (Matt Fisher) saying how he didn't like the combo frag vest/LBE deal because in an NBC environment you couldn't separate the two to put your fighting order over your suit and keep your frag vest under your suit.  Does this make sense?

I don't understand why the military didn't go with a MOLLE system (We instead went for some velcro sticky thing....); I'm playing with some MOLLE gear now and it's definitely the way to go in adaptability.


----------



## KevinB (16 Nov 2004)

Infanteer:  HJ went on HLTA and did not email me my UCR's  that lazy prick  

I disagree with what Matt said - in a NBC environment I want my vest outside my MOPP gear for two reason 1) If it takes a hit I want it outside my suit (no brainer) 2) It is an exterior garment and likely has been exposed to a greater amount than anythgin else you are wearing.

Weapons and LBE's would have to be decontaminated/exchnaged and I agree that adding PDA is more awkward - but I dont have much hope for myself in a NBCD environment anyway... 


okay TACVEST From the Riflemans view point

R:4 mags - where to do the other (min) 6 go?
Akay lets put them in the #1 (weak side) utility pouch
R:water?
A: - camelback - fine daisy chain it to the TV
R: - whoops no room for the small (butpack system) pack.
A: put it in the #2 utlity pouch - shit no room for anything else.

R: Grenades - shit pouches dont fit 
A: Lets use a ultity pouch
R: - whoops cant do that they are already full.  :-*
 A:  Fuck it we really dont need grenades anyway do we  :

Rryo
A:- sorry no room

Less Lethal:
A: - sorry no room - 
R: okay lets carry our DD's in a bag on our back  : thats a fast way to get at them  : :

Map - lets make a pocket under a zipper and in velcro that'l work  :rage:

Flashlight - yea lets make a pouch for the shitty Maglight system and ignore the Surefire /Scorpion systems  

 Shall I go on? I think you get the idea...




Now C9 Gunner

Gee I love these four useless pockets - and okay, I got like 600rds man, where can I put it?
 Answer: SIMPLE don't bring anything else but ammo.

Great but these pouches sag and it is nigh impossible to pull them out when couching or doing anything active.


M203 Grenadier
Gunner:  Now Where do I put these 40mm grenades
A: well CTS designed these pouches that replace you ultity pouches...
Gunner: Right - you want me to take the storage I have that is not enough already and remove it - good idea...
A: Well you wanted grenades right...


C6 Gunner: WTF - HELLO - Hey you CTS guy - its me the C6 gunner.
A: yes we will get to you, we have a nice pack from London Bridge Trading  http://www.londonbridgetrading.com/main.html
 C6: Great they discontinued it...?
A: CTS but it looked good...
 C6: So now what?
A: Now what what?


----------



## Britney Spears (16 Nov 2004)

Hey lookit my very own thread! 


KevinB:
This is fun, can I play?

Now C9 Gunner
Gee I love these four useless pockets - and okay, I got like 600rds man, where can I put it?

Answer: You can carry the sect.'s supply of choco bars in those mag pouches. The ammo you hand them off to your buddy the rifleman of course, didn't they teach you anything in basic? Why do you have 3 boxes? You only need 2.


----------



## pappy (16 Nov 2004)

hell for a chocolate bar I'll carry a box..... :dontpanic:


----------



## KevinB (16 Nov 2004)

Fact being stranger than fiction - we had a Pl WO (MJP can tell you in who's PL    ) that lowered his troops ammo allotment so they could carry their ammo in the TV   :   - did I mention this was in Afghanistan...

Heaven forbid we submit a UCR lets change our load out   

Sorry I forgot the choccy bars.  ;D  What was I thinking...


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2004)

Kevin, real good points.  I'm thinking I'll defer to you on this one, it all makes sense.

In your opinion then, is an intergrated frag vest/MOLLE attachment system the ideal set-up for a soldier's fighting order, or is it, like so many other things, dependent on the situation?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (16 Nov 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I disagree with what Matt said - in a NBC environment I want my vest outside my MOPP gear for two reason 1) If it takes a hit I want it outside my suit (no brainer) 2) It is an exterior garment and likely has been exposed to a greater amount than anythgin else you are wearing.
> 
> Weapons and LBE's would have to be decontaminated/exchnaged and I agree that adding PDA is more awkward - but I dont have much hope for myself in a NBCD environment anyway...



Kevin, 

I can see points for both sides in terms of wearing the vest over or under MOPP gear.  In my opinion when it comes to decontamination, something like body armor is alot harder to decon, because of the multiple layers of fabric in it.  Dunking it in the tank of supertropical bleach solution may get rid of some of the surface contaminants, but what if crap has seeped into the kevlar layers?  I'll play on the safe side and wear my stuff underneath.  

However you do raise a good point about the MOPP suit losing its integrity if punctured by shrapnel/debris.

I guess the bottom line is the NBC sucks and no matter what you do.

I've got 4 other arguments for keeping separate load-bearing rigs than having your stuff on the body-armor itself

1.  Static guard duty in a bunker/tower.  You're still required to wear your ballistic vest, but you can reduce the weight by having your lbv within grabbing distance.

2.  Cold weather ops.  When wearing bulky insulating layers your body armor is often adjusted to the point where gaps in side coverage when the body armor is worn over top.  This is the case with the US Interceptor vest, but I'm not certain if the CF vest experiences this problem?

3.  Emergency re-roles in the section.  It's alot easier to switch rigs than it is to switch body armor in emergencies, such as your C9 gunner going down, etc.  If the C9 gunner is 5'9 and 160 lbs, how is his armor with pouches mounted directly on it supposed to fit somebody who's 6'2 and 200 lbs?

4.  Non-infantry types.  Alot of people such as crewmen, drivers, etc. need to wear ballistic vests when conducting ops, however having the pouches directly attached to the vest will cause alot of snags when trying to conduct their primary combat function.

One of the biggest reasons why you see alot of US soldiers and Marines putting their pouches directly on the Interceptor vest is because the current US tac-vest, the 'Fighting Load Carrier' is not very durable and there is a chronic failure rate with the shoulder straps coming unstitched from the mesh body.  

Other than the issue of separate rig vs. integrated body armor load-bearing vest, I agree with your points on the lack of forethought that CTS put into the CF Tac-Vest.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Fact being stranger than fiction - we had a Pl WO (MJP can tell you in who's PL   ) that lowered his troops ammo allotment so they could carry their ammo in the TV    - did I mention this was in Afghanistan...
> 
> Heaven forbid we submit a UCR lets change our load out



WTF?   ???
And the Platoon Commander, Company Commander and the other WO peers let this donkey do this?


----------



## rw4th (16 Nov 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> When I get back home next week will post picks of my RAV



Is this the CADPAT RAV I remember hearing so much about?  ;D


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Nov 2004)

Alright, I'm going against the grain here.....I was a 203 gunner Roto 0, I had put my gernades as follows (still in the plastic case)

1X grenade left and right gernade pouch chest (tight fit yes, did it work and secure the nades yes)
2X gernades left and right utility pouch gernade pouch ( held the well if a bit of a tight fit, again it worked and I could pull them out pretty fast)
That was a total of 6 203 rounds, we were issued 12 the other 6 were alternately in the boat or on my person with easy access depending on the OP

as for my 5 spare mags they went in my left utility pouch
Water right pouch+2L Camel Back for a total of close to 5L

now I'am not saying it's the best system just that with alittle thought it does work, are there better systems out there damn right there are, should the better vest's have been looked at....yup, were they I don't honestly know.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2004)

6 40mm rounds?  They may as well have not even given you the 203.


----------



## KevinB (16 Nov 2004)

I gave up on the CADPAT issue for and decided to go coyote brown and use CADPAT and OD pouches as cam...
 When I was in Ottawa this summer the Hill's RAV's were OD and a few guys told me the wait was bad enough.


Matt - I guess I should have been a bit clearer - I dont think that the MOLLE armour system is the only option but AN option.   I dont think that any system will be 100% - and as such we should have trade directed kit - If it were up to me armoured crew wouldl not have to wear armour inside - it slows them down conducting drills and is a general PITA - it would be a users call.

Cold weather ops - opens a whole other bad of worms - my Gen 3 PDA would fit over a combat coat - never tired a parka as I rarely (read never) wear them.


HitorMiss - 6 rounds - I thought we were welfaring it...


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Nov 2004)

Total issue was only 12 rounds per person, 24 in the section.

I carried 6 everywhere on a regular patrol where the boat was nearby, in the event of of extended dismounted patroling or some OP I had all 12.... You wanna hear nuts as good as 203's are I know some section that never even loaded there 5 extra mags just kept them in the boat with the extra ammo. :


----------



## Matt_Fisher (16 Nov 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Matt - I guess I should have been a bit clearer - I dont think that the MOLLE armour system is the only option but AN option.   I dont think that any system will be 100% - and as such we should have trade directed kit - If it were up to me armoured crew wouldl not have to wear armour inside - it slows them down conducting drills and is a general PITA - it would be a users call.



Kevin, thanks for the clarification.   On the subject of crewmen not wearing vests, I'll disagree with you there.   Vests and ballistic rated CVC Helmets are necessities these days with the enemy's use of IEDs and vehicle ambushes.   Several M1 crewmen have been killed and wounded in Iraq because they wore their less ballistically rated Second Chance vests rather than the Interceptor vest with plates.   Also, in the event of a vehicle collision/accident, the vests have been shown to reduce blunt trauma injuries associated with doing the rag doll.   :tank:

It does slow you down a bit at first,   but it's nothing that doesn't get worked out and accomodated for after some experience.   What sucks is having to do an LAV Gunnery Skills Test in with your vest, gas mask, gore-tex jacket and pants and rubber gloves to simulate working in a NBC environment.   Trying to re-attach the feed chutes is a pain in the *** at the best of times...that ensemble makes it downright hellacious   ;D


----------



## Yeoman (16 Nov 2004)

Now C9 Gunner

Gee I love these four useless pockets - and okay, I got like 600rds man, where can I put it?
 Answer: SIMPLE don't bring anything else but ammo.

Great but these pouches sag and it is nigh impossible to pull them out when couching or doing anything active.

personally I'd debate that. just need to learn to master the art of pull it out of the pouch.
anytime that we were on an patrol or convoy of some sorts. I'd carry the box on the weapon, plus the two boxes in the pouches. sure I had to sacrifice carrying my leather gloves (gasp oh nos!) or my 2quart (junk to begin with, I wear the camelback at all times), and my zap-straps (just attach to the buckles on the vest!). I mean seriously, half the crap we get issued will always be replaced with something. I've stop using my leather gloves a year ago, and barely wear the green liners either. 
so far on any patrol that I've had to do on an ex., I threw everything I didn't need (which was damn near everything that's suppose to go into a TV) and carried around the ammo in the pouches.
personally I'm going to figure out a way to attach the old webbing belt onto the vest, and voila! instant place to throw even more crap! 
really my only actual complaint with the TV is the fact that there is no waist belt to attach (again, a way to clip the webbing belt on) and be able to carry more crap. so that way a 203'er can carry what they need, same with a c6 & 9 gunner.
I'm bored, and my TV and webbing are right there, I'm going to zap strap it on there right now!
Greg


----------



## Matt_Fisher (17 Nov 2004)

Yeoman said:
			
		

> I'm bored, and my TV and webbing are right there, I'm going to zap strap it on there right now!



I want to see a pic of this abomination abortion   ;D


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Nov 2004)

> I want to see a pic of this abomination abortion   Grin



If you think that's an abortion, on more than one occasion I've witnessed guys attach the chest panels of the US issued LBV-88 to their 82ptn webbing to create a "vest" of sorts. SEALS action gear in Calgary even sells a version in CADPAT with wide belt loops to fit the 82 ptn belt (although it has since been discontinued according to their website) specifically for this purpose.  I can't comment on the effectiveness of this setup, but I've never seen anyone use it beyond the first excercise.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (17 Nov 2004)

With the old PASGT vest, the LBV-88 worked pretty well.  
I'd imagine that there was significant 'flop' with the mutant LBV-88/82 pattern setup as the chest panel was free floating and not attached to anything in the back to stabilize it.

It's interesting to see a return, somewhat, to a conventional H-Harness web setup incorporating MOLLE/PALS modularity with Eagle's MLCS Harness and Blackhawk's copy as the STRIKE Harness http://www.lightfighter.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=568

For those that aren't fans of vests, this hybrid rig may be the answer?


----------



## Gayson (17 Nov 2004)

I have seen some guys wearing their TV's with 2 c9 pouches and 2 canteen pouches.

Install the normal c9 and canteen pouches sideways so the flaps face outwards.  If you look at the bottom of the vest you should see strap loops coming off the bottom of those pouches.  Now simply attach you remaining 2 pouches to the bottoms of the first 2 using the straps attached.

The only downside is doing this removes the NBC carrying capability of the TV.


----------



## KevinB (17 Nov 2004)

Our CO tried that - all you get is two extra canteens that flop around and beat the shit out of you...


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Nov 2004)

> For those that aren't fans of vests, this hybrid rig may be the answer?



I'm feeling more and more preachy and pretentious with each reply, but here goes....... No, I don't spend every waking hour thinking about this stuff like some people do, only maybe 3 or 4 hrs/day. Most of this stuff is probably obvious to most of you, but lets level the playing field.

The spectrum from the "harness", where stuff is carried on the belt/hip,  and "vest", where weight rests on the shoulders, is positively correlated with the spectrum of sustained field operations in open country, to high intensity urban operations.  While doing section attacks and fire/movement, the 82 pattern webbing is superior, with better ventilation, freedom of upper body movement, easier access to pouches in the prone position, and more comfortable distribution of weight on the hips. See movie "Bravo two zero" for a good example of belt kits that are well suited for fire/movement across bare ass fields and 200lb rucksack marathons. On the other hand, in an urban enviroment, a "vest" style  kit allows for easier access while standing or kneeling, a slimmer profile for fitting into wall openings, windows, or vehicles. Vests are not, IMO, very well suited to carrying heavy loads. An example would be any police SWAT team, where the emphasis is on mobility in and around buildings and easy access to amunition and pyro, with no consideration for things like weght(presumably SWAT teams don't carry lots of water, rations, or support weapon ammunition) or long term comfort. 

As Matt points out in his link, with modern technology (if sewing together pieces of nylon can be thought of as cutting edge) there's no reason why we can't have it both ways with a completely modular system.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (17 Nov 2004)

Britney,

The issue of weight on the hips and ventilation becomes pretty much mooted when you're wearing a ballistic vest.  

With body armor on, webbing has no advantage to tac-vests in heat retention, as the body armor itself is the greatest retainer of heat.

Ideally, for long-range patrolling ops, the weight should be resting on the hips, but the armored vest interferes with with wearing a belt on the hips when the belt has lots of ammo. pouches, etc. on it.

A US Company, Crye Precision www.cryeprecision.com, was contracted by the US Army's Natick Laboratory for "Project Scorpion" which resulted in a very innovative family of body armour and tactical load-bearing equipment.  One of the concepts that they developed was an armoured waist belt that you could attach pouches directly on via PALS webbing.  The vest was cut short so that its wear wouldn't interfere with belt and the two were designed to work in concert with each other.  Some of the stuff they've come up with is very cutting edge and will set the standard for body armor and tactical kit interface for the next decade.


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Nov 2004)

> ( on the crye combat pants) Waste management zipper (no gear doff required)



That part would definitely seal the deal for me.

It seems that crye has also got an endorsement deal with Blackwater, in their blackwater gear line. 

http://www.blackwatergear.com/products.html

A movie deal can't be far behind. I wonder how much of Blackhawk industries' current success is a result of their excusive supplier contract with Sony for the movie _Blackhark Down_


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2004)

I've been hearing rave reviews about this CRYE stuff and the work being done with the US military from other sources as well....


----------



## McG (17 Nov 2004)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> The only downside is doing this removes the NBC carrying capability of the TV.


You should not be attaching the gas mask carrier to the Tac Vest anyway (just as it was always "wrong" to have attached it to webbing).


----------



## Matt_Fisher (17 Nov 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> > ( on the crye combat pants) Waste management zipper (no gear doff required)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Britney,

I don't know if you're confusing Blackwter with Blackhawk?   The two are different companies. 
Blackwater is a security contracting and training company that is conducting alot of 'outsourced' ops. for the US DOD.
Blackhawk is a gear manufacturer.

Crye Precision has entered a partnership with Blackwater and Uncle Mike's (Michaels of Oregon) who've started their own tactical gear lineup:   Blackwater Gear.
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/1101frank.html
http://www.blackwatergear.com/

With the amount of time and money that Clothe the Soldier spent reinventing the wheel to come up their equipment, that most users have judged some as being good (sock system), alot mediocre (such as the tac-vest and first gen. Cadpat Gore-tex), it's pretty sad when you compare what a handful of people at Crye Precision have came up with on a relatively modest budget because THEY LISTENED TO THE USER when designing their stuff and kept the tactical efficiency of the operator at the core of their thoughts.

As far as Blackhawk's current success, I'd say it's more due to the fact that they spend more on advertising and marketing than any other gear manufacturer as well as a very effective supply chain management model and huge offshore production capacity that can supply gear as needed to their private market dealers when the dealers need it.   Whereas alot of other US based companies (Eagle Industries, SO Tech, SOE Gear, Tactical Tailor, etc.) are scrambling to keep up with demand from unit orders, then selling to the private market as a secondary effort.   The same goes for alot of US military orders.   If a unit is deploying and needs gear like assault packs and such and has only just gotten the funds allocated to them, Blackhawk is one of the few companies that can fill their orders immediately, plus they hammer the tradeshows and send so many GSA catalogs and marketing materials to the supply staff's at the unit, when the unit supply chief has just been told he can spend $X on assault packs and other gear, Blackhawk is probably the first company that comes to mind.

Blackhawk are masters of advertising, marketing and supply chain management, however their quality control and design functionality leaves a bit to be desired.


----------



## pappy (17 Nov 2004)

That Crye stuff looks damn nice, thanks for the link Matt.  very nice!


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Nov 2004)

Here's something innovative: rubber pads on the shoulders to hold your rifle butt.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (18 Nov 2004)

McG said:
			
		

> You should not be attaching the gas mask carrier to the Tac Vest anyway (just as it was always "wrong" to have attached it to webbing).



the TV has specific buckles put on for this use, the belt/shoulder strsp, ids not supposed to be used any more.


----------



## linddd (18 Nov 2004)

The reason Seals Action  Gear stopped selling Cadpat items is because we 
discontinued selling the gear to them.
Thanks Dave
A&D MFG / TigerTactical


----------



## The_Falcon (18 Nov 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> the TV has specific buckles put on for this use, the belt/shoulder strsp, ids not supposed to be used any more.



So, the TV has specific buckles for the gas mask carrier.  As already pointed out, the TV has many design flaws, this being another.  The whole point of having the Gas Mask seperate from you webbing and now TV, is so you can wear you gas mask in area of NBC threat  while working, without having to wear your webgear/TV.


----------



## Morpheus32 (18 Nov 2004)

Gents,

One of the things I find interesting in these types of threads is the difference between what we carry around on exercise and what we carry on operations.   We develop very bad habits and drills in a lot of our training because we don't get issued all the stuff we are suppose to have such as body armour, NVGs, ammo loads.   We develop procedures, accept equipment that is substandard because it gets by in Canada.   On all three of my deployments, the gear I was expected to haul including ammo, grenades, water etc, outstripped the capablities of the pure issue kit.   When kit is purchased, some assumptions are made on the type of usage as well as some stuff as resupply and proximity to vehicles.   The hard reality is that on just about every major operation, the tasks as assigned to the troops demonstrate that the initial assumption is incorrect.   Many of you have fixed gear related problems by modifying or using civilian stuff.   By doing this you have demonstrated that the assumptions were incorrect again.   I too have purchased civilian kit to get the job done.   

I would like to comment on a couple of peoples load outs.   Water is life, don't go short on it.   On a weekend exercise you can get away with low water consumption but it will bite you in the butt if you do it on longer durations or in hotter climates.   Water cartage is a major issue and it should not be overlooked.   On bandoleers and slinging ammo.   It looks good in movies and sounds like it will work but it gets in the way, gets the ammo dirty/damaged and is generally a pain in the ***.   In Somalia, Bosnia and Afghanistan we were issued extra magazines on arrival in theatre.   Anywhere from 10 to 13 mags.     Loaded mags are better than bandoleers in a fight so we should have capablitity to carry them.   If when we do it for real, we decide to carry 10-13 mags, why has this disconnect to the load bearing vest taken place.   Again I refer back to the initial assumption of use of the gear.   By the way have you ever tried loading up with body armour and plates then sling a bunch of stuff.....you'll hate in minutes....

Patrol packs are for resupplying items on your load bearing gear and should not be the primary means to carry gear.   Loaded packs are hard to get on and off and unless the have dedicated pouches to organize the gear, the stuff you need is usually buried at the bottom on top loaders.   Trying getting them on and off with body armour on!   If you are going to use it, it needs to be easily accessible.   Basic load of mags and grenades should be on your vest not buried in the bottom of your pack.

Every soldiers gear load out will be different depending on the soldier's tasks.   The TV in its present configuration does not meet this need.   Soldiers are forced to comprimise, leave out water for ammo (example of a C9 gunners post) which in the long run could be extremely dangerous.   Modular is the future.   Gear must be compatible and useful with body armour.   In fact we should all have body armour to train with as it definitely changes how we do business.   Look at what you should be carrying when you assess the suitablity of the TV not what you get issued for training.  There is a big difference.  Sometimes we forget that.   

Just my 2 cents.

Jeff


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 Nov 2004)

I agree with Jeff.

Train as you fight, because you'll fight as you have trained.

On the subject of body armor, the idea of training plates could be further expanded to 'training panels'.  Cost seems to be a major issue as to why all troops aren't issued ballistic vests and why operational units only seem to getting them.  By coming up with a 'training' ballistic panel for the vest (think lead x-ray apron or something similar), you could still replicate the weight, bulk and feel of the actual vest at a much lower cost than using the ballistic panels.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

Morpheus, good post.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (18 Nov 2004)

There are certain things you need to conduct both training and operations. Ammo, food and water. There are extras of course, but I think we need to agree that there are alot of things that we personally bring along with us which we believe makes our jobs easier or more convenient. There were good points about the old webbing, and there were bad. There are good points about the tV and bad. We made due with the webbing for years and there were never any shortages of ingenious ideas coming out from all over the place. we have the TV and we will make due with what we have. Mods and additions will most certainly come out and soldiers will continue to develop ideas to improve the suitability based on their specific tradecrafts. 

Excellent posts and points everyone.

TM


----------



## zerhash (18 Nov 2004)

does anybody know when we expect to get the patrol packs in?

1 point more. it would be nice if the TV could care the same amount of things that our 84 pattern was able to. As a gunner i cant store anything really unless i use the c9 ammo pouch.


----------



## pbi (19 Nov 2004)

Obviously there are a very large number of legitimate complaints out there about our new vest, modularity and battle-load capacity being the two that stand out most in the posts on this thread.The best judge of any piece of gear is the soldier who has to use it on op, when his life depends on it, day in and day out for months. Evidently, those judges have spoken, and the thumbs are down.

So a couple of questions (not to be smart-I honestly don't know....):

a) what is the initial reaction from the chain of command on these complaints?; and

b) what action is being taken to put together UCRs and other user recommendations concerning improving/replacing items? I guarantee that if UCRs are not done, and items are not mentioned in PORs, nothing will be done. Even if all this mention is made, it may still be a slow process, but at least it has a chance. Silence is consent.

On my part I will raise these issues through whatever useful channels I can think of, but I would like a couple of answers first. Cheers.


----------



## Andyboy (19 Nov 2004)

As far as I know KevinB et al have submitted UCRs on the vest. From experience I think it will be a long hard slog to get a change on this particular issue but it is needed in my opinion.


----------



## pappy (19 Nov 2004)

Not sure if the CAF does the same things...  But in the US Marine Corps its common for "Inspector General's Inspections".  It was common knowledge that if the IG staff came around and asked for a Marines opinion on anything he could speak out freely, well you'd better used a little tact doing so.  But once the IG asks well it's fair game if you use some common sense and tact.  Granted they could really give a goats A$$ if you tell then there isn't enough cold beer at the chow hall.  But.... it can work it you fight your battles right.

Back in the day when I was a young hard charging Marine one of my many duties was NBC warfare, as the NBC NCO I was in charge of the training my unit and suppiles our unit.
It 2nd LT in charge had never even gone to school for it, so he worked and learned from me.  Granted he was offically in charge he knew I had the skills and knowledge he was lacking.  Well our NBC gear in those days was a joke, a very bad joke.  As we prepared for the IG inspection me and the LT saw the shite state our gear was in.  Both of us knew our lives and the lives of our Marines was in danger.  I'm not sure what the past Marines in charge of the NBC shack where doing or not doing.  But we found some major problems.  Our CO wanted to play the "it's all cool, everything is great" with the IG staff (General's Aides should stay General's aides).  The 2nd LT was a bit tense about the upcoming inspection...  Well the hated day did come and in walks the IG staff.  A$$'s pucker a bit as this Marine General walks in.  Towards the rear of the herd following the IG was our CO, sweating bullets.  Well the IG walks around looking at all the NBC gear.  Most was in order,  good marks givien to all, smiles and happy faces all around....

Then the IG sees this big pile of crap in the corner of the NBC shack.  What's that he asks...  this IG knew what was up, he didn't ask the CO, he looked at me and asked:
"What's all MY Marine Corps Individual Protective Suits doing in the that pile Corporal?"
As we walk over to look closer, I tell him that's all the defective, out of date dry-rotted suits going back to Btn. Supply.
"Try one on Sir, they're Sh$&.  Would you risk you life in one of those?  Would you send your Marines into combat with this?"
The IG picks up one of these suits gently pulls at it and it shreds in his hands.  Looking at the pile and then back at the load-out boxes that where supposed to hold this gear  he askes me:
"where the F*#$ is the serviceable suits?"
"There are none Sir." I answered. 
You could hear a pin drop in the room.  You could almost hear the CO losing control of his bowels.
The 2nd LT turns white.  The IG asks the 2nd LT "you knew about this LT?"  "Yes Sir"
Picking up a torn up suit in one hand and the wrapper in the other the IG looks at the LT and asks "you two did this?"
Oh man, I was thinking how that 16-lbs sledgehammer was going to feel in the brig for the next 10 years.
"So you two are saying ALL this gear is unserviceable?"
"Yes Sir, take a look at the packaging, the experation date was 10 - 7 years ago.  The Protective suits have a shelf life of 10 to 12 years, but the packaging has a life of only 5 to 7" I told him.  Low bidder strikes again.  Right on the wrapper is "Protective suit shelf life 10 to 12 years, if left sealed, open only when needed."  Below that in small print is a note from the supplier, "packaging should be inspected yearly, replace after 5 years." Seems they forgot to sell or offer vacuume re-packaging equipment to the Corps.

Everyone was looking a little uncomfortable.....

The IG askes what about the other units suits in the Btn?  "let's go see"  oh man the LT and me are screwed....

I knew what they'd find, having asked for repacements before the IG inspection, they are where unserviceable.  The IG found the entire Btn's MBC suits in the same condition.
Later that day the IG showed back up.  The LT and myself where "asked nicely" to report to the CO's office..... 

Well the IG was a sitting there behind the CO's desk....  
"So you two Marines are responsable for this entire Btn's NBC protective suits to be sh%$canned."
I didn't think that was a question...
You could hear my cheverons hiting the deck, along with the LT's shinny gold bars.  We're screwed......



"I bet we're going to find this all over this Island, aren't we?"  "All over the Corps..."
"Well Done Marines!  Heads are going to roll on this one."
Looking at our CO he adds "but Captian it ain't going to be these two men, I WILL be checking back and I don't expect any ill-will to be refected on thier records"

We heard later though channels that the entire Marine Corps took all this crap out of service and started working hot and heavy on new gear.  This was old 1960's and 1970 style impregnated cloth crapp, next came the charcol suits and now the newer encapsulated suits used now, or being issued. 

If you CAF guys think your gear won't do the job, speak out, just chose your times wisely. But speak out, your lives may depend on it someday. Changes can be made.


----------



## pbi (20 Nov 2004)

Pappy: thanks so much for that post: it could not have been said better. I see that the role of the NCO is much the same in the USM as it is in our Army. In my experience, when Generals and others come calling, WOs/NCOs (esp Sgts Maj) are in an ideal position. Most Generals seem to care not one whit about any comments from Junior Officers (most of whom are scared to make them anyway...) but if they are any kind of a  man at all they will stop and listen to an NCO, and usually the note-taker with them will scribble furiously. Having been on the "staff receiving end" of Generals returning from visits to the field, I know that a good Gen will besiege his staff with a list of unit complaints a mile long, and will want answers. We used to hate it, but it's right and good. 

The point I'm trying to make is that NCOs have a unique and valuable position: they are (or they should be...) respected for their experience and common sense, and they are able to do great good with that. I would LOVE to see an article in Cdn Army Journal or Inf Journal written by WOs/NCOs rolling out all the complaints about the current suite of kit. I would even help them write it.....

None of this relieves officers from our duties to fight the right fights: instead I'm just encouraging NCOs to keep on fighting as well. It will not happen overnight, but it can be done. After all, where did Clothe The Soldier come from in the first place? (Love it or hate it....) Cheers.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (20 Nov 2004)

PBI,

Sir,

I would have to say that as an infantry NCO I have spoken up on several occasions where I have felt in my professional opinion that certain concerns need addressing, whether kit or operations wise. I have subsequently been informed in person, by my CO in theatre that 'you are only a master corporal and a reservist, I can't have you making decisions or comments like that". HORSE SH**. I will, for the rest of my career never forget those words. I have come to realise that I would not willingly go to war with someone like that, or follow them, even out of out of simple curiosity. I only wish that there were more officers out there who consider themselves professionally inclined, that would listen to the genuine concerns of one of their NCO's, about equipment or operations, even though he was a rental.

That being said, I am not suggesting for a moment that the troops don't offer suggestions of how to improve kit or other things they see needing improvement. I am just wondering how well received it would be in the CF these days.........

I actually managed to personally piss off the DCDS by asking a question (being a reservist) of whether or not the CF was going to start to employ their reserve troops in more front line roles........

Anyway, rant is over,

Good day


----------



## pbi (21 Nov 2004)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> PBI,
> 
> Sir,
> 
> ...



Further to this tacvest thing, you can e-mail CTS at: http://www.army.dnd.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/8/8_e.asp. While their site says that they don't reply to individuale-mails, I encourage anybody with a complaint about any CTS item to send it in. This would be much faster than the UCR process (although this will still happen) and it will give CTS staff "coal face" input. I have sent them an e-mail summarizing the complaints I have seen about the tacvest. Fire away! Cheers.


----------



## zerhash (21 Nov 2004)

lol piper,
i know youre new and youve got a good opinion on the kit. but i dont think you can truly appreciate it until you have lived with the old stuff.


----------



## Redeye (21 Nov 2004)

Having just come back from my first weekend using the vest, I'm incredibly impressed with the way it feels for long wear - I have somewhat narrow shoulders and with the 82 pattern webbing and ruck on it gets to be sort, a lot of shoulder hotspots, and I found no such problems rucking this weekend, even though it wasn't like I covered any great distance.  The lack of modularity is my sore point, and the fact that the entire system (with small pack, at least) hasn't been issued together.  The loss of the buttpack can be addressed by using an IPE bag or one of a multitude of private-purchase (ie Canadian Peacekeeper, Dropzone Tactical, Tiger Tactical, etc) patrol/day packs.  It just sucks buy same while knowing that at some point in the not too distant future I'm going to be issued one anyhow.

A massive number of troops in my unit own Camelbak or other hydration packs, they have opted to use those systems and ditch the canteen career entirely for 2 C9 pouches and thus more load carriage.  Works pretty good that way.

Of course, I'm just a rental, I could be wrong.


----------



## pbi (22 Nov 2004)

I adressed the butt-pack problem (I think....) by attaching the large blister-pouch from the small pack to the rear of the vest. Now, I'm just a pogue, so maybe its a bad idea. Cheers.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (22 Nov 2004)

PBI,

Thank you for the candid post. 

As for the tac vest, I have found that a simple low volume small pack can assist greatly in the use and load distribution, and best of all it can be left behind for some more tricky situations.


----------



## zerhash (22 Nov 2004)

seems like the wheelers nuke bag is a favourite amongst the engineer troops

wheelers has good kit however if you are going to get issued new small packs chances are you probably wont be purchasing any replacements.

as for the small pack, how exactly do they expect you to travel with it as part of your marching order? (ruck, tv, sp, rifle etc)


----------



## zerhash (22 Nov 2004)

lol they should make you use the old webbing and greens. have ye earn the gucci kit

at least the army isnt looking as bad anymore! we still have some pizza barret issues but at least we are using one uniform now


----------



## R031button (23 Nov 2004)

zerhash said:
			
		

> lol they should make you use the old webbing and greens. have ye earn the gucci kit
> 
> at least the army isnt looking as bad anymore! we still have some pizza barret issues but at least we are using one uniform now



 No in BC we don't.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (23 Nov 2004)

Personally, I like the conveniance of the tac vest.  The old but pack, you had to take your webbing off and sort through everything in there to find something..and that is especially difficult when you have a Mcpl barking at you to hurry..

The 2 utility pouches in the front are much easier to open, close, and sort my needed kit.

The only thing I can't really fit in there is my plate and cup...but when you're in the field, you eat rations anyway.

And the rain gear can go in the C-9 pouch (if you're not a C9 gunner) or you can just roll it and strap it to the back.

The TV is, IMHO, leaps and bounds better than the old webbing.  (I also heard some complaints about it only holding 4 mags....well, so did the old webbing so?)


----------



## Matt_Fisher (23 Nov 2004)

Lost_Warrior,

I think your handle isn't the only thing that's "Lost" here... :

Did you not bother to read this thread in its entirety, or any of the other threads that discuss at length the average combat load ammo requirements around 10-12 magazines per rifleman and the shortcomings of the Tac-Vest in this area?  Also, consider that in one of your C9 pouches you're going to be carrying an extra drum for one of your section's C9 gunners.  Then consider that in those front utility pockets you're not going to be stowing your weekend snacks like chocolate bars, gloves etc.  You're going to have a combat trauma first aid kit and field dressings in there.  And then because the tac-vest can only stow 4 magazines, you're going to need to put your other 6 mags in the other C9 utility pouch.  

Now where are you going to put your NVGs, extra frag grenades, pop-flares and any other kit that's been deemed mission essential?

While the 82 pattern webbing had its deficiencies, the whole point of CTS and the Tac-Vest was to implement a better piece of equipment, not one that creates a whole different set of problems.


----------



## zerhash (23 Nov 2004)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> But but but...I like my gucci kit. My gortex jacket with holes in it and (a pain to wash I might add) simunition hits on it when I got it, my multi-tool with a bent tip on the blade (I think the last guy who had it tried to stab a rock with it) and my various levels of fade-ness combats. .



lol thats what happens when your enemy force is a rock... cut backs tsk tsk.



			
				R031button said:
			
		

> No in BC we don't.



just wait for it bud lol

i think its just making its way past ontario then it should get to you pretty soon

what pissed me off was having and the frenchies get it before us... not that i dont like french people...but... but... hell they didnt even want to be a part of canada! GIVE ME THE GUCCI KIT!! jk jk


----------



## R031button (24 Nov 2004)

zerhash said:
			
		

> lol thats what happens when your enemy force is a rock... cut backs tsk tsk.
> 
> just wait for it bud lol
> 
> ...



I'm just bitter because it seems like the guys getting the guicchi (or couchinni in the words of my RSM) kit are the RMF's that get a nice heated fucking mod tent for ops


----------



## Pikache (24 Nov 2004)

zerhash said:
			
		

> what pissed me off was having and the frenchies get it before us... not that i dont like french people...but... but... hell they didnt even want to be a part of canada! GIVE ME THE GUCCI KIT!! jk jk



Unacceptable, even if it's in jest.


----------



## chrisf (24 Nov 2004)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> The TV is, IMHO, leaps and bounds better than the old webbing.   (I also heard some complaints about it only holding 4 mags....well, so did the old webbing so?)





			
				Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> The TV is, IMHO, leaps and bounds better than the old webbing.  (I also heard some complaints about it only holding 4 mags....well, so did the old webbing so?)



You could cram up to a dozen mags in the old webbing reasonably easily. The old style mag pouches would hold three C7 mags, and if you took the C9 pouch off, you could put on two more mag pouches...

Or if you were a C9 gunner, you could replace the C7 pouches with C9 pouches, and carry up to three boxes.

The 82 pattern webbing wasn't great, but it was more modular then the new tac vest, not to say it was better then the tac vest, just that both have their pros and cons.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2004)

zerhash said:
			
		

> what pissed me off was having and the frenchies get it before us... not that i dont like french people...but... but... hell they didnt even want to be a part of canada! GIVE ME THE GUCCI KIT!! jk jk



As RHF already pointed out, we don't need that kind of stupidity around here.  If we see it again, you can count on a fast trip out of here.  Consider yourself warned.


----------



## McG (24 Nov 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> I adressed the butt-pack problem (I think....) by attaching the large blister-pouch from the small pack to the rear of the vest. Now, I'm just a pogue, so maybe its a bad idea. Cheers.


I thought about doing that with one of the 7.5 L  . . .  but I couldn't help but think that would put it up in the centre of my back.  That would be even worse than the old butt-pack when it came time to put on a ruck or the small pack.

How have you found it?


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (24 Nov 2004)

though it isnt very good for quick access, the wheelers nuke bag (this is the best way ive found to compensate for lack of space) seems to work well.Carrying extra ammo and supplies that otherwise just cant be crammed into these TV pouches you can throw in there for the time being.It also doesnt interfere with the ballistic vests.It would really suck having to get at stuff thsi way if you needed it fast but id rather have it on me somewhere at least than not. I always had a nuke bag with the old webgear too, i put ammo and rations in the buttpack and raingear and clothes and whatever else i needed in the nuke bag, sometimes c6 ammo.Its the best I can think of for the moment.

Those nuke bags are endlessly useful.I carried my rain gear, thermal clothes, socks underwear, food, combat jacket gloves and a ranger blanket in there during Arcon04 (was a joke) without having to compromise any space on the TV.Those two front pouches on your TV you could carry a few 80mm rounds in... put the rest in... your pockets?  :
Anyway the point is, if you dont have a nuke bag i suggest you get one.Theyre worth their weight in gold.


----------



## McG (24 Nov 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> Anyway the point is, if you dont have a nuke bag i suggest you get one.Theyre worth their weight in gold.


Or wait.  The Army has already started issuing the small pack to units not slated for a tour.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (24 Nov 2004)

Too late for me =p The nuke bag saved my a$$ from freezing to death at 4am where I was able to carry all sorts of stuff.Did i mention i had countless food items with me as well? No im not a fata$$ =p


----------



## pbi (24 Nov 2004)

> How have you found it?



By putting one hand just above my as*. 

BA-DUMP-BUMP. (sorry-couldn't resist....)

Actually, it really isn't in the middle of my back, it rides lower down, but I guess alot depends on body dimensions. But, as I said, we realy need to hear from mud soldiers who have tried this. Cheers.


----------



## Thaedes (5 Dec 2004)

Hey there, was just taking a look on the other thread pertaining to the C9A2, and Da-man posted this link: http://www.combatcamera.dnd.ca/photoarchive/HiRes/!2004/111204/IS2004-1230a.JPG

If you take a look at his Tac Vest, you may notice that the Bayonet is so that the blade is down and handgrip is up.  What generation of Tac Vest this?  IE: Newer or older?   The ones we've been issued here in Meaford have it so that its reversed, and understandably so.  Its easy to pop out and affix to your C7, or to assist in the setup of concertina wire and low wire defenses.

The Tac vest seems to be modular as well, which would be great since a C9 gunner would have a utility pouch specifically designed for carrying his extra box.  Whereas a C7 gunner might have a different setup.

If anyone has some good info on Tac Vests, I'd love to hear from you.  Thanks.


----------



## Cpl. Williamson (5 Dec 2004)

You can Re-Position the Frog To either Have it Blade up or Blade Down.




CHIMO


----------



## Thaedes (5 Dec 2004)

Ha!    Simple enough answer, lol.   Thats good to hear though that it can all be adjusted for preference.  At least once you are in battalion.

Ciao!


----------



## Da_man (5 Dec 2004)

I prefer to have the blade up, this way you dont slit your throat when taking it out in a hurry   :-\


----------



## MJP (5 Dec 2004)

Or you can just do what most of us do with our bayonets and tape it to the sizing straps along the side of the tac vest.  Much better than in the front IMHO(and the rest of my Coy it seems too).


----------



## zerhash (7 Dec 2004)

heh not too good when there are standards around

blade up where i am... if you got it the other way people tend to look at you funny and next thing you know nobody wants to be your battle buddy

personal preferance is a poor excuse for breaking a standard


----------



## MJP (7 Dec 2004)

Who is breaking the standard? Or better yet who's standard are they breaking?  Units can and do decide where gear will go on a soldier.  As for where the bayonet goes....unless your on course does it really matter?  I'd rather have a soldier that takes the initiative to place his kit in a manner that is accessable to him, than some drone that quotes an Ops 150 kit list.

On that note things like medical supplies, should be standardized across the board in a unit for obvious reasons.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (8 Dec 2004)

zerhash said:
			
		

> heh not too good when there are standards around
> 
> blade up where i am... if you got it the other way people tend to look at you funny and next thing you know nobody wants to be your battle buddy
> 
> personal preferance is a poor excuse for breaking a standard




Standardization of kit in the feild for uniformity is stupid and unsless. Why make some one do something that is more difficult than they have to so it looks the same???? I cant find it right now, but I was told that there is somethign to that effect on the Gagetown Battle School website.


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2004)

zerhash said:
			
		

> personal preferance is a poor excuse for breaking a standard



Standard this  ;D


What I where at work...







Don't believe me ask MJP...

Standards are fine for a BASIC or LEADERSHIP course to teach troops attention to detail - but blind obediance to "THE STANDARD" is outlandishly retarded, everyone if slightly different and need to postion and use items slightly differently - the Army needs to accept that - failing that we will all be robot lambs led to a slaughter.

Cheers
 Kevin


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2004)

I don't know Kev.....that stuff looks pretty clean  Even my CIMIC stuff got dirtier than that ;D JK


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2004)

I dont do dirt  ;D

heck CIMIC has seem way more miles than the 031's...

Gimme a break I only have had it three weeks - I'll trash it soon just to please you guys.


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Dec 2004)

> I don't know Kev.....that stuff looks pretty clean Wink Even my CIMIC stuff got dirtier than that Grin JK



For the amount of money that must have cost, I'd probably treat it like my firstborn child too. Same reason my ICE bib pants have been wrapped in plastic in the closet for 2 years. Can't take it outside now, what if it gets dirty?


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Same reason my ICE bib pants have been wrapped in plastic in the closet for 2 years. Can't take it outside now, what if it gets dirty?


I got CADPAT and OD ICE gear now...

 So I can safety trash the OD  ;D

 :


----------



## Grunt (8 Dec 2004)

Thats a nice vest, I think I also saw it on Canadiangunnutz ;D


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Gimme a break I only have had it three weeks - I'll trash it soon just to please you guys.



Yum...RAV porn.


Hey Kevin, if you're going to throw it out, I've got a dumpster for you to put it in (it's called my barracks box).  ;D


----------



## foerestedwarrior (8 Dec 2004)

What kind of vest is that kevin?? What is your thoughts on it?


----------



## westie47 (8 Dec 2004)

Kevin - Is that the Paraclete rig?


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2004)

Yup Paraclete RAV (Releaseable Assault Vest)


----------



## 4CDO PARA (8 Dec 2004)

What kind of hydration system do you have rigged there?


----------



## westie47 (8 Dec 2004)

Looks like I would have to remortgage my house to own one of those!!


----------



## foerestedwarrior (8 Dec 2004)

I think its about $1800, not sure if thats CND or USD


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2004)

It is about $800 USD w/o armour - and close to 2K once the Level III soft armour panels are added and damn ner $3500 with the Ceramic Plates...


Camelback 2L


----------



## westie47 (9 Dec 2004)

Did you get it with all the armour upgrades, or just the vest. I've heard they're pretty good.  How would you rate it?


----------



## ibucephalus (9 Dec 2004)

Tac vest -- crap vest.

I talked to the Maj in charge of Clothe The Soldier (CTS) once and asked him why the vest lacked any form of modularity. He answered that CTS (meaning himself) thought it more important that everyone _be the same_. It is kind of funny that the only two people there who know anything, two 031 Sgt's, are basically ignored on almost every concern they raise. I actually heard a staff officer say something to the effect that the Sgt's were there to lend the project a veneer of credibility with the field soldier, nothing more.  :


----------



## Grunt (9 Dec 2004)

My thoughts exactly, Ive got a MODULAR vest coming in pretty soon, made by High Speed Gear.

I can understand "You must all be the same troops" on a BMQ course, but truly, not all soldiers are built the same, or have the same preferences.   Modularity is the way to go.  Its kind of sad when garrison thinking takes priority over proper functioning equipment in the field.

Heck my current 82 web set up isnt exactly the same as everyone elses (extra ammo pouches for binos and flashlight, parachute cord securing items to the belt etc)...


----------



## Arctic Acorn (10 Dec 2004)

I know for a fact that one of the Sgts working the project is getting a CDS commendation for his work there as well. Your post kinda puts a new light on why, ibucephalus.  :

Ugh...that reminds me...I need to 'de-speed' my 82 webbing for my PLQ over christmas...

 :dontpanic:
J.M.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (10 Dec 2004)

This PLQ i'm on is messing with my vest layout, dam modular vest's that have to be standard.......... :threat:

There are so many things I can do to it, but I cant.......grrrrrrr


----------



## Arctic Acorn (10 Dec 2004)

Dude, I wouldn't complain...at least you HAVE your vest. 

I likely won't see mine until Mar/April. In fact, my unit is the only Res unit in the area not to have them, I think. We'll be the only 4 guys on course not to have them. 

 :dontpanic:
J.M.


----------



## Freddy Chef (21 Dec 2004)

M203 Grenadier?

http://www.blackhawkindustries.com/product_detail.asp?product_id=1185&d=

A more modular form of the Tac Vest, in the Blackhawk configuration?


A more modular form of the Tac Vest in general?

http://www.wheelersonline.com/detail.asp?product_id=1016

Even with a pure, modular vest, there's the issue of attaching a belt, to lash more kit onto. Now, most belts are adjustable at the centre, by the Fastex/slide buckle. Most vests are adjustable on the sides. Adjusting on the fly, 82 pattern webbing or Tac Vest alone, can be done easily enough, but is really difficult to do with a vest and belt combination.


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2004)

JavaMan said:
			
		

> Dude, I wouldn't complain...at least you HAVE your vest.
> 
> I likely won't see mine until Mar/April. In fact, my unit is the only Res unit in the area not to have them, I think. We'll be the only 4 guys on course not to have them.
> 
> ...



    You have no idea how frustraiting it is not being able to DO anything to the damn thing untill you get it.  While we were still using the old style webbing nobody really cared what you did with it as long as it looked proffesional and was effective.  As soon as the tac vests came in the RSM started enforcing KIT LISTS for fuck's sake.  I've been a MCpl for 4 years and I got shit on for not having socks in the correct pouch, so you can imagine what'd happen if I tried to replace the straps with bungee cord or add some non-standard pouches.  I'm guessing the regs aren't being so stupid about it, but the crap that these vests have caused in reserve units is just ridiculous.


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I've been a MCpl for 4 years and I got crap on for not having socks in the correct pouch.



Dude - socks DON"T fit in a TACVEST (or belong) - please tell your RSM that from me.  It is mission essential only

Yeah we had some stupid lists - but our new CO is pretty ******* cool with what we want to wear now so the BS is a min - we have MIN amounts (First Aid stuff) but no real set list (as he knows eveyone is slightly different).


----------



## Arctic Acorn (21 Dec 2004)

"I'm guessing the regs aren't being so stupid about it, but the crap that these vests have caused in reserve units is just ridiculous."

Yeah, I hear ya. I just got the tac vest the other day so I could have it for my PLQ. Sure looks pretty, but we'll see how it works out in the field. We haven't been given a kit list for the thing...yet. But I can see it coming." 

 :dontpanic:
J.M.


----------



## Bomber (21 Dec 2004)

Make sure the very tip of the scabbard is tucked in on the chest, if you wear it that way, cause we almost bent a guy in half pulling him over an Irish Table on the obstacle course in Pet cause his tip wasn't covered, get your heads out of the gutter.  But really, it put a nice dent in the bottom of the table, and it wasn't until after the course was completed that we say why he never got over, and why only half of his bayonet came out when he pulled it out.


----------



## 2FERSapper (21 Dec 2004)

I love the vest. Ive had it since the begining of October and ive used it on a few ex's already. 1 Demo ex, 1 Bridge ex, 1 DRU weekend, and ever other weekend since mid october when the BMQ im teaching on started. Just for the comfort of the vest its worth it. Ruck Marchs have never felt so good. the vest is useable on the go, it breaths and its comfortable. yes ive said that afew times but its true. Insted of bitching inside my head about the dam webbing while working or doing a section attack i can actully full concentrate on the task at hand b/c the tacvest isnt getting in the way.


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2004)

So you've had it on how long in reality? 5 or 6 days?

  :

Sorry I just don't see a weekend ex as a validation for a piece of gear.


Bomber

Move the bayonet to the weak side off the utility pouch it gets it out of the way...


----------



## 2FERSapper (21 Dec 2004)

Ive been useing the vest every weekend since oct 22. When teaching its great, on PT(ruck marches) its great, demo ex i had no problems with it other than no butt poack to hold alot of c4 but my nuke bag fixed that, the dru weekend of constantly running out to deal with "rioters" it was great. the bridge build it was awsum i didnt even feel it. In my short experiance with the vest ive had nothing but good or great experiances with it.


----------



## Britney Spears (21 Dec 2004)

> Dude - socks DON"T fit in a TACVEST (or belong) - please tell your RSM that from me.  It is mission essential only



This would be middle stage of "tac vest mania", where well meaning leaders try to fit the whole Ops 100 FFO  our chest.  Thus, "1 pair socks in buttpack left Kidney pouch".

Give 'em a few month to get over it.  ;D


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2004)

2FER - heck if it works for you all the power too you - I just have a feeling that as you have to wear it longer you are goign to start noticing things about it...

 You wearing armour and plates?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> You wearing armour and plates?



Kevin, Kevin, Kevin.

Quit baiting the lad. You know the only place in Canada that has those is the "Tease the Soldier" site ;D


----------



## ibucephalus (21 Dec 2004)

> is the "Tease the Soldier" site



I thought the name was officially changed to "Fool The Soldier".  ;D


----------



## bossi (21 Dec 2004)

Thanks for all the chuckles ... (i.e. re: kit list for tac vest ...)

One of the buckles tore off while I was getting out of a two-door (German) version of the Mercedes Wolf - seems the old-fashioned problem of "catching on stuff" still exists ... at least for me.

I liked having the bayonet in front, and put a rank epaulette over it (which also served to cover up the scabbard)- a better fit, too, as compared to having the epaulette flopping around on the strap up by the shoulder (... where it seemed to be an after-thought ...)

As for socks ... sheeyah, right ... I carried ammo in every nook and cranny, plus a few "power bars", first aid essentials, and civvie pattern mine tape (took up less space than CF mine tape).  Soft stuff like gloves went into the trouser cargo pockets (since it banged and bounced slightly less painfully than hard stuff ...).  Pocket knives in my pockets, on my belt, and on my tac vest (so I could always find one in any situation).

Kit list for tac vest ... that's a good one ... hohoho ...


----------



## KevinB (22 Dec 2004)

Bossi - I dont think rank should be on the TV - it is the only "afterthought" I agree on with the TV...


----------



## MJP (23 Dec 2004)

> Bossi - I dont think rank should be on the TV - it is the only "afterthought" I agree on with the TV



I think I just heard an RSM shudder.....


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

bossi said:
			
		

> Thanks for all the chuckles ... (i.e. re: kit list for tac vest ...)
> 
> One of the buckles tore off while I was getting out of a two-door (German) version of the Mercedes Wolf - seems the old-fashioned problem of "catching on stuff" still exists ... at least for me.
> 
> ...



    You want to talk to the RSM then?  ;D  I can't even seem to convince a Sgt....

    Although on a positive note, I have recently seen one of the Sgt's modifying his TV with bungee cords, so assuming he doesn't get shit on, a lot of this foolishness should dissipate within a few months.

    As for the rank, I seem to be the only one in the regiment who's hit on the idea of wearing it over the scabbard.  I have a pretty good reason for it though, I have the TV adjusted so it rides high up on the chest, which means the rank won't fit on the shoulder strap.  There's no way in hell I'm going to change the way I wear my vest just so I can have my rank in the same place as everyone else, no matter who tells me to do it.


----------



## dw_1984 (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> As for the rank, I seem to be the only one in the regiment who's hit on the idea of wearing it over the scabbard.   I have a pretty good reason for it though, I have the TV adjusted so it rides high up on the chest, which means the rank won't fit on the shoulder strap.   There's no way in heck I'm going to change the way I wear my vest just so I can have my rank in the same place as everyone else, no matter who tells me to do it.



I have that problem too...I just followed what my Sgt. did and tucked the rank in itself so that only the actual rank (chevron in my case) is showing.   Now it'll fit in what lil space I have left in the shoulder strap.  It just looks like a very short slip-on.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Dec 2004)

The fact that the TV can't even get the rank slip-on right should tell us all something....

PS: I love my MOLLE chest-rig....


----------



## brihard (25 Dec 2004)

Our unit's been experiencing some real hassle trying to get our tacvest. I beleive an OCdtfrom the Hast&PER mentioned earlier that his unit was the only one in 33bde not to have it- beg pardon sir, but you aren't the only one in those shoes. The PWOR was supposed to get them ages ago, but apparently we didn't get any in the 'large' size. Our RQMS has thus decided to hold off issue until we get the large size in- even though we don't have anyone in the unit who couldn't fit in a medium! To add insult to injury, a few people HAVE been issued TVs either because they went to the Bde MilSkills competition, or were one of the people who received avest as a 'reward' for performing well on a weekend FTX. Sorry, but I think that's just ridiculous- but what do I know? I'm just a private.

Strikes me that a simple, and even bureaucratically justifiable fix to at least one TV problem would be to simply expand the four mag pouches so that each can hold two mags instead of one. That gives you 8 + 1 in rifle. very little more mag stuffing needed, in comparison.

Tell me, is there any way to wear a TV and an 82 belt at the same time, mybe with the belt zap strapped or tied to the bottom of the TV? That would make it child's play to jury-rig a buttpack to it, but because the buttpack rides low, you could probably wer both it AND the day pack/nuke bag at the same time, giving you more 'stuff' capacity.

It's a sad state the the tail is wagging the dog in terms off soldiers' kit. Why not simply go with a commercial off-the-shelf acquisitions program for a high capacity MOLLE system? If they can spend millions on COTS trucks from Chey, surely they could afford somthing similar for the legs who have to carry their stuff...


----------



## Redeye (25 Dec 2004)

I stand corrected, then.  The issue of the TV has been a pretty screwy issue, but I can't condone withholding kit from troops when its already been shipped because of sizing issues.  If they only have mediums, then troops who fit a medium should be issued theirs, period.

In the Hast&PER - in my garrison at least - we didn't have enough to go around at first, so priority went to troops who were at SG04, then at a recently held exercise, then the remainder to those troops participating in an exercise that was coming up at that time.  In the end, more were shipped to us quickly and now all members save our BMQ candidates have then, AFAIK.

I would hypothesize that when the TV concept was dreamed up, it probably was state of the art, but the kind of truly flexible adaptable MOLLE type systems readily available on the market now render it outdated, before it's even been fully issued.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Our unit's been experiencing some real hassle trying to get our tacvest. I beleive an OCdtfrom the Hast&PER mentioned earlier that his unit was the only one in 33bde not to have it- beg pardon sir, but you aren't the only one in those shoes. The PWOR was supposed to get them ages ago, but apparently we didn't get any in the 'large' size. Our RQMS has thus decided to hold off issue until we get the large size in- even though we don't have anyone in the unit who couldn't fit in a medium! To add insult to injury, a few people HAVE been issued TVs either because they went to the Bde MilSkills competition, or were one of the people who received avest as a 'reward' for performing well on a weekend FTX. Sorry, but I think that's just ridiculous- but what do I know? I'm just a private.
> 
> Strikes me that a simple, and even bureaucratically justifiable fix to at least one TV problem would be to simply expand the four mag pouches so that each can hold two mags instead of one. That gives you 8 + 1 in rifle. very little more mag stuffing needed, in comparison.
> 
> ...


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Dec 2004)

> I would hypothesize that when the TV concept was dreamed up, it probably was state of the art, but the kind of truly flexible adaptable MOLLE type systems readily available on the market now render it outdated, before it's even been fully issued.



While we're hypothesizing, why is the TV modeled so closely on the old LBV? i.e. 4 single mag pouches, bayonet  verticaly in the front, etc. I don't see how either of these features are particularly good, certainly no other army uses such a setup.


----------



## ibucephalus (26 Dec 2004)

> Why not simply go with a commercial off-the-shelf acquisitions program for a high capacity MOLLE system?



Because, as already stated, the Tactical Vest is a development of the Load Bearing Vest, which was first fielded in like, 1993? 1994? Which, I think predates molle. Am I the only one that thinks it is funny that it takes *more than* 10 years to buy a vest?



> i.e. 4 single mag pouches, bayonet  verticaly in the front, etc. I don't see how either of these features are particularly good,



[irony]Dude! So your bayonet is _*right there*_! Like when you need to whip it out in a hurry! Like your manning a VCP and all of a sudden there is a requirement to rapidly fix bayonets and begin bayoneting something. I think it is part of our doctrine to be able to fix bayonets at a moment's notice even if it means it is positioned in exactly the *least* convenient position for everything else you need to do. I think it is DLR/ NDHQ doctrine at least.[/irony]


----------



## MPSHIELD (26 Dec 2004)

Large size?, I'll trade my Large TV for a Medium. Then a again, at least i have one. My ASU (at this time) does not have any to exchange. 

The 4 MAG issue on the TV has been discussed many many times. I increasingly hear how much more MAG capacity Combat arms need (I'm not disagreeing or arguing with this fact).   The LBV was "dreamed up" or "created" at a time of peacekeeping needs. Had OP APOLLO occurred in 1993-1994 "ish" when the LBV came out, today we might  have been looking at a different TV that we have now as they would have had "combat tested" the vest. The TV (as most of you know) was "influenced" by the LBV and did not go through the "combat testing" that OP APOLLO put on the vests.

The TV (in my opinion) based on what people have discussed and experienced is not suited for Combats arms who need more MAG capacity. I'm not combat arms and I'm not in any way saying I'm an expert in combat arms area as to the MAG load out as to their needs. Again this is what has been discussed in many thread and forums.

However In my current experience with the TV, it suits most Combat Support and Combat Service support trades as we do not need as much "immediate" (up front access) MAG Capacity (My opinion of course, some will ddisagree.) 

Hopefully some "fix" will come out to rectify this problem whether it is   a Mod to the current TV or another rig/vest with a higher MAG capacity. (Yes I know what you are thinking, it costs money, but hey we can dream right? ) 

Finally, as some are wondering where their TV's are, take comfort that you don't live in BC as we will probably will be the last to see them.   

Just a few thoughts


----------



## MJP (26 Dec 2004)

> However In my current experience with the TV, it suits most Combat Support and Combat Service support trades as we do not need as much "immediate" (up front access) MAG Capacity (My opinion of course, some will ddisagree.)



Yes I would agree with you if conflicts today were anything like wars previously fought( WW1, WW2, Korea). but the trend towards  asymmetric battlefield like Like Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam shows that CSS types need more ammo, and training than they currently recieve.  We have already shown in this thread that the Tac Vest blows hard for the combat arms soldier.  CSS guys have chimed in and said that it is perfect for their world.  That they can drive a truck or fix a truck/radio/weapon with their TAC Vest and they can fit everything they need into it.  That's fine and like you said it's their opinion, but when the $hit hits the fan wouldn't you rather have more ammo than less?  I know I would.....if only I could fit it all in my vest.  ;D


----------



## Britney Spears (26 Dec 2004)

> [irony]Dude! So your bayonet is right there! Like when you need to whip it out in a hurry! Like your manning a VCP and all of a sudden there is a requirement to rapidly fix bayonets and begin bayoneting something. I think it is part of our doctrine to be able to fix bayonets at a moment's notice even if it means it is positioned in exactly the least convenient position for everything else you need to do. I think it is DLR/ NDHQ doctrine at least.[/irony]



Truth is stranger than fiction.

Actual (more or less, maybe a little paraphrasing) conversation between American Colonel and Canadian soldier during the early days of the TV:

Troop: "Morning sir, (salutes)."
Colonel: "Morn...hey, nice bayonet!"
Troop: "Indeed, sir."
Colonel: (turns to his Capt.) "hey, check it out, his bayonet is, like, right THERE!"
Colonel: "...but, why?"
Capt: "Well, certainly, he LOOKS really agressive, wiith the bayonet and all..."
Troop: "Look sir, I just work here, OK?"
Colonel: " Oh, right, well, off you go then."


----------



## MPSHIELD (26 Dec 2004)

MJP-Point taken. Yes I would like to have more ammo, i just didn't want a combat arms type to say "hey we need more ammo then you, why are you complaining". 

I guess the bottom line (as mentioned before) is the cdn military is stuck on the 4 MAGS that WW1 and WW2 mentality as to how soldiers fight. It is doctrine that has not been updated! Perhaps someday.

 :warstory:


----------



## Bartok5 (27 Dec 2004)

MPShield,

If soldiers in the field force wait for doctrine to lead the way, they will always be fighting a minimum of 3 to 5 years behind current operational experience.   The ongoing training modernization effort at the Combat Training Centre is a perfect case in point of our senior leadership finally coming to grips with this conundrum.   There is a firm commitment at the highest levels of the Army to change our training content NOW, in order to better reflect the contemporary operating environment.   The prevailing   attitude is that "doctrine will eventually catch up".     

In the meantime, we are currently re-writing theory training packages and field exercises to incorporate the current "3 block war/asymmetric threat/insurgent enemy" into our formal training courses along with the more conventional threat (albeit reduced to non-near-peer).   The goal is to have all applicable CTC course content revised in time for the spring training surge.   The CLS, Comd LFDTS (responsible for both Directorate of Army Doctrine and Directorate of Army Training), Comd CTC, field force commanders and soldiers at all ranks realize that we need to capitolize ASAP on the lessons that have been learned during recent Canadian operations as well as those which are being learned every day by our allies.   The training modernization effort is in full-swing, and many changes are afoot based on recent (but field-proven) "Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures".   

Don't confuse TTPs with doctrine.   Tactics, Techniques and Procedures are the practical "how to" skills and drills that we apply to operations from the individual level right up to (and in some cases beyond) battlegroup.   TTPs govern everything from individual fieldcraft techniques, to the conduct of specific operations other than war, to the execution of conventional combined-arms team attacks.   TTPs tend to apply at the Battlegroup level and below.   They continually evolve based on "lessons learned" and "best practices".     

Doctrine on the other hand, is the "over-arcing" theoretical guidance which governs how we as an Army operate and (if need be) fight.   Doctrine tends to be more "general" in nature, and speaks to the broader "principles and fundamentals" applicable to specific types of operations.   Doctrinal development is a more deliberate process than that of TTPs.   The latter change all of the time as new "best practices" are learned during operations and disseminated during training.   Doctrine need not necessarily change just because a new "Tactic", "Technique" or "Procedure" has been developed for a particular battle-task.   

The most urgent need right now is for the Army's training institutions to better reflect the contemporary operating environment in our formal training courses (particularly leadership courses).   This need is not   confined to the requirement to introduce new or revised TTPs for the conduct of specific operations, although that is part of the overall modernization effort.   It also involves injecting realistic training scenarios into our training courses which better reflect the unique challenges of current and anticipated operations (eg. the asymmetric threat, a mix of conventional and insurgent enemy forces, full-spectrum   operations, application of ROE, multi-agency cooperation, media-omnipresence, etc).   This sort of "quantum" training modernization is not a simple undertaking, and will therefore take some time.   There will be constant "tweaking" to find the right balance and to incorporate new "lessons learned".   Gone are the days of "static" course Training Plans (and associated content) based on unchanging TTPs for conventional operations in the "Cold War" context.   

Regardless of the challenges, we have to tackle the training modernization process ASAP if we are to remain operationally relevant as an Army.   The Commander of the Army has clearly said that training will not wait for Doctrine.   The latter will simply have to catch up where doctrinal amendment is required.      

This is probably "high level" stuff for the topic at hand, but you need to understand that the "new attitude" applies across the board.  If 5 mags are insufficient as a basic rifleman's load, then it is incumbent upon leadership at all levels to change it.  If the Tac Vest is inadequate because the procurement system lagged behind a paradigm shift in the types of operations that we now conduct, then it is the responsibility of all ranks to voice their concerns in the form of UCRs staffed through the chain of command to get it changed.  If two C6's are required per rifle platoon for dismounted operations, then take two and indent for more through the supply system.  It is not rocket science, and change can be effected quite rapidly on actual operations through the submission of UORs.  3 PPCLI Battlegroup had not problem obtaining 10 mags per rifleman and 2 C-6s per platoon prior to Op APOLLO.  You just need to use the tools within the system (eg.  UCRs and UORs) to effect the necessary change.  And if the system doesn't respond in a sufficiently timely manner, then you improvise, adapt and overcome by modifying what you have or replacing it with something better that you can procure elsewhere.  Likewise if you know of a better way to perform a particular battle task.  Discuss it with your chain of command and convince them to try it out.  No leader worth his/her rank is adverse to a "better idea" when they hear one....assuming that it can be implemented under the circumstances.

Some food for thought.  Those who know me know very well that I am not a "yes man".  I am all too aware that the mechanisms for positive change are often frustratingly slow.  However, the ongoing training modernization effort clearly demonstrates that we now have senior leaders who are willing to "break the mold" in order to get on with necessary improvements.  Direct your energies towards making a positive change WRT inadequate kit by sumbitting properly staffed UCRs and (if applicable) UORs.  Griping about the situation with a bunch of like-minded malcontents (such as myself) on an internet discussion board isn't likely to achieve the change that you desire.


----------



## MPSHIELD (27 Dec 2004)

Marc C, very well put. I agree completely. I have read alot of your post before and you always have a good clear way of making a point.

I was not in any way saying we should wait for doctrine. However it is usually doctrine that influences what type and how we use equipment. Sometime we have no choice. I do know what happens in reality and we in the CF have to change things to work in "real life". I had this discussion with my PL WO   and we aggreed that in the most part doctrine is used as a "guideline" more or less as times change and situations differ. A book cannot tell you every situation that you encounter therefore as you said, you don't wait for them to write it or rewrite the doctrine.

QUOTE "I guess the bottom line (as mentioned before) is the cdn military is stuck on the 4 MAGS that WW1 and WW2 mentality as to how soldiers fight. It is doctrine that has not been updated! Perhaps someday."

What i meant by that comment, (my mistake for not clarifying) was that the LBV and TV were base on old doctrine. If the doctrine was updated, then those who created the TV may have realized they need more MAG capacity when they were making the thing. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Roger (27 Dec 2004)

The two upper breast pockets on our combat shirts where originally made to hold FNC1 mags. They came quite handy but you had to be careful when running or you could get a mag in the jaw. Also the cargo pouches on you combat shirt was designed to hold 4 (2 in each) mags. Again at the time they could be a pain when running.

I think they should design our new CADPAD shirt to hold two or four mags in the breast pockets and maybe hold one or two mags in a slit of the shirt cargo pocket. I do not think it is the greatest solution but one that can be easily done. On a other note, I really miss the rear bag from the 82 pattern webbing but find the Tac Vest a nice peace of kit. Where is everyone carrying there KFS?


----------



## someguyincanada (27 Dec 2004)

i never even thought about that one....umm good question is there a spot? now your going to make me look at it


----------



## ImanIdiot (27 Dec 2004)

Chop said:
			
		

> I think they should design our new CADPAD shirt to hold two or four mags in the breast pockets and maybe hold one or two mags in a slit of the shirt cargo pocket. I do not think it is the greatest solution but one that can be easily done.



That's a pretty good idea....unless you have to wear armour


----------



## chrisf (27 Dec 2004)

The new cadpat shirts will still hold 1 C7 mag in each chest pocket. It's a tight fit, but a fit nonetheless.

I know the IECS combat jacket/parka kept the mag seperators in the pocket, what about the ICE jacket?


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2004)

The breast pockets are absolutely pointless when wearing the TV.  I can't even keep my smokes there any more.  A much better idea would be to remove them entirely and have pockets on your sleeves.  Might not look so nice, but 2 pockets on the forearms could hold two extra magazines in a very convinient place, and two shoulder/upper arm pockets could be used to also carry magazines or for the things we all tend to carry in the breast pockets.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (27 Dec 2004)

im telling yah, for extra mags, get a droppouch attached to your leg, or legs.

Can't do too much about the TV now, all we can do is work with what we have and find ways to succeed.


----------



## kellywmj (27 Dec 2004)

In fact, the combat shirt was designed to accomodate 6 C1A1 magazines, 2 in upper breast pockets, and 2 each in the lower cargo pocket(each magazine held in place with nylon gussets). Anyone who has actually USED those upper pockets for their intended purpose, particularly with ball ammo, generally never repeated the practise. I have not heard mentioned the lowly bandoleer as a cost effective, flexible way of increasing the soldiers readily available supply of ammo. Having done 2 BATUS serials with the Brits in the mid 80's(still with the C1A1) we dismounted with 5 mags per, and 2 or 3 bandoleers of 7.62, and we generally had enough to sustain us until we remounted.


----------



## Britney Spears (27 Dec 2004)

48Highlander brings up a great point, if it hasn't been brought up before. Before the transition to cadpat, there should have been some studies on a completely new shirt/pant design, to reflect the realities of body armour and what not. We definetly need pockets on both the arms and the calves(for access to small items while sitting inside or driving a cramped vehicle, as seen in the air force air crew suit). While the bottom pockets on the cbt shirt are still somewhat useful ( I can still get at them, with a little  effort, with armour, plates, and TV), the breast pockets are next to useless.  The much maligned US army ACU seems to me a very sensible design

The switch to a suede boot is also a great idea, think of al the time we waste every day polishing boots..........


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> 48Highlander brings up a great point, if it hasn't been brought up before. Before the transition to cadpat, there should have been some studies on a completely new shirt/pant design, to reflect the realities of body armour and what not. We definetly need pockets on both the arms and the calves(for access to small items while sitting inside or driving a cramped vehicle, as seen in the air force air crew suit). While the bottom pockets on the cbt shirt are still somewhat useful ( I can still get at them, with a little   effort, with armour, plates, and TV), the breast pockets are next to useless.   The much maligned US army ACU seems to me a very sensible design



You took the words right outta my mouth.  Anything that is not designed for wear with armour is pretty much obsolete.



> The switch to a suede boot is also a great idea, think of al the time we waste every day polishing boots..........



But, what would we have to get jacked on the parade square then?


----------



## KevinB (27 Dec 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> im telling yah, for extra mags, get a droppouch attached to your leg, or legs.
> 
> Can't do too much about the TV now, all we can do is work with what we have and find ways to succeed.



Trust me dropleg pouches with 2+ mags are NO FUN

The biggest obstacle with the TV is ourselves - No less than 6 units submitted UCR's from Afgfhanistan.  The trick is to come up with a viable replacment or suplement.


----------



## chrisf (27 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> The breast pockets are absolutely pointless when wearing the TV.   I can't even keep my smokes there any more.   A much better idea would be to remove them entirely and have pockets on your sleeves.   Might not look so nice, but 2 pockets on the forearms could hold two extra magazines in a very convinient place, and two shoulder/upper arm pockets could be used to also carry magazines or for the things we all tend to carry in the breast pockets.



Why remove the chest pockets? Why not keep them *and* add arm pockets? You can never have too many pockets. I know. I keep running out of room in my pockets, despite a veritable bat belt.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2004)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Why remove the chest pockets? Why not keep them *and* add arm pockets? You can never have too many pockets. I know. I keep running out of room in my pockets, despite a veritable bat belt.



    Oh you get the idea.  The main point is that we need pockets which can be accessed while wearing armour/TV.


----------



## MJP (27 Dec 2004)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Why remove the chest pockets?



I think that is the better option as we there are still uses for having breast pockets...especially when not wearing body armour.   I remember I had one of my old combat shirts configured like that for field use.   I don't know about putting mags there, but I've never tried it so I ain't gonna knock it.   I think it is better used for your pen and paper and your compass as I was always fishing paper out of my pants pockets overseas, instead of trying to dig my FMP out of my vest.


----------



## Roger (27 Dec 2004)

So what about the KFS, where are you guys putting it?

Yes I always have food on my mind.....

It does not hurt to have the breast pockets fit a mag and it would be simple and cost effective.


----------



## Britney Spears (27 Dec 2004)

> So what about the KFS, where are you guys putting it?



Far away from the food, with the canteen cup. In my closet.

Sorry, can't help you there, I've never used the KFS for anything, much less take it t the field with me, guess I haven't been in long enough. I really wouldn't recommend using it or the canteen cup with food, as the previous keener who had it probably polished it with CLP and Silvo on his JLC course, not that I know of anyone who would do such a thing......


----------



## chrisf (27 Dec 2004)

MJP said:
			
		

> I think that is the better option as we there are still uses for having breast pockets...especially when not wearing body armour.   I remember I had one of my old combat shirts configured like that for field use.   I don't know about putting mags there, but I've never tried it so I ain't gonna knock it.   I think it is better used for your pen and paper and your compass as I was always fishing paper out of my pants pockets overseas, instead of trying to dig my FMP out of my vest.



If you can get your hands on them, the little MP notepads are excellent, same size as the chest pads. Generally in day to day sort of garrison things, I have that and a pen in my chest pocket. I seldom carry my FMP any more, unless I expect to be doing a great deal of writing, as the FMP pads are far easier to replace.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

I just use one of those MEC plastics spoons with some para-cord to latch it to a pocket-button.  It's not as if any of the "food" you eat in the Army is solid-state and requires a fork and knife....


----------



## MJP (27 Dec 2004)

> If you can get your hands on them, the little MP notepads are excellent, same size as the chest pads. Generally in day to day sort of garrison things, I have that and a pen in my chest pocket. I seldom carry my FMP any more, unless I expect to be doing a great deal of writing, as the FMP pads are far easier to replace.



The MP notepad is the day to day notepad I use.  I use to cut down a FMP with a band saw to get one that fits, but since they switch to that crappy spiral at the top I've been using the MP pad.   I alway carry my FMP/FMP carrier with me as it has all my aide-memoirs, reports & returns as well as orders formats in it.  Writing orders or taking orders with a notepad just plain sucks with my terrible writing I fill up a page pretty quickly.

As for the KFS, I don't think most people put in in their tacvest as there is little to no room to fit things in there after ammo and water anyway.  I do the same as Infanteer and just use a MRE or MEC spoon.  Some I suspect put it in their plate bag......


----------



## Britney Spears (27 Dec 2004)

> Some I suspect put it in their plate bag......



Well, they ARE a lot lighter than the plates.........


KFS - Most Useless Piece of Kit Ever.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Dec 2004)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> If you can get your hands on them, the little MP notepads are excellent, same size as the chest pads. Generally in day to day sort of garrison things, I have that and a pen in my chest pocket. I seldom carry my FMP any more, unless I expect to be doing a great deal of writing, as the FMP pads are far easier to replace.



Canadian Peacekeeper makes a nifty half-sized FMP cover and FMP pads that fit perfectly in the breast pocket; I rather like mine.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Dec 2004)

> Why remove the chest pockets? Why not keep them *and* add arm pockets? You can never have too many pockets. I know. I keep running out of room in my pockets, despite a veritable bat belt.



i saw a guy do this.
Ripped the pockets off his chest and sewed them on to his arms.     

Seemed like a good idea, i think he took a little flak over it. He wasn't very subtle about his modification.


----------



## chrisf (28 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Canadian Peacekeeper makes a nifty half-sized FMP cover and FMP pads that fit perfectly in the breast pocket; I rather like mine.



Yeah, but that costs money


----------



## devil39 (28 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You took the words right outta my mouth.   Anything that is not designed for wear with armour is pretty much obsolete.



I would have to disagree Infanteer.   I can think of numerous instances where I would not be wearing body armour.   It is a risk assessment.   In some cases a flak vest and plates are more of a force protection hazard than a benefit. 

Many (most?) would agree with you though and would insist that a flak jacket be worn at all times.   I believe this is a decision best left to the commander on the ground.


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Dec 2004)

> I would have to disagree Infanteer.  I can think of numerous instances where I would not be wearing body armour.



Meh, fair enough, I'd just rather stand around in a shirt designed for armour instead of wearing armour over a shirt designed for standing around. 

This is not to imply that standing around is ALL we do when not wearing armour (Wouldn't that be nice?), but armour should have been a  major consideration in the design of the shirt, more so than the carriage of extra FN C1 magazines.


----------



## devil39 (28 Dec 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> > I would have to disagree Infanteer.   I can think of numerous instances where I would not be wearing body armour.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed.   Pockets on the upper arms is the way to go probably.   I never got around to moving the chest pockets like some guys did.   I generally only wore a flak jacket on insertion and extraction.  Really situationally dependent though.


----------



## KevinB (29 Dec 2004)

Take a look at the Crye Precision 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




They have taken the idea one step further 

The shoulder/arm pockets and a un-encumbered tighter fitting chest.

Funny a buddy of mine (well back then have not seen in in over 10 years) proposed this sort of idea - collar and chest layout to NDHQ in 1993...


-I ordered a set of the pants and top to see how it works - look for feedback end Jan/Feb...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2004)

Although I may have missed it, I didn't see anyone mentioning the bandolier. Even with the 82 pattern webbing, it was considered normal practice to have 5 full mags and at least one bandolier of 100 rds per soldier (before adding the grenades, LAW and platoon ammo). I very rarely see bandoliers on ex, since there is not that much ammunition being issued, but it is part of the soldiers load.

During pre training for ROTO 13, 100% of the soldiers carried some sort of light pack, usually an IPE bag or similar pattern from the kit shop, for the extra socks, rations and ammo. BTW, I thread my KFS through the button on the belt loop. If I were to design a load bearing system, I would see a central "assault pack" for the ammunition, first aid pack and one ration, and three large "pockets" surrounding it for socks etc. Under contact, a quick release drops the "pockets" but the troop keeps the important stuff with him. (If anyone is skilled at designing this sort of kit, expand the idea into the rucksack...just say I sent you).


----------



## KevinB (29 Dec 2004)

There way a US powerpoint on Loadbearing in combat floating - I have it on my Edmonton computer but the one I am on in Ottawa (wait for a few days I can email it)

They had it broken down into three systems
one for combat
one for non combat but close to
marching order

 Basically it pointed out the 031 soldier is OVERLOADED. 82lbs of light weight highspeed gear is still 82lbs...
I like the idea of "bugout bags" that are kept loaded with certain kit and only used if nec.  

I think given the current asymetrical threat the idea of  thebandolier is somewhat antiquated - you need your ammo right then and now 
I think it is great to have extra ammo another three bandoliers - but that is to be considered admin ammo for the "long haul" and not to be used on the "consolidation" - which is really fricking hard if you are assualting a few houses (yeah you passed the book value explotation of your section but...)

The idea of immediate replenishment has come up time and time again within the US Army - it is funnt to see some of their SF guys goign off with virtually nothing these days - I have a buddies load out from the "raid that was not" in Haiti that they had all their BHD lesson learned factored in and they had the kitchen sink -- now they have kit for the DA and that is it...
Obviously there needs to be some middle ground.

What are we going to consider Mission essential?

Weapons & ammo
C8 or C9, pistol (?)
Mags? extra ammo 
Grenades
DD's
Smoke
Paraflares

PPE
consisting of?

Pers Kit
 what do we feel is the min we would carry?


Then

Can we make it lighter or more effective?


----------



## Britney Spears (29 Dec 2004)

<a href=http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/webbing.html>Completely crazy ideas</a>

A little archaic, but still worth a read.




> I didn't see anyone mentioning the bandolier.



I presume you mean a bandoleer filled with magazines, and not with boxed rounds? Obviously the 5.56mm bandoleer we are issued with now is useless for such a purpose.


----------



## KevinB (29 Dec 2004)

Many of the US guys refer to three stages of dress.

1st Line
  Uniform gunbelt stuff

2nd Line 
  LBE

3rd Line
  RUCK


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Dec 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Many of the US guys refer to three stages of dress.
> 
> 1st Line
> Uniform gunbelt stuff
> ...



Didn't we at one time have

Drill Order
Fighting Order
Battle Order
Marching Order

??


----------



## KevinB (29 Dec 2004)

In theory we did 

however we never decided what we wanted out of a stage of dress


----------



## dw_1984 (30 Dec 2004)

I was taught there were 3

Battle Order (webbing minus buttpack)
Fighting Order (webbing w/ buttpack)
Marching Order (above + ruck)
Travel Order (above + duffel)

That being said, I've never used battle order.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Dec 2004)

Dingbat said:
			
		

> I was taught there were 3
> 
> Battle Order (webbing minus buttpack)
> Fighting Order (webbing w/ buttpack)
> ...



Ummm....Isn't that four?


----------



## Radop (30 Dec 2004)

I was on Roto 0 in Afghanistan and switched to the new TV just before departing.  For my trade and most of the combat support and support trades this will do the job and much more.  The more important thing is that our leaders must realize that we cannot carry all the crap that we use to carry with us.  Most of the stuff we never used so take it out.  Tell me, who wears the rain pants that has been in more than one year? I personally think the vest is well designed but like the 82 patterned webbing, it will have growing pains while it gets into service.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Dec 2004)

Radop said:
			
		

> Tell me, who wears the rain pants that has been in more than one year?



Rain pants are my favourite piece of kit, 17 years in and counting.  I told some of the privates at the Stampede the other year that I intend to get married in them.  For range exercises, they're great; beats lying down in early morning dew, rain or even snow and getting your combat trousers wet.  I never go to the field without them, and wear them regularly.  "Any idiot can be uncomfortable in the field...."


----------



## 48Highlander (31 Dec 2004)

Well there's an exception to every rule   I haven't even seen my rain pants in about 6 years.  I can't think of too many people who bother bringing them out, let alone who actually wear them.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (31 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Well there's an exception to every rule   I haven't even seen my rain pants in about 6 years.  I can't think of too many people who bother bringing them out, let alone who actually wear them.



Call this a stupid question if you like, but....what do you wear when it's raining? ???


----------



## devil39 (31 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Call this a stupid question if you like, but....what do you wear when it's raining? ???



Combat pants.   If it is below 5 degrees and approaching zero I may wear a light polypro.   Combat pants dry so quickly, why bother covering them up I have always thought.

Rain pants are great for a sedentary job when you are not generating any heat from the internal machine.   Nice on the range, but not the two way range.   

I own a stealth suit top, but I didn't buy the bottoms.   If i was going ot spend time in a wet OP, static, and laying around in the rain with little physical activity I might buy the bottoms.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (31 Dec 2004)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Rain pants are great for a sedentary job when you are not generating any heat from the internal machine.



I suspected that might be the answer.  ;D 

Range Sentry Mike


----------



## 48Highlander (31 Dec 2004)

on patrol, nothing.  well not literaly nothing, I still have my combats on  ;D  standing/sitting around, rain jacket.  The jacket has it's uses from time to time, but I've never found the pants to be worth the space they take up.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (31 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> on patrol, nothing.  well not literaly nothing, I still have my combats on  ;D  standing/sitting around, rain jacket.  The jacket has it's uses from time to time, but I've never found the pants to be worth the space they take up.



What?!?!, I thought the noise the rain pants make was supposed to be soothing while on patrol....


----------



## Britney Spears (31 Dec 2004)

It would kind of help if the rain pants (or jacket) were actually waterproof, and they're about as waterproof as your combat boots. That, and the fact that it doesn't breath, means that if you try to move around you will invariably get wetter than if you were wearing nothing at all.

Last time I checked, 3VP  recce plt troops are issued stealth suits(maybe devil39 can confirm?), so if you want to stretch the truth a bit,  its technically issued kit.  Then again, apparently noone in 3VP wears any issued kit at all, so I'm not sure how far you could get with that.


----------



## devil39 (31 Dec 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> It would kind of help if the rain pants (or jacket) were actually waterproof, and they're about as waterproof as your combat boots. That, and the fact that it doesn't breath, means that if you try to move around you will invariably get wetter than if you were wearing nothing at all.
> 
> Last time I checked, 3VP   recce plt troops are issued stealth suits(maybe devil39 can confirm?), so if you want to stretch the truth a bit,   its technically issued kit.



They were issued there 7 years ago when I was in Recce 3 VP, I'm certain they still are now.

Britney, the new/old rain gear is head and shoulders above the old/old   "Rain Decelerator" we used to be issued with.   It didn't stop the rain, it only slowed it down.   1 can of silicone would get you maybe 12 hrs in the field when the rain was falling.   We were in heaven when the new stuff came out.   I still tend to carry a rain jacket top rolled on top of my butt pack for when the weather really sucks.   Must be well maintained and turned in regularly though.

Then again I may be showing my age.   When I was a young RSS officer, my older RSS WO used to carry a wool blanket bedroll (and I ridiculed him).   I may be turning into him, not that it would be a bad thing!


----------



## MJP (31 Dec 2004)

Radop said:
			
		

> For my trade and most of the combat support and support trades this will do the job and much more. The more important thing is that our leaders must realize that we cannot carry all the crap that we use to carry with us.  I personally think the vest is well designed but like the 82 patterned webbing, it will have growing pains while it gets into service.



Kinda the point we are making...the Tac vest suits the CSS types as long as they are doing JUST their jobs.  But the moment you add the need to carry extra ammo/water/medical kit on top of your trade tools where does it go?  The vest was made with no consideration to the need of additional ammo and supplies that a modern soldier must carry and that is why we are arguing that it needs to be changed irregardless of trade.


----------



## pbi (31 Dec 2004)

Here is the response (_sans_ pictures...) that I got back from the CTS folks:



> LCol Banks
> The Project appreciates your feedback on the Tac Vest, sir. While these
> comments from your former soldiers are not new, the concensus is equally
> unclear when canvassing the entire army for feedback. I have enclosed a
> ...



Here is text of the att:



> Thank you very much for your email regarding your concerns of the Tactical Vest.  We at the Clothe The Soldier are always interested in feedback from the field force highlighting their experience and suggestions regarding equipment.
> 
> *Some historical background *
> 
> ...



Cheers.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jan 2005)

> The Tactical Vest requirement and design are meant to satisfy the generic need of the army.



I think when it comes to soldiers performing footpatrols (or other dismounted stuff in an operational theater) reaching a "compromise" is a poor concept.

Considering the large amount of kit an infantry soldier (or perhaps armored or artillery in a similar role?) has to carry while doing their job compared to a CS or CSS type, it's crazy to think there is an acceptable level of compromise. A sort of one size fits all.  The infantry simply need something better to do their job.  Someone who keeps their tacvest locked in their barracks box (not intended as a jab) can easily get by with it holding 4 magazines and limited storage space.  The guys who carry 15 or 20 magazines, water, medical supplies, GPS, maps, tools so on and so on simply need something better suited to their job.

I really liked the tacvest. It was new, i found it very comfortable to drive with and on marches and I thought it looked pretty good. I found there wasn't that much room in it and i was trying to find ways to pack more stuff into it. I can't imagine the needs of the guys in Afghanistan or how they get by with it.

I can't see the current tac vest changing enough (with add on's and side projects) to be used effectively by foot soldiers. i think you can only put so many bandaids on it   

I know it's a long shot but what about designing a sort of combat arms tac vest?  Something  designed and made not for the Canadian Forces but for the combat arms/infantry with a view to being used by the guys on the front line?  Would it be a sort of pride issue to say the tacvest isn't up to par for the infantry and a different design is required?  The idea of a one size fits all tacvest still bugs me because the difference in needs/useage is just too big.

To quote someone on this board I believe talking about shotguns in the CF and wether it's a waste of time to have them or not
"Try golfing with just one club"
I think it can be to the idea of the tacvest as well.


----------



## Britney Spears (2 Jan 2005)

> The idea of a one size fits all tacvest still bugs me because the difference in needs/useage is just too big.



The idea is fine, I don't see any reason why a CSS type cannot wear a vest designed for an infantryman.

The good Captain's reply makes an underlying assumption that a vest designed for the infantry is  inadequate for the needs of CSS troops. I find this idea to be highly suspect, but since he's the one with the  CD, I'll take his word for it. , Assuming, then, that a trucker cannot fit into her truck with both her breasts and 8 magazines on her chest, I agree there should be a seperate infantry vest. 

I would like a CSS trooper to explain to me why having double magazine pouches on the chest will make him/her less effective.

Or even better, how about a MODULAR vest that can be configured according to mission requirements?


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jan 2005)

> The idea is fine, I don't see any reason why a CSS type cannot wear a vest designed for an infantryman.



I see your point.
I think the vest should have been designed with the infantry in mind afterwhich it could easily be used by CS and CCS. 
It's better to only have to fit 4 magazines in a vest designed for 15 than fittign 15 magazines in a vest designed for 4.  If non combat arms soldiers have extra room in their vest then great.

As far fetched as my idea of designing (or just adopting) a vest soley for the infantry, scrapping the curret tac vest (and side projects) and redesigning the whole thing seems much less likely.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (2 Jan 2005)

Based on the reply that Captain Coghill gave pbi, I am thinking that CTS completely missed the boat on finding a vest body that through a modular PALS system could have met the needs of all roles in the Army due to its modular construction.  Now they are left scrambling to try and nail square pegs into round holes with such things as the C7 and M203 inserts.

The design of the Bosnia-inspired Tac-Vest seems to fly in the face of what Capt. Coghill says:  "It is short sighted to design army wide equipment such as the Tac Vest based on only one operational theatre" if his comment is to be taken as an elusion that 3PPCLIs experience in Afghanistan and their desire for increased ammunition carrying capability should not be taken as a basis of lessons learned for current and future operations in the War on Terror.


----------



## KevinB (2 Jan 2005)

I guess the good Captain cant read, or conviently misunderstood the UCR's from ALL of the Infantry Reg'ts...  :


Maybe I was mistaken but I go the impression of "why on earth would we change our design to a war fighting vest..."


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I guess the good Captain cant read, or conviently misunderstood the UCR's from ALL of the Infantry Reg'ts...   :
> 
> 
> Maybe I was mistaken but I go the impression of "why on earth would we change our design to a war fighting vest..."



I know i am joining this topic late but does Ottawa's reaction surprise anybody ?


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2005)

I am unsure of why this is rocket science to some.   The modular-PALS system provides a degree of adaptability that would ensure that no one would be unhappy.   All that is required is one or two simple carrier designs (it's really easy, I drew one up in 5 minutes for myself) and the sky's the limit.

I think the fact that the CTS are still "sticking to their guns" implies that they are trying to justify their decision of buying a Lada when the Ferrari was sitting right next to it, priced to sell....


----------



## 48Highlander (2 Jan 2005)

From what I've seen, the main problem is how the people in charge of the project look at complaints and suggestions.  They start off with the assumption that what they've designed is good, but might need some changes.  Then, when they're told that their product is crap, they automaticaly go into defensive posture and try to justify why they did it that way.  Instead of saying "ok, how can we fix this?" they automatically reply with "well, that's because....".  They only finally give in an make a change when there's enough complaints to make all their justifications irrelevant.


----------



## Thompson_JM (2 Jan 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> The idea is fine, I don't see any reason why a CSS type cannot wear a vest designed for an infantryman.
> 
> The good Captain's reply makes an underlying assumption that a vest designed for the infantry is   inadequate for the needs of CSS troops. I find this idea to be highly suspect, but since he's the one with the   CD, I'll take his word for it. , Assuming, then, that a trucker cannot fit into her truck with both her breasts and 8 magazines on her chest, I agree there should be a seperate infantry vest.
> 
> ...



speaking as a CSS trooper....  I honestly cant see why more ammo would make me less effective. the only concern I might have would be with having an overloaded Tac Vest while trying to drive a vehicle. To use the MLVW as an example, when we had the buttpack on our webbing it made if very difficult to sit comfortably in the truck. (and by the i mean i was basicaly sitting into the steering wheel) I think the Tac Vest has made our lives in the CSS world considerably easier, but even I have found times where i am trying to find space to carry everything I require. My compromise was to get an off the shelf NBC bag from canadian peacekeeper, and more or less, it has solved some of the problems. Infanteer had a concern with the maglight pouch not being able to accomodate any of the better flashlights out there, and last night while going over my kit, i realized that you can fit a streamlight scorpion into the pocket. its a tight fit, but it will work. 

tight fit however is not acceptable in my opinion when it comes to front line combat arms troops. 
I think the nail has been hit right on the head with the idea of a modular vest. Not only would this allow cbt arms troops to be able to carry the extra kit they require, but it would also enable us CSS types to modify our vest to carry what we might need. given the lack of money in the CF a modular design would have probabbly been the most cost effective way to go in the long run. it wouldnt surprise me to see in the future a modular design being introduced to operational troops, then the regs, and possibly the PRes. sadly  i think this is still definatly a long way off...

Cheers.
  Josh


----------



## Andyboy (3 Jan 2005)

The problem is that the expertise to design a decent vest did not exist in Canada when the project was started. 

The vest that Pappy posted here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/20031.0.html was designed at PSP in one year (inconjunction with the chest rig he posted too). The issued TV took seven years from start of project to start of production. Both cost in the same ballpark to produce per item, even though the Pappy-vest was built in much smaller numbers. To those of you not familiar with economy of scale this means that in the same prodcution quantities the Pappy-vest would have been much less costly to produce.  Difference? A professional designer vs. not.

The Pappy-vest may not have undergone the "rigorous Human Factors testing" that the issued TV is purported to have undegone but a lions share of that testing was to ensure that the issued TV was compatible with the new ruck. What new ruck you ask? Good question. After seven+ years we have a vest that the worst case end user (Light Infantry) finds unacceptable but which may or may not be compatible with the as yet non-existant new ruck. Kudos everyone involved. How do you spell boodogle? 

I guess it DOES look good though, being CADPAT and everything. Style over substance, right?


----------



## KevinB (3 Jan 2005)

Typical  :

 Well we have enough broken PAC's and PEQ's with the TRIAD that we could have likley funded an entire freefloat rail system for the C8SFW's...


Nothing like getting an amateur to do work for us...


----------



## pbi (4 Jan 2005)

> From what I've seen, the main problem is how the people in charge of the project look at complaints and suggestions.   They start off with the assumption that what they've designed is good, but might need some changes.   Then, when they're told that their product is crap, they automaticaly go into defensive posture and try to justify why they did it that way.   Instead of saying "ok, how can we fix this?" they automatically reply with "well, that's because....".   They only finally give in an make a change when there's enough complaints to make all their justifications irrelevant


.

I think, unfortunately, that you are not too far wrong here. Years ago (_Oh, God, here he goes again_....) I attended a briefing in Comox given by the NDHQ Directorate at that time responsible for individual clothing and equipment. The team was lead by Romeo Dallaire (I think he was a LCol at the time...), and the audience was the assembly of all the officers of 1 CMBG. The subject came up from the floor that our rain gear was   no good. Now, I don't know if any of you recall the rainsuit we had in the early 80's, but it was the POS to beat all POS. It was utterly, utterly useless and had a very short life expectancy. Every field soldier knew it was shyte. Dallaire (whom I otherwise have great respect for...) demanded to know on what grounds the complaint was being made. This was explained. Then, to the amazement of everybody in the room, Dallaire stated, quite hotly, that he had never heard a single complaint about the raingear, which meant that there was nothing wrong with it. The room exploded into laughter, jeers, and shouted accusations from the floor. Dallaire, being a rough and tumble guy himself, yelled back. Finally BGen Milner had to restore order. It was probably the ultimate example of the "defensive reaction", as well as an example of that yawning gap between the Field Army and NDHQ.

On another note, I strongly encourage all of you to e-mail the CTS shop directly with your complaints and suggestions. You guys have raised some excellent issues, and those people need to hear them without any "filters". Evidently the UCR system is not doing all that we want it to. CTS needs to hear from the coal-face. Go for it. Cheers.


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Dallaire stated, quite hotly, that he had never heard a single complaint about the raingear, which meant that there was nothing wrong with it.


I saw the same thing on a reply to a UCR on the cold weather gloves.  No other unit had ever complained that the gloves do not provide protection from the cold, so a complaint that was typical in the regiment must have been wrong.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Jan 2005)

OFFICIAL CTS POLICY:

THE EQUIPMENT IS GOOD, IT"S THE SOLDIERS THAT ARE DEFECTIVE  !

I'm sure that's it.......... :sniper:


----------



## pbi (4 Jan 2005)

Aesop: you think you are joking. I remember shortly after we got the "new" ruck in 1PP (you know, the one with the shopping cart frame insert...) we did a UCR to NDHQ. The basis of the complaint was the inability of the pack to carry heavy loads, among other things. The response we got back was that the pack was fine; the Infantry was just trying to put too much into it! Cheers


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Jan 2005)

TV, Rucksack, Gortex jacket, CWWBs......

Well, we're consistent, if nothing else.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 Jan 2005)

Here's something that may help the M-203 Grenadier out:  The Tactical Tailor 40mm Grenade Belt
http://www.tacticaltailor.com/products/belts/40mm_belt/

The Grenadier can either carry this bandolier style, or wear as a belt below the Tac-Vest.  In some ways, wearing a separate M-203 rig is advantageous in that if the Grenadier goes down, the other section members can simply pick up his rifle and 40mm belt and carry on.


----------



## Meridian (4 Jan 2005)

Its funny, but, not ever having really used the thing I would have assumed that a *tactical* vest would be... well for tactical situations....  if its a compromise vest, call it that. 

I guess its just like all those other things that should make sense but dont....


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Jan 2005)

Yeah but TV just sounds better than CV.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Jan 2005)

How about "semi-tactical" vest ?


----------



## KevinB (4 Jan 2005)

NonTactical would be my call - but SemiTactical is a good description kinda like a half assed semitactical ex...


----------



## aesop081 (4 Jan 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> NonTactical would be my call - but SemiTactical is a good description kinda like a half assed semitactical ex...



Thats why i chose the "semi-tactical" name..............i did alot of those exercises.........uterly useless


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 Jan 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> How about "semi-tactical" vest ?



How about Sub-par Canadian Tactical Vest or SCTV?    ;D


----------



## Meridian (4 Jan 2005)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> How about Sub-par Canadian Tactical Vest or SCTV?   ;D



Its like you've been saving that or something


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Jan 2005)

I have been using TAV VEST for a year and a half now. I love it and I have no problem using it.
I remember having to gun tape or tie webbing together because any time you leopard crawled more than five feet, it blew apart. The plastic on the webbing was cheap and broke very easy.
The TAC VEST is not perfect, but IMO its far better than web gear. Also, the TV was designed basically for fighting only (Ammo, water, grenades, etc).
A very bad habit I noticed with the old web gear was that guys would stuff every pouch and extra bit of space with gloves, snacks, snivel kit, you name it. We get out in the field and I would start handing out extra ammo, radio batteries and rations and the next thing you know, guys are unpacking their web gear.

FFO means Full FIGHTING Order.
I have no problems with guys bring day sacks (the old nuke bags or something equal to it) and using it for extra goodies and snivel kit. 
Keep FFO for fightin', troops !

Also ever try and wear Flak Jacket and the old web gear? It totally sucked. Flak jackets go alot better with TV than web gear.
Cheers while drinking beers...


----------



## bossi (5 Jan 2005)

Meridian said:
			
		

> Its funny, but, not ever having really used the thing I would have assumed that a *tactical* vest would be... well for tactical situations ...



I'm so confused - I recently saw a diagram with the title "Tactical Vest:  Garrison Wear" ...  ???


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Jan 2005)

ArmyRick, I don't think anyone's going to disagree that the TV is a heck of a lot better than webbing.  I was quite happy to get mine too.  However, I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "anything worth doing is worth doing RIGHT"   The TV wasn't done right.  If we're spending all this money to improve our equipment, we should be ensuring that the final product is as good as we can make it, not just better than what we had before.

You know, if the people testing the TV had had this sort of forum to discuss it in, I'm willing to bet we would have ended up with a much better final product than what we have now.


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Jan 2005)

> I don't think anyone's going to disagree that the TV is a heck of a lot better than webbing



I would. THe webbing's a heck of a lot more modular.


----------



## Thompson_JM (6 Jan 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I would. THe webbing's a heck of a lot more modular.



With all Due respect, I am curous to know your military experiance.

Not to doubt you at all, as you seem quite knowlegable on the subject. but it is simply that your profile is rather empty.

and although the webbing may have been more modular, i had nothing but problems with mine. being a trucker i never could find a way to make it work the way i wanted it to...
(but thats just me and my experiance... )


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Jan 2005)

The magazine pouches were too inaccesible in the prone.  The butpack was an absolute pain in the...butt.  And those plastic mounting clips and brackets were so poor that after a year I had to start stapling webbing components onto the belt.

I'm much happier with my TV thanks.


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Jan 2005)

> and although the webbing may have been more modular, i had nothing but problems with mine. being a trucker i never could find a way to make it work the way i wanted it to...



Getting in and out of vehicles is a bit of a pain, yes. 



> The magazine pouches were too inaccesible in the prone.



You think that's  inaccecible? Try going prone with the TV, armour and plates. The plates allow you to roll laterally(left to right), but there isn't much of a range of movement vertically, esp. with the back plates hitting your helmet. You can approximate this by strapping a stoveboard to your chest, going prone and then trying to reach the underside of the stoveboard. 

Also, I can easily carry 15 magazines in my webbing mag pouches, or 3 C-9 drums with an extra c-9 pouch, and still have room for a radio, 2lt canteen and a few belts of 7.62 in the buttpack. All with issued pouches ( army doesn't pay me enough for me to buy my own kit just for training).

And I can still get at them in the prone  



> The butpack was an absolute pain in the...butt.



I can wear the buttpack with reasonable comfort together with a rucksack. I do agree the buttpack is rather poorly designed, there are <a href=http://www.tacticalshop.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=745>better, more accecible models</a> on the market



> And those plastic mounting clips and brackets were so poor that after a year I had to start stapling webbing components onto the belt.



A weakness, true enough, I keep my webbing well secured and maintained and I've never broken a pouch in the field. That stupid strap on the bayonet frog, however........... 

There's ups and downs to each system, and YMMV. WHen I first joined I thought the webbing was an ill designed monstrosity too. Maybe one day We'll get something better?


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Jan 2005)

Oh, and ArmyRick is right on the money about the FFO being ammo, radios and water only.  I always get a hoot out of showing up for an ex with  a pair of socks in my webbing. What, train as you fight, right?


----------



## KevinB (7 Jan 2005)

Problem is the TACVEST does not have room for mission essential kit that shoudl be able to fit in it - the webbing did have the room.  I agree that addign an "assault pack" is a necessary option for some roles/missions - but should not be mandate to carry items like you MNVG etc.

 If you have to deploy quickly (out of a vehicle of some sort) you cannot alway get the pack on in time.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jan 2005)

Ooohhh...Britney, thanks for putting up the avatar - now I really want to chat with you (PS - Can you put "I'm a Slave for You" in your sigline.... )



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> I agree that addign an "assault pack" is a necessary option for some roles/missions - but should not be mandate to carry items like you MNVG etc.
> 
> If you have to deploy quickly (out of a vehicle of some sort) you cannot alway get the pack on in time.



The reason I'm not to keen on the whole A-Pack notion is that it seems to be designed without the rucksack in mind.  What are you going to do when you put your ruck on, throwing your load-carriage system out of wack.

I think Kifaru (surprise of surprises) has the right idea with the "piggyback" system.


----------



## Britney Spears (7 Jan 2005)

> Ooohhh...Britney, thanks for putting up the avatar - now I really want to chat with you (PS - Can you put "I'm a Slave for You" in your sigline.... Cheesy)



I feel harassed. What would the media think of that? Remember, they're watching........


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I feel harassed. What would the media think of that? Remember, they're watching........



Well if they are watching...can you put on a tac vest on your avatar ?  You get lots of media attention Brittney, you could show them how inadequate it is...... ;D


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jan 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I feel harassed. What would the media think of that? Remember, they're watching........



That's what you get for being so damn hot!

I wonder which newspaper is going to run the story *"Pop Singer Comments on Canadian Military Equipment!"*.  ;D


----------



## Britney Spears (7 Jan 2005)

Okay, fine, but first, I nominate myself for appointment to the position of Army.ca Fashion Consultant. Do the mods approve?


----------



## KevinB (8 Jan 2005)

To get back on topic...


Another concern we came up with after farting around "diss'in" the vest   It is not releaseable - so any waterborne ops (not that we do any anymore... but) are a fatality waiting to happen.

We where playing around trying to come up with a viable M203 system 












However some US folks on the Lightfighter board pointed out that the grenades shoudl be easily detached incase the operator goes down and another member has to take over the 203.


Infanteer I'll take a few pick of my Ruck and pack locked together....

wait one


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Jan 2005)

I've always wondered about those, how are the mags kept in place? Are the slots stretchy elastic or something?


----------



## KevinB (8 Jan 2005)

More pics coming..
Something to do on my Friday night


----------



## KevinB (8 Jan 2005)

I would go with the TT pouches, as they are good and made in CADPAT

 The DZ and CP ones are not good pouches.

Anyway I was doing some pouch pics for something else here goes.

RAV with assorted pouches





BHI M203 vest parts and SOTECH Hellcat MkI





Rav again





Paraclete TXM4 pouch - friction fit




TXM4 and Paraclete TX-II pouch - M4 mag with elastic retension - pistol via elastic or velcro top cover





TT Mag shingle - bungy retension 





TT and Hellcat (Hellcat has snap fasteners on integral mag pouches)




same 





Paraclete M4 double mag pouch (elastic retension - spacer between and velcro cover




same




same





Eagle (friction fit - felt type material over polymer insert, optional verlcro top closure)




same




same





Ruck with Pack


----------



## KevinB (8 Jan 2005)

I forgot to mention, that I personally do not feel the ruck should be taken into combat.  I typically stick my pack (empty) inside my ruck and then fill it with what ever mission essential (and possibly snivel) gear that I require (that wont go in my LBE)

 I don't see how we can wear the Kifaru tailgunner while in a vehicle (especially a small foreign SUV...)


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jan 2005)

Hey, I got the same carpet....


----------



## KevinB (8 Jan 2005)

Infanteer (whoops near PERSEC violation)
 Do you have the US Army's combat load carriage PPT file?
I have it and can email it to you - it is an interesting bit of info.


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Jan 2005)

> I don't see how we can wear the Kifaru tailgunner while in a vehicle (especially a small foreign SUV...)



My first thought, the first time I got into a vehicle with webbing, was " Man, it would be cool if I could take the buttpack off and quickly attach it to my chest, while in a vehicle, and wear it like a chestrig on the front web straps." 

Seemed to make sense at the time. If there was an easy way to attach and dettach the buttpack on either the chest or the back........


----------



## bossi (8 Jan 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> ... If there was an easy way to attach and dettach the buttpack on either the chest or the back ...



You're such a tease ... everybody knows you've had yours done/enhanced, Britney ...


----------



## Radop (9 Jan 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Considering the large amount of kit an infantry soldier (or perhaps armored or artillery in a similar role?) has to carry while doing their job compared to a CS or CSS type, it's crazy to think there is an acceptable level of compromise. A sort of one size fits all.   The infantry simply need something better to do their job.   Someone who keeps their tacvest locked in their barracks box (not intended as a jab) can easily get by with it holding 4 magazines and limited storage space.   The guys who carry 15 or 20 magazines, water, medical supplies, GPS, maps, tools so on and so on simply need something better suited to their job.



I don't know if you have been near the "Coy Signaller" in an infantry unit before, but they are one of the most heavily burdened members of the unit.  I was also an infanteer when I was younger.  By the way, my tac vest was never stored in my barrack box in Afghanistan.  I crew commanded a Bison and set up comms for those infanteers who went out on ops.  I may belong to a CS trade, yet, we often play a role that is equally important.  

When I was an infanteer on the advance, we wore our webbing.  Local defence, we wore our webbing.  When we went on patrol, we took min equipment and put everything in our pockets rather than carry webbing.  We now tend to carry way too much equipment on patrols.  We have a lot of concearns within our trade regarding the new pack we are getting.


----------



## baboon6 (9 Jan 2005)

How do GPMG/C6 teams usually carry their ammo? I've seen the 7.62 100rnd and 200rnd pouches from London Bridge Trading. Does anybody actually use them? It amazes me to still see troops from all armies with belts of 7.62 link wound all around them.


----------



## KevinB (9 Jan 2005)

Baboon - We are supposed to get the LBT system according to Tease the Soldier.  I have carried ammo in a LBT assault pack (they call it the Ranger backpack - I just think thats gay as I don't have my "TAB" and dont think my bag should be a ranger if I can't be  ) 

 The problem with when I have been a C6 gunner is that the powers that be think you should wear webbing etc just so you fit in...  - it is changing though.  

Basically if a gunner want to get a decent Load Carriage system for the C9 or C6 he has to go out of pocket.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jan 2005)

I never really thought of that - why would you really require a C-6 gunner to wear webbing at all?  Shouldn't a fragvest and an Assault pack satisfy the requirements and keep the weight down on this crucial member of the platoon.


----------



## KevinB (9 Jan 2005)

It SHOULD
 But stupid is as...


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Jan 2005)

Its great to be constantly pummeled by how important the plt MG is, how it is the linchpin of the plt's firepower, etc. during our careers as infantrymen, while the procurrment fashionistas continue to pretend (for decades!) that it doesn't exist. Same thing can be said about the M203.

Now that's synergy.


----------



## Roger (9 Jan 2005)

I do not know about everyone else but for static positions I think the Tac Vest is perfect. It seems to me by everything that has been posted that when they designed and approved the Tac Vest they where trying to find a vest that would work for ground and support troops. Maybe they should have made two of them, use the existing one for support troops the have one for the line troops that offers us all of what we need, extra amo carrying capacity and small packs that attach to the back for gear and so forth.


----------



## 48Highlander (9 Jan 2005)

Chop said:
			
		

> I do not know about everyone else but for static positions I think the Tac Vest is perfect. It seems to me by everything that has been posted that when they designed and approved the Tac Vest they where trying to find a vest that would work for ground and support troops. Maybe they should have made two of them, use the existing one for support troops the have one for the line troops that offers us all of what we need, extra amo carrying capacity and small packs that attach to the back for gear and so forth.



There's no NEED for two of them.  All you need is a comfortable harness with a decent attachment system, and an assortment of pouches.  Issue out the harness to everyone, and allocate the pouches according to operational need.  There's plenty of perfectly good, totaly customizable systems available on the market, but the clowns in charge of the procurement proccess decided we'd be better off designing a half-assed vest which cannot be modified.


----------



## Andyboy (10 Jan 2005)

Well geeze, everyone has to look the same, don't they?


----------



## Armymedic (10 Jan 2005)

We could always go back to that modulized piece of load bearing kit we all used to own, the 82 pattern webbing.

We could add more mag pouches, more water bottles, switch pouches around as needed. And it fits better over the ballistic vest better then any tac vest could....

sounds good?


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jan 2005)

That's why I always liked the webbing - even though many of its features were junk in quality, overall it was a good peice of modular kit.  All-in-all, I'm now more prone to a decent chest rig setup, because it won't interfere with a rucksack hip-belt (which should be used if possible).


----------



## Radop (22 Jan 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> There's ups and downs to each system, and YMMV. WHen I first joined I thought the webbing was an ill designed monstrosity too. Maybe one day We'll get something better?



I agree with some of what you said except that the trg we did for Afghanistan and while in Afghanistan, we used the TV and packed it our own way ensuring we had the esencials.  The RCR guys who demo'd the TVs packed a hell of a lot into it.  More than I can get into the webbing.  The biggest problem I have with it now is my unit insists on both the rain pants and jacket be in one of the pouches.  I have to tape mine or tie them as small as possible and then stuff them in in order to close the pouch.


----------



## Baloo (23 Jan 2005)

Guys, guys. Please. Let the professionals handle this debate.  : . Unless this article has already been posted, here is what the 32 Brigade had to say about the Tac Vest. In read it in a monthly issue newsletter type-dealey we have in the brigade, and immediately thought of you guys. Some might enjoy a good laugh. 

Link:
http://www.army.dnd.ca/32cbg_hq/News/story_TV_e.htm

Article:
Tactical Vest gets Thumbs Up!

By Second Lieutenant Mike Godwin


TORONTO â â€œ Carrying essential combat and personal kit has never been easier. The new CADPAT Tactical Vest greatly enhances operational effectiveness. Better yet, the vest offers greater protection by giving soldiers quicker access to combat supplies like ammunition, grenades, flashlights and water. It's here and being issued to all reservists.

    The new Tactical Vest system replaces the old 1985 pattern webbing. Who better to say that it's a better piece of kit than the soldiers themselves?

    â Å“I think this is one of the best pieces of kit introduced with the Clothe the Soldier Program,â ? says Lieutenant Mark Rittwage, recently returned from Operation Athena in Afghanistan. â Å“It's apparent that the deficiencies plaguing the old webbing were addressed when developing the Tactical Vest.â ?

    Hundreds of hours of research, engineering and field trials went into the creation of the system to ensure that it meets the needs of Canadian soldiers. The design provides added ventilation and wider shoulder straps that help to disperse the weight of the load over a larger area.

    



    â Å“Every soldier should have it,â ? says Master Warrant Officer Daphne Germain of G4 Supply. â Å“If they don't then they need to go to their QM and get it.â ?

    The Tactical Vest features four fixed C7 magazine pockets, two front utility pockets, two detachable side utility pockets for one C9 ammunition drum and one 2 litre water bottle, two smoke grenade pockets and two M67 grenade pockets. It also sports an inner left-side pocket for carrying maps.

    Lieutenant Rittwage says the best thing about the Tactical Vest is that it's practical. â Å“It is easily adjustable, stows ammo and kit where it's accessible, and creates more comfort for the soldier.â ?

    2Lt Godwin writes for 32 Canadian Brigade Group and is the Unit Public Affairs Officer at 25 (Toronto) Service Battalion.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jan 2005)

Damn, I guess our 17 pages of griping was out-to-lunch then....


----------



## bossi (23 Jan 2005)

Baloo said:
			
		

> ...â Å“Every soldier should have it,â ? says Master Warrant Officer Daphne Germain of G4 Supply. â Å“If they don't then they need to go to their QM and get it.â ? ...



Ha!  Left hand ... right hand ... Hello?  Apparently the Army doesn't have enough in Petawawa to be able to deploy Roto 3 (which is the reason I was given when I was told to turn my TV back in ...)  :

And, when I was issued my TV for Roto 0, I had to turn in my webbing (cutting my name tags off all the pouches was so much fun) ... So, from now on, when I deploy to the field I'll be using what the Army gave me ... my duffle bag.   :


----------



## Matt_Fisher (23 Jan 2005)

That 'news' report was like something you'd read in the Red Army Journal.   I'm suprise that they didn't write in that the story was written by Comrade Second Lieutenant Goldwin.


----------



## pbi (23 Jan 2005)

The two individuals being interviewed are both HQ staff types-I know one of them. I really would rather hear what some raggedy-ass sweaty rifleman has to say. Cheers


----------



## Redeye (23 Jan 2005)

http://www.army.dnd.ca/32cbg_hq/News/tacvesthome_e.htm

This page, linked off the previous one, says it all: "Tactical Vest Improves LCF".

Yeah.  That's what matters to us SWAT types: Look Cool Factor.  I couldn't care less if it's functional or not, it looks hardcore.

/snide voice


----------



## perry (24 Jan 2005)

The TV is a good idea just a poor design, if a little more time went into designing it or even using an existing one we would have been a lot better off.
Due to the fact of its limited flexibility and its limited storage space.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jan 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> The two individuals being interviewed are both HQ staff types-I know one of them. I really would rather hear what some raggedy-ass sweaty rifleman has to say. Cheers



pbi,

What's that they say about six degrees of separation? ;D I know the one also


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Jan 2005)

1985 Pattern webbing?  Never heard of it - is that anything like 1982 pattern webbing?


----------



## Baloo (25 Jan 2005)

I think he might have been referring to his chair. '85 pattern chair that the REMF's so dearly want upgraded.  ;D


----------



## qjdb (25 Jan 2005)

So, obviously, the pouch configuration sucks.  I have never worn one, and know that I won't get issued one.

I am just curious.  How is the fitting of the vest itself?  Is the 'main unit / base' comfortable?  Does it get to feel like a comfortable old jacket, or does it just never get comfortable?

Is it OK for making the small adjustments, or is it 3 sizes fits none?

Quentin


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Jan 2005)

The comfort and the adjustment are two things I can't complain about.  The old webbing used to make my hips/waist chafe after a while, whereas I can wear the TV for days and half the time I won't even realize I have it on.


----------



## Thompson_JM (25 Jan 2005)

Agreed... Comfort is definitely something that is not lacking in this vest. 

the first time i climbed into a truck with it on, it was like a dream come true... Give us C8's and an MLVW with a working heater, and I'll have died and gone to heaven.


----------



## KevinB (25 Jan 2005)

Try it with armour and plates -->
   Turn down the suck...

 I don't mean to bash anyone experiences with it here - but realistically the system was not designed for operations.   Whiel it might be cosy to drive around in Canada in - once you add the PSP 3rdGen PBA and plates the vest is awkard to the point of incapacitation for some activites.

 When we first got them a year and a bit ago - I liked it - it took it to the range and was getting used to it -- then of course reality struck and we had to wear armour again...   And doing off range training the points came out that it could not carry what we need in it.

What we need to carry MINIMUM

Ammo 8-10 mags
Grenades 2 Frag MIN.
Grenades Smk
Distraction Devices (FlashBangs) 2min 
PRR (Personal Role Radio_
MNVG (PVS-14) when not in use
Flashlight
Knife
Weapon cleaning kit
Personal First Aid kit.
Water 2-3L
Compass/MAP/GPS (due to the armour the chest pockets on the combat shirt are worthless)
24hrs of batteries (AA and 123's) (for your PEQ/PAC, NVG, Flashlights, GPS etc)
Chew/Dip or hard candies (something to tide your mind off food if you get seperated from your asssault/day bag for a period 12-24hrs)



AND YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO REACH THE POUCHES...


----------



## Thompson_JM (25 Jan 2005)

Touche KevinB...

I am after all. speaking from a Mo perspective... I have yet to use it operationally.... (that is a word right?) 

as was said many times before, a modular vest would have been the best choice for our army... 
Hopefully down the road, the Brass upstairs will understand this and give you guys something that does meet your needs.


----------



## basxav (25 Jan 2005)

Hi all:
I've been quietly following the debate and I've found it absolutely fascinating as well as eye opening. So I must admit that I laughed my head off at the breathless gee whiz article written by the 2nd LT and the gushing kudos by a supply sergent on the how the tactical vest is the gosh darn best piece of infantry equipment ever devised by an army. And it looks cool enough for Canadian soldiers to make it as the RAIDS and Soldier of fortune magazines' gucchi kit centrefold cover model of the month too  
In any case, I bet the brass and the deskbound commandos would be quite irritated if the article quoted the infantryman's genuine asessments of their experiences with the tactical vest.

xavier


----------



## KevinB (26 Jan 2005)

Cpl Thompson said:
			
		

> Hopefully down the road, the Brass upstairs will understand this and give you guys something that does meet your needs.



YOU TOO!

 One of my biggst pet peeves is having a reserve force with NO KIT.  Yeah vehicles and other reg force cast offs - but EVERY  SINGLE SOLDIER should have 
HELMET (well we all got them)
PBA with PLATES (which we dont)
LBE
WEAPON(S)
at a very min.

 I am a former reservist 87-94, I was appalled at our kit - and still am.  Your Mine and his/her job is to be opersationally capable - thus we need the kit - now and always.


----------



## Britney Spears (26 Jan 2005)

> One of my biggst pet peeves is having a reserve force with NO KIT.  Yeah vehicles and other reg force cast offs - but EVERY  SINGLE SOLDIER should have
> HELMET (well we all got them)
> PBA with PLATES (which we dont)
> LBE
> ...



<tangent>

So I guess it would really annoy you if some reservist decided to take her helmet home (and leave it there) on HLTA huh?

</tangent>


----------



## KevinB (26 Jan 2005)

But it would not shock me...

Pray tell us this one.


----------



## Britney Spears (26 Jan 2005)

You can probably guess the details. Suffice to say that charges were laid, and the guys all got a good laugh out of it.

I'm not one to speak ill of anybody else behind their backs, and she's a nice enough gal to chat with on the off hours, so I'll leave it at that.

Watch out for her if you ever work with the Sally Horse.


----------



## KevinB (26 Jan 2005)

Gottcha

I know who now...  

A buddy of mine who has a [female] "random reservist" habit relayed the story to me


----------



## Britney Spears (26 Jan 2005)

> A buddy of mine who has a [female] "random reservist" habit relayed the story to me



Well, I hope your buddy gets himself checked out regularly, because the same reservist was also the reason the whole tour got a Hep C warning in the mail after coming back. Supposedly from a tattoo parlour on R&R (riiiiiiiiiiigght).


----------



## Matt_Fisher (26 Jan 2005)

Ok,

On my drive home last night I had a bit of a brainstorm as to how the CF Tac-Vest might be salvaged in a manner palatable to the "hear no evil, see now evil" CTS office.

The C9/2qt. side pockets could be replaced with a modified version that had 2 single magazine pockets sewn to the rear of the pouch in a separate "mag sleeve", similar to the system used by the SO Tech Hellcat or TT Single Mag Pouch.  The rear of this "Mk-2" pouch would have the velcro panel and attaching straps so it would interface with the tac-vest.

By utilizing such a system the mag. capacity would be doubled from 4 to 8 and you'd still retain the C9/2qt. pouches for stowage.

If this is something that CTS would refuse to implement, it's something that either Dropzone or Tiger Tactical could pretty easily do up for private purchase and once purchased, would be a pretty low-visibility profile so as to avoid the wrath of the RSM or other kit nazis.


----------



## purple peguin (26 Jan 2005)

from pictures of the tac vest, the fastex buckles look like they are a little shaky do you think they could pull through rendering the vest pouch un serviceable. sure the vest looks all right but i think form what i have heard that modular may be the way to go.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jan 2005)

purple penguin,

Thanks for your input. However, in order to properly comment and make suggestions about the vest, you have to wear it and use it extensively. Divining solutions from pictures and trying to draw conclusions about a piece of gear from what you hear doesn't cut it. I'm sure most of us have had lot's of experience with the buckles and the modular system discussion has been ongoing. Thx again for your help, but please try stay in your lanes and stick to your own areas of expertise (whatever they are).


_Edit for spelling_


----------



## purple peguin (26 Jan 2005)

I will next time.


----------



## KevinB (26 Jan 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Well, I hope your buddy gets himself checked out regularly, because the same reservist was also the reason the whole tour got a Hep C warning in the mail after coming back. Supposedly from a tattoo parlour on R&R (riiiiiiiiiiigght).



Jay is immune to STD's - he is living proof  
 Heck he goes native with no ill effects


----------



## bossi (26 Jan 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> The two individuals being interviewed are both HQ staff types-I know one of them. I really would rather hear what some raggedy-*** sweaty rifleman has to say.



With respect ... we're talking about a _junior spin doctor's_ selected quotes.  The individual whom you mentioned you know (a competent MOC 031 and now 23A) made his remarks based on his personal experience (_wearing the vest on many, many patrols_ during his six-month tour in A'stan, where he was *not* an HQ type - I was, so I'm keeping quiet and listening intently to the SMEs ... and I'd politely caution another one of my friends, with respect to an HQ type vs. somebody who went out on patrols more often ... okay - let's return to an air of civility and professional courtesy, please and thanks).


----------



## bossi (27 Jan 2005)

purple peguin said:
			
		

> from pictures of the tac vest, the fastex buckles look like they are a little shaky do you think they could pull through rendering the vest pouch un serviceable. ...



Even though I didn't go out on patrol as often as many others, I still managed to lose a buckle while dismounting from a German Wolf (ripped right off when I was squeezing through a tight fit - even worse than the rear seat of an Iltis with the top up) - luckily there's also a Velcro patch to keep the pouch closed when you're in a hurry ... or if you break it, until you can replace/repair it.


----------



## Radop (27 Jan 2005)

bossi said:
			
		

> Even though I didn't go out on patrol as often as many others, I still managed to lose a buckle while dismounting from a German Wolf (ripped right off when I was squeezing through a tight fit - even worse than the rear seat of an Iltis with the top up) - luckily there's also a Velcro patch to keep the pouch closed when you're in a hurry ... or if you break it, until you can replace/repair it.



Wow.  I climbed in and out of the crew comds hatch on the bison several times and caught the latch several times on the edge of the hatch.  Were you able to reattach one of the spares that came with the TV or did you break the latch area?


----------



## bossi (28 Jan 2005)

Radop said:
			
		

> ...  Were you able to reattach one of the spares that came with the TV or did you break the latch area?



I put on a spare ... and then it got ripped off in a similar fashion
(... and I was sooooo tempted to pull a Red Green and use gun tape ... like my para cord rifle sling ...)


----------



## Smamit /REG646 (29 Jan 2005)

Hi fellers ,A Question ? why dos'tn your vest have larger pouches for Mags say 2 to each pouch,You can
always put in less Mags ?
and why not have a sewn General purpose pouch on the side with a internal slash pocket that you can
put in a water bottle if you like and other gear?
On the chest rig that I made ,I made the GP pouch like that and I didn't have trouble in use.
yours Adam


----------



## Bomber (30 Jan 2005)

I like how this guy has summed up the last 19 pages of posts.  It is a real good thing that the didn't bother reading them.  I won't use these silly emoticons, but I am trying to be sarcastic.


----------



## Smamit /REG646 (31 Jan 2005)

Hi I read some of them ,but I've got to look after the kids etc 
any way as far as I can tell Every Army has the same problem.
Its a shame Cause I thought that the Canadian Army  Had done a 
better job than most with your new Gear.
yours Adam


----------



## ArmyRick (31 Jan 2005)

I stand by my earlier statement. I like the tac Vest over the webb gear anyday.
My fellow instructors on the SQ like it too. 
You can leopard crawl with the gear on and it doesn't fall apart. It fits much better over the Flack jackets (Who ever the hell said the webb gear works better with flak jackets is right out of 'er). It is easier to access your magazines.
It is not perfect but alot better than web gear

Best of all IT IS DESIGNED FOR FIGHTING OUT OF....

TAC VEST vs Webbing = TAC VEST hands down...


----------



## Britney Spears (31 Jan 2005)

> (Who ever the heck said the webb gear works better with flak jackets is right out of 'er)



Old Vietnam flak vests or PSP ballistic vests with plates? Armymedic (I'm pretty sure) and I were talking about the latter.


----------



## 2FERSapper (2 Feb 2005)

im sorry guys but i find soldiers can Bi*ch about anything. Does your tac vest require , duck tape or zap straps to hold mag pouches or canteen pouch in place...no. u can actully change mags on the run with the tac vest and have the pouch closed and secured with one hand unlike the webing.if a buckle breaks on the tac vest u can replace it in a matter of seconds, the webing required u change the entire peice. The tac vest is comfortable, and sits in one place, unlike the webbing which whenevr you ran bounced all over the place and twisted. The tac vest is a amazing improvement over the webbing. Sure its not perfect but its way better. Everyone complains about the lac of space for mags. Were did you put these extra mags on the old webbing>?If worn the way it was intended to be worn it carries the same amount of mags as the tac vest.Honestly we finally get a peice of kit thats a enormus enprovment but its never good enough. We could still be wearing the webbing and i know for a fact that most reservists in LFWA are still wearing it. Nothing is ever perfect. anyways im done my rant. ive been watching this topic snce it started and i couldnt take it any longer.


----------



## Britney Spears (2 Feb 2005)

> unlike the webbing which whenevr you ran bounced all over the place and twisted



No comment on your rant, but here's a tip: If your webbing is bouncing around and twisting, you're wearing it incorrectly. Put your webbing on, position the belt over your hips, tighten the waist belt nice and snug, so that there is no weight on your yoke and shoulders (you should be able to slip out of the shoulder straps easily, and the belt should stay put), and adjust your front and back shoulder straps accordingly. A lot of new guys seem to think that since it has shoulder pads you should wear it like a backpack. All the weight should be on your hips.  it's called "belt kit" for a reason.

There's probably already a thread on how to use webbing properly.


----------



## ArmyRick (2 Feb 2005)

Here is a better tip. Webbing is going bye bye. Tac Vest is in. No comparison. Web gear was junk and no matter how much you wore it correctly, it moved all over the place.

2FERSapper, well said.


----------



## jc5778 (2 Feb 2005)

ok ok the tac vest def has advantages over webbing but, my last tour, in 2002, was the first of its kind for us in a long long time.  Our front line ammo was at a minimum:

11 X 30 round mags
2 X Frags
2 X smoke
As much water as u can carry
not to mention the normal, socks, back up sight, field dressings, gortex socks..(yah I know, they get binned when we actually go out on op)  funny how we don't train how we fight......
and at least some of the following (clays, 1st aid kit, 203's etc...)

Where does all this go in the new tac vest??  Why, every time we get new kit, yes it is an improvement, but it does not address the problems with that of the outgoing supplies.  

The lack of a new ruck sack (so far) is just another example.  EVERYONE knows that that current ones are crap.  I was lucky enough to work with a different unit for that 02 tour and was able to get a 64 pattern ruck.  Better, but still not the be all end all.  Has this new ruck not been in the test/design faze for like 10 years now?  Why not go to something tried and tested?  Bergen maybe?

Anyways, that's just a lowly infantry corporal's view.  For the record, I prefered the webbing to this new incarnation of a tac vest.  Old habits die hard I guess.   :warstory:


----------



## Britney Spears (2 Feb 2005)

Meh, so far everyone who has used the vest on operations share my opinion, so that's good enough for me.



> funny how we don't train how we fight......



I've actually been told, once, IN THEATRE, to have my BFA with me at all times, "just in case". Presumably, just in case we stumble across some blank 5.56 on the side of the road. It was suppose to go in your right kidney pouch, if you were wondering. the order stood for almost a day.  How's that for fight as you train?


----------



## Baloo (2 Feb 2005)

It's for that lone enemy, base of tree, seen?


----------



## Sapper24 (2 Feb 2005)

I just got my Tac. Vest not to long ago,I like it its got alot of ammo carrying capacity, but no real space like the butpack had with the old 82 pattern webbing.


----------



## 2FERSapper (3 Feb 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> No comment on your rant, but here's a tip: If your webbing is bouncing around and twisting, you're wearing it incorrectly. Put your webbing on, position the belt over your hips, tighten the waist belt nice and snug, so that there is no weight on your yoke and shoulders (you should be able to slip out of the shoulder straps easily, and the belt should stay put), and adjust your front and back shoulder straps accordingly. A lot of new guys seem to think that since it has shoulder pads you should wear it like a backpack. All the weight should be on your hips.   it's called "belt kit" for a reason.
> 
> There's probably already a thread on how to use webbing properly.



thanks for starters i aint "a new guy". secondly no mtter how u wear it(yes even on the hips like anyone who had half a brain wore it) it still bounces around. thirdly these complaints about lack of space. THE BUTT PACK DIDNT HAVE THAT MUCH SPACE!!!!! also its not like you could use anything from your buttpack on the move. to access it either you had to take off your webbing or someone else had to get whatever you wanted from it. last but not least ive never heard anyone refer to webbing as belt kit... guess im not as cool as you. and my point still stands. we could bit*ch about anything. bottem line is the tac vest is a huge improvement over the webbing. it might not be perfect but its defintly better than the outdated, poorly designed and manufactured 82 patern webbing.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Feb 2005)

Just got ours in the Calgary Highlanders tonight - REMFs like me included.

Guys, this is obviously designed to be worn with a small pack of some kind, or the ruck (which I am advised we will get in about 2009  )

Won't comment on how good/bad I think it is since those "real" soldiers who have served operationally are the ones whose opinion matters.  But at least we're not in the bad old days of 64 pattern webbing, see-through combat clothing, and etc.  Everything new is going to be open to petty gripes by a minority - and the problem of finding the "perfect" solution to individual kit needs, that will satisfy all arms and individuals, will never be solved.


----------



## Britney Spears (3 Feb 2005)

> thanks for starters i aint "a new guy". secondly no mtter how u wear it(yes even on the hips like anyone who had half a brain wore it) it still bounces around. thirdly these complaints about lack of space. THE BUTT PACK DIDNT HAVE THAT MUCH SPACE!!!!! also its not like you could use anything from your buttpack on the move. to access it either you had to take off your webbing or someone else had to get whatever you wanted from it. last but not least ive never heard anyone refer to webbing as belt kit... guess im not as cool as you. and my point still stands. we could bit*ch about anything. bottem line is the tac vest is a huge improvement over the webbing. it might not be perfect but its defintly better than the outdated, poorly designed and manufactured 82 patern webbing.



I don't know what your point is, since everything you brought up has already been answered and flogged to death earlier in the thread. Also, reading your typing makes my eyes hurt, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 



> Won't comment on how good/bad I think it is since those "real" soldiers who have served operationally are the ones whose opinion matters.



Now now Micheal, it's no fault of yours that the system doesn't supply enough armour, pyro, and support weapons ammunition for you to fully utilize your carrying capacity. Rest assured no one thinks any less highly of you or your opinion because of it. 

I've never used the 64 ptn webbing, but it seems most of the reviews don't rate it very highly, so I'll take your word for it.

However......



> the problem of finding the "perfect" solution to individual kit needs, that will satisfy all arms and individuals, will never be solved.



I disagree, at least in terms of 1st line kit,  a modular system will solve this problem, if we all got Paracelet RAVs and 2 of every kind of pouch in the stocking, I guarantee no one will be complaining. This is not at all an unreasonable proposition, if you factor in the cost of the armour.


----------



## Marauder (3 Feb 2005)

> I disagree, at least in terms of 1st line kit,  a modular system will solve this problem, if we all got Paracelet RAVs and 2 of every kind of pouch in the stocking, I guarantee no one will be complaining. This is not at all an unreasonable proposition, if you factor in the cost of the armour.



Now look you, stop trying to make sense and use logic! You're in the bloody Infantry! You're not allowed to think! Especially when you're right and show the higher ups as the out to lunch schlups they are! Besides, all those REMFs running a desk in Ottawa would feel unequal and demoralized if the shooters got something that actually worked while the pie people didn't. Everyone must have an equal LCF. I think there's a CANFORGEN or LANDFORGEN that covers that somewhere.

And just to add to the IMP leftovers at the top of the pile at the bottom of the blue rocket, the TV is a generational leap forward from the webbing, but the TV is a half measure toward what is possible and accepted as being the standard for modern first-line gear. I'll shut up now.


----------



## bossi (4 Feb 2005)

Marauder said:
			
		

> Now look you, stop trying to make sense and use logic! You're in the bloody Infantry! You're not allowed to think! Especially when you're right and show the higher ups as the out to lunch schlups they are! Besides, all those REMFs running a desk in Ottawa would feel unequal and demoralized if the shooters got something that actually worked while the pie people didn't. Everyone must have an equal LCF. I think there's a CANFORGEN or LANDFORGEN that covers that somewhere.
> 
> And just to add to the IMP leftovers at the top of the pile at the bottom of the blue rocket, the TV is a generational leap forward from the webbing, but the TV is a half measure toward what is possible and accepted as being the standard for modern first-line gear.



Geez - somebody in QM musta missed that LCF order ... when they repo'd my tac vest ...
(but, heck - now that I don't have a tac vest any more, nor do I have the webbing they took away from me when I was issued my vest ... I'm kinda enjoying how my new duffel bag tac vest feels on my back, and it holds lots of stuff ... who knows?  Maybe somebody higher up will notice, and we'll all get duffel bags to wear ... since apparently we can't afford enough vests for our meagre Army ...)
[/bitter sarcasm off]


----------



## purple peguin (4 Feb 2005)

there was a cadpat tactical vest at the army navy store in Halifax for sale 100.00 i see it is now sold


----------



## Bomber (4 Feb 2005)

You should have bought it and put it on ebay.  You snooze you Lose


----------



## 043 (4 Feb 2005)

2FERSapper said:
			
		

> thanks for starters i aint "a new guy". secondly no mtter how u wear it(yes even on the hips like anyone who had half a brain wore it) it still bounces around. thirdly these complaints about lack of space. THE BUTT PACK DIDNT HAVE THAT MUCH SPACE!!!!! also its not like you could use anything from your buttpack on the move. to access it either you had to take off your webbing or someone else had to get whatever you wanted from it. last but not least ive never heard anyone refer to webbing as belt kit... guess im not as cool as you. and my point still stands. we could bit*ch about anything. bottem line is the tac vest is a huge improvement over the webbing. it might not be perfect but its defintly better than the outdated, poorly designed and manufactured 82 patern webbing.



I agree with you that the Butt Pack didn't have much space but I got a story for you.........Put your helmet on..........Back in the late 80's early 90's while I was posted to 1 CER in Chilliwack we used to get issued our NBC Ensemble. Now, do you think we would get a IPE Bag??? NO! They gave us an extra Butt Pack to carry all that crap in. And hey, it used to all fit believe it or not. Suit and gloves inside and the booties attached to the flap on top.

As for the new TacVest, I have used in Garrison and on Operation and let me tell you, it is good, it is very comfortable if fitted properly and you can carry tons of ammo. The TacVest is the least of worries as far as I am concerned. It's all the excess crap that people put on them.  But I agree with the statements that it is difficult to get in and out of the hatch in certain vehicles but really, are you not able to drap it over the back of the hatch so that just before you dismount you can slip into it? What is the sense of wearing it if your inside an armoured vehicle? Now I am talking strictly about a Crew Commander here. As for the dismounts in the back, why open the door when you can drop the ramp?? Now if someone gets hung up trying to get out of that hole, they should probably see a dietician!

my 2 cents,

CHIMO!


----------



## bcbarman (5 Feb 2005)

Well, we just got the tac vest at the drill hall today (yes, there is a Canada on the other side of the rockies)  and to read the posts I am just downright depressed.  I just hope that it is a better system for riding in vehicles.  As armour recce, I am in and out of the truck all the time, and never wear my webbing.  Now that the vest has arrived (after a FNG has been using his since November) I hope that this system works better for us black hats then you walkers.

Cheers


----------



## Andyboy (6 Feb 2005)

So to sum this thread up:

The TV is light years ahead of webbing, is a glorified old LBV, holds tonnes of ammo, doesn't hold enough ammo, has tonns of space to carry stuff, can't carry all the operational kit required of a modern LI soldier, is wicked comfortable, puts too much weight to the front, does not work well with the issued armour, does not need to work well with the issued armour, is hated by reg force infantry soldiers, is well liked by drivers and clerks, doesn't need a buttpack, needs a butt pack, is CADPAT(TW) needs to be CADPAT(AR), looks good, looks great, is new, is dated, is better than what we had, still falls way short.

Super,


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Feb 2005)

You forgot that it has no place for rank slip-ons, but they can be placed on either the bayonet or the left shoulder strap depending on how the RSM reads the lunar calendar.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Feb 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> You forgot that it has no place for rank slip-ons, but they can be placed on either the bayonet or the left shoulder strap depending on how the RSM reads the lunar calendar.



I think our RSM decided it will go on the "off hand" shoulder strap (ie if you shoot left handed, it goes on the right, or vice versa).  May be just a vicious rumour however... ;D


----------



## aesop081 (6 Feb 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> So to sum this thread up:
> 
> The TV is light years ahead of webbing, is a glorified old LBV, holds tonnes of ammo, doesn't hold enough ammo, has tonns of space to carry stuff, can't carry all the operational kit required of a modern LI soldier, is wicked comfortable, puts too much weight to the front, does not work well with the issued armour, does not need to work well with the issued armour, is hated by reg force infantry soldiers, is well liked by drivers and clerks, doesn't need a buttpack, needs a butt pack, is CADPAT(TW) needs to be CADPAT(AR), looks good, looks great, is new, is dated, is better than what we had, still falls way short.
> 
> Super,



I would say that sums it up pretty well.  I left the army just as the TV was comming in so i never got to use it but i figured there would be some issues with it.  So not having used it i will take the opinion of those infantry/engineers that have used it and go with POS to describe it !


----------



## George Wallace (6 Feb 2005)

In 2 CMBG and most place I've been, the rank slip on is on the Left Shoulder Strap.  To be putting on whatever is your off hand side would only promote confussion and not be uniform. 

GW


----------



## Britney Spears (7 Feb 2005)

Here, since I started it, I'll sum it up.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> I for one prefer the 82 pattern webbing to the TV...  But I have a Paraclete RAV and SOTech Hellcat vests that make my use of the 82 pattern moot  ;D.






			
				MCG said:
			
		

> With the old webbing, you could replace the C7 mag pouches with utility pouches for the C9 gunner to carry more boxes.  The TacVest does not give us this option, or a suitable alternative.





			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Consider, as I just have, that the 82 pattern webbing is MORE modular and more customizable/adaptable - despite its shortcomings it is in some ways superior.





			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Fact being stranger than fiction - we had a Pl WO (MJP can tell you in who's PL   ) that lowered his troops ammo allotment so they could carry their ammo in the TV  :  - did I mention this was in Afghanistan...





			
				Morpheus32 said:
			
		

> Every soldiers gear load out will be different depending on the soldier's tasks.  The TV in its present configuration does not meet this need.  Soldiers are forced to comprimise, leave out water for ammo (example of a C9 gunners post) which in the long run could be extremely dangerous.  Modular is the future.  Gear must be compatible and useful with body armour.  In fact we should all have body armour to train with as it definitely changes how we do business.  Look at what you should be carrying when you assess the suitablity of the TV not what you get issued for training.  There is a big difference.  Sometimes we forget that.





			
				Armymedic said:
			
		

> We could always go back to that modulized piece of load bearing kit we all used to own, the 82 pattern webbing.
> 
> We could add more mag pouches, more water bottles, switch pouches around as needed. And it fits better over the ballistic vest better then any tac vest could....





			
				7 - 10 days said:
			
		

> Anyways, that's just a lowly infantry corporal's view.  For the record, I prefered the webbing to this new incarnation of a tac vest.





			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> I left the army just as the TV was comming in



 ;D

Disclaimer: Some quotes may be a little out of context.  I am not afflicated with the makers of the 82 Ptn webbing, who ever the heck they are, and I think the 82 ptn webbing is crap, but there are worse things......


----------



## MPSHIELD (7 Feb 2005)

Nice Sum up Britney Spears, perhaps we can end this thread as this could truly go on for a ever. We all realise that soldiers have different opinions and experience on this subject. Anyone else think it is time to lock this one up? Moderators, the ball is in your court!

Just my opinion.


----------



## Andyboy (7 Feb 2005)

This thread can never die! I have some questions:

I was just wondering why the TV is front opening and the FPV is side opening? Also why is there no- slip stuff on FPV shoulder but none on the TV? What is the 2" "scuba" webbing on the back of the TV for? Is that interior pocket seriously for a map (by the way a one L platypus fits in there and if you unstitch the binding at the armhole a bit you can fit the hose through there, just don't go prone too hard)? Does anyone else have trouble fitting their issued whistle in the whistle pouch? What do you do with the string for your whistle? Or flashlight for that matter.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 Feb 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> This thread can never die! I have some questions:
> 
> I was just wondering why the TV is front opening and the FPV is side opening? Also why is there no- slip stuff on FPV shoulder but none on the TV? What is the 2" "scuba" webbing on the back of the TV for? Is that interior pocket seriously for a map (by the way a one L platypus fits in there and if you unstitch the binding at the armhole a bit you can fit the hose through there, just don't go prone too hard)? Does anyone else have trouble fitting their issued whistle in the whistle pouch? What do you do with the string for your whistle? Or flashlight for that matter.



The manual says an IMP will also fit in that pocket - since we no longer have a buttpack, I guess it's as good a place as any, eh....


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Feb 2005)

I guess having used TV for a roto in Bosnia and having used it numerous times in the field (doing hard infantry task) means my opinion of TV over webbing is right out of 'er? Sure I will go and tell all the other 031s at M-ford that anybody who likes TV over webbing is clueless.


----------



## prarie chimo (15 May 2008)

the CLS came down to talk to us and told us they're planning on going to a molle system.  That was april


----------



## The_Falcon (15 May 2008)

prairie chimo said:
			
		

> the CLS came down to talk to us and told us they're planning on going to a molle system.  That was april



And I will believe it when I see it.


----------



## R031button (18 May 2008)

I really hope the molle comment isn't a refrence to the little molle patches seen on the trial vests some of the guys over here got issued.


----------



## Loachman (19 May 2008)

Photos?

More detailed description?


----------



## R031button (19 May 2008)

Sorry I thought more people were familiar with it. It's essentially the same as the tac vest, only the small utilities are mounted on the chest, and the mag pouches, which are expanded to double mag pouches are below them. The sides, where the current Velcro abortion system is, has two small patches of molle, and the vest is issued with two molle c9 pouches. The problems stem from a) the lack of grenade pouches; b) the magazine pouches are so short it's almost as though somebody at DLR took personal offense to the complaint that the pouches on the tac vest are two high, this causes the flaps to slip over the side, and I'm very much in doubt as to how well they actually hold mags; and c) the utility pouches are mounted in such a way that they interfere with drawing magazines.


----------



## Loachman (19 May 2008)

Thanks.

No, not all of us have heard of this. It may have been posted here somewhere, but I've been largely cut off from the interweb for the last two months.

Your description of the side panels confirms the image that I had in mind from your previous post,. It wasn't a pretty one to start with, and the idiocy of the front pouches is evcen worse.

The designers should be be given both a limited amount of time to come up with something functional, either their own design or something off-of-the-shelf, and simultaneous notice that they will be wearing it outside of the wire for a full tour as a trial when it's done.

As an added incentive, should one be necessary, the process would continue indefinitely with no personnel changes other than casualty replacements until a truly viable product is ready for general issue.


----------



## R031button (19 May 2008)

I think what bothers me the most about this whole situation is that the army is trialling a new vest to find something that "meets operational requirements" I believe was the official line. So essentially the vest they are forcing on soldiers doesn't do this, otherwise there would be no need to replace it, in the official sense that is, and they full admit that. That means that troops are wearing kit that even the institutional army admits doesn't do the job required of it. And they're being told that they cannot, even at personal expense, replace that kit. 


Oh, and you'll notice that close protection teams don't wear the tac vest. I guess when it's the task force commander's life on the line it's a totally different story then when it's one of his soldiers.


----------



## geo (19 May 2008)

FWIW, I would think that they should do one of two things.....
-  Provide seamstress and webbing/TV components to the troops who have just returned from KAF.  Get a selection of these "bodged" vests - analyze & build a modular TV based on experience.

- Provide seamstress & webbing/TV components to the troops who are in KAF - get them to bodge & test out new TVs - analyze & build a modular TV based on experience.....

Anything else is bound to dissapoint.... IMHO


----------



## Loachman (19 May 2008)

Or buy a selection of Canadian-made commercial rigs that have already had the bugs worked out and have been found acceptable by troops in active combat and validate them officially in trials.

At the worst, one of these could then be selected and adopted as standard issue.

At best, more than one would be accepted either for issue according to personal choice or purchaseable with an allowance.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 May 2008)

Would just stripping everything off the TV and adding a complete MOLLE system with assorted pouches solve the issue, or do you guys think the whole vest would need to go? Adding the MOLLE system would definately be easier on the procurement process, other than finding a contractor to "rerole" the TV much like vehicles get fixed up.


----------



## RCR Grunt (19 May 2008)

The Tac Vest base is difficult to size and adjust, and some say that it does not retain the adjustments well.  Adjustments to size would be made depending on the amount of clothing worn and level of PPE worn.  In my opinion it needs to be completely scrapped and a new vest issued.


----------



## Loachman (19 May 2008)

Drop Zone Tactical offers a MOLLE version of the current Tac Vest already. That is definitely an improvement.

There are other problems inherent in the current Tac Vest, though, including balance (all weight is on the front panels, which shifts them down and the back panel up), extremely poor access to the map pocket, and adjustability. Others with more experience with it can add others, but these have already been discussed in other related threads.

If, by "stripping everything off", you mean taking existing vests, removing everything, and then adding MOLLE in place, that's way too expensive a proposition and the mesh is too weak.

As construction would have to be done from scratch anyway, as many of the deficiencies should be corrected as possible.

It is well worth your while to use the Search Function to find those threads and read them.


----------



## R031button (19 May 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Drop Zone Tactical offers a MOLLE version of the current Tac Vest already. That is definitely an improvement



Not really, it's certainly modular, but it's also 1.5" not 1" like real molle, it's a pretty cheap and under handed way of getting people to buy the vest, and then making them buy the pouches from the only distributor that will fit the vest, at ridiculous prices on top of that. I fail to see why everything needs to be Canadian market, buy the best available for the best price and who cares where it comes from.


----------



## Loachman (19 May 2008)

Other manufacturers' pouches do indeed fit on the DZ vest.

True, selected/approved vest(s) do not have to be Canadian-made, but there are several Canadian manufacturers and they should have priority over others, all else being equal.


----------



## RCR Grunt (19 May 2008)

Why should Canadian manufacturers get priority?  Because they are Canadian?  That's one of the reasons that the procurement system is messed up, we're too busy keeping poorly run, dieing businesses afloat because they are Canadian instead of purchasing quality equipment from proven manufacturers.  If we create policy where we only buy quality equipment, Canadian businesses will begin to produce those products on a quality level without our favoring them.  If we show favor just because of their nationality, we will get stuck with sub-par Canadian made junk... again.

As for the DZ vest, if its not MOLLE, then its not acceptable.  I suspect they changed the size of there webbing so that only their pouches would fit it, thus increasing sales for their company.  Just because you can jam/stretch something into place on it doesn't make it workable.  For a modular vest, it has to be MOLLE/PALS or nothing.  These are internationally accepted and used standard systems and would vastly increase the market we could shop in for pouches.


----------



## Loachman (19 May 2008)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Why should Canadian manufacturers get priority?  Because they are Canadian?



I did say "all else being equal". Specified production standards of quality and durability will have to be met. Are our own manufacturers not capable of doing that? In all of the complaints regarding the current Tac Vest that I've seen here, I do not recall any regarding the quality of the materials or construction. Aside from blind patriotism, one's own manufacturers are generally more responsive to one's needs. Most/many of the products offered by Canadian aftermarket manufacturers today have had a fair amount of soldier input already and at least two are located near major Canadian bases which pretty much guarantees a healthy review process.

Perhaps, out of all of the commercially available vests that would/should be tried, the best might not be a Canadian design. So be it.



			
				RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> That's one of the reasons that the procurement system is messed up, we're too busy keeping poorly run, dieing businesses afloat because they are Canadian instead of purchasing quality equipment from proven manufacturers.  If we create policy where we only buy quality equipment, Canadian businesses will begin to produce those products on a quality level without our favoring them.  If we show favor just because of their nationality, we will get stuck with sub-par Canadian made junk... again.



Again, from a production rather than a design perspective, what is deficient about current issue equipment (speaking mainly about vests and associated items right now)? Materials? They're standard across all manufacturers. Stitchery?

From a design perspective, the problem is CF rather than any manufacturer.

I am not challenging, merely seeking enlightenment.



			
				RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> As for the DZ vest, if its not MOLLE, then its not acceptable.  I suspect they changed the size of there webbing so that only their pouches would fit it, thus increasing sales for their company.  Just because you can jam/stretch something into place on it doesn't make it workable.  For a modular vest, it has to be MOLLE/PALS or nothing.  These are internationally accepted and used standard systems and would vastly increase the market we could shop in for pouches.



I agree on the MOLLE/PALS requirement. The standardization and reliability aspects have been proven.

I have recently purchased a DZ vest, and plan to purchase a couple of different designs from other manufacturers. While I'll be unlikely to get outside of the wire on my upcoming deployment (TUAV Mission Commander) I am hoping to be over again in a real flying job in 2010. As the current Tac Hel LPSV (Life Preserver Survival Vest) is totally unsuitable for that environment (as is the current Tac Vest), I'm doing some personal research into available platforms for something a little more worthwhile. Besides, I've had a strong interest in personal kit over 3.5 decades of service and have had a hand in designing or modifying certain currently- or past-issued items during that time. Should I be able to justify a MOLLE vest on the basis of arranging pouches to suit crew position, that may be another wedge-in-the-door for overall acceptance.

Standard MOLLE pouches will attach to the DZ vest.


----------



## blacktriangle (19 May 2008)

We shoot ourselves in the foot by always buying Canadian.

If they are already more then likely to recieve business from the DND, Canadian companies have no reason to be innovative and spend money improving their products, as it will lessen their bottom line profits. 

There are some companies that might be Canadian and pride themselves on their products, but I don't think any of them had the contract to make my issued boots or tac vest.


----------



## Loachman (19 May 2008)

We do not always buy Canadian. I was surprised to learn a few days ago that our sandbags are made in Communist China.

Regardless of nationality, companies bid on CF projects according to established rules and have to meet the criteria established for production of the items being produced.

They all have to compete with each other, and there are probably enough to provide sufficient competition on the aftermarket side. Having the capability to produce in sufficient quantity to outfit thousands in short order is another matter. I don't know what else Fellfab produces, but they most likely got the Tac Vest contract because they were capable of meeting production timelines, were able to satisfy stated quality requirements, and bid the lowest. CP Gear, DZ, and ICE etcetera probably could not match them in meeting production timelines because of their size.

Innovation, as far as the current Tac Vest is concerned, is not an industry issue as it was not an industrial design.

I still have yet to hear any complaints of production quality regardiing the Tac Vest, which is an industry issue. Have they been failing structurally in large numbers?


----------



## Farmboy (19 May 2008)

> Standard MOLLE pouches will attach to the DZ vest.



 Any MOLLE pouches over 3 wide will not fit the DZ MULES.  Anything 3 and under will fit.



> Or buy a selection of Canadian-made commercial rigs that have already had the bugs worked out and have been found acceptable by troops in active combat and validate them officially in trials.



 There are lots of US made ones that are working extremely well for our troops as well. I know of a few TAG rigs that are going back for their 3rd tour, one of which survived an IED.


----------



## Old and Tired (20 May 2008)

I don't know about any one else, I only have my TV and my wife's to judge by as far as durability.  Hers is fine, but she works in an Orderly Room/Hospital setting and very rarely gets out in the field right now.  Mine on the other hand is in a S*** state and I'm on my way to swap it for a new one.  That will make three in five years since I got the first one on ROTO 13.

I've put in UCR's for the Velcro attachments at the shoulders, the tensioning straps on the sides, and the front closure Velcro/snaps.  I've never heard anything back from the the folks at CLS so either they didn't get them or didn't read them.  Too much bad news can be depressing I guess.

I only use it now for the Battle Fitness workups and the actual march.  For real work I have a modified High Speed Gear Warlord that does what I need it to do.


----------



## McG (20 May 2008)

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> I've never heard anything back from the the folks at CLS so either they didn't get them or didn't read them.


It's not their ["folks at CLS"] job.  UCRs go to ADM(Mat).  Have you followed up on any of your UCRs online?  Confirmed that they made it past Bde?


----------



## Old and Tired (20 May 2008)

For the first UCR submitted, I know it went to them, because a bunch of us that used them for the first time on ROTO 13 were interviewed about them by CLS and ADM (Mat) when we got home to Pet.  From anecdotal info it seems a fairly large percentage of us were less than impressed by it.  Some troops even request that the old LBV be reissued in lieu of the TV until some of the material and design deficiencies were fixed.  No luck so far but it's only been 41/2 years.

For the other two that I sent up, one went threw Adm IMG chain and one went up via the Army route.


----------



## armyvern (20 May 2008)

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> For the first UCR submitted, I know it went to them, because a bunch of us that used them for the first time on ROTO 13 were interviewed about them by CLS and ADM (Mat) when we got home to Pet.  From anecdotal info it seems a fairly large percentage of us were less than impressed by it.  Some troops even request that the old LBV be reissued in lieu of the TV until some of the material and design deficiencies were fixed.  No luck so far but it's only been 41/2 years.
> 
> For the other two that I sent up, one went threw Adm IMG chain and one went up via the Army route.



Geez, all that and you could have just handed it to me at the Mess during lunch hour last week.  >


----------



## Old and Tired (21 May 2008)

If only I'd I'd had one to give you Vern.  These were done a while ago.  Mine you, I might submit another abouthe Velcro because it just doesn't seem to hld put with everything else piled on top of it.


----------



## medaid (23 May 2008)

Boater said:
			
		

> As for a better pocket system I don't really think the answer is placing them on the uniform itself, a better tac vest should be designed to accommodate anything extra you need to carry IMO. I hate having stuffed pockets as everything is loose and unsecured and bounces around when you run or march, least in a tac vest it is a bit more secure.



Screw the TV, and screw any 80% solution LBEs. I don't get why people keep wanting a "better" TV?! The TV was a failure for anything except guard duty, that's what it was designed for. It's great for that role, hell it's wonderful for that role. It is however, not a fighting rig. Some people are happy with it some are not, like any issued kit. 

I preach the approved list method of doing things. You still get the issued allotment of standardized kit, but after that you have an approved list to shop from. Every copany that wants to get on that list bids for it every year to have their stuff re-evaluated and tested. Anything new that a company want to put on the list goes through a complete T&E by a group of individuals who have served in combat areas, and in front-line duty positions only. Now, people are going to argue "why only combat arms guys? blah blah blah blah blah" No. The only gear that will be looked at in the future as far as LBE goes shall be modular in nature ONLY.

None of this sewn down crap anymore. What people will be T&E will be MOLLE rigs or similar items along with their MOLLE counter parts in pouches from companies X,Y,Z. Away with dinos and their "garrison" mentalities, because no matter what the Vancouver Canucks looks like the Canucks even though they all wear different helmets, skates, gloves, hockey sticks etc. A Canadian soldier will LOOK like a Canadian soldier even if everyone uses a different rig, a different pouch or wears different boots or gloves. 

Pockets are important on the shirts, and they should be changed. We don't carry FN C-1 mags anymore... get rid of them. FOr those who'd like to argue "what if my rig's broken or blown up or what ever blah blah blaah"  Sorry mate, if your rig's blown up you'd be dead. You won't need those fracking chest pockets anymore. Do you really think you'll be able to access them underneath your body armour anyways? 

Want more carrying ability? Get a Battle Belt and put your First Line stuff on it. Really want to carry more things? Get a good pack from ATS, Black Hawk, ICE, CP Gear or where ever. It'll take time... but that's the way to go. 


Sorry another pet peeve.... why do you need to carry an entire store with you in your LBE? That's NOT what it's for. It's meant for your essentials: NVG, IR Markers, IFAK, AMMO, AMMO, AMMO, AMMO, AMMO, AMMO, AMMO, water, gloves, BEW and a stripped IMP. That sounds about right no? If that's all you should be bringing, your rig shouldn't be this monstrous thing that would make anyone who looks at it faint. Everythign else goes in a pack, that's what it's designed for.


----------



## prarie chimo (18 Jun 2008)

britney, we cant attach pouches to our plate carriers because we wouldnt fit in the turret, or do any uxo disposal, or a lot of other things.  maybe if they had a molle patch that velcroed or molled on to the plate carrier we could pull it off


chimo


----------



## KevinB (18 Jun 2008)

I dont buy that as the IOTV and IBA have used attached patched and I see US Army EOD wearing them in their vehicles, as well as Stryker personnel.
A 1 mag thick pouch in front does not add a lot of bulk.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (18 Jun 2008)

I personally wore a single depth chest rig over my frag vest with plates for the beginning of my tour.  I fit in the turret with no issues and I used the old "tuck the pistol in a spare mag pouch" move for my 9mm.

This allowed me to dismount quickly and have access to 5 spare mags and my sidearm with a single spare.  I would have a Israeli bandage in my pant leg with a tourniquet so I had my first aid stuff as well.  nothing to zip on or off.. while vulnerably standing on a turret and I was always ready to go.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (19 Jun 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I personally wore a single depth chest rig over my frag vest with plates for the beginning of my tour.  I fit in the turret with no issues and I used the old "tuck the pistol in a spare mag pouch" move for my 9mm.
> 
> This allowed me to dismount quickly and have access to 5 spare mags and my sidearm with a single spare.  I would have a Israeli bandage in my pant leg with a tourniquet so I had my first aid stuff as well.  nothing to zip on or off.. while vulnerably standing on a turret and I was always ready to go.



While that setup worked for you, but knowing how big, rather, small you are, I don't think that option is going to work for the larger framed guys who have to operate in a LAV turret.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (27 Jun 2008)

I for one went online after Texas and ordered an Eagle plate carrier/cummerbund (non releasable variety) and various pouches from DS tactical. I'm very happy with it. I decided that i didn't like the Idea of all of my weight hanging from the front and little or nothing on the back as seems to be the case with the HSGI chest rigs and such. Seems awkward to me. I prefer to have everything fit snugly all around. Plus a plate carrier/cummerbund affords you a lot more molle space. Just my $0.02.

Example:


----------



## Fusaki (27 Jun 2008)

You're going to have trouble wearing that for turret shifts with all your pouches and stuff on it...


----------



## medaid (27 Jun 2008)

Wait out for a Canadian manufacturer's releasable armour system.

Seriously... wait for it, it's quite cool. In fact it's soooo cool I have the prototype sitting in my lap. Mmmmm releasable MOLLE armour goodnesss....


----------



## Ham Sandwich (27 Jun 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> You're going to have trouble wearing that for turret shifts with all your pouches and stuff on it...



No i won't, because i won't be wearing it in the turret. Load carrying equipment goes in the bustle racks. Only frag vests/plates are worn in the turret.





			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> Wait out for a Canadian manufacturer's releasable armour system.
> 
> Seriously... wait for it, it's quite cool. In fact it's soooo cool I have the prototype sitting in my lap. Mmmmm releasable MOLLE armour goodnesss....



How about posting a pic??


----------



## medaid (27 Jun 2008)

No can do at the moment. The comapny does not want to expose it to the general public just yet.


----------



## Fusaki (30 Jun 2008)

> No i won't, because i won't be wearing it in the turret. Load carrying equipment goes in the bustle racks. Only frag vests/plates are worn in the turret.



Seen.

I didn't realize you intended to wear the plate carrier _over_ your issued frag vest and plates. Then again, even if your plates were going in the plate carrier, you'd be wearing the frag vest anyways for the kevlar...

I would have gone for a MOLLE vest or MOLLE chest rig that was designed to be worn over the PPE.


----------



## Ham Sandwich (1 Jul 2008)

Ah, i can see where the confusion is. Yeah, i should have stated that i intend to keep the plates in the flak vest and just use the plate carrier only as a molle platform over top. 

Fortunately this piece of kit actually fits well over my flak vest/plates. It's a good thing too becuase the plates have to be in the flak vest, not only for liability reasons but because first aiders need to be able to remove load carrying equipment from patients while leaving them with their ppe, so having your plates in your load carrying equipment outside of your flak jacket will create many problems there.

And AFAIK, there's no piece of kit out there specifically designed to be worn over a flak vest containing plates that fit my specific needs.


----------



## KevinB (10 Jul 2008)

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> Ah, i can see where the confusion is. Yeah, i should have stated that i intend to keep the plates in the flak vest and just use the plate carrier only as a molle platform over top.
> 
> Fortunately this piece of kit actually fits well over my flak vest/plates. It's a good thing too becuase the plates have to be in the flak vest, not only for liability reasons but because first aiders need to be able to remove load carrying equipment from patients while leaving them with their ppe, so having your plates in your load carrying equipment outside of your flak jacket will create many problems there.
> 
> And AFAIK, there's no piece of kit out there specifically designed to be worn over a flak vest containing plates that fit my specific needs.



Dude -- not sure where you got that idea from - but why would they remove your LBE and keep your Plates on?
  1St Responders will CUT your armor right off if need be - it does not matter what you are wearing -

IF you are not needing a plate carrier (and you dont if your leaving your plates in that woeful CF issues FPV) All you need is something like the TT MAV.


----------



## MG34 (14 Jul 2008)

Ham Sandwich said:
			
		

> Ah, i can see where the confusion is. Yeah, i should have stated that i intend to keep the plates in the flak vest and just use the plate carrier only as a molle platform over top.
> 
> Fortunately this piece of kit actually fits well over my flak vest/plates. It's a good thing too becuase the plates have to be in the flak vest, not only for liability reasons but because first aiders need to be able to remove load carrying equipment from patients while leaving them with their ppe, so having your plates in your load carrying equipment outside of your flak jacket will create many problems there.
> 
> And AFAIK, there's no piece of kit out there specifically designed to be worn over a flak vest containing plates that fit my specific needs.



The whole idea of a plate carrier is to "carry" the plates, like I-6 said if you insist on keeping the plates in the inadequate issued vest plate pockets all you need is a chest rig of some sort. If you are hit your PPE will be cut off to reach the wound (s) it will not stay with you for long if at all depending on the nature of the injury.

Edditted to add: There are no liability concerns regardless of what you are wearing at the time of your injury


----------



## McG (14 Jul 2008)

However, if removal of armour is not required to access the injury it will stay in place so that it can continue to protect.  The same may not be true of bulky load carraige equipment which only serves as a pain in the butt for those handing the casualty.


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2008)

Okay - seen.

 However if I pull a casualty from a vehicle etc -- its a lot easier to drop his armor first. It also makes for a much easier primary and secondary surveys.  I can always drape the armor over the cas on a  spine board or stretcher if need be as well.


----------



## spr_sldr (16 Jul 2008)

The major flaw ive seen with the TV and what alot of guys that have been to the gan say is the mag capacity or incapacity and id have to agree. I almost miss webbing at times for the simple fact that you could go to a surplus store grab some mag pouches and load up.
You look at the options offered to other forces and in their issued camopats. Things like the STRIKE vests a MOLLE gear full body vest and plate carrier, with shoulder, full neck and groin plates and side kevlar, the system is lituarly neck to waist protection and customizable area. The TV reminds me of the single purpose tac vests used by SWAT and Urban police, built to fuction, but barely and with the help of duty and eqt belts.
Then theres the issue of why cant we use aftermarket vests and rigs, and someone with a higher pay grade then me always says "well what if you get hit ur fireteam partner wont know where your eqt and ammo is." you know what, if my fireteam partner overseas dont know where my ammo and first aid kits are then he's failed at :brickwall: :brickwall: his job, you should always know your buddies kit. :brickwall:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jul 2008)

Our SOP was the right most pouch on any rig is where your first aid stuff was held.


----------



## MG34 (16 Jul 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> However, if removal of armour is not required to access the injury it will stay in place so that it can continue to protect.  The same may not be true of bulky load carraige equipment which only serves as a pain in the butt for those handing the casualty.



Any load carriage equipment will be removed regardless..I'm not getting your point here. The PPE will be removed in almost all cases to conduct a secondary survey for additional wounds  so the point is moot. We do not conduct cas evac during firefights except in the case of a grave injury, all cas management is conducted out of the fight in a "safer area" the cas has little immediate need for PPE.


----------



## McG (16 Jul 2008)

MG34 said:
			
		

> ..I'm not getting your point here.


My point is in response to this:





			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ... why would they remove your LBE and keep your Plates on?
> 1St Responders will CUT your armor right off if need be - it does not matter what you are wearing -


As has been pointed out, if there is a need the PPE will come off.  Need can be a number of things from access to primary injury, secondary searches, or to pull a pers from a confined space.  However, there are no "safe" areas as even the CCP and medivac birds can take enemy fire.  If there is no need for armour to come off, it should stay on (and you have recognized in your post that it does not always come off).  As you & I have also stated, the same is not true of load carriage equipment - it is a pain in the butt so off it comes.

Therefore, there are times (even if it is not the majority of times) where one would remove load carriage equipment but not armour.


----------



## brihard (28 Jul 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> My point is in response to this:As has been pointed out, if there is a need the PPE will come off.  Need can be a number of things from access to primary injury, secondary searches, or to pull a pers from a confined space.  However, there are no "safe" areas as even the CCP and medivac birds can take enemy fire.  If there is no need for armour to come off, it should stay on (and you have recognized in your post that it does not always come off).  As you & I have also stated, the same is not true of load carriage equipment - it is a pain in the butt so off it comes.
> 
> Therefore, there are times (even if it is not the majority of times) where one would remove load carriage equipment but not armour.



I can actually expand on this, having done the TCCC course not too long ago. Take this for what it's worth- what I was taught by the 2 Fd Amb guys. I won't profess to be an expert myself.

We were taught to open the armour as necessary to conduct surveys and to treat, but in asmuch as possible to refasten the armour as soon as it's feasible to do so. Generally when treating cas we'll lie prone with the casualty between us and the direction of contact, open the side of the armour closest to us, and work that way. Even if we have to drop everything and fight, the armour will simply flop back onto the casualty. Tacvests and load bearing kit will probably be cut off if necessary to get at the wound, and in either case will be set aside so the 2ic can salvage ammo and the like as soon as we have a chance to remove it from the casualty. However under all circumstances the PPE is to remain with and on the casualty unless it's absolutely medically necessary to remove it. The frag vest can be thrown back on very quickly, if haphazardly- velcro is good for that. During tactical field care I'm as worried about my casualty incurring new wounds as I am about the injuries already incurred. Even if we're in ongoing casualty care/CASEVAC, it's dangerous to assume that you or the casualty are safe. Incidentally, the armour is also useful for stabilizing flail chest, protecting abdominal eviscerations (on top of a CF dressing), and the like. 

If there's one thing to bring away for this, it's to make sure that your load carriage is NOT carrying your hard armour- because we want your armour on you at all times, and your 2ic probably wants all that ammo and pyro and other violent goodness you've draped on and about yourself. We haven't time to go separating the two. If you're going to wear a plate carrier to keep your equipment, do the medics and TCCCs (and yourself) a favour and leave your plate inside your frag vest.


----------



## KevinB (28 Jul 2008)

So so when your vehicle rolls or the chopper is down -- and the vest and PPE are in the way -- is it not easier to pull a handle and leave it all there?

 I really dont need a lecture on Combat Casualty Care, however I will offer that if you are not returning fire in a TIC and are working on wounded you have deprived the unit of a weapon to win the firefight.  Self Aid, Buddy Aid, Medic Aid...

  Secondly all one needs to do is strip mags or frags from the pouch on the armor system and dish them out -- its not rocket science, and many times the cas will still need to be in the fight so until he boards the bird he is keeping his gear.

Having said that some roles do not fit well with pouches affixed to the PPE, the LBE needs to be quick release - and a Benchmade Safety Tool is not a quick release as sometime ichy has to wear it again in that fight.


----------



## brihard (28 Jul 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> So so when your vehicle rolls or the chopper is down -- and the vest and PPE are in the way -- is it not easier to pull a handle and leave it all there?
> 
> I really dont need a lecture on Combat Casualty Care, however I will offer that if you are not returning fire in a TIC and are working on wounded you have deprived the unit of a weapon to win the firefight.  Self Aid, Buddy Aid, Medic Aid...
> 
> ...



I6, I wasn't trying to step on your toes there- my reply was more for the benefit of anyone reading this than for you specifically. I don't think for a second that you've got anything to learn from me, but then you're hardly representative of the average member of this site, either.

A couple points I just want to clarify in my own defense- I was mostly referring to tactical field care, not care under fire. Obviously during a TIC I wouldn't be treating the casualty; I'm returning fire like everyone else. I'm not sure if the training you've gotten breaks down the same phases our TCCC curriculum does- care under fire (self aid, tell the cas to put on a tourniquet, win the firefight), tactical field care (TCCC/Medic treatment in a tactical environment with no immediate threat) and then CASEVAC. I think we just have different terminology for the same thing. I wouldn't for a second suggest treating a casualty while under fire. Maybe I phrased things poorly, but I'm not an idiot.

I had thought I added that if required to extract a casualty, sure, we'll ditch the PPE, and hopefully it can be recovered at a later time. Apparently I left that out of my post though. You're absolutely right that in that situation it could be necessary. I understand and appreciate the simplicity of a system such as a RAV, or CIRAS, or other releaseable fully integral system. Given that we are all under orders to wear the issued soft frag vest however, it makes sense that since we're stuck with it anyway we might as well keep our plates in with it for the reasons I went into in my last reply. Sadly few of us enjoy the same leeway you have. If we were at liberty to use our own PPE complete, sure, there would be better options than what we have. But since we're stuck with the frag vest, what we've been taught seems to be what makes the most sense. If I'm treating a casualty I'd prefer their PPE stay with them, and I've probably got more pressing matters than stripping their kit, hence I'd want to toss the LBE aside for the 2ic to pillage as necessary.

Anything you've got to enlighten me I'm obviously willing to hear it; we just have some pain in the ass restrictions to take into account. That of course goes for anyone whose operational experience contradicts that which we were taught. PPE with the casualty, LBE set aside was the rule of thumb we were given though.

The C.F. does still have some serious progress to make with regards to armour and load carriage, we all know that. Hopefully the next developments take tactical medical care into account as well. I'm not privy to what the SOFCOM types are using, but I imagine (or hope?) that they're a bit more ahead of the curve in this than the rest of the C.F., and that some lessons can be brought across for the benefit of us common folk.


----------



## KevinB (29 Jul 2008)

Brihard -- I was not trying to scold you - but offer why I had problems with both the TV and PPE that the CF issues.

FYI the US issue IOTV is a releaseable system, withthe majority of injuries here due to blast in vehicle IED attacks - and vehicle fired and trapped soldiers are a major issue, as well as helo crashes and subsequent problems are the #3 cause of death here (and #1 in Afghan) so the releaseable system makes sence.

US Strykers have larger turret opening so the system is not an issue in the turret.  I have yet to see any of the 12 MGS here leave the gate (or move more than a foot) so I dont knwo what their turret guys wear or how they configure the IOTV.


----------



## Rummer (9 Nov 2008)

I am currently here and let me tell you the battle over the vest rages on . We have been given the OK on one end to bye chest rigs , but the other end squashed it ,so the vest it is .I am a driver of a LAV3 so is the vest a issue for me sure is .I have done more dismounted patrols with the vest here than back home with more ammo . They always say if you can identify the problem have a solution , so here's mine MODULAR . If you can configure the vest to fit your needs were is the problem. The issued Tac Vest , it only allows me to carry 5 mags including one on my weapon .I'm issued 10 see the problem . Even if the TV could carry 10 the are situated so hi up in the prone they are are hard to access and then there's the buckles trying to undo buckles and then redo the buckles is stupid give me Velcro and not a little I want big over hanging covers so even in a hurry I can still secure my mags easy not mention the buckles blow apart at the slightest gust of wind or diving to the ground and then I'm stuck with a insecure set of mags .When damaged , the vest must be removed of all contents then cleaned then turned in at the local CQ or SQ then replened which is a pain in the Infantry's *** . With the modular , simply remove the damaged piece and replace it . The old web gear ,which I couldn't wear if I wanted is on the right track but still has it's own problems which I wont get into . This is the year 2008 is it not . I say this because the days of making due don't cut it for me . I know we all need to be the same but , I use the hockey player as a example , If you ever looked at a NHL player not one player to the next has the exact same kit on so why do we , they all play on the same team with the same goal in mind win . I know some say  we are the same so we can find kit in each others vest but those essential pieces can still be located in all the same spots just simply give the order and we all follow . I am seeing C-9 , M203 gunners C-6 teams struggling to find spots for the issued amount of ammo the standard TV doesn't have the room . I noticed one member said he just threw it on his back well I tried it it is not practical . If you come under contact having ammo on your back seems a little time consuming to drop the bag undo buckles dig into the bag re-do the buckles , of course that always happens when under contact reload and carry on . It may be just me but, doesn't that seem a little hard to believe that all this would all happen in about 2 seconds ,not likely .If I could access the ammo on my front I think I would be more effective in a Fire Fight . I think I've dragged this on long enough and ultimately we are all on board that the Issued Tac Vest sucks , the Higher UPS know it is a issue but still we have the Tac Vest how long does it take to get action , I guess a long time but do the members really care when we are on the ground struggling with this vest in fire fights making due ,I personally don't think so . I'm not a big fan of spending my money on kit we should have issued but I would if I could .


----------



## dangerboy (9 Nov 2008)

Muddy Duck, you are not alone in your thinking (hence the 20+ pages). All I can suggest is fill out a UCR on the vest so you can complain officially. When I was over there we had the same problem and it took going on a major operation (Op MEDUSA) for them to allow us to use chest rigs and other style equipment.


----------



## Rummer (9 Nov 2008)

Thanks for the tip but we are all one step ahead of you ,I  got the Company to do it earlier in training when we were in Texas haven't seen much action on it though wierd ............must be almost ready for action by know right ...... right HA HA HA HA HA HA .


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 Nov 2008)

muddy duck said:
			
		

> I am a driver of a LAV3 so is the vest a issue for me sure is .I have done more dismounted patrols with the vest here than back home with more ammo .



I though the driver never dismounts.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (9 Nov 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I though the driver never dismounts.



There's plenty of time where crews might find themselves in as dismounted/light infantry roles.  With the Canadian infantry going towards an optimized/affiliated battlegroup structure, we could very well find a 'historically' mechanized battalion being placed into a mission that was more suited to a light organization.  1VP and 2RCR both recently conducted exercises in Hawaii and Germany respectively without their LAVs, acting more in the role of light/motorized infantry, whereby the traditional crew/section structure was amended.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Nov 2008)

muddy duck said:
			
		

> I know we all need to be the same but , I use the hockey player as a example , If you ever looked at a NHL player not one player to the next has the exact same kit on so why do we , they all play on the same team with the same goal in mind win .



Hockey players don't get RPGs and AKs fired at them all the time. It's frustrating to see you guys having to put up with all this. I'm sure that one of these days it will get straightened out. (Yes, I am a glass half full kind of guy!)


----------



## riggermade (9 Nov 2008)

Once all the dino's leave maybe it will be easier...before I got out in jan '06, 2 Svc Bn was going on Ex and the big concern was going into a hide...I was looked at like I had two heads when I suggested maybe convoy drills were more pertinent than going into or out of a hide


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Nov 2008)

riggermade said:
			
		

> Once all the dino's leave maybe it will be easier...before I got out in jan '06, 2 Svc Bn was going on Ex and the big concern was going into a hide...I was looked at like I had two heads when I suggested maybe convoy drills were more pertinent than going into or out of a hide




You darned trouble makers are all the same. Next thing you know you'll be expecting Svc Bn types to do anti-ambush drills.... the kind where you actually close with and seriously destroy the enemy  

BTW, I've seen log troops doing very good cordon and search ops as well  as anti-ambush drills. Never get between a fitter and his/her mug of hot cocoa..


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Dec 2008)

Tacvest, helmet and body armour and Arctic Warfare training: Has anyone used this kit in the arctic and if so, how did it work out? I've done the helmet and tac vest thing in the arctic before but have never worn body armour. I couldn't imagine what that would be like at 30 below while sweating like a very sweaty thing towing a pulk and hauling a ruck.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (5 Dec 2008)

Never done Winter Warfare with Flak Jackets..... that would be interesting.


----------



## RHFC_piper (5 Dec 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Tacvest, helmet and body armour and Arctic Warfare training: Has anyone used this kit in the arctic and if so, how did it work out? I've done the helmet and tac vest thing in the arctic before but have never worn body armour. I couldn't imagine what that would be like at 30 below while sweating like a very sweaty thing towing a pulk and hauling a ruck.



I can't comment on the "Arctic" aspect, but I've done winter warfare in full FFO... as did anyone else on TF3-06... ie. Company attack up a huge-ass hill in the middle of nowhere, Petawawa...  Anyone who was there would surely remember this event; most of the company ended up upside down, flapping around like a fish out of water, burried in snow.  And each Company did this (at least Bravo and Charles).  I'm not sure if it was -30, but it was damn cold and it was a long walk in snow shoes. 

I think I can adequately sum it up in two words; It sucked.   But, that's all part of the game... good times.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (5 Dec 2008)

I did an ex in Norway with helmet and body armour in 2005.  I personally found that the most effective way to work the issue of body armour was to wear the vest directly over my thermal underwear.  I then put my fleece jacket and Gore-Tex shell over top of that.  With all the extra girth from your warming layers, you might find that the panels don't overlap, which I mitigated by wearing ontop of my thermals, and then if I was overheating, I could strip off warming layers without compromising protection.  The key to this system though is to have your insulating garments (fleece, Snugpak/Integral Designs jacket, and rain/wind shell) sized large enough to fit over top of the armour.

Trying to reduce sweating is definitely a constant battle, however it's something that must be weighed against the threat matrix, as to whether its ok to reduce the PPE levels so as to reduce the possibility of cold weather injuries (i.e. hypothermia) due to excessive overheating and sweating.  We're seeing the Marine Corps reduce its PPE by going from the full 'Modular Tactical Vest' body armour to the 'Scalable Plate Carrier' for certain ops to reduce weight and concern for overheating.


----------



## R711 (9 Dec 2008)

If you look @ the swedish army trg manuels they wear their body armor underneath the parka and over the long underwear. I ll see if i can get a pic.
R711 OUT


----------



## Towards_the_gap (10 Dec 2008)

Back in september my squadron ran a grenade range, which I was to help in the running of. As it was wet, cold and miserable, and to allow access to my pockets, I took off my ICE/whatever it's called-combat jacket, and wore body armour on top of a t-shirt/helly hansen lifa top combo. And then put my jacket back on over top of it all (as we used to do in the british army).

I was looked at like I had 2 heads. 

The 'body armour worn as a base layer in cold environments' idea may be still novel to some.....


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Dec 2008)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Back in september my squadron ran a grenade range, which I was to help in the running of. As it was wet, cold and miserable, and to allow access to my pockets, I took off my ICE/whatever it's called-combat jacket, and wore body armour on top of a t-shirt/helly hansen lifa top combo. And then put my jacket back on over top of it all (as we used to do in the british army).
> 
> I was looked at like I had 2 heads.
> 
> The 'body armour worn as a base layer in cold environments' idea may be still novel to some.....



Except in the British Army I could wear my privately purchased, Arktis chest rig... which was far better IMHO over top of smock and body armour than the 'jacket' type tac vests we trialled.


----------



## MikeL (11 Dec 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> And each Company did this (at least Bravo and Charles).



A Coy from 2PPCLI did it aswell. My brother was there (A Coy); you described that event a lil more PG than he did lol


----------



## RHFC_piper (11 Dec 2008)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> A Coy from 2PPCLI did it aswell. My brother was there (A Coy); you described that event a lil more PG than he did lol



Heh... yeah... that sucked a lot.   


I wasn't sure if A Coy was with us at that point, I only remember working with them after May-ish... but then again, they may have done that in Wainwright too.  Either way, it was brutal.  Fighting in FFO and armour in the winter, with snow shoes, is painful... good training.


----------



## dangerboy (12 Dec 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I wasn't sure if A Coy was with us at that point, I only remember working with them after May-ish... but then again, they may have done that in Wainwright too.  Either way, it was brutal.  Fighting in FFO and armour in the winter, with snow shoes, is painful... good training.



We joined the TF for EX Thundering bear I think it was called, the most memorable point was that the majority of the Coy had to be medically evacuated due to sickness.  I remember out of my Sect only one pers did not get sick. 

We did do attacks with FFO and PPE wearing snowshoes in Shilo to get us ready to fight in the desert.


----------



## RHFC_piper (12 Dec 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> We joined the TF for EX Thundering bear I think it was called, the most memorable point was that the majority of the Coy had to be medically evacuated due to sickness.  I remember out of my Sect only one pers did not get sick.



Yeah... I remember that..  It was Norwalk virus, or dysentery, or something along those lines, and Petawawa had you guys quarantined in shacks for most of the Ex...  That sucked.   



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> We did do attacks with FFO and PPE wearing snowshoes in Shilo to get us ready to fight in the desert.


Well... to be fair; fighting in the desert is a lot like fighting in hip-deep snow... except for the snow... and the cold... and all the extra gear.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Besides, it's not like there were any other training areas available which more closely mimicked the conditions in Afghanistan... oh wait... yes there was... Texas.  
Oh well... I'm sure we're better soldiers for enduring it all.


----------



## Fusaki (12 Dec 2008)

> We joined the TF for EX Thundering bear I think it was called



_Ex Thunder-In Bear?_ ;D


----------



## RCR Grunt (12 Dec 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Yeah... I remember that..  It was Norwalk virus, or dysentery, or something along those lines, and Petawawa had you guys quarantined in shacks for most of the Ex...  That sucked.



It was Patricia-Pox, and they didn't want the Royals to catch it!


----------



## Greymatters (12 Dec 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Yeah... I remember that..  It was Norwalk virus, or dysentery, or something along those lines, and Petawawa had you guys quarantined in shacks for most of the Ex...  That sucked.
> Well... to be fair; fighting in the desert is a lot like fighting in hip-deep snow... except for the snow... and the cold... and all the extra gear.
> 
> 
> ...



We do have a section of actual desert in southern Manitoba - its where our tank troops trained in WW2, but hardly anybody knows about it - try training in that on a hot Manitoba day and it will be a step closer than 'arctic training'...

As for wearing a standard CF body vest in the winter - Im sure some people have a good explanation for how good of an idea it is but I would still disagree, its right up there with arctic mortar operations, not very practical...


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Dec 2008)

Now I maybe a bit dated here,  but wearing body armor for extended winter ops is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Now you have not only a fully loaded ruck, but body armor etc to lug around while dressed for winter.
For a short burst ie an attack, I reckon that's fine, but anything over 24 hours.......hmmmm


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Now I maybe a bit dated here,  but wearing body armor for extended winter ops is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Now you have not only a fully loaded ruck, but body armor etc to lug around while dressed for winter.
> For a short burst ie an attack, I reckon that's fine, but anything over 24 hours.......hmmmm



Just like wearing cam paint while doing urban operations.


----------



## Greymatters (12 Dec 2008)

My concern is that on an extended operation having a layer of sweat turning into a layer of ice that close to your body can be a risk...


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Dec 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> My concern is that on an extended operation having a layer of sweat turning into a layer of ice that close to your body can be a risk...



Exactly. Plus the exhaustion factor.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (12 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Exactly. Plus the exhaustion factor.



I hear you on that, but it doesn't seem to be altering PPE levels on the other end of the temperature spectrum, where heat exhaustion/heat stroke in Afghanistan/Iraq is a very serious possibility.

Thing about wearing body armour in cold temperatures is to have multiple sets of long underwear tops, and to adopt a changing regime similar to what US troops do when using the 'Mickey Mouse' rubber extreme cold weather boots; every chance you get, you're switching out your sock.  With body armour, you'd be doing the same with your underwear top.  If you're mech, it's not so bad, as you can get a bit of a clothesline going in the back of a LAV, or in your vehicle, but for light guys: 'Welcome to the suck'.


----------



## Greymatters (12 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Exactly. Plus the exhaustion factor.



Wouldnt dehydration be a greater risk?  Maybe its a body type factor - I was always more affected by water loss than by exhaustion (due to smart load-carrying, not uber-muscle fitness)...


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Dec 2008)

The problem in winter ops is that you sweat....and hard....and ventilation is encouraged, but I could never enough.

A casualty in winter demands more care and attention than in the desert. Shelter is a must as is good first aid. Evacuation is a problem too.

Body armor in winter, as far as I'm concerned, should be used ONLY on deliberate attacks if at all. After the attack is finished, the CQ and the remainder of the ech roll fwd and resup and take the body armor back.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Dec 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> 'Welcome to the suck'.



 :rofl: Matt, 

Until now I had forgot that term entirely, as I had not heard it since I was in Iraq. Freaky!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Cleared Hot (14 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The problem in winter ops is that you sweat....and hard....and ventilation is encouraged, but I could never enough.
> 
> A casualty in winter demands more care and attention than in the desert. Shelter is a must as is good first aid. Evacuation is a problem too.
> 
> Body armor in winter, as far as I'm concerned, should be used ONLY on deliberate attacks if at all. After the attack is finished, the CQ and the remainder of the ech roll fwd and resup and take the body armor back.



Absolutely, when are people going to remember it is about "risk mitigation", not "risk elimination"?  It might be better to risk one guy taking one in the chest w/o plates than a section's worth going down dehydrated or with hypothermia.  Then again, we would never hear the end of it in the media if we had someone shot w/o plates - the average Joe doesn't really get that what soldiers do is inherently dangerous.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (15 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The problem in winter ops is that you sweat....and hard....and ventilation is encouraged, but I could never enough.
> 
> A casualty in winter demands more care and attention than in the desert. Shelter is a must as is good first aid. Evacuation is a problem too.
> 
> Body armor in winter, as far as I'm concerned, should be used ONLY on deliberate attacks if at all. After the attack is finished, the CQ and the remainder of the ech roll fwd and resup and take the body armor back.



Which is great if we're operating in a fixed position, non-contiguous battlespace. Unfortunately we don't have the ability to control when/where the enemy may hit us with indirect fire, we might stumble into a minefield, be hit with an IED, etc.  I think that if we were conducting ops in a cold weather environment where the threat matrix is similar to what we're experiencing in Afghanistan, then body armour would be a reality, given that the aversion to casualties by higher command would dictate that level of PPE to be used.  If we were somewhere that had a lower threat matrix, i.e. late 90's/early 00's Bosnia, then it'd make sense to stow it.  Even the US Army (which tends to be about as Zero-Risk/Kneejerk to PPE as it gets) has it as SOP that their forces in Kosovo aren't wearing body armour on ops, but that it's carried in the vehicle accompanying the patrol.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Dec 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Which is great if we're operating in a fixed position, non-contiguous battlespace. Unfortunately we don't have the ability to control when/where the enemy may hit us with indirect fire, we might stumble into a minefield, be hit with an IED, etc.  I think that if we were conducting ops in a cold weather environment where the threat matrix is similar to what we're experiencing in Afghanistan, then body armour would be a reality, given that the aversion to casualties by higher command would dictate that level of PPE to be used.  If we were somewhere that had a lower threat matrix, i.e. late 90's/early 00's Bosnia, then it'd make sense to stow it.  Even the US Army (which tends to be about as Zero-Risk/Kneejerk to PPE) has it as SOP that their forces in Kosovo aren't wearing body armour on ops, but that it's carried in the vehicle accompanying the patrol.



OK now what terrorist group is operating in the Far North....or even in Winnipeg, where it is currently -26C with a wind chill around -42C. 
Stowing it in your vehicle is fine, IF you have one. Our troops drag their tent etc on a toboggan pulled by the same troops. The toboggan can weigh 250 lbs. I wouldn't want to be pulling that with body armor on. You're asking for casualties.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> OK now what terrorist group is operating in the Far North....or even in Winnipeg, where it is currently -26C with a wind chill around -42C.
> Stowing it in your vehicle is fine, IF you have one. Our troops drag their tent etc on a toboggan pulled by the same troops. The toboggan can weigh 250 lbs. I wouldn't want to be pulling that with body armor on. You're asking for casualties.



Maybe not terrorists, but how about a resurgent Russia? (shivers in trepidation at the mere thoguht...)

I remember the whining when we started wearing helmets at 30 below in arctic Norway, but we made it work. The more we train with the gear, the more comfortable we will get with it, as ever.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Dec 2008)

IF the Russians were to attack, we'd be the insurgents. Even the Russians don't like the cold.
I've been on more winter exercises in Canada than summerin 30 years. The issue of body armor on a soldier who is expending energy just keeping warm is tremendous. Now tell them body armor is a must while dragging a toboggan and rucksack around. Someone brought up the point "We do it in Afghanistan". Fine. It' s not -40C in Afghanistan, and if you have a guy go down due to whatever, its a lot simpler evacuating him there than in the cold. The cold weather brings problems. Vehicles break easier, troops expend more energy. Chances are you won't die in Afghanistan due to exhaustion, but you may in the cold.


			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Maybe not terrorists, but how about a resurgent Russia? (shivers in trepidation at the mere thoguht...)
> 
> I remember the whining when we started wearing helmets at 30 below in arctic Norway, but we made it work. The more we train with the gear, the more comfortable we will get with it, as ever.


Helmets are a different issue. Apples vs oranges.


----------



## KevinB (15 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Someone brought up the point "We do it in Afghanistan". Fine. It' s not -40C in Afghanistan, and if you have a guy go down due to whatever, its a lot simpler evacuating him there than in the cold.



Well sometimes it is near -40 in Afghan.  
 The cold weather brings problems. Vehicles break easier, troops expend more energy. Chances are you won't die in Afghanistan due to exhaustion, but you may in the cold.Helmets are a different issue. Apples vs oranges.
[/quote]
Helmets are the same issue -- your experience is just colouring that fact.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Dec 2008)

I surrender. Obviously I have no clue of what I am talking about.


----------



## McG (15 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Obviously I have no clue of what I am talking about.


There's no need for the I'm all correct or throw my teddy-bear in the corner approach here.

As has already been pointed out, PPE posture should be threat based and not temperature based.  It does not matter if the temperature is + 50°C or -50°C or anywhere in between, if you catch frag or a bullet through the skull you are probably going home dead.  The same is true of a chest full frag or bullet.  Unless you are on a linear battlefield and able to accurately predict contact with the enemy (which is unlikely in the near future), then you need appropriate PPE.

Does Canadian PPE work in the extreme cold with Canadian cold weather clothing?  I don't know.  I've never asked the question.  If there is a deficiency, then the solution should be to develop the kit to rectify this short coming (a process which may not be quick, especially if there are other competing Army priorities).


----------



## Cleared Hot (15 Dec 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Unfortunately we don't have the ability to control when/where the enemy may hit us with indirect fire, we might stumble into a minefield, be hit with an IED, etc.  I think that if we were conducting ops in a cold weather environment where the threat matrix is similar to what we're experiencing in Afghanistan, then body armour would be a reality, given that the aversion to casualties by higher command would dictate that level of PPE to be used.  If we were somewhere that had a lower threat matrix, i.e. late 90's/early 00's Bosnia, then it'd make sense to stow it.



This discussion is starting to get silly.  First when have we ever had the ability to control when the enemy will hit us?  But that being said, we certainly know when it is more and less likely which allows us to take calculated risks - it's why we have defile drills, VPCs, different march formations based on the type of ground etc.  Oh and surprise, but there are already different dress states in Afghanistan that may or may not vary based on threat, location etc.  I would go into that further but OPSEC says we should not.  If I may be so bold as to speak for OldSolduer, all he is saying is that the enemy is not the only threat and the likelihood of enemy action needs to be weighed against environmental threats and I for one agree whole heartedly - that is why commanders get paid the big bucks.  But the silly part of this discussion is that the decision to assume risk or not can only be made with a full understanding of all the variables, such as enemy tactics and capabilities, friendly force activity and task, environmental conditions, health/condition of our troops, terrain, availability and quality of intelligence, enemy etc., etc. none of which we have so who is to say what the right COA is?  Then again if we always shut down debate because we don't have all the facts this would be a fairly quiet site.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (15 Dec 2008)

And I'm saying that if we adapt our TTPs to see if we can use appropriate PPE based on the threat environment, the likelihood of sustaining more casualties will be decreased, rather than saying "Hey, the toboggan weighs 250 lbs, there's no way my boys are going to wear body armour and the like..."   

If we're conducting a footborne patrol in the arctic as a 'show the flag' type sovereignty mission, in a time of no declared hostilities, then to me, it'd make no sense to burden the troops with body armour, helmets, etc.

Now, conversely, if we say had to deploy to North Korea, where it does get bitterly cold in the winter, and are fighting in a high intensity conflict, we'd want to know how to use our PPE along with our cold weather kit.

I'm just saying that because it's uncomfortable and there is a risk of environmentally related injuries doesn't mean we shouldn't experiment and practice in peacetime.  Sweat saves blood, but brains save sweat and blood, and sometimes sweat and blood build brains.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Dec 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I'm just saying that because it's uncomfortable and there is a risk of environmentally related injuries doesn't mean we shouldn't experiment and practice in peacetime.  Sweat saves blood, but brains save sweat and blood, and sometimes sweat and blood build brains.



There's nothing wrong with 'experimenting', but commanders who do so should at least inform their troops that they are the guinea pigs and include them in the evaluation and assessment process.  Ive seen a few of these personal 'whims' given pass marks not because an idea was good, but because nobody got injured or complained very loud during the process.  Neither of these factors prove that an idea will work well in battle against a real enemy.  

For example, if you wanted to prove to me that body armour was a good idea for winter ops, I would say to you that I dont care how much armour you are wearing, one mortar/arty round, air strike, or speeding tank is going to take out a section that cant move very fast because they are weighed down too heavy with armour, or pulling a tobaggon overloaded with the weight of tac vests.  

Bearing that in mind, Infidel-6 has spoken of our troops operating in -40C overseas.  This is a valid point, but my question is, was it the same thing?  Were our troops humping a full ruck and full weapon load in winter gear, and hauling a tobaggon behind them, on an operation while wearing full PPE?  

If yes, did they succesfully accomplish their task/mission?  If yes, did the body armour prove itself in preventing injuries?

If still yes, then we've got proof the idea works well and you've made a believer out of me, and laid a convincing argument for anyone else who is uncertain about the idea...


----------



## adam561 (6 Jan 2009)

The tack vest is great if your riding around but i have found anythiny yet that compares to the old webbing for on foot it distriputed the weight better and with adding 2 c9 pouches and having a butt pack there was allways room to stuff one more thing in there if need be.


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Jan 2009)

adam561 said:
			
		

> The tack vest is great if your riding around but i have found anythiny yet that compares to the old webbing for on foot it distriputed the weight better and with adding 2 c9 pouches and having a butt pack there was allways room to stuff one more thing in there if need be.



If there's no other argument for the old webbing; at least it was modular


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Jan 2009)

Yeah but fell apart all the time cause of those plastic clips. 

Guntape and zap straps held mine together.


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Jan 2009)

heh... yeah..  I remember having to rip mine apart to turn it in for a TV...  wow, did that ever suck.

But, it was modular, and did accommodate the needs of the mission and individual... with enough gun tape and zap straps. 



Jeez... just thinking back to wearing that crap... having the plastic nubs on the mag pouches break and they slide around the belt all over the place during a section attack... or having to go back and pick up pouches after an attack.   
But, at least it had a spot for your KFS..  ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Jan 2009)

Try doing a mine field breach.


----------



## Lerch (6 Jan 2009)

With a KFS?!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Jan 2009)

Sure why not  ;D


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Jan 2009)

A buddy of mine used to carry an ice cream scoop in his KFS holder (instead of KFS)...  and, yes, he did use it to eat.


----------



## Steel Badger (7 Jan 2009)

adam561 said:
			
		

> The tack vest is great if your riding around but i have found anythiny yet that compares to the old webbing for on foot it distriputed the weight better and with adding 2 c9 pouches and having a butt pack there was allways room to stuff one more thing in there if need be.



Mate; would you do us the kind favour of using spellcheck?


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (7 Jan 2009)

Spellcheck, great thing.  Webbing, still have mine in the basement, plus added a few other pouches/camelbak, to increase usefullness a bit.  It did breath well during the summer though.


----------



## When_in_doubt_rack_out (12 Jan 2009)

The webbing system is still in use.   Try fitting 1000 rnds of c9 ammo in the TV.  In roto 01-06 i brought my webbing, used it for a bit then bought a chest rig from the Black Ops store in KAF.  There was no way i could have used the TV as a c9 gunner on my tour.


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Jan 2009)

As for the 82 ptrn webbing, it was a 1000% improvement for the 1964 Ptrn stuff, which did not even have an ammo pouch for mags. One was supposed to use his shirt/jacket pockets. Insanity.

For several yrs I used my 1982 Ptrn stuff here, as the F88 (AUG) mags do fit, allbeit snugly. This webbing was much better than the Aussie issued (Viet Nam) pattern IMHO, which was a cross between US 60's LBE and its own Australian thing.  The only mods I did was dump the butt pack, and I added two Minimi pouches centred at the rear, and an additional water bottle to balance it all off. It was effective, no plastic teeth were wrecked, and there was no velcro issues either, as once in that config, it was never altered. I still have it put away, all faded and pressed with that red Aussie dust. having mag pouches which hold only two mags was the only issue, but for the time period this came out of (70's) influence, I think its very good.

I examined a current CF TV in Aug 2008, and found it lacking in many ways, especially the single mag pouches. I have never used it, so I can't really critique it.

I am still using the SADF M83 family of webbing. The harness assembly is SADF genuine, all else is DPCU AUSCAM Cordura which is made here. The rig holds 10 mags and is very user friendly with a camelbak carrier which detaches. Nice pouches to accomodate frags, rats, and extra crap one needs, including a maglite pouch and map pouch, etc. I'll have to post a pic one day soon.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## Castus (21 Feb 2009)

Overwatch - was it this model?












From the description on the  website, it looks like it has a pretty significant load.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (21 Feb 2009)

Castus, that is indeed a South African M-83 vest.  In addition to that vest, the SADF also had a chest rig, and webbing belt-kit issued as well.


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

OK quit picking on the '64 pattern it was way way better than '51 pattern shit & IMO better than the '82 crap that dissolved when it got wet. check the pams you will find listed a ammo/mess tin/universal carrier that would hold 4 C1A1 mags each. If you were issued a SMG you used a '51 bren gun pouch for mags (holds about 6-7 each, if you had a C2 4 mags fit in the chest pouch & 4 each in afore mentioned BG pouch. Almost everyone in the unit had a US M1961 butt pack attached for additional gear. Dressings were gun taped to suspender on your off hand side. 1 gren pouch for grens & 1 converted to an IFAK, and a C1 bayonet on the left & a Ka-Bar on the right. With 2 canteens that gave you a full belt with either of  9-11 (if using pocket plan) C1 or 13 SMG or 13 C2 mags. notice its modular & tailored to the user. We worked with what we had to get the job done. Armour was a Mk 2 Combats shirt & a M1 piss pot for your locker (um head), usually consisted a Baby Blue target beret. We sh!t canned the issue M1967 US surplus flak jackets. All in All better than what I've been hearing about the current POS gear, we sacrificed armour for speed & freedom of movement. (same theory why we have wheeled LAVs instead of more heavily armoured IFVs). With stock CAF issue kit you have 150 rds of 5.56 we had 220 or 390 rds of 7.62 or 416 rds of 9 mm, & it fails to adequately address the needs of heavier weapons, hydration is better up to 6 lt of water in the new system (water is life). You need it with the armour, which sacrifices mobility for protection. The CADPAT blends better with the environment than the old OG# 107 combats did.

Griping about gear is a time honoured tradition since the 1st soldier went to war (PKing) because ultimately acquisition of gear is usually a political decision and if you check the suppliers list at CST against elected riding's you would find it interesting. If you want good gear you need to turn up the political heat you all have MPs (not meatheads) in your riding's QR&Os cannot stop you from talking to your MPs. We got butt packs in 82 because big brass above L/Col  (politicians) did not like seeing us all using US, non CAF issue that is, gear.

RECCE 1st to die


----------



## Sig_Des (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> All in All better than what I've been hearing about the current POS gear, *we sacrificed armour for speed & freedom of movement. (same theory why we have wheeled LAVs instead of more heavily armoured IFVs*



Say what? Ever been in a LAV?


----------



## RCR Grunt (11 Mar 2009)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Say what? Ever been in a LAV?



It doesn't have as much protection as a tracked 30 tonne IFV though does it?  That's what he's saying.  The "L" in LAV is for light.  The vehicle trades protection for speed.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (11 Mar 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> It doesn't have as much protection as a tracked 30 tonne IFV though does it?  That's what he's saying.  The "L" in LAV is for light.  The vehicle trades protection for speed.



I think the 'L' in most Light Armoured Vehicle classes refers more to its strategic deployability, i.e. whether it can be airlifted by C-130, which seems to be the current gold standard, or if you go back to the 70's and 80's when the LAV was being adopted by the US Marines, the ability to be sling loaded by a CH-53 was the other litmus test of weight.

Bit of a thread hijack though...so lets get back to our regularly scheduled topic.   :camo:


----------



## geo (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690....
The '82 pattern webbing dissolved when wet ?
I beg to differ - the '64 pattern webbing is the one that came apart when wet.  It was only held together with Velcro - VS the '51 & '82 pattern's lugs & grommet system.  The 64 kit was great when you wanted to reorganize your webbing for a patrol or some other sort of operation BUT, once the worn velcro started to get wet - you were done for.


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

the velcro on my '64 pattern set has never come apart when wet the 1st '82 pat was untreated nylon that actually dissolved when wet the 2nd gen were treated with some oilly chem that stopped or at least slowed that,  I only ever used the 1st 82 pat but have the 2nd gen in my collection


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

yes I've been in cougars which are LAV 1 

yes light refers to transport as well as its role 

armour on LAV 1 & 2 is the same as a Lynx or 113 LAV 3s are the 1st in the series to get upgraded armour for US Army specs


----------



## 2 Cdo (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> the velcro on my '64 pattern set has never come apart when wet the 1st '82 pat was untreated nylon that actually dissolved when wet the 2nd gen were treated with some oilly chem that stopped or at least slowed that,  I only ever used the 1st 82 pat but have the 2nd gen in my collection



Sorry to disagree recon but 64 pattern webbing was a colassal mistake from day 1! I wore it for the first few years I served and every section attack during training was followed by a break to retrace our steps and pick up our webbing that fell off during the attack. Same with doing any obstacle/confidence course. Webbing coming apart got even worse if it was raining. We then adapted and employed a generous amount of gun tape to hold our webbing together which would need to be replace at regular intervals.

Contrary to that the 82 pattern seldom self-destructed unless grommetts broke during section attacks or obstacle courses and the rain was a non-factor. Most people would agree with me in saying that the 82 pattern was a far superior product than the 64 pattern. In fact if given a choice I would prefer my 82 pattern webbing to the abortion we call a TAC vest!


----------



## Matt_Fisher (11 Mar 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Recon 3690....
> The '82 pattern webbing dissolved when wet ?
> I beg to differ - the '64 pattern webbing is the one that came apart when wet.  It was only held together with Velcro - VS the '51 & '82 pattern's lugs & grommet system.  The 64 kit was great when you wanted to reorganize your webbing for a patrol or some other sort of operation BUT, once the worn velcro started to get wet - you were done for.



I'm kinda suprised that more use of US ALICE clip based pouches weren't used with the Canadian 64 pattern, or that guys wouldn't have mods done like sewing belt loops onto their pouches to ensure they wouldn't fall off the belt if the Velcro separated...or for the shoulder harness, have D rings sewn onto the belt to attach the harness to.


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

2 Cdo thats sounds like a maintenance prob like anything else velcro wears out & needs replacement as for 82 pat its hard to explain you had to see it the nylon fabric acually dissolved and left patches that are only horizontal strands if I could only go back & take pix, you prob had the 2nd gen treated stuff, that still had velcro & plastic clips that broke.
my point was all 3 51, 64, 82 are modular and superior to the tacvest in that fact alone (prob not the 51 which had some useful pouches)
and the political veiw of our soldiers as an international police force (using cop tacvests as a template) & also the brass mind set about parade ground uniformity


----------



## KevinB (12 Mar 2009)

Having been issued 51 Pattern webbing when I joined...

 It was a HUGE PITA - but better IMHO than the 64pattern, which is just garbage.  82 pattern was not great - but guntape was good enough to fix the majority of the issues, and MILES better than the 64.

TacVest - its a not bad admin vest.

 MOLLE is the way to go, so I don'y pay attention to legacy vests.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> the velcro on my '64 pattern set has never come apart when wet the 1st '82 pat was untreated nylon that actually dissolved when wet the 2nd gen were treated with some oilly chem that stopped or at least slowed that,  I only ever used the 1st 82 pat but have the 2nd gen in my collection



Aside from the odd eyelet ripping out from force, I never had problems with my 1982 stuff, and I  used that webbing here in the harsh tropical environments of Australia for about 7 yrs, plus about 11 yrs in Canada. Nothing disolved/rotted, and even now I still use the 82 ruck (its better than our back breaker).  The 82 Ptrn webbing proved itself to be robust and reliable. If anything that permanent red dust colour has embedded itself in the canvas/cotton and nylon.

The secret to the 82 stuff is once configured, leave it.

I even took an 82 Ptrn belt and holster to Iraq and wore it there. Never a problem.

The 82 ptrn webbing was set up with two mag pouches, two waterbottles and two wet weather pouches centred in the back. Thats butt pack was never used. The KFS holder and an Australian KCB77 bayonet frog were left on.

The 1964 stuff was useless. Pouches sliding around, and NO 20 rd mag pouches!

In my early Militia days, we had the 51 stuff. Small pack, large pack, BREN pouches, mess tins and water botles carriers, blackened brass attachments. IMHO an OD version of the 37 ptrn, with an improved belt. Although heavier than the 64 stuff, the 64 stuff was crap. I remember that hopeless grenade pouch  :

In Iraq I never wore webbing. Being in LAVs we had MOLLE on our ECBA which we could modify/attach stuff we needed for whatever we were doing. Truly as Kev states MOLLE is the way to go.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## R031button (14 Mar 2009)

I remember seeing the Aussies in Afghanistan and being very jealous of that, thinking to myself "I get the Brits and Americans having better kit, but Australia is like us..." ???


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2009)

Overall IMHO and that of others who have used this new stuff. The Australian Project Land 125 webbing is a poor preformer, hence why Aussies use aftermarket kit wherever they go, at home or abroad. It is tolerated by Unit hiarchary mostly.

Its all about flexibility and having the right stuff for the job. Seems its always the lowest bidder who gets the contract in everything from webbing to boots and beyond.

I rest my case.


----------



## geo (14 Mar 2009)

> Seems its always the lowest bidder who gets the contract in everything from webbing to boots and beyond



Where did I hear that line before ???


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Mar 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Where did I hear that line before ???



Yeah think we have a number of those in the inventory


----------



## Recon 3690 (22 Mar 2009)

With out a doubt MOLLE/PALS is the way to go, but I still have my 64 stuff & have used it for 30 years and the velcro has never failed (as Overwatch stated pounce its on leave it) and it does not slide around when the belt is full, it has nowhere to go. The only thing I hated about it is the yoke, at least they got that right on the 82 pat.

Yes it's a crappy grenade pouch, I still have no idea what the extra attachment on the bottom is for,  but it made an excellent 1st Aid pouch.

The 82 ruck is absolute crap compared to a 64 ruck.

My primary weapon was a SMG and I used 51 Bren gun pouches to carry mags. When I wasn't carring that I had a C2 (and used same 51 pouches) there were zero C1s in a Recce Troop (7 50s, 7 GPMGs, 7 C2s, 21 SMGs, & 3 Carl Gs).

MOLLE is it now days when I go to the woods I carry a combination of MOLLE, ALICE, & PLCE.


----------



## Teeps74 (22 Mar 2009)

C1? Was that the designator for a stack of javelins?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690

I do not recall any velcro on my old 64 pattern webbing.  The 74 Pattern Webbing was all velcro and required gun tape to keep from falling apart.  The 85 Pattern was a great improvement over this, but still not as rugged as the 64 pattern, although the yoke was by far a quantum leap forward in comfort and load bearing, over both the 64 and 74 Patterns.


----------



## Recon 3690 (22 Mar 2009)

No Teeps we had no Javelins just Carl Gs for killing Armour

George I think your thinking 51 pat cotton duck web material (pretty much the same as 37 pat only green), 64 pat coated canvas with velcro, 82 pat crappy 400 denier nylon with velcro, plastic clips, & 4" web belt. then came 99 pat (or CADPAT)


----------



## Recon 3690 (22 Mar 2009)

Teeps ask George what a C1 or C2 is


----------



## George Wallace (22 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> Teeps ask George what a C1 or C2 is



You don't know?


----------



## Teeps74 (22 Mar 2009)

Yer right, George should know... He's old enough to remember a time when a Centurion was a rank, not a tank...



/Pop smoke!


----------



## Recon 3690 (22 Mar 2009)

Hand held shoulder controled gas operated magazine fed semi automatic rifle CAF designaion FN C1A1


----------



## Recon 3690 (22 Mar 2009)

somethings from basic you just never forget

George were you in Lahr in 1980?


----------



## Teeps74 (22 Mar 2009)

(as an aside) I just put a few hundred rounds through a beautiful C1 just before the Christmas Holidays... Gods I love that weapon. I was like a school boy again... Running back and forth on the mound to reload the one mag we have for it. 

I swear I am better with it then I am with a C7... And I think I am a surgeon with a C7 (just not kneeling for some reason).


----------



## George Wallace (22 Mar 2009)

Just for Recon 3690:

C 1

C 2


----------



## Recon 3690 (22 Mar 2009)

to bad you didn't have a C2 oooooooooooo baby


----------



## George Wallace (22 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> George were you in Lahr in 1980?



Yes.

Could explain the APS.   ;D


----------



## Recon 3690 (22 Mar 2009)

off topic but I'm also 011 but when I got to Lahr they put me in B Sqn
21B


----------



## Loachman (22 Mar 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Recon 3690
> 
> I do not recall any velcro on my old 64 pattern webbing.  The 74 Pattern Webbing was all velcro and required gun tape to keep from falling apart.  The 85 Pattern was a great improvement over this, but still not as rugged as the 64 pattern, although the yoke was by far a quantum leap forward in comfort and load bearing, over both the 64 and 74 Patterns.



I do not recall any 74 or 85 Pattern webbing. There was, when I joined in 1973, 51 Pattern, which combined the worst aspects of the British 37 Pattern and US webbing, and 64 Pattern webbing.

The former had grommets on a belt, steer-horn hooks to attach pouches to the belt, brass buckles, and was otherwise all cotton. It was only issued to the Militia at that time. The regular force were issued 64 Pattern webbing, which was very lightweight and minimalist. It had plastic buckles and everything attached with Velcro. Aside from its tendency to fall apart, it had no magazine pouches as magazines were to be carried in shirt pockets.

It was succeeded by 82 Pattern webbing, which was in turn succeeded by the Tac Vest.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Mar 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I do not recall any 74 or 85 Pattern webbing. There was, when I joined in 1973, 51 Pattern, which combined the worst aspects of the British 37 Pattern and US webbing, and 64 Pattern webbing.



'Tis my mistake.  I keep getting the dates screwed up, if I don't deal with them more often.  In '70 I had the 51 Pattern.  In '74-'75 I had the 64 Pattern and by mid '80s the '82 Pattern.......Depending on luck of the draw on when issued kit, one sometimes remembers details in sync with other details.  

The Tac Vest was at the time a very welcome replacement for the webbing.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> off topic but I'm also 011 but when I got to Lahr they put me in B Sqn
> 21B



8B & 89C in '80
23C in '81


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> Hand held shoulder controled gas operated magazine fed semi automatic rifle CAF designaion FN C1A1


  My 1st was 2L4525, and the last one issued was 5L3686  :nod:


----------



## len173 (20 Apr 2009)

I don't know how much difference their is between Regs and reserves when it comes to this. But the other day I was at parade for the unit I'm joining, and one of the guys was wearing a non issued, modular LBV. When I asked about it one of the guys told me they were on Ex. and the RSM was getting frustrated with the issues vest, because he couldn't get a grenade out quickly. A troop walked up with his non issue vest on, and said here you go sir, and it popped right out. From then on, the rule was non issue kit is good to go as long as it's functional.


----------



## brihard (20 Apr 2009)

For field exercises, many reserve units are starting to give more and more latitude on this.

Thing is though it's a lot easier to justify buying a good rig for Afghanistan than it is for maybe a weekend a month... And on brigade exercises such things still tend to get kyboshed.


----------



## len173 (20 Apr 2009)

> For field exercises, many reserve units are starting to give more and more latitude on this.
> 
> Thing is though it's a lot easier to justify buying a good rig for Afghanistan than it is for maybe a weekend a month... And on brigade exercises such things still tend to get kyboshed.



yeah, I don't think I could justify spending the cash just for exercises.

But I was looking around on CP gear's website, and they have lots of stuff meant to mod the CF issue vest. Like increasing mag capacity . . . etc.

So the question is, if you are wearing the CF tac vest, but you have moded it with CP gear stuff, does that still get you in hot water? And, could you use that stuff to make the issued vest an effective enough vest for Astan, in turn saving you alot of cash?


----------



## dangerboy (20 Apr 2009)

len173 said:
			
		

> So the question is, if you are wearing the CF tac vest, but you have moded it with CP gear stuff, does that still get you in hot water? And, could you use that stuff to make the issued vest an effective enough vest for Astan, in turn saving you alot of cash?



That is a question that there is no straight answer to; basically it boils down to your chain of command and how they feel.  My advice is look at what other guys in your company are using and use that as a baseline and then double check with your Sect Comd or 2IC before spending any money.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Apr 2009)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> That is a question that there is no straight answer to; basically it boils down to your chain of command and how they feel.  My advice is look at what other guys in your company are using and use that as a baseline and then double check with your Sect Comd or 2IC before spending any money.


 I would agree with dangerboy on this one...
In a Reserve Unit, such as I am, I do not allow the troops to wear non issue tac vests or rigs. If they wish to add stuff on the Tac Vest, and as long as its not seriously ridiculous, its probably OK. Most of our troops cannot afford to buy kit, nor should they be buying major items.


----------



## Fusaki (21 Apr 2009)

For training in Canada does a non-issue rig really give that much of an edge over the issued TV?

In Canada, how often do we get more then 5 mags?

In Canada, how often do we put grenades in the TV?

In Canada, how often do guys have full TCCC bags?

In Canada, how often are we issued NVGs?

In Canada, how often to we carry 40mm around?

A unit on workup training will see a _full combat load_ more often and they need to be training with the rigs (issued or not) that they will be using overseas. But beyond that, the TV does the job.

My advice is to use the TV untill it no longer does the job you need it to do. Until then, save your money. When you do start your workup training you can then get the lowdown on what you can and can't use, what your specific position is likely to be, what equipment you'll have issued, and more modern gear designs then what is available right this minute.

The fact that we don't carry combat loads in all our training is an issue for another thread...


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2009)

Well said Wonderbread, and the only time we carry out front line is training for Afghanistan I do beleive....if I am wrong someone will correct me.
Not only that, but troops should NOT be shelling out major $$ for their kit.


----------



## KevinB (21 Apr 2009)

Train as you fight - for you fight as you train.

 I dont think I had been issued under 7 mags since 2002.

I've come around on the load issue - as I feel more aim = less shooting, but I think the TV is a unmitigated POS as its placement of the load sucks ass.

 You build muscle memory in training, why train wrong?


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2009)

Infidel-6 you are correct as well. But as you well know, the military is a bureaucracy as well as a fighting force, and we do have rules to follow.
Personally, if I was going into a situation which demands a better rig, I'd most likely invest some money in a good one. My opinion only. And I'm a cheapskate as well. ;D


----------



## KevinB (21 Apr 2009)

I know -- it pisses me off that troops who's lives are on the line get a POS vest.

 MJP did a nice PPT showing some of his soldiers trying to get a grenade out of the vest -- FAIL
Try to get mags out of the vest ina  hurry with the FPV with plates in - FAIL 

Jay and Andy's vests - the DHTC Chest Rig and Patrol Vest, are being made - and while not MOLLE, are a thousand times better than craptacular "Tactical" vest.  Issue a stop stop stop on the TV, and issue those for the interim until a real vest can be issued.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (21 Apr 2009)

There is interest from DLR-5 on coming up with an replacement tac-vest, but the problem is the 'Integrated Soldier System Project' (ISSP) will be coming online around the same timeline as an interim tac-vest would be fielded, so you've got to deconflict the projects.

Also, it's pretty much a given that the defence budget will likely shrink over the next few years, so given a smaller budget, where's the money going to come from to replace the vests?  

This would fall into the capital acquisiton area and I don't think that the CLS is going to strongly support that ADM Mat takes some 30 Million from the Army's acquisition budget (original Tac-Vest contract was for $20 some million...you've got to factor in the increase in price if the pouches are modular this time around).  CLS is/will have to be doing a massive balancing act in terms of what are need vs. want type equipment.  He needs a LAV rebuild program, a Leo II Canadianization upgrade (or upgrade to Leo2A6 standard?) and ARV variants, a replacement for the 60mm mortar (CASW), a Light Armoured Patrol Vehicle to replace the RG-31 and G-Wagen C&R, etc. but also has programs that wants, such as a tac-vest replacement, Temperate Combat Boot (i.e. CADPAT boots), a Close Combat Vehicle, etc.  

Given that ISSP is already on the books in terms of funding allocation, and that there is an in-service tac-vest that works for the rest of the Army that isn't combat arms, I'd say that an interim tac-vest replacement for the entire Army is likely a very low procurement priority in the grand scheme of things.  Not to say that a UOR for a replacement vest couldn't/wouldn't be done for deployed ops though.  However for an Army wide issue of a replacement tac-vest, Treasury Board would likely have a hard time seeing enough separation between the current tac-vest, an interim replacement tac-vest for the entire Army, and ISSP to allocate funding for the interim vest.  

Now what could be done is to have additional monies being put into ISSP to provide a 'modular ISSP chassis' and 'modular non-C4ISR specific pouches' for the entire army which would be a defacto tac-vest replacement, so they can plug and play the ISSP specific C4ISR components as required, but this would require a significant revision to the current ISSP program's procurement and fielding plan.

However a problem with the approach of a single modular chassis for the evolution of ISSP is that the program is designed to have 3 fielding stages, whereby over time, 3 different ISSP evolutions will be fielded, replacing the prior version.  If you've got a vest in widescale Army issue that was designed to work with the Gen I ISSP kit, and when you go to field Gen II ISSP, if that vest isn't compatible with the C4ISR components (which is really the nuts and bolts of ISSP), then you've got to replace the vest that the entire Army is using again, and possibly for a 3rd time with the Gen III ISSP.  Pretty easy way to balloon costs to the point where a program runs seriously over budget.
In order to keep a 'low risk' approach to ISSP, it's likely that only enough kit (including vests and pouches) will be procured for that generation of the system.

In respect to UORing a bunch for deployed op, Afghanistan is pretty much over in 2011 (despite what people say we're going to maintain an OMLT or PRT, given the current political winds in Ottawa, right or wrong, I doubt that we'll maintain much if any of a force over there after our current mandate expires), so any UOR 'Try and Buy' type programs will have to happen before TF 1-10/3-10 get deployed (given government procurement speed, it's TF 3-09 has already passed beyond the needed timeframe), and would probably be limited to a single TFs worth of kit.  
Even with a limited UOR purchase of CADPAT AR modular vests/kit, what does the rest of the non-deployed force do?  -Stay with the current vest.

I'm speculating that the tac-vest will eventually be replaced, but by whatever iteration of a vest/rig that ISSP comes up with, and from the preliminary numbers put forth, they're looking at an initial purchase/delivery of about 3 TFs worth of kit in the 2011/12 timeframe, with numbers increasing to about 6-9 TFs worth of kit by the time that ISSP Gen III is fielded in the 2019/20 timeframe.  Again, the tac-vest will continue on in service for those non-ISSP equipped units, unless ISSP's plan is changed  to what I described above to include a modular chassis with non-C4ISR specific pouches to be issued to the entire Army as part of the initial fielding of ISSP Gen I.


----------



## Greymatters (22 Apr 2009)

Hmmm - those are a lot of words to say "we're stuck with it"...


----------



## dapaterson (22 Apr 2009)

Not at all.  The DND capital programme always has slippage, so a bit of planning would see a no-strat project sitting on the shelf, ready to be pushed out the door once another project has delays.  $30M sounds like a lot, but spread it over 3-4 years and it's only picking at the edges of the capital funds deferred every year.

Not to say there will be shiny new kit tomorrow.  But if positioned correctly, the Army could do this one relatively quickly.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (22 Apr 2009)

So, if we all worked at DLR and had to look at concepts for a Tac Vest replacement, instead of re-inventing the wheel (something that is doctrine it seems), what would be the top 3-5 modular base rigs COTS that we would look at as working examples? Cost aside, purely from a functional, tried/tested/&true perspective? I know people have asked about what they should get as a non-issue setup in other posts/forums (with equally as many responses), however, what would all the responses or thoughts on the subject finally narrow down to, if ready to be taken to the DLR planning table...?
Thoughts?


----------



## Fusaki (22 Apr 2009)

> what would be the top 3-5 modular base rigs COTS that we would look at as working examples? Cost aside, purely from a functional, tried/tested/&true perspective?



My guess? Two of them would probably be:

CPGear MOFOCR

Tactical Tailor 2-Piece MAV with X-harness


----------



## old fart (5 Jul 2009)

Best gear out there bar none...hate to say that as its Australian  

http://www.sordaustralia.com/products.php

Superb quality....best molle plate carriers avail....+ they do the full nine yards WRT accessories.

Our equip buyers should be to the COTS drama on this...

Old fart...out.


----------



## KevinB (6 Jul 2009)

Some of our guys had SORD stuff in Iraq (most Aussies) quality was a lot less than Paraclete or Eage - but cost was slightly lower.

 I'd skip that stuff myself


----------



## medaid (8 Jul 2009)

Would not recommend SORD at all. 

Paraclete, Eagle, TT (on some things)

Paraclete SOHPC in CADPAT.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (8 Jul 2009)

OK. Good insights into what works and what doesn't. Let's stay within the parameters of what is realistic though. If DLR had to take design ideas from a variety of rigs (or one rig in particular) or MOTS purchase one design, it would still have to conform to what soldiers have to wear with the load bearing kit, ie PPE. So far TT MAV 2-piece and CP Gear MOFOCR stand out, unless someone in the know would like to see design elements of both incorporated. These rigs are designed to work mainly in conjunction with a frag vest, thus are suitable for the average Canadian soldier. Any other suggestions that worked well overseas?
CP and SOF applications are another ball of wax altogether and may require another top 3 list.

Rumour has it that DLR is looking into a tav vest v2.0 project in the near-mid-term (maybe enough UCRs have hit the right mark or some commander was fed up with the status quo), however no idea what the output may be or how DLR has come up with their choises (aside from what has been mentioned earlier about various trial pieces floating around).

Note: I do not/not work at DLT. Just trying to get a handle of a summary of what has been said in the pages before.


----------



## old fart (9 Jul 2009)

I used a SORD rig for a year...it served its purpose well. Nothing fell apart, it stood up.  

I have to add I was given this rig....but after a year in the Sandbox can relate to the many that have resorted to getting their own gear due to the result of a woefully inadequate issue TAC Vest.

Obtaining your own gear is reminiscent of the old days in the Brit Army with everyone obtaining kit to make up for the useless crap we were issued in the 70s and 80s. Not the case for Brits by and large these days. 

In my estimation it beat the stuff hands down issued to our ski-mask gang (not sure what the brand is) and fits the bill across the board. I had a radio and hydration pouch on the rear panel.

I rarely wore the FRAG Vest with it, just opted for the plates augmented with some Kevlar 

Old fart...31+ and still ticking...


----------



## RCR Grunt (9 Jul 2009)

Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
			
		

> OK. Good insights into what works and what doesn't. Let's stay within the parameters of what is realistic though. If DLR had to take design ideas from a variety of rigs (or one rig in particular) or MOTS purchase one design, it would still have to conform to what soldiers have to wear with the load bearing kit, ie PPE. So far TT MAV 2-piece and CP Gear MOFOCR stand out, unless someone in the know would like to see design elements of both incorporated. These rigs are designed to work mainly in conjunction with a frag vest, thus are suitable for the average Canadian soldier. Any other suggestions that worked well overseas?
> CP and SOF applications are another ball of wax altogether and may require another top 3 list.
> 
> Rumour has it that DLR is looking into a tav vest v2.0 project in the near-mid-term (maybe enough UCRs have hit the right mark or some commander was fed up with the status quo), however no idea what the output may be or how DLR has come up with their choises (aside from what has been mentioned earlier about various trial pieces floating around).
> ...



There is a Load Carriage Jury commencing next week.  It's goal is to find a replacement for the TAC vest.  The basis is "show and tell."  Each reg force Bn is sending 2 soldiers with recent operational experience.  In addition there will be 8 reps from other combat arms trades as well as some folks from CFLAWC and DLR and some science weinies.  Different rigs will be trialed, 2 or 3 will be selcted for futher trials, 1 will be selcted to procure 3 BG's worth or 5000.  All to bne completed by 2009-2010.  I'll let you know how it goes when I get back.  Expect pics and summary around 20JUL09.

The skeptic in me says it's not going to go smooth.  I predict that there is already a model that someone has chosen and that will be espoused as the next greatest thing since sliced bread and the machine gun.  I predict that any input we make will be ignored by science and human factors and the fighting soldier will be stuck with another ill designed piece of equipment.  I hope I'm wrong.  I pray to Odin I'm wrong, I want this to work.  

Keep your fingers crossed.


----------



## medaid (9 Jul 2009)

old fart said:
			
		

> I rarely wore the FRAG Vest with it, just opted for the plates augmented with some Kevlar



Ah... ah... see?! Not doing what CTS or DLR wants you to do. Which is to wear the FRAG vest in conjunction with the plate no? 

If everyone wen the plate carrier route, it would allow ease of movement and closer nicer fit, but at the same time, it would limit coverage.


----------



## old fart (9 Jul 2009)

Coverage...I had Side SAPIs stuffed in the utility pouches and like I said kevlar in all parts of the plate carriers (essentially wherever there was a plate behind that providing additional protection I had kevlar). I still had room for a PLB behind the small utility and a drop pouch behind the large utility (which carried most of my med kit).

I have seen the other stuff and now know one rig to be Tactical Tailor, that looked liked cheap shit to me..and the CP Gear everything I did not want.  

We need to go to a decent one piece rig that does the job...the USMC are spending tons of cash on this...even their cast offs are better than what we have.

All things considered....its a balance of access, protection and mobility. I got that in spades from the SORD rig...not one seam let go, unlike various seams in my combats 

I hope the powers that be..shift from the two piece drama (FRAG and TAC Vest)..and opt for the all in one.  Of course others will think differently..their choice of course.

Old fart...


----------



## Fusaki (9 Jul 2009)

> I hope the powers that be..shift from the two piece drama (FRAG and TAC Vest)..and opt for the all in one.  Of course others will think differently..their choice of course.



The reason alot of us would like to stay away from only having modular body armour is this:  Every soldier in a rifle company needs to be able to pull sentry shifts in the LAV3 turret, or other wise strip off his bulky fighting gear but keep his PPE in order to perform a myriad of other tasks.  IMHO, we NEED the option of a modular vest or chest rig that can be worn over armour.

In my perfect world we'd be issued PPE that fits the following criteria:

1)  Modular. Covered in MOLLE webbing, for those in roles where attaching pouches directly to the armour is practical.

2)  Releasable. For emergency doffing similar to the CIRAS, RAV, or the new US Army issued flak vest

3) Scalable. An armour system that the soldier in the field can set up as a full flak vest with neck guard, shoulder and groin protection, and side SAPIs.  Then the next day, the soldier should be able to strip it all the way down to a plate carrier without even a cumberbund.

This PPE would be _in addition to_ a modular TV or chest rig, and a Ruck / Small Pack that's actually designed to integrate with it.

To my knowledge the PPE system I've described above doesn't yet exist. In my mind though, it would probably look like a cross between an Eagle CIRAS and an Eagle Plate carrier.  I'll bet though, that within the next 5 years what I've described above is the industry standard.


----------



## R031button (9 Jul 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> I predict that there is already a model that someone has chosen and that will be espoused as the next greatest thing since sliced bread and the machine gun.  I predict that any input we make will be ignored by science and human factors and the fighting soldier will be stuck with another ill designed piece of equipment.  I hope I'm wrong.  I pray to Odin I'm wrong, I want this to work.



I would have to agree with that prediction. I don't know if it's the same people, but when they came buy to talk to B Coy 1VP during 1-08's work up that was very much the way things went. Not to get all conspiracy theory on the topic, but the impression that I got was that decisions had already been made, and that looking for soldier input was a formality. That was based on the way the discussion was developed, trying to shift wording to contradict other soldiers and display the company as not being able to decide on what it wanted, which of course is exactly the point of a modular system, but I digress.  

"Human Factors" seem to be the ace in the hole for the pro tac vest crowd. In the TAV AAR done by DLR these factors, which seem to be left as vague as possible, are used to deride most off the shelf options troops were using.

Personally I think the most likely option we'll see is simply the tac vest with molle stitched over it. Ideal? Probably not. Functional? Most likely.


----------



## RCR Grunt (9 Jul 2009)

Plate carriers and armor with pouches attached are fine if your doing DA's out of Hummer's, but don't work for the myriad of jobs and tasks that the average combat arms soldier will be asked to do throughout the full spectrum of operations.

Artillerymen don't want to carry their mags while conducting gun drills.

Combat engineer's don't want to be overburdened while prodding a mine field.

Armored crewmen don't fit in a tank with pouches for this and that strapped to them.

Snipers and recce soldiers may not want to wear armor on patrol.  

Infantrymen don't want to wear full battle rattle while sitting in an OP on a FOB or while digging a trench or filling sandbags.

What works in the current COE may not be ideal for the next.  Afghanistan is but a blip on the radar of the CF, soon it will be gone.

Planning and equipping our forces for blips is what got us into the TAC vest in the first.

A new rig must be adaptable for any task in any potential theater.

Modular is the key, with Molle / PALS being the international gold standard.

A plate carrier or modular armor, and by that I mean pouches mounted to armor for load carriage, is not acceptable.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Jul 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> A plate carrier or modular armor, and by that I mean pouches mounted to armor for load carriage, is not acceptable.



I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that as an option.  The US Army is moving towards a dual platform system whereby their IOTV (soft body armour with plates) and their soon-to-be-selected plate carrier system will both have a cable release system.  If you're running a separate load-bearing rig over either system, you render the cable release feature useless, and in some 'big-Army' units, it's become SOP not to have guys allowed to wear separate rigs over their IOTVs for just this reason; The soldiers are made to attach their pouches directly to the IOTV.

Some US companies and PEO-Soldier (their version of DLR/DSSPM) is looking at the ability to take modular panels and have them attach to the IOTV or plate carrier.
Tactical Tailor is one of the first companies to offer such a system commercially:
http://www.tacticaltailor.com/IOTVmodularassaultpanel.aspx
-this gives you the ability to add or detach a load-bearing panel directly to the IOTV without hindering the operation of the cable-release feature.

As CPGear expands its offerings into the US market, I'm also working on something similar for the IOTV and plate carrier.


----------



## old fart (10 Jul 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Plate carriers and armor with pouches attached are fine if your doing DA's out of Hummer's, but don't work for the myriad of jobs and tasks that the average combat arms soldier will be asked to do throughout the full spectrum of operations.
> 
> Artillerymen don't want to carry their mags while conducting gun drills.
> 
> ...



Agreed - Whom ever invented the Molle system got it right, a system that can be adapted by the wearer configured as need be.  

The SORD SCS system http://www.sordaustralia.com/Items1.php?parentid=84 is well designed and adaptable for the task at hand and can be used in conjunction as can other with the issued FRAG vest.

I would even lean to staying with a two piece affair, meaning the issued FRAG vest with a decent complimentary Molle system issued and adapted as required.

The majority of your post was about nothing.  I disagree completely blowing off a decent plate carrier as easy as you do.  If I deployed again, I would be happy to stay with a SORD rig configured to my needs. 

Signed Old Fart, ageing Combat Engineer, Armoured Engineer, Airborne Engineer (Airborne Regiment) and EOD Fella...


----------



## NL_engineer (10 Jul 2009)

I like the idea Wonderbread has, but it does need a removable panel that, all your fighting can be taken off when not needed (walking around the FOB I operate out of)

I seen one of the panels that Matt is talking about.  One of the US army guys we had working with us had one on his vest. Another had a molle rig that tied into the armor release system (not sure where he got it from, but the design is out their).


----------



## armyvern (10 Jul 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> The reason alot of us would like to stay away from only having modular body armour is this:  Every soldier in a rifle company needs to be able to pull sentry shifts in the LAV3 turret, or other wise strip off his bulky fighting gear but keep his PPE in order to perform a myriad of other tasks.  IMHO, we NEED the option of a modular vest or chest rig that can be worn over armour.
> 
> In my perfect world we'd be issued PPE that fits the following criteria:
> 
> ...



You do realize of course that posts containing as much common sense as the above will result in your future nomination for ATWO course and employment within the bowels of NDHQ for the remainder of your life.


----------



## RCR Grunt (10 Jul 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You do realize of course that posts containing as much common sense as the above will result in your future nomination for ATWO course and employment within the bowels of NDHQ for the remainder of your life.



He has nothing to worry about.  He's an RSM... Retired Service Member.

His idea is golden, but would take years for DLR to design, test, trial, redesign, put out for bids and award contracts for.  

In the mean time, there is whatever the Load Carriage Jury comes up with.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jul 2009)

I still have the old 82 pattern web gear. The more things change......


----------



## RCR Grunt (10 Jul 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> I still have the old 82 pattern web gear. The more things change......



That's basically what we're looking to push ... Molle / Pals web gear, but in a vesty kind of way.

We're also toying with pitching the idea of the Modular Marsupial Pouch, or the MMP.  But only if the whole thing starts to go south.

Basically, one big pouch with an inner coating of pink, gelatinous goo to hold all your kit inside of it.  Evolution cannot be wrong, marsupials are the wave of the future!  You'll soon see the highest speed, lowest drag of operator's sporting the MMP!


----------



## armyvern (10 Jul 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> He has nothing to worry about.  He's an RSM... Retired Service Member.



Well, he should worry that Canada decides to institute a draft policy after finding such common sense post on the internet ... just for him. _That_ would suck.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jul 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, he should worry that Canada decides to institute a draft policy after finding such common sense post on the internet ... just for him. _That_ would suck.



Come on.  Look at you.  You are starting to sound like you have some commons sense.  We all know, after years of Service, that if it makes sense, it sure as hell is not going to happen.  

Could you see it now.  Canada institutes a Draft geared at bringing back all the experienced Ex-military, and we get a whole crop of GreenLovingBirkenstockWearingTreeHuggingLeftWingCommieHippies caught up in the process......All of a sudden common sense is back to SOP and SALY.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Jul 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> We're also toying with pitching the idea of the Modular Marsupial Pouch, or the MMP.  But only if the whole thing starts to go south.
> 
> Basically, one big pouch with an inner coating of pink, gelatinous goo to hold all your kit inside of it.  Evolution cannot be wrong, marsupials are the wave of the future!  You'll soon see the highest speed, lowest drag of operator's sporting the MMP!



Sounds like you're describing the CPGear MPAK Kangaroo http://www.cpgear.com/StoreBox/tacvestaccessories/4074.htm

*note does not include the pink gelatinous adhesive goo


----------



## RCR Grunt (10 Jul 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Sounds like you're describing the CPGear MPAK Kangaroo http://www.cpgear.com/StoreBox/tacvestaccessories/4074.htm
> 
> *note does not include the pink gelatinous adhesive goo



I'm talkin' BIGGER.  Like 10 mags, 4 frags, 4 liters of water and an IFAK with some NODs tossed in big.  And without the goo it's just another pocket, the goo is the key.

It's very advanced.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (11 Jul 2009)

In a pinch, you can eat it as well.


----------



## NL_engineer (11 Jul 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> That's basically what we're looking to push ... Molle / Pals web gear, but in a vesty kind of way.
> 
> We're also toying with pitching the idea of the Modular Marsupial Pouch, or the MMP.  But only if the whole thing starts to go south.
> 
> Basically, one big pouch with an inner coating of pink, gelatinous goo to hold all your kit inside of it.  Evolution cannot be wrong, marsupials are the wave of the future!  You'll soon see the highest speed, lowest drag of operator's sporting the MMP!



You know that they actually may try this :  Well they listened to our suggestions to improve KAF, and then decided again to tighten the dress policy (because uniformity is required to fight  :).  Soon they will be giving us an emergency issue of DEU;s to wear so we are all uniform (we are still fighting the blouse your boots battle/other dress issues)  :.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> We're also toying with pitching the idea of the Modular Marsupial Pouch, or the MMP.  But only if the whole thing starts to go south.
> 
> Basically, one big pouch with an inner coating of pink, gelatinous goo to hold all your kit inside of it.  Evolution cannot be wrong, marsupials are the wave of the future!  You'll soon see the highest speed, lowest drag of operator's sporting the MMP!



Great : A big, pink pouch to go on top of my big, pink paunch. Sheesh  :blotto:


----------



## Fusaki (11 Jul 2009)

> Canada institutes a Draft geared at bringing back all the experienced Ex-military, and we get a whole crop of GreenLovingBirkenstockWearingTreeHuggingLeftWingCommieHippies caught up in the process......All of a sudden common sense is back to SOP and SALY.



Funny thing is, I actually did buy a pair of Birkenstocks recently.  I wore them to see the release clerk to ensure I wouldn't be stoplossed. ;D

For the record though, I'm not hanging up my spurs just yet (despite what those in The Regiment would like to believe).  If all goes well I should be a member of the QOR of Canada very shortly - and they didn't even make me turn in my new rucksack as part of the transfer.

Airborne! HUA!


----------



## Farmboy (12 Jul 2009)

> To my knowledge the PPE system I've described above doesn't yet exist.



Tactical Assault Gear Releasable Rampage Carrier.


----------



## Kokanee (23 Jul 2009)

There is a "working group" sitting in Ottawa soon to find a replacement (for overseas use) for the tacvest. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one (1) junior NCO and the rest are all SM's and officers.

The good news is that they have invited private industry, and are interested in a OTS purchase.


----------



## Ecco (24 Jul 2009)

Kokanee said:
			
		

> There is a "working group" sitting in Ottawa soon to find a replacement (for overseas use) for the tacvest. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one (1) junior NCO and the rest are all SM's and officers.



It occurred 14 to 16 July.  
33 active participants:
-1 x Pte, 5 x Cpl, 10 x MCpl, 5 x Sgt, 6 x WO, 1 x MWO, 3 x Capt, 1 x Maj, 1 x LCol
-Representation from 1, 2 and 3 PPCLI, 1, 2 and 3 RCR, 1, 2 and 3 R22eR, 1 and 2 RCHA, LdSH(RC), RCD, 12 RBC, 5 RGC, 2EW Sqn, CTC Inf School, DAT
-more than 100 operational tours (from 1 to 7)
-more than 450 years of CF experience

By the way, units were tasked to provide users and they decided who (and what rank) to send.


----------



## dangerboy (24 Jul 2009)

It would be interesting to read the results from this working group, and then to read clothe the soldiers rebuttal.


----------



## RCR Grunt (24 Jul 2009)

I'm working on it ... wait out.


----------



## Kokanee (24 Jul 2009)

Ecco said:
			
		

> It occurred 14 to 16 July.
> 33 active participants:
> -1 x Pte, 5 x Cpl, 10 x MCpl, 5 x Sgt, 6 x WO, 1 x MWO, 3 x Capt, 1 x Maj, 1 x LCol
> -Representation from 1, 2 and 3 PPCLI, 1, 2 and 3 RCR, 1, 2 and 3 R22eR, 1 and 2 RCHA, LdSH(RC), RCD, 12 RBC, 5 RGC, 2EW Sqn, CTC Inf School, DAT
> ...



Thank You for the correction, I've been misinformed. What you are describing sounds great and some good feedback should come out of a session like that. I'll pass that news along w/ a wrap on the head to the fellow who gave me that info


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2009)

Kokanee said:
			
		

> There is a "working group" sitting in Ottawa soon to find a replacement (for overseas use) for the tacvest. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one (1) junior NCO and the rest are all SM's and officers.
> 
> The good news is that they have invited private industry, and are interested in a OTS purchase.



The member my unit sent said the original message called for Snr NCOs and Major and above to attend. The members of the board that did attend all had the same ideas in mind, and stress-tested the equipment and came up with their top 3 recommendations. I won't mention the ones he told me, in case they are out of order or somehow not on the final report.


----------



## ArmyRick (24 Jul 2009)

I find in the CF we too often have the 50% solution instead of the 80% solution. The TAC VEST is an example. It was designed in 2002 and that was prior to our boys being heavily involved in shooting matches (the days of 5 mags to battle).

Some other things I would like to have seen

-HK416 with heavy 16" inch barrel (or a similar design) instead of the C7A2 
-SWAT boots instead of the CTS Cadpat boot
-A rucksack designed to be worn with body armour (the new one is not, but we make do)
-Working radios instead of the clownery of 522 and 521 (although I don't mind the PRR for what they are meant for)


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2009)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I find in the CF we too often have the 50% solution instead of the 80% solution. The TAC VEST is an example. It was designed in 2002 and that was prior to our boys being heavily involved in shooting matches (the days of 5 mags to battle).
> 
> Some other things I would like to have seen
> 
> ...



If we're using Maslow's principles, right now I'd settle for decent raingear and a shirt that doesn't launch items into space from your top pockets (dang, there goes my cellphone again!)


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jul 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If we're using Maslow's principles, right now I'd settle for decent raingear



Been issued.



> and a shirt that doesn't launch items into space from your top pockets (dang, there goes my cellphone again!)



What does a shirt need a top-pocket for?  The body armour covers that.


----------



## Dog (25 Jul 2009)

Passed on to the troops of 2 CER from the meeting that occured wrt the tac vest replacement:

http://www.specopsbrand.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductID=40

That was the piece of gear that was selected.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (25 Jul 2009)

Dog said:
			
		

> Passed on to the troops of 2 CER from the meeting that occured wrt the tac vest replacement:
> 
> http://www.specopsbrand.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductID=40
> 
> That was the piece of gear that was selected.



Rather than post second hand speculation, why don't we wait until RCR Grunt (who actually participated in the working group) put up his AAR on what actually took place.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (25 Jul 2009)

Hmm. As far as I recall, our SSM had a list of points from each section with regards to what the troops would like to see. The one I most remember as most common/oft mentioned, was NO ZIPPERS.

And what have they gone and selected? A vest with a FOGB zipper running down the front. If in fact they have selected this one. Nice one......


----------



## Fusaki (26 Jul 2009)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Hmm. As far as I recall, our SSM had a list of points from each section with regards to what the troops would like to see. The one I most remember as most common/oft mentioned, was NO ZIPPERS.
> 
> And what have they gone and selected? A vest with a FOGB zipper running down the front. If in fact they have selected this one. Nice one......



There's no need to get all poopy pants just yet.  

As Matt_Fisher has pointed out, we have a member of this forum who was actually at the working group.  I don't want to be stealing anyone's thunder, so I'll just say that Dog's info is more than likely incorrect.

I'm sure RCR_Grunt will be by shortly to pass on some _first hand_ info...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (26 Jul 2009)

OK,

As I said earlier, guys need to stop speculating about rigs and wait for the AAR to come out from somebody that was actually on the ground at the working group.

FWIW, CPGear had 2 rigs (our MoFOCR and KISS Rig) being evaluated as part of this process, both of which were found to have positive and negative points.  Regarding the negative points, I've been informed informally as to what some folks thought of our rigs and will be doing an updated version of the MoFOCR and KISS Rig to satisfy those criticisms.

Negative points regarding the MoFOCR:
-Buckle closure on the front was found to be difficult to secure.  This will be addressed by doing a version with a more conventional side release buckle opening; The snapdragons serve to reduce the amount of gap between the vest panels, however there must be a consideration made whether reducing vest gap vs. ease of donning the vest is more important, and as such a new buckle system will be developed for an updated version of the rig.
-D Rings on shoulder harness and rear of rig.  This will be addressed by doing a new version of the shoulder harness without the articulted D rings; we've been selling the rig for over 2 years now and have yet to have one be returned for repair or customer reports of a broken D ring, however troops and our customers must have absolute confidence in our equipment, and as such an updated version will be produced.

Negative Points Regarding the KISS Rig
-With the 1.5" webbing shoulder straps, the rig can become entangled when attempting to put the rig on.  We offer a shoulder harness upgrade which eliminates a large part of this entanglement issue, however the rig shown at the working group did not have this shoulder harness upgrade.  To reduce the risk of this entanglement, we're considering making the shoulder harness upgrade a standard feature of the KISS Rig, however the price of the rig would be increased to account for this.
-The Side Release buckles on the front of the rig interefered with shouldering of the rifle.  I'm awaiting some clarification on this point, as there is a large range of variation at which the rig can be positioned on the body, either high on the chest, or lower around the abdomen.  I can see how when wearing the rig higher on the chest, the buckle may interefere with shouldering of a rifle, however a great many other similar rigs on the market would experience the same issue, i.e. Tactical Tailor MAV (both 1 and 2 piece), SO Tech Hellcat/Tomcat rigs, ESSTAC Boar family of rigs, Original SOE MWR, HSGI rigs, etc.

From my contact within DLR-5 that sponsored this trial, the next stage in the search for an interim load carriage platform (interim meaning replacing the tac-vest for operational usage until ISSP comes on line) is to take the data that was gathered at the working group to build a statement of requirement which will allow for another batch of rigs to be purchased for a larger (i.e. company level) trial to take place.  The rigs most likely to be purchased for this trial will be those which most closely match the requirements identified by the working group, i.e. the top 3 rigs chosen by the working group.

After the company level trial takes place, and the feedback will be analyzed, the folks within DLR and DSSPM will develop a load carriage platform and pouch design based on that feedback, i.e. pattern drawings, material and construction specifications, etc.  From there a Request for Proposal (government tender) for approximately 1-2 battlegroup's worth of kit will take place through the normal acquisition channels, i.e. PWGSC/MERX and the Army will have hopefully have a workable load carriage system for operational use, which is modular (i.e. MOLLE/PALS based), and multi-functional.  It's highly unlikely that for the Battlegroup level purchase that DND/PWGSC will go out and buy a commercial off the shelf rig, i.e. Eagle Rhodesian Reconnaissance Rig, or Tactical Tailor MAV, however what they may spec out could be a near clone of that sort of system, which ends up getting made by the most cost compliant/best value bidder here in Canada.

So again, rather than spit out conjecture as to what the outcome of this working group is and what the tac-vest replacment's going to be, lets wait for the AAR, and then follow what happens with respect to DLR-5 pushing this thing forward onto a larger scale trial and the possibility of an eventual buy of 1-2 BGs worth of kit.


----------



## Fusaki (26 Jul 2009)

Matt, thanks for the insight.

As an aside, I'm looking forward to seeing a snapdragon-free MoFOCR.  Have you considred incorporating a TT MAV style center adaptor?  This would let you claim back a couple MOLLE rows you lose from the switch to side release buckles.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (26 Jul 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Matt, thanks for the insight.
> 
> As an aside, I'm looking forward to seeing a snapdragon-free MoFOCR.  Have you considred incorporating a TT MAV style center adaptor?  This would let you claim back a couple MOLLE rows you lose from the switch to side release buckles.



IRT MAV-esque center adaptor, I'm considering some options with that, however if I put on a center flap, it'll block access to the center map pocket zippers, so I've got my thinking cap on concerning how I'm going to get around it and come up with something that works.  Stay tuned for details.


----------



## len173 (26 Jul 2009)

Just curious, are they looking to replace the tac vest completely (eventually)? Or are they simply looking for a modular system for the TF's in the sandbox?

I've heard guys say that the tac vest is fine for domestic stuff, but not operations. But shouldn't you train with the gear you will deploy with?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 Jul 2009)

As a Combat Engineer I find the tac vest sucks even for domestic operations.......

Gets in the way for operating heavy equipment.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (26 Jul 2009)

len173 said:
			
		

> Just curious, are they looking to replace the tac vest completely (eventually)? Or are they simply looking for a modular system for the TF's in the sandbox?
> 
> I've heard guys say that the tac vest is fine for domestic stuff, but not operations. But shouldn't you train with the gear you will deploy with?



The idea is to buy 2 (maybe 3) Battlegroup/Task Force's worth of stuff so the guys overseas have something to use, and those in the workup pipeline have the same kit that's being used overseas, with some extras being purchased as spares for if/when the rigs in use become damaged/destroyed/worn out.

For folks back in Canada not in the deployment cycle, it'll be the tac vest as per the current situation. (depending of course on unit SOPs and dress regs)


----------



## Farmboy (26 Jul 2009)

Seems like this would fit the bill perfectly.

http://www.oneshottactical.com/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=oneshot&Product_Code=CR_MSCR&Category_Code=CR-TAG


----------



## PhilB (26 Jul 2009)

almost 200 hundred dollars for a base rig? That is pretty hard to swallow. :-X


----------



## Fusaki (26 Jul 2009)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> Seems like this would fit the bill perfectly.
> 
> http://www.oneshottactical.com/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=oneshot&Product_Code=CR_MSCR&Category_Code=CR-TAG



Farmboy,

Did your company take part in the above mentioned working group?  Do you know if that TAG rig you linked to was submitted for the trail?

I'm curious to hear any feedback you've received from soldiers you've sold those rigs to and who've taken them overseas.


----------



## old fart (27 Jul 2009)

I would not buy that rig....three reasons:

Don't like the center fasteners or the profile of the shoulder snaps and limited coverage.

My preference remains with thew SORD SCS...used for one year with out problems.


----------



## Farmboy (27 Jul 2009)

> Farmboy,
> 
> Did your company take part in the above mentioned working group?  Do you know if that TAG rig you linked to was submitted for the trail?
> 
> I'm curious to hear any feedback you've received from soldiers you've sold those rigs to and who've taken them overseas.




 From what I understand, a couple of CF members submitted some of the gear I carry for the working group(not the split rig above though), but I was never asked for anything by anyone, or able to find out how to submit anything myself.

 I did receive a request for quote on one of the items submitted,  but it far exceeded the price point they wanted/needed to hit.

 I haven't had any feedback on this rig yet, however it was created from feedback of guys who used the fixed pouch, split chest rig.  They wanted the same platform but in MOLLE.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2009)

There is a new CANLANDGEN out on kit which specifically addresses the TacVest (among other issues),

DIN/DWAN link: http://armyonline.kingston.mil.ca/CLS/143000440001594/00909_E_1_.PDF

Read the entire document as there is important context.  However, the following para will be of interest:



> 7. THE FIRST TRIAL VESTS ARE EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED FOR USE BY TF
> 1-10. SOLDIERS OF TF 1-09 AND TF 3-09 WILL CONTINUE TO WEAR THE
> IN-SERVICE TACTICAL VEST, BUT AS AN INTERIM MEASURE DURING HIGH
> READINESS TRAINING OR INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, THE DEPLOYING
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jul 2009)

Wow.... a common sense solution! Now as long as the BDE and TF Commanders are on board with giving the troops the tools they need to do the job, we may have solved the problem! I know Roto 4 didn't have the support of the Commander in that respect.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (27 Jul 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is a new CANLANDGEN out on kit which specifically addresses the TacVest (among other issues),
> 
> DIN/DWAN link: http://armyonline.kingston.mil.ca/CLS/143000440001594/00909_E_1_.PDF
> 
> Read the entire document as there is important context.  However, the following para will be of interest:



Could someone post a link to a non-DWAN/DIN hosted copy of that pdf?  i.e. save a copy and put it up as an attachment?


----------



## dangerboy (27 Jul 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Could someone post a link to a non-DWAN/DIN hosted copy of that pdf?  i.e. save a copy and put it up as an attachment?


Fixed to have the right attachment


----------



## MikeL (27 Jul 2009)

Seems like theres going to be a fair bit of new kit coming our way, good stuff.

Also the CF wide approval for Civvie gear companies is pretty good, hopefully the Commanders support it. Kinda surprised CP Gear isn't listed though.


----------



## NL_engineer (28 Jul 2009)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Also the CF wide approval for Civvie gear companies is pretty good, hopefully the Commanders support it. Kinda surprised CP Gear isn't listed though.



Were can I find said list?  I just want to stur the pot a bit more with the issued kit only crowd  : (I find them everywhere here  :)


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jul 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Were can I find said list?  I just want to stur the pot a bit more with the issued kit only crowd  : (I find them everywhere here  :)



About 3 posts above you is a PDF link you can download and print to your hearts content.


----------



## NL_engineer (28 Jul 2009)

NFLD Sapper told me using other means, I decided not to look, as at that point in the day it took me 25 min to open the page (at least now my connection speed is good).


----------



## 421 EME (3 Aug 2009)

There are some great systems in this list but my question is that if the money is going to come thru Public Works and Government Services Canada for them is that not going to limit it to the systems that have Canadian content. CPGear and FellFab have Canadian content in them, hell there made in Canada, but I just cant see the Canadian content in SORD, TT, Esstac and High Speed Gear.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Aug 2009)

It's all justification. If the only place we can get the gear that fits all the requirements is American, than thats what gets bought.


----------



## medaid (4 Aug 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's all justification. If the only place we can get the gear that fits all the requirements is American, than thats what gets bought.



Okay... so WHY haven't we gone with US kit which has been tried, tested, and true for over 10,000+ servicemen/women?

Instead we're trying AUS kit that's only been tested and tried and true for a few thousand?


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Aug 2009)

Well for this trial they did test US kit, as well as Canadian and Aussie stuff. The jury liked the SORD system, but also selected 2 US models. I personally believe it all depends on the will of whoever draws up the requirements to go through the redtape of buying foreign equipment. Most don't think its worth it, so they just do up the quick forms and buy inferior Canadian stuff that the troops hate.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Aug 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Well for this trial they did test US kit, as well as Canadian and Aussie stuff. The jury liked the SORD system, but also selected 2 US models. I personally believe it all depends on the will of whoever draws up the requirements to go through the redtape of buying foreign equipment. Most don't think its worth it, so they just do up the quick forms and buy inferior Canadian stuff that the troops hate.



I'd suggest you stay in your lanes - your knowledge of procurement is very, very limited, and your attacks against those who work in the field are not called for.


----------



## Grunt_031 (4 Aug 2009)

> -There was an officer participating who stated that he would be giving a presentation to the Commandant of the Infantry Corps regarding what presided during the trial.  At one point he asked me what I thought of this. (the load carriage jury)  I expressed my concern that, even though we are moving to a modular system, units will still try to force uniformity on soldiers.  I told him that soldiers will never stop buying kit, and that the beauty of a modular system is that now he doesn't have to buy an entire rig, just the pouches he prefers.  Modularity gives each soldier the ability to customize to increase his level of effectiveness and efficiency and that should not be stagnated or stunted by an inflexible directive from an out of touch chain of command.  He agreed with me, but stated that individual units chain of command would be responsible for policy's such as that.
> -Some major flaws in our PPE were discussed.  I will not go into detail on an open forum, but they were disturbing.  What was more disturbing was the reaction from the pers from DLR and DRDC-Toronto.  The flaws discussed were not being addressed at the moment, and this seemed OK with them.  The flaws were serious, yet talked about by them in a very non-chalant manner, as though it was common knowledge and accetable to have these flaws present and to not be working to remedy them.  If anyone wants specifics, please feel free to PM me.  If a mod deems it acceptable to discuss fatal flaws in PPE, please advise and I will make my concerns clearer and more public.



We discussed this points with DLR and CLS after a ""Dog and Pony in Ottawa and Washington after our tour in 2002 and again through out the trials (FBES) Fort Benning Experimental Series 2004-2005. Regardless of what is choosen the PWGS will want a certain percentage of Canadian content. The CLS can direct whatever he wish but he cannot over rule the Treasury Board regulations. They can buy small qty without going thru them but large projects will have to go thru the process no matter how streamline it has become. And now with the economy, there is more of a push to keep the money within Canada. Grohmann Knife anyone.

If any of the "trial rigs" is Canadian made or content guess which one you are getting. An example is the wpn rails system. We had a number of excellent systems at the time but none had Canadian content except the triad. Guess which one was chosen. 

Cloth the soldier program was a 80% solution of the persons trialed. Even with just including the CBT arms on this trial it will be a majority rule and there will be a percentage of the pers that will hate the item chosen and will want to use something different. You can't make everybody happy and CLS program was the premier example.

And on top of it all. If the people making the decisions have used or have preferences they will fight for a particular  piece of equipment.

A better solution would be to give a combat equipment allowance with a set of strict purchasing criteria for the soldiers and the soldier could buy their choice. It would be the responsibility of the individual to have backup set.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Aug 2009)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> The CLS can direct whatever he wish but he cannot over rule the Treasury Board regulations.



and



> A better solution would be to give a combat equipment allowance with a set of strict purchasing criteria for the soldiers and the soldier could buy their choice. It would be the responsibility of the individual to have backup set.



First quote explains why second quote will not happen.  Besides, allowances get bastardized and misunderstood - the old CUA being a prime example.


----------



## McG (4 Aug 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Finally, was this jury aiming to identify a replacement for the Tacvest or simply something to augment that system by giving combat arms soldiers a better system and leaving the Tacvest for those who just need something to carry their stuff while they do other jobs (trucker, staff guy, gate guard, etc)?


The jury was identifying an interim load carriage system for on-going operations (Afghanistan).  ISSP will replace the TacVest, but (since it is the same staff for both ISSP & the interim load carriage) we should hope that any lessons gathered through the jury are carried over to ISSP.



			
				421 EME said:
			
		

> There are some great systems in this list but my question is that if the money is going to come thru Public Works and Government Services Canada for them is that not going to limit it to the systems that have Canadian content.


This is a bit of an over-played bogeyman.  Canadian industry has successfully forced DND to compete requirements which were being sole-sourced outside of the country.  However, Canada has signed several international trade agreements which generally prevent us from mandating Canadian products (depending on dollar value).  For many military contracts we are able to demand IRBs (the winning contractor is obligated to spend an equal dollar value in Canada & this plan must be submitted as a component of the bid proposal).



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Most don't think its worth it, so they just do up the quick forms and buy inferior Canadian stuff that the troops hate.


You are out to lunch.



			
				Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> ...And now with the economy, there is more of a push to keep the money within Canada. Grohmann Knife anyone.


That was just a company being whinny because they felt entitled to the contract and failed to bid competitively (apparently a not uncommon thing with companies that are long-standing incumbents to contracts).  The other knife was also Canadian & built to the DND specification.  It was better priced and it won.


----------



## MikeL (4 Aug 2009)

Even if the CF just comes out an allows troops to buy rigs from certain companies an be able to wear them in training an deployment I'd be happy, even if I don't get an allowance.   I dropped a bit of money on a chest rig an a better backpack an helmet pads before going on tour, no problem. All the extra money you get on tour more than covers it.

Pretty much what already happens in some units.. but the higher ups ie JTFA Commander/RSM can still squash it.


Would be cool though if the Canex did become like the US PXs and actually sold some good boots, pouches, etc.


----------



## Mars79 (5 Aug 2009)

Instead of an allowance to the troops to buy combat equipment why not a work related refund when you do your taxes?


----------



## George Wallace (5 Aug 2009)

Mars79 said:
			
		

> Instead of an allowance to the troops to buy combat equipment why not a work related refund when you do your taxes?



A tax excemption much like what Tradesmen and Contractors claim for the purchase of new tools?  That would then classify us as "Journeymen".


----------



## Bzzliteyr (5 Aug 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A tax excemption much like what Tradesmen and Contractors claim for the purchase of new tools?  That would then classify us as "Journeymen".



And that is a bad thing?  The point of that post was...?  I would love to see tax exemptions in Canada for all Military pers.  Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the US military tax free?  I remember seeing all kinds of sweet BMWs and nice rides when I was in Bliss.  They actually have an advantage.  Something like that could help recruiting as well...

RCR Grunt.  It's too bad I didn't get to that working group.  I have personal input on a mini rig I wore in the turret during most of the tour.  It worked for me but I weigh a mere 140lbs and can slink through the turret with no issues.  The "bigger" boys would have serious issues.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Aug 2009)

I have a novel idea:

Why not just issue the proper kit?

Yeah I know.....its just my old dinosaur sense kicking in. Sorry.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (5 Aug 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> And that is a bad thing?  The point of that post was...?  I would love to see tax exemptions in Canada for all Military pers.  Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the US military tax free?  I remember seeing all kinds of sweet BMWs and nice rides when I was in Bliss.  They actually have an advantage.  Something like that could help recruiting as well...



Bit of a hijack here, but to clarify things for Bzz:
Members of the US military pay federal and state income tax just as civilians do, however active duty members of the US military can elect to claim residency in any state of their choosing, so many will use Delaware or Florida are their state's of residency (regardless of where they're really from or currently residing), as those places have no state income tax.

When you're posted overseas on an operational tour in theatre, then you become tax exempt at both the federal and state levels.


----------



## Loachman (10 Aug 2009)

Dog said:
			
		

> http://www.specopsbrand.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductID=40



"OVER-ARMOR SPEC.-OPS. Brand™ vest  fits waist size up to 54" 
"OVER-ARMOR SPEC.-OPS. Brand™ vest  with the addition of Extender Panels fits waist size up to 70".

SEVENTY inch waist?


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Aug 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> "OVER-ARMOR SPEC.-OPS. Brand™ vest  fits waist size up to 54"
> "OVER-ARMOR SPEC.-OPS. Brand™ vest  with the addition of Extender Panels fits waist size up to 70".
> 
> SEVENTY inch waist?



It will be our new BMI program.   ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Aug 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> "OVER-ARMOR SPEC.-OPS. Brand™ vest  fits waist size up to 54"
> "OVER-ARMOR SPEC.-OPS. Brand™ vest  with the addition of Extender Panels fits waist size up to 70".
> 
> SEVENTY inch waist?



70"?????


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Aug 2009)

I have envisaged two uses for a 70" inch diameter tac vest. The printable one is the up-armoured immersion heater.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Aug 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I have envisaged two uses for a 70" inch diameter tac vest. The printable one is the up-armoured immersion heater.



That's so we can equip the Home Guard when the New York militia finally gets it's act together and invades us like a real army should.


----------



## brihard (13 Aug 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I have envisaged two uses for a 70" inch diameter tac vest. The printable one is the up-armoured immersion heater.



It's more PC-ness. The federal government doesn't want to have to answer for why we aren't inclusive to airsofters.


----------



## 2 Cdo (13 Aug 2009)

Brihard said:
			
		

> It's more PC-ness. The federal government doesn't want to have to answer for why we aren't inclusive to airsofters.



That photo is my wallpaper here at work with the by-line "Don't worry, I'm from the internet"  ;D


----------



## Loachman (13 Aug 2009)

It's a commercial company. They are market-driven, not "PC"-driven.

They are producing them in that size because they foresee sufficient sales for them in that size.


----------



## brihard (14 Aug 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> It's a commercial company. They are market-driven, not "PC"-driven.
> 
> They are producing them in that size because they foresee sufficient sales for them in that size.



It was an internet pop culture reference.   Have you not seen the photo of the immensely tubby airsofter with all the gucci kit?


----------



## Loachman (14 Aug 2009)

Yup.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Aug 2009)

I'm just happy that the guy in the background has a 1 PARA DZ flash on his smock. Excellent piss taking material!  :stirpot:


----------



## jonathan_power (15 Aug 2009)

a google search revealed nothing, anyone have a pic of the fat wannabe?

also, its good to see Canada going the right way for its troops...anyways
since when do troops being shot at in afstan know what they need


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Aug 2009)

jonathan_power said:
			
		

> a google search revealed nothing, anyone have a pic of the fat wannabe?



Back one page in this thread.


----------



## old fart (15 Aug 2009)

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> To use a British expression..."Happy with that"...as of course I am sold on SORD.. :nod:
> 
> Anyway, anyone in Gagetown who may want to try it out...PM me...
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (17 Aug 2009)

Well thats about the dumbest places to put a pistol.

I'm a little disappointed that Paraclete nor Crye where tested.

 Caleb Crye being a Canadian (though Crye is a US co.), and probably has the most forward thinking designs, and a fav of US SMU's


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Aug 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> It's a commercial company. They are market-driven, not "PC"-driven.
> 
> They are producing them in that size because they foresee sufficient sales for them in that size.



When I was leaving work today, I saw a military guy walking out of the hospital and he looked like he would have needed the 70" vest.


----------



## jonathan_power (17 Aug 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Back one page in this thread.



oh, thought there might be antoher pic, that GPMG looked kind of real


----------



## MikeL (17 Aug 2009)

jonathan_power said:
			
		

> oh, thought there might be antoher pic, that GPMG looked kind of real



Lot of airsoft guns look real.


----------



## NL_engineer (18 Aug 2009)

Well I was joking with a few of my friends today about that, we think we will be asking for that size when we get home to fit over all the artic gear we are going to be wearing to get through the winter  ;D.


----------



## Garett (24 Aug 2009)

Theres another .pdf document makings its way around now with pictures and more detail.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (25 Aug 2009)

Garett said:
			
		

> Theres another .pdf document makings its way around now with pictures and more detail.



Any chance of a link/attachment for non-DWAN users?

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2009)

So we need a new tacvest.
There are (probably) dozens of vests out there that could fit the bill. Instead of just buying those vests for our soldiers we're going to spend another 10+ years designing and producing one? Which we will give to the lowest bidder to manufacture?


----------



## Kokanee (29 Aug 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> So we need a new tacvest.
> There are (probably) dozens of vests out there that could fit the bill. Instead of just buying those vests for our soldiers we're going to spend another 10+ years designing and producing one? Which we will give to the lowest bidder to manufacture?



Negative. Next few roto's will get commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS); this is in parallel w/ a new vest design process. That's how it's been explained to me. 

Unless someone's heard different?


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (29 Aug 2009)

When the new vest does come in, for those that want to gripe and complain on this form, I recommend that you take the time to fill in the TFRs and UCRs that are avail on the DWAN.  This will highlight problems and issues to the project staff so that they can be fixed/addressed and money allocated in the correct places.  If you really want to make a difference this is a perfect spot.  Apologize for the bitterness, but working in the procurement world does that to a person, especially when people like to complain about issues instead of using the system to see them properly addressed.

It is apparent that this form will live on in infamy even if a new vest is bought as everyone has and is entitled to an opinion. Not a chance in hell that everyone will be happy so we will all soldier on.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Aug 2009)

TF 3-09 is auth at-own-expense purchase at the discretion of JTFA Comd for tacvests off the shelf... TF1-10 is supposed to be given COTS vests as an interim measure. At least that's what I read out of the CANLANDGEN.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (1 Sep 2009)

birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> When the new vest does come in, for those that want to gripe and complain on this form, I recommend that you take the time to fill in the TFRs and UCRs that are avail on the DWAN.  This will highlight problems and issues to the project staff so that they can be fixed/addressed and money allocated in the correct places.  If you really want to make a difference this is a perfect spot.  Apologize for the bitterness, but working in the procurement world does that to a person, especially when people like to complain about issues instead of using the system to see them properly addressed.
> 
> It is apparent that this form will live on in infamy even if a new vest is bought as everyone has and is entitled to an opinion. Not a chance in hell that everyone will be happy so we will all soldier on.



Surely the points of issue will be too many/too few PALS channels, crappy pouch selection/styles and other minor issues compared to the glaring FUBAR tacvest deficiencies. As long as the new getup is completely modular and points toward TT MAV and/or MOFOCR style, I think any gripes will be more on the cosmetic vice function side. Even then, with a huge selection of pouches out there, not hard for anyone not 100% satisfied with the upcoming issued range can always augment.
Once a modular tacvest replacement is in the system, any new versions after that should be relatively easy to work out, as the vest and its components can be changed/upgraded in pieces and not do a complete overhaul.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Sep 2009)

birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> When the new vest does come in, for those that want to gripe and complain on this form, I recommend that you take the time to fill in the TFRs and UCRs that are avail on the DWAN.  This will highlight problems and issues to the project staff so that they can be fixed/addressed and money allocated in the correct places.  If you really want to make a difference this is a perfect spot.  Apologize for the bitterness, but working in the procurement world does that to a person, especially when people like to complain about issues instead of using the system to see them properly addressed.



My understanding is that most troops have about as much faith in the UCR process to effect meaningful change as they do in the Tac Vest they want to get rid of. However, I'm the last guy on this forum to comment with any accurate knowledge. 

Can you give us a good example of a successful change brought about through using the UCR process? Other than the tobasco sace in the IMPs, of course  ;D


----------



## dapaterson (1 Sep 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My understanding is that most troops have about as much faith in the UCR process to effect meaningful change as they do in the Tac Vest they want to get rid of. However, I'm the last guy on this forum to comment with any accurate knowledge.
> 
> Can you give us a good example of a successful change brought about through using the UCR process? Other than the tobasco sace in the IMPs, of course  ;D



Tabasco in the IMPs came from those little comment cards in the IMPs.

UCRs sometimes fail to make a differnece because they are incomplete, incoherent, or both.  A rambling screed stating "THIS SUX!" is not helpful to the LCMM to identify and rectify problems.

On the other hand, "The current limit of four magazines is insufficient for prolonged firefights when dismounted." is somewhat more helpful.

Touch on the five Ws and H and you'll be much farther ahead.


----------



## The_Falcon (2 Sep 2009)

Given the wording in the CANLANDGEN about the use/procurement of COTS vests, that some UCR's did in fact reach the upper echelons of the puzzle palace, that or someone of enough rank and influence has been reading all the ranting on this forum.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Sep 2009)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Given the wording in the CANLANDGEN about the use/procurement of COTS vests, that some UCR's did in fact reach the upper echelons of the puzzle palace, that or someone of enough rank and influence has been reading all the ranting on this forum.



I'd like to see some evidence of that before believing that the UCR process worked in this case.


----------



## The_Falcon (2 Sep 2009)

Well I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon, unless someone makes an FOI request to see what became of the UCR's that were submitted.  Really it could be any number of factors that have led to this development (UCRs/bitching on this forum/bitching in real life to higher ups/etc.).  Unless those up top care to enlighten us on why this about face, then we are going to be stuck guessing at the reasons why.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Sep 2009)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Well I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon, unless someone makes an FOI request to see what became of the UCR's that were submitted.  Really it could be any number of factors that have led to this development (UCRs/bitching on this forum/bitching in real life to higher ups/etc.).  Unless those up top care to enlighten us on why this about face, then we are going to be stuck guessing at the reasons why.



My point exactly. The easier it is for soldiers to see what effect their suggestions have, the more, and better, suggestions they will make.


----------



## McG (2 Sep 2009)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Well I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon, unless someone makes an FOI request to see what became of the UCR's that were submitted.  Really it could be any number of factors that have led to this development (UCRs/bitching on this forum/bitching in real life to higher ups/etc.).  Unless those up top care to enlighten us on why this about face, then we are going to be stuck guessing at the reasons why.


You don't need to make an access to information request.  Anyone with DWAN access can view all submitted UCRs on the UCR web page (and the responces on the closed UCRs).  If you do a search, you will find there are surprisingly few Tac Vest UCRs and even fewer that provide any useable feedback.


----------



## McG (2 Sep 2009)

... and at the same time, I've seen BNs supporting the need for an interim solution making reference to those few UCRs as one of the driving factors behind the requirement.


----------



## KevinB (3 Sep 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> You don't need to make an access to information request.  Anyone with DWAN access can view all submitted UCRs on the UCR web page (and the responces on the closed UCRs).  If you do a search, you will find there are surprisingly few Tac Vest UCRs and even fewer that provide any useable feedback.


The problem is that units have been told to compartmentalize the UCR's - so 9 UCR's could indeed by 9 Battalions findings.

 Since there are only 9 Inf Bn's in the CF -- that would give you a 100%  rate of rejection for the TacVest.

The thing is a piece of crap - its a legacy piece of gear at best.


MJP did a ppt that speeled out clearly why its IMPOSSIBLE to use in combat - greades you can't get out, mags sitting to high when used with the FPV and Plates.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 Sep 2009)

Where's that powerpoint?  Can someone get me a copy?  PM me for contact details...thanks.


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The problem is that units have been told to compartmentalize the UCR's - so 9 UCR's could indeed by 9 Battalions findings.


Any individual can submit a UCR.  However, if units were told to submit single consolidated UCRs, then 8 battalions must be happy with the Tac Vest because they have not even made the effort for that consolidated UCR.

I've only stumbled across one UCR which might be considered a "Bn UCR."  It came out of 1 PPCLI and we've seen it posted on this site:


			
				MJP said:
			
		

> As usual bang on...so to help others a recent UCR on the Tac Vest.  Feel free to use and send many many times to DLR.  Maybe your CoC's will be faster than mine in doing actual substantiation.
> 
> 
> THE CURRENT TAC VEST REQUIRES MODIFICATION FOR THE COMBAT SOLDIER.  MAGAZINE CARRYING CAPACITY IS LIMITED TO FOUR C7/C8 MAGAZINES IN FOUR SINGLE-MAGAZINE POUCHES. CURRENT STANDARD LOAD IN AFGHANISTAN IS TEN TO FIFTEEN MAGAZINES FOR RIFLEMEN. MAGAZINE POUCHES NEED TO BE INCREASED IN SIZE TO HOLD THREE MAGAZINES EACH.
> ...


----------



## MJP (3 Sep 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Where's that powerpoint?  Can someone get me a copy?  PM me for contact details...thanks.



I will see if I can find it on my CDs/USB sticks.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Sep 2009)

Of course, if more senior decision makers in our army had peed themselves when they had a problem accessing their last mag in that hairy gunfight in the grape vineyard,     then you wouldn't need a UCR process at all for something simple, important and cheap like a Tac Vest. It would just get fixed... fast.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Sep 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Of course, if more senior decision makers in our army had peed themselves when they had a problem accessing their last mag in that hairy gunfight in the grape vineyard,     then you wouldn't need a UCR process at all for something simple, important and cheap like a Tac Vest. It would just get fixed... fast.



But if they aren't there they need a way to get that information back.  We have a system to do just that, that no one seems to use.  I would suggest that the use of the UCR needs to be taught somewhere other than the Sup Tech QL5 - like part of PLQ to teach Jr leaders how to not pass a fault (from higher).

And while one tac vest is cheap, the 50K or so it takes to outfit the Army isn't cheap.  If they were 50 cents each, the Army commander could sign the contract for them.  They aren't.  He can't.  So the process isn't as easy as we might like - procurement through Public Works - who know nothing of what we need - so we have to tell them in detail what it is.  We define the requirement.

If the Tac Vest is lousy, it's because the Army said it needed something that kind of lousy.

"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves"


----------



## aesop081 (4 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> procurement through Public Works - who know nothing of what we need - so we have to tell them in detail what it is.



Is it time for a dedicated Defence Procurement Agency , sort of like the french DGA ?


----------



## dapaterson (4 Sep 2009)

There are dedicated staff to support DND within PWGSC; any Major Crown project has dedicated, embedded PWGSC resources who can call on others if needed - so in theory, they can draw on a greater base of knowledge and experience if needed.

Our biggest procurement problems aren't with PWGSC - they're with the requirements definition.  Hard to get what you want when you can't even articulate what it is that you want - or can't substantiate the requirement.

I know of one project where the requirements came from a bit of cut and paste from one vendor's flyer.  But those were essentially "nice-to-haves" - the key baseline functions were not defined well (if at all) so we got a product that met those requirements - but could not be safely used for its primary role (and has since been scrapped).

The Tac Vest isn't a PWGSC problem.  It's an "Army can't define its requirements" problem.


----------



## KevinB (4 Sep 2009)

Part of the problem(s) is that some asshole in a lab coat is busy telling troops that their movements are inefficient or wrong, or some moron(s) not understanding what need to be in fighting equipment.

 I've just seen the recent Canadian Forces Thermal Weapon Sight solicitation - talk about all types of fucked up.   Obviously the people in the palace are far removed from reality, as the CF has no provision to make us of some of the most modern equipment but is being forcing themselves into legacy items.


----------



## Canadian Mind (6 Sep 2009)

If the problem is that the army can't define what it wants, why can't the army purchase several models of different types of vests (including those I read awhile back were approved for afghanistan), give them to a buch of Infantry, Engineer, and Armoured types, and conduct a survey as to which is the best. Doesn't even have to be one of those fancy ones like they did for the brassards for the Frag-vest, just has to be two simple questions: "Which ones did you like?" and, "why?"

I'm willing to bet the #1 reason will always be modularity, followed by ammo/overall storage capacity. As you get into the nitty-gritty details, specifics like Chest-Rig vs. Split-Front Vest could be decided based off the soldiers responses, or based on a set of follow-up questions based off of initial answers.

Based off of all the information they collect directly from the guys who use the things the most, they can model their needs, or simply buy a vest off the shelf that fits the bill.

Is this too simple?


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Sep 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Part of the problem(s) is that some ******* in a lab coat is busy telling troops that their movements are inefficient or wrong, or some moron(s) not understanding what need to be in fighting equipment.
> 
> I've just seen the recent Canadian Forces Thermal Weapon Sight solicitation - talk about all types of ****ed up.   Obviously the people in the palace are far removed from reality, as the CF has no provision to make us of some of the most modern equipment but is being forcing themselves into legacy items.



Should we anticipate seeing a thread entitiled "CFTWS: Why it doesn't make the grade"?


----------



## dapaterson (6 Sep 2009)

"Off the shelf" isn't that simple.  Government buys by saying "This is what we want - and here are the terms".  Industry then decides whether or not to offer.  For example, for the MLVW MilCOTS replacement, only one company offered a truck.  Thus, only one choice.

For requirements definitions we do bring SMEs together - though sometimes units claim they're too busy to assist, so things go forward without their input. 

It's easy to point at CTS and complain - but stop and look at everyone who's ever refused a posting to Ottawa - aren't they all equally culpable?


----------



## McG (7 Sep 2009)

Canadian Mind said:
			
		

> If the problem is that the army can't define what it wants, why can't the army purchase several models of different types of vests (including those I read awhile back were approved for afghanistan), give them to a buch of Infantry, Engineer, and Armoured types, and conduct a survey as to which is the best. ...
> 
> Is this too simple?


... or maybe it is already being done.  Try going back and reading some of the last 50 posts to find out.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (7 Sep 2009)

I have been away from the site for a while and see the UCR/TFR rant started some discussion.  The TFR and UCR process does work.  It is important to remember that it is difficult to see action overnight.  The project office must investigate, analysis, sometimes repair/procure, test, train, and field.  The process is meant to cue those of us that work in the puzzle palace that something is wrong and needs some TLC.  The more coherent the submission, it is a lot easier to understand the issue.  The more UCRs/TFRs that are submitted that are clear and concise, the easier it is to get resources (money) in an increasingly resource constrained environment.

One of the hardest parts at the end of the day, as mentioned, is requirements definition.  Usually one of the largest problems when defining the requirement is that the scope for the project is too large or poorly defined when handed off to the requirements world.  Not only are UCRs and TFRs very beneficial for project director to define the Arcs of fire, but statements of capability deficiencies/lessons learned are extremely useful at limiting/focusing a project on the high level requirements.  If the high level requirements are properly defined than the remainder of the requirements should fall out of these.  Human nature being what it is, there is never a perfect SOR and never enough resources to get everything so there will be gaps and griping.


----------



## Pointer (17 Sep 2009)

I spoke with someone that sat on the most recent working group for procuring a new tac vest and what he had to say was pretty encouraging.  Firstly, the group consisted primarily of infantry NCOs - a good sign.  Secondly, they looked at scads of rigs that are presently on the market - Tactical Tailor, Arktis, HSG, Blackhawk, etc. and identified what they liked and didn't like.  The modularity issue was big and everyone seemed to agree that TRULY modular - not just "I can move 2 pockets on the entire rig" - was the way to go.  I think there was some disagreement over vest vs. MAV-style "webbing", but really, as long as the thing is modular, the largest step in the right direction has been taken. 

Personally, I'd like to see something MAV-style, just due to the versatility of being able to hoist it up to sit like a chest rig or move it down to sit like webbing, depending on what you're doing.  That, and not having to hoist it over your head when it's loaded with 50 lbs of crap would be nice.  That seems to have been the biggest detraction from the HSG Warlord and other non-front opening rigs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2009)

Nevermind found it


----------



## MikeL (11 Oct 2009)

Wondering if anyone has anymore news on this. One of the O Group points we had last week said there was a new tac vest going to be issued, but nothing else was mentioned on that.


Someone earliar on the forums said the Spec Ops Over Armor Vest was choosen, but can anyone confirm/deny that?


----------



## Biathloneil (11 Oct 2009)

Moving Picture Show: Tac Vest coming soon to a test site near you.  
 http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=3824


----------



## Matt_Fisher (11 Oct 2009)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Wondering if anyone has anymore news on this. One of the O Group points we had last week said there was a new tac vest going to be issued, but nothing else was mentioned on that.
> 
> 
> Someone earliar on the forums said the Spec Ops Over Armor Vest was choosen, but can anyone confirm/deny that?



SpecOps Brand Over Armor Vest was not in the load carriage working group, and was not one of the platforms identified for the Operational Evaluation that TF 1-10 is _supposed_ to be starting.


----------



## MikeL (11 Oct 2009)

Figured it was mostly rumor mill as it wasn't even listed in that message that came down for authorized rigs for private purchase. Thanks for the confirmation though.


----------



## Schafer (13 Oct 2009)

I wonder if and when we do get this new vest if we will still have a standard as to how it has to be set up? Or perhaps we may be able to set it up as to what we see fit as long as the way we set it up allows us to carry what needs to be carried..


----------



## Fusaki (13 Oct 2009)

Schafer said:
			
		

> I wonder if and when we do get this new vest if we will still have a standard as to how it has to be set up? Or perhaps we may be able to set it up as to what we see fit as long as the way we set it up allows us to carry what needs to be carried..



See the discussion in this thread:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/89418.0.html


----------



## NL_engineer (21 Oct 2009)

Does anyone know if the CF has a mollie armor carrier in the system?  I seen a few of the new guys with them; the carrier was made form the same company as the armor.


----------



## MikeL (21 Oct 2009)

I've only seen CANSOF an CP with MOLLE plate carriers over soft armour. An some guys in my BN "trialing" some kind of MOLLE body armour similar to the USMC MTV(?) but that was almost a year ago an they trialed it for a week in garrison AFAIK.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (21 Oct 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if the CF has a mollie armor carrier in the system?  I seen a few of the new guys with them; the carrier was made form the same company as the armor.





			
				-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> I've only seen CANSOF an CP with MOLLE plate carriers over soft armour. An some guys in my BN "trialing" some kind of MOLLE body armour similar to the USMC MTV(?) but that was almost a year ago an they trialed it for a week in garrison AFAIK.



I've seen some of the CEFCOM CP guys with Blackhawk Plate Carriers, and there was a tender out a month or so ago on the MERX for a bunch of MSA Paraclete stuff, including the SOHPC plate carrier going to DHTC.


----------



## NL_engineer (22 Oct 2009)

I don't think these guys were spec ops or CP (one was a tanker).


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Oct 2009)

Rumour mill from the OC of my Kandak, the MOLLE rigs are going to be issued after the Cali Ex, and that a new CANLANGEN is in the works, about what will/will not be permitted.  The rigs selected are Tactical Tailor and SORD.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (29 Oct 2009)

Rumour mill is that nothing has shown up on the MERX yet, so the timeframe for TF 1-10 getting anything before they head overseas is getting pretty tight.

For anybody unfamiliar with government contracting, here's a primer and a possible timeline for how the trial kit may be distributed to TF 1-10:

Anything over $22K that DND wants to purchase has to be tendered through Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) on the www.merx.com website.  Once an article is put up for tender, it stays on MERX for 45 days.  Along with the tender specifications is a requested delivery date for the item (s).  From there after the contract closes, PWGSC usually takes about 30 days to sort through the bids and determines who the winner is.  From there the winner is notified and a purchase order is initiated.

So, in the case of the Load Carriage 'Operational Evaluation' for _whatever_ pieces of kit that the CFs are specifying be purchased the timeline will likely look something like this based on my observations of how DND's clothing & textile contracts and delivery have run in the past:

Nov. 2nd, 2009 Tender released on MERX

Dec. 16th, 2009 Tender closes.  This is assuming that there are no delays in the closing date, which could likely happen.  Common causes for delays are questions by bidders which PWGSC is unable to answer based on the statement of requirement written by DND.  PWGSC has to go back to DND and get clarification on how to answer the questions.  Enough questions about the contract might cause PWGSC to cancel the tender and send it back to DND to re-write it so that the statement of requirement is more clearly spelled out.  
Normally it takes 30 days after the tender has closed for PWGSC to award a contract.  Given the time of year that this tender will close, there's a good chance it will also likely be delayed due to staff holiday schedules over the Christmas and New Years period, so you could probably add another 10-15 days to the 30 days it normally takes PWGSC to reach an award decision.  

Sometime between Jan 15th - Feb 1st, 2010 the contract is awarded.  From there it would likely take 3 months for the winner to put together the required amount of equipment for the contract and deliver it to DND.  Most manufacturing companies or distributors don't have 3 battlegroups worth of equipment lined up ready to go out the door at a moments notice.  Even the big guys (Eagle, London Bridge, Paraclete, TAG, Specialty Defense/BAE Systems, etc.) take some time to ramp up upon receiving a sizable contract.  It's foolish business sense to sit on a pile of inventory for a contract that is yet to be released for tender, and before you're actually awarded the contract.  Kind of like counting your chickens before they hatch; contracts can get cancelled and delayed, thus potentially screwing the contractor out of significant amounts of money as they sit on inventory that they now have to figure out a way to get rid of, which has cost them a good deal of time and money to produce/acquire.  If government wants a specific product, they have to wait for it to be produced and delivered in the most low-risk means possible to the contractor.

May 1st, 2010 equipment is received at CF Supply Depot Montreal.  It'd likely take 2 weeks for everything to be inventoried, repackaged and sent out to be delivered to the units undertaking the trial.

May 15th, 2010 equipment is received at CFB Trenton for distribution to TF 1-10, and sent to CFB Valcartier and Edmonton for the follow-on TFs 3-10 and 1-11 respectively.  With respect to the delivery to TF 1-10 now in Afghanistan, the trial kit is placed in que along with other priority items, such as mail, critical supply items, ammunition, etc.

June 15th, 2010 equipment has now made its way from Trenton to Mirage/Cyprus/Wherever to KAF and arrangements must be made to get it out to the field forces for issuing, who are scattered across various FOBs, and again must take priority with the 'true priority' items, i.e. POL, ammo, water, rations, medical supplies, batteries, vehicle and weapon spare parts, personal mail, etc.  It could be likely that a fielding plan for the trial stuff might be that when units rotate in and out of KAF or Nathan Smith that they are issued the trial kit then.

As such, I have little doubt that TF 3-10 and 1-11 will have their hands on the trial stuff for their work-up training and deployment, however the timeline for TF 1-10 is looking pretty tight for them to get the stuff before they're well underway with the tour.  

Just my 2 cents though...  I could be proven absolutely wrong as the stars and planets may align with DND and PWGSC getting this thing through in record time, and issued to the troops, but then again, this is Canada after all, land of the 10 year rucksack development and contracting cycle.


----------



## Farmboy (29 Oct 2009)

> Anything over $22K that DND wants to purchase has to be tendered through Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) on the www.merx.com website.



 Anything under that, for a quantity of 1500 would be around $14 ea.


----------



## Snaketnk (30 Oct 2009)

Thanks for that Matt, it's pretty much what I was expecting. I kinda always doubted that we'd ever see these on the PRT anyway. Here's hoping they authorize non-issued rigs before the California Ex. Train as you fight, right?


----------



## ivor14 (1 Nov 2009)

I think our prayers might have been answered anyone else heard about the trials on job specific load bearing systems, I just saw it posted at my regiment yesterday and now its probably gonna take awhile to get into the system but at least there trying to replace it


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Nov 2009)

ivor14 said:
			
		

> I think our prayers might have been answered anyone else heard about the trials on job specific load bearing systems, I just saw it posted at my regiment yesterday and now its probably gonna take awhile to get into the system but at least there trying to replace it



Try reading the last 2-3 pages skippy


----------



## Matt_Fisher (6 Nov 2009)

Tender for 'Modular Fighting Rigs' went up on the MERX today:  http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&searchtype=category&id=PW-%24%24PR-707-47605&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&hcode=8e1PFuN%2bfujQcd%2fA%2fAMabg%3d%3d

PWGSC is requesting a delivery date of March 31st to the CF Supply Depot in Montreal, so for TF 1-10, it looks like you guys will probably be deploying with the issued tac-vest.


----------



## Snaketnk (6 Nov 2009)

Well, that's a shame. And so the CF lets me down once again.


----------



## The_Falcon (7 Nov 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Tender for 'Modular Fighting Rigs' went up on the MERX today:  http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&searchtype=category&id=PW-%24%24PR-707-47605&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&hcode=8e1PFuN%2bfujQcd%2fA%2fAMabg%3d%3d
> 
> PWGSC is requesting a delivery date of March 31st to the CF Supply Depot in Montreal, so for TF 1-10, it looks like you guys will probably be deploying with the issued tac-vest.



The latest CANLANGEN came out a few days ago, it basically said the new rigs were going to be trialed by OMLT, PRT, and one other org that I can't remember right now.  Also said that COTS (from the same list as the previous CANLANGEN), can be worn if the TF/Brig CMD give approval


----------



## Matt_Fisher (7 Nov 2009)

Hatchet Man, or anyone else with access to that CANLANGEN, could you post either a link to a pdf copy of it, or cut & paste the entire message on here?

Thanks,

Matt


----------



## The_Falcon (7 Nov 2009)

Next time i am near a DWAN computer, unless someone beats me to it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2009)

My bad - didn't spot newest adds to this thread, so I'm bringing this over from another thread...

This, from MERX:


> The department of National Defence has a requirement for three (3) different systems of modular fighting rigs with components and specialized pouches. The systems have to be military off the shelf or commercial off the shelf and in accordance with the Purchase Description dated September 2009.
> 
> Firm Quantity:
> This requirement is for System A which includes quantity 180 C9 gunner kits, qty 280 commander kits, qty 90 M203 gunner kits, qty 230 pistol kit, qty 12 marksman kit, qty 180 confined space kit, qty 850 rifleman kit. System B which includes quantity 850 rifleman kits, qty 280 commander kits, qty 90 M203 gunner kits, qty 230 pistol kits, qty 12 marksman kits, qty 180 confined space kit. System C which includes quantity 850 rifleman kits, qty 280 commander kits, qty 90 M203 gunner kits, qty 230 pistol kits, qty 12 marksman kits, qty 180 confined space kits, qty 180 C9 gunner kits. Requirement also includes specialized and medical pouches.
> ...



As usual, some interesting background from the bid document:


> The Afghanistan operation introduced significant changes to the Army's Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) in order to adapt to the asymmetric characteristics of the threat presented by the operation. These changes have imposed considerable changes on the way in which soldiers fight, the way they select what fighting load is necessary for the mission, the way they carry their load, and their ability to frequently adapt their load to different missions.  Consequently, the current Tactical Vest (TV) has proven inadequate to respond to this requirement, and requires immediate replacement.
> 
> 4. Recent operational experience has generated many observations concerning the inadequacy of the TV. The complaints have centered on the inability of the infantry soldier to configure pouches and pockets, and to personalize for ease of use for assigned tasks/roles (e.g.
> C7 M-203 gunner; C-9 gunner, etc) and on the capacity of the pouches.
> ...



It appears there's three combinations of kit:


> System A consists of five main components including three front panel assemblies and two back yokes. The front panel assemblies and the back yokes are compatible and interchangeable. Torso Circumferential sizing is accomplished through the number of PALS/MOLLE columns. Torso height adjustment is done through adjustments to the shoulder straps. There is a Front and Back Ballistic Plate carrying capability. System A offers easy donning and doffing via front side release buckles.





> System B is made of three main components. Main components are a split panel (both left and right) including two supplementary shoulder straps to support the split panel when used alone and a waist strap to support the front panel and stabilize the load, and a back yoke. A collection of matching pouches and equipment holders, have also been identified to ensure design compatibility.





> System (C) consists of two main components. This design consists of a front chest rig panel with a bib style harness which can be worn up or down and accommodate a front ballistic plate. This front panel can be worn on its own. Load capacity can be increased by the addition of the Chest Rig Back panel which can also accommodate a back ballistic plate. A collection of matching pouches and equipment holders have also been identified to ensure design compatibility.



A bit more here.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Nov 2009)

Nice to see they've recognized formally, in public and in writing, that it's a POS for modern warfare. Isn't 'recognizing that you have a problem' the first step on the road to recovery?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-step_program


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Nov 2009)

The latest and greatest CANLANGEN on the subject as promised

CANLANGEN 012





CANLANDGEN  012/09   CLS  038/09



0312532Z NOV 09



UPDATE ON AQUISITION OF OPERATIONAL CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT



REF: CANLANDGEN 009/09 CLS 021/09 211515Z JUL 09



1. THE AIM OF THIS CANLANDGEN IS TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE STATUS 

OF KEY OPERATIONAL CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENTS AND UPGRADES.



2. THE ARMY IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDE THE BEST POSSIBLE OPERATIONAL 

CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT TO CF PERSONNEL CONDUCTING LAND OPERATIONS. 

OUR EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED THROUGH RIGOROUS ANALYSIS AND HUMAN 

FACTOR INTEGRATION AND SUPPORTED BY EXTENSIVE TECHNICAL AND FIELD 

TRIALS.



3. DESPITE THE RIGOUR THAT GOES INTO DELIVERY OF ARMY EQUIPMENT,

OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT SOME IN-SERVICE EQUIPMENT DOES 

NOT SATISFACTORILY MEET THE DEMANDS OF SOLDIERS IN COMPLETING THEIR 

MISSIONS. WHEN SUCH OCCASIONS ARISE, IT IS CRITICAL THAT IMMEDIATE 

NOTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES BE RAISED THROUGH THE CHAIN 

OF COMMAND SO THAT TIMELY CORRECTIVE ACTION MAY BE TAKEN BY 

REQUIREMENT AND PROCUREMENT STAFF.



4. THE DIRECTOR LAND REQUIREMENTS (DLR) AND DIRECTOR GENERAL LAND 

EQUIPMENT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (DGLEPM) ARE IN THE PROCESS OF 

PROCURING A NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT ITEMS TO 

CORRECT DEFICIENCIES RAISED ABOUT SEVERAL IN-SERVICE ITEMS. AN 

UPDATE OF THOSE ITEMS FOLLOWS.



5.  HYBRID COMBAT SHIRT. IN EXTREME HOT CONDITIONS, THE ARID CADPAT 

COMBAT SHIRT LAYERED OVER THE COMBAT TSHIRT LACKS THE ABILITY TO 

WICK MOISTURE WHEN WORN UNDER THE FRAGMENTATION VEST CREATING 

DISCOMFORT AND RISK OF HEAT INJURY.  THE HYBRID SHIRT HAS BEEN 

DEVELOPED WITH A TORSO OF LIGHTWEIGHT, WICKING MATERIAL WITH AR 

COMBAT SLEEVES INCLUDING POCKETS. THE SLEEVES ALSO OFFER FLAME 

RESISTANT PROTECTION. IN JUL 08, APPROVAL WAS GRANTED TO PROCURE UP 

TO 20,000 HYBRID SHIRTS.  A TRIAL QUANTITY OF 330 SHIRTS HAVE BEEN 

DELIVERED TO TF 3-09. LESSONS LEARNED DURING THE TRIAL WILL INFORM 

THE FINAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE MAIN DELIVERIES WHICH ARE EXPECTED TO 

START EARLY 2010 IN TIME TO EQUIP TF 1-10.



6.  INTERIM LOAD CARRIAGE.  DLR 5 HAS AGGRESSIVELY PROSECUTED THE 

RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERIM MODULAR LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEM AND HAS 

INITIATED ITS PROCUREMENT UTILIZING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 

OPERATIONAL LOAD CARRIAGE WORKING GROUP (JURY). MODULAR FIGHTING 

RIGS (MFR) WILL BE ACQUIRED FOR A SEQUENTIAL THREE TASK FORCE 

OPERATIONAL FIELD TRIAL STARTING IN EARLY 2010. THE TRIAL 

PARTICIPANTS ARE INTENDED TO BE THE DISMOUNTED CLOSE COMBAT SOLDIERS 

OF THE TASK FORCE INF SUB-UNITS, PRT FORCE PROTECTION, AND OMLT. THE 

LESSONS CAPTURED FROM THE FIELD TRIAL WILL BE COUPLED WITH A 

CONCURRENT TECHNICAL TRIAL IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE FINAL 

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MANUFACTURE AND DELIVERY OF A FUTURE MODULAR 

LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEM.



7.  THE FIRST MFR ARE EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED FOR USE BY TF

1-10. SOLDIERS OF TF 1-10 WILL CONTINUE TO WEAR THE

IN-SERVICE TACTICAL VEST, BUT AS AN INTERIM MEASURE DURING HIGH

READINESS TRAINING OR OPERATIONS, THE DEPLOYING BRIGADE OR TASK 

FORCE COMMANDER MAY APPROVE THE WEARING OF LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEMS 

THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED FOR TRIAL USE FROM THE FOLLOWING 

COMPANIES:



A.              ARKTIS

B.              BLACKHAWK

C.              EAGLE

D.              FELLFAB

E.              HIGHSPEED GEAR

F.              PACIFIC SAFETY PRODUCTS

G.              TACTICAL TAILOR

H.              SORD

I.              COTMS



8. SOLDIERS OF TF 1-10 AND TF 3-10 WILL CONTINUE TO WEAR THE 

IN-SERVICE TACTICAL VEST. UNTIL NEW MODULAR LOAD CARRIAGE, INCLUDING 

WES PLATFORMS, ARE DELIVERED, THE IN-SERVICE WES TACTICAL VEST MUST 

CONTINUE TO BE WORN BY ALL SOLDIERS PARTICIPATING IN WES TRAINING. 

SOLDIERS NOT PART OF THE MFR TRIAL SHALL ALSO CONTINUE TO USE THE 

IN-SERVICE TACTICAL VESTS.



9.  SMALL PACK SYSTEM. THE COMFORT ASPECT OF THE SMALL PACK HAS BEEN 

ADDRESSED THROUGH MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRAPS AND STRAP SUSPENSION 

SYSTEM. THESE MODIFICATIONS HAVE INCREASED THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE 

PACK TO BE WORN OVER BOTH FRAGMENT AND TACTICAL VEST. THE SHORTFALL 

IN VOLUME EXPERIENCED BY SOLDIERS CARRYING RADIOS WILL BE MITIGATED 

BY THE ACQUISITION OF THE SMALLER PRC 152.



10. DESERT COMBAT BOOTS (DCB). A FORM, FIT AND FUNCTION TRIAL WAS 

CONDUCTED AT CFB PETAWAWA JUN 09.  THE DCB 09 HAS NOT ACHIEVED THE 

REQUIRED 80 PERCENT USER ACCEPTANCE FOR FORM, FIT AND FUNCTION. DLR 

AND DSSPM HAVE NEGOTIATED PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT WITH THE MANUFACTURER. 

FURTHER FIELDING OF THE DCB 09 TO DISMOUNTED COMBAT ARMS SOLDIERS 

HAS BEEN SUSPENDED UNTIL PRODUCT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVEN.  

THIS IS FORECASTED TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY SPRING 2010.



11. TEMPERATE COMBAT BOOTS (TCB). TWO TRIALS WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE 

COMING NINE MONTHS TO CONFIRM THE WAY AHEAD FOR THE TCB.  IN THE 

INTERIM, THE PROCUREMENT OF 15,000 PAIRS OF GENERAL PURPOSE BOOTS 

(GPB) ENSURES THE AVAILABILITY OF OPERATIONAL FOOTWEAR TO TROOPS IN 

TEMPERATE CLIMATE.



12. ARMY FUTURE OPERATIONAL FOOTWEAR CAPABILITY PROGRAM. THE ASST 

CLS PROVIDED A POLICY GUIDANCE STATEMENT DIRECTING THE DELIVERY OF A 

FUTURE, OPERATIONALLY RELEVANT, FOOTWEAR CAPABILITY FOR THE ARMY.  

WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS PROGRAM THE DCB 09, TCB AND GPB ARE 

NOW DEEMED INTERIM FOOTWEAR BY DLR.



13. BALLISTIC EYEWEAR (BEW). BEW CONTINUES TO PROTECTING SOLDIERS 

VISION AND IS A HIGH USAGE ITEM.  75,000 VERMILLION LENSES HAVE BEEN 

ACQUIRED A SUPPLY OF WHICH IS BEING DELIVERED TO TFA, WITH A VIEW TO 

ISSUING TWO LENSES PER PERSON.



14. BALLISTIC GOGGLES. DELIVERIES ARE EXPECTED TO TF 3-09 NOV 09.  

TF 1-10 WILL BEGIN RECEIPT IN FEB 2010.  ANOTHER PROJECT WILL FIELD 

72,000 PAIRS OF GOGGLES FOR THE CF WITH FIELDING BEGINNING IN 2011.



15. CADPAT CONVERGED RAINSUIT (CCR). THE CCR IS IN FULL

PRODUCTION AND THE FIELDING PLAN HAS BEEN PUBLISHED. THIS PLAN, 

SIGNED OFF BY THE ARMY G3, CLEARLY DEFINES THE PRIORITY OF ISSUE AND 

DATES UNITS CAN EXPECT TO RECEIVE THE CCR.   ISSUANCE CONTINUES IAW 

THE ARMY FIELDING PLAN. THE CCR WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE THE 

SOLDIERS ABILITY TO OPERATE EFFECTIVELY IN WET WEATHER CONDITIONS 

AND PROVIDE NEW LEVEL OF COMFORT WHILE LIVING IN THE FIELD.



16. CADPAT ARID COMBAT VEHICLE CREW SUIT. THE PROCUREMENT OF 2000 

CREW SUITS IS UNDERWAY.  THE FIRST 110 SUITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO TF 

3-09.  INITIAL FEEDBACK IS EXPECTED TO DLR MID-NOV.



17. MONOCULAR NIGHT VISION GOGGLES (MNVG).  A CONTRACT FOR AN 

ADDITIONAL 2000 AN PVS 14 MNVG HAS BEEN AWARDED. DELIVERIES ARE 

EXPECTED TO BEGIN IN THE FIRST MAR 2010.



18. LIGHT-WEIGHT COMPACT METAL DETECTORS (LMCD). A TOTAL OF 416 

LMCD ARE BEING PROCURED BY THREE DIFFERENT PROJECTS, WITH DELIVERIES 

TO BE COMPLETE BY NOV 09. IN THE INTERIM, ADDITIONAL IN-SERVICE F1A4 

MINELAB HANDHELD MINE DETECTORS WERE SHIPPED TO JTF-A TO COVER THE 

CURRENT CAPABILITY GAP, WITH SCALING SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE TWO 

DETECTORS PER INFANTRY PLATOON, PLUS LOGISTICS AND OPERATIONAL 

STOCKS.  TF 3-09 TRAINED WITH THE IN-SERVICE DETECTOR, AND UPON THE 

FIELDING OF THE LMCD, WILL SWITCH SYSTEMS WITH FSR SUPPORT PROVIDED 

IN THEATRE FOR TECHNICAL TRG. FSRS WILL ALSO BE CONTRACTED TO ASSIST 

IN THE TRAINING OF DETECTOR OPERATORS IN EACH LFA.



19. COMMAND WIRE DETECTORS (CWD). DRDC SUFFIELD PURCHASED 22 CWD 

UNITS AS A BUY-AND-TRY, 14 OF WHICH WERE SHIPPED TO THEATRE 

FOLLOWING THE TECHNICAL AND USER TRIAL. THEIR USE IN THEATRE WILL BE 

DICTATED BY THE AVAILABILITY OF TRAINERS. THE 8 REMAINING CWD ARE 

DISTRIBUTED AS 2 X DRDC, 2 X CFSME, AND 4 WITH UNITS ON THE RTHR. 

DLR IS PURSUING ACQUISITION OF UP TO 170 CWD WHICH SHOULD BE 

DELIVERED IN LATE SPRING OR EARLY SUMMER OF 2010.



20. ELECTRONIC COUNTER MEASURES (ECM). THE THIRD BATCH OF ECM 

SYSTEMS WAS CONTRACTED IN MAR 09 HAS BEEN FULLY RECEIVED AT 25 CFSD. 

EQUIPMENT HAS BEGUN TO BE DELIEVERED IN THEATRE



21. RADIOS. A TOTAL OF 600 MULTI BAND HANDHELD PRC-152 RADIOS HAS 

BEEN PROCURED. THE FIRST 200 RADIOS WERE DELIVERED TO THE ARMY IN 

JUL 2009.  THE NEXT BATCH OF 200 RADIOS WILL BE DELIVERED TO THE 

ARMY BY DEC 2009, WITH THE FINAL 200 BEING DELIVERED BEFORE JAN 2010



22. I REMAIN CONFIDENT THAT THESE SOLUTIONS WILL IMPROVE THE 

COMFORT AND OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF CF PERSONNEL CONDUCTING 

LAND OPERATIONS. I CAUTION THAT IT DOES TAKE TIME TO CONTRACT, 

MANUFACTURE, TEST AND DELIVER EQUIPMENT, SO ALL LEVELS OF COMD MUST 

MANAGED EXPECTATIONS ACCORDINGLY



SIGNED LGEN A.B. LESLIE, CHIEF OF THE LAND STAFF


----------



## KevinB (13 Nov 2009)

Which makes my head shake that they did not include MSA - Paraclete since those rigs are in use within CANSOFCOM...


----------



## RCR Grunt (13 Nov 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Which makes my head shake that they did not include MSA - Paraclete since those rigs are in use within CANSOFCOM...



[sarcasm]Yeah... but what do THOSE guys know, anyways?[/sarcasm]


----------



## KevinB (13 Nov 2009)

;D  

I am willing to accept briefly Big Army's argument that SOF does have a different mission, however when you cut to the chase, a dismount in a gunfight, is a dismount in a gun fight.

 DHTC had two rigs that where miles above the TV design the DHTC Chest Rig and Patrol Vest.  While they where not MOLLE, they where way better than the TV and IMHO the TV should never have been birthed...


----------



## Schafer (22 Dec 2009)

Any more news on this ?


----------



## Farmboy (23 Dec 2009)

Tender just came out again today however it still lists specific attachment systems.

Here are all the ones available.

http://milspecmonkey.com/customize/info/71-pals-connection-styles


----------

