E
eliteboris
Guest
Alot of people in my unit including myself are still wearing OD (Mopad) Combats, we won't be getting the LBV's for a while yet. kinda sad.
devil39
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 330
eliteboris said:
Don't feel sad "eliteboris". I've had 3 different sets of webbing in my day, AND the TV, and personally I will stick with the current issued webbing until they order me to turn it it. At which point I may lose my webbing and pay for it, to ensure I have it when I have to go to a war. The current webbing, if you tie the individual pouches down to your web belt, and tape the Velcro down, is a great piece of load bearing kit.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 26,168
- Points
- 1,260
I did my basic with 1951 
webbing - I could fir 20 FN C1A1 mags in my bren gun pouches (10 in each) [ask me how I know - I borrowed mags from guys in my section just to see how many the pouch would swallow before I could actually reach some...]
Then I got parts of the 64 webbing - but just parts - and a month later I got the '82 pattern. I got the 'combat shirt with the sleves cut off' vest briefly for an op we were slated for, and a year ago got the TV.
While the 82 pattern is not the pinnacle of humman engineering it is much better than the TV.
webbing - I could fir 20 FN C1A1 mags in my bren gun pouches (10 in each) [ask me how I know - I borrowed mags from guys in my section just to see how many the pouch would swallow before I could actually reach some...]Then I got parts of the 64 webbing - but just parts - and a month later I got the '82 pattern. I got the 'combat shirt with the sleves cut off' vest briefly for an op we were slated for, and a year ago got the TV.
While the 82 pattern is not the pinnacle of humman engineering it is much better than the TV.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I must agree with KevinB,
I was offered the Bosnia-era "jean jacket" LBV for my own Afghan deployment and tried it out during pre-deployment training. This, despite my previous abject disgust with that particular piece of kit during my 1997 Roto 0 Palladium tour. If at first you don't succeed...don't be stupid enough to try again. Anyhow, wearing the "jean jacket" over the Gen 3 vest with plates, I found that the mags were situated far too high to access and (worse) they direcetly interfered with the butt-stock placement of my rifle. End of story for that sorry piece of shite.
I deployed on combat operations with the 82 pattern webbing, and I had zero complaints. With a large-size belt, it held everything that I needed on my fighting order - to include 8 mags (4 per side). The other 2 mags were on my weapon in the form of a mag in the well and another sitting alongside in a "Redi-Mag" attachment. The rest of my belt-kit was pretty standard. I found that sans ruck, I could live quite well out of my 82 pattern gear with an assault pack. In my humble view, there is nothing wrong with the 82 pattern web-gear assuming that the savvy user knows how to adapt it with zap-ties for the pouches, etc. It is good stuff. In that regard, I thoroughly echo Devil39's contention in another thread. Decent web-gear is miles ahead of a poorly considered "fancy" vest. It doesn't hurt that we share common practical experience on fairly recent operations, but the fact remains that those who have tried all of the alternatives tend to be continued supporters of the web-gear over the non-modular (and non-functional) Tac-Vest....
The ideal answer lies beyond what we have institutionally acquired. Unfortunately, what the Army fields is generally 5 to 10 years behind current operational experience and requirements. Viewed in that context, the Tac Vest is a good piece of kit. It would have served us very well 7 years ago doing my purely "Peace Support" skit in Bosnia. Nowadays however, where we need to deploy "combat ready" it is sadly lacking in terms of ammo capacity and adaptability (read, modularity). Just what is an M-203 gunner supposed to do?
The answer of course, is to buy "off the shelf" and simply get on with procuring what the troops want and need. Will that actually happen? I have my doubts. In the interim untill we get it right, don't even think about taking away my suitably modified 82 pattern web-gear. It has, and will continue to do the job just fine.....
I was offered the Bosnia-era "jean jacket" LBV for my own Afghan deployment and tried it out during pre-deployment training. This, despite my previous abject disgust with that particular piece of kit during my 1997 Roto 0 Palladium tour. If at first you don't succeed...don't be stupid enough to try again. Anyhow, wearing the "jean jacket" over the Gen 3 vest with plates, I found that the mags were situated far too high to access and (worse) they direcetly interfered with the butt-stock placement of my rifle. End of story for that sorry piece of shite.
I deployed on combat operations with the 82 pattern webbing, and I had zero complaints. With a large-size belt, it held everything that I needed on my fighting order - to include 8 mags (4 per side). The other 2 mags were on my weapon in the form of a mag in the well and another sitting alongside in a "Redi-Mag" attachment. The rest of my belt-kit was pretty standard. I found that sans ruck, I could live quite well out of my 82 pattern gear with an assault pack. In my humble view, there is nothing wrong with the 82 pattern web-gear assuming that the savvy user knows how to adapt it with zap-ties for the pouches, etc. It is good stuff. In that regard, I thoroughly echo Devil39's contention in another thread. Decent web-gear is miles ahead of a poorly considered "fancy" vest. It doesn't hurt that we share common practical experience on fairly recent operations, but the fact remains that those who have tried all of the alternatives tend to be continued supporters of the web-gear over the non-modular (and non-functional) Tac-Vest....
The ideal answer lies beyond what we have institutionally acquired. Unfortunately, what the Army fields is generally 5 to 10 years behind current operational experience and requirements. Viewed in that context, the Tac Vest is a good piece of kit. It would have served us very well 7 years ago doing my purely "Peace Support" skit in Bosnia. Nowadays however, where we need to deploy "combat ready" it is sadly lacking in terms of ammo capacity and adaptability (read, modularity). Just what is an M-203 gunner supposed to do?
The answer of course, is to buy "off the shelf" and simply get on with procuring what the troops want and need. Will that actually happen? I have my doubts. In the interim untill we get it right, don't even think about taking away my suitably modified 82 pattern web-gear. It has, and will continue to do the job just fine.....
devil39
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 330
And when you don't have a Gen 3 you wear the jean jacket if you want plates.
82 does fine and has served me well also, especially when you tie down or zapstrap each pouch and gun tape the velcro. I would choose that configuration over the TV or the Lunch Bearing Vest anyday.
82 does fine and has served me well also, especially when you tie down or zapstrap each pouch and gun tape the velcro. I would choose that configuration over the TV or the Lunch Bearing Vest anyday.
My two cents (although probably flogging the horse by now).
We also just reconfirmed on PPF that webgear is still the way to go for field ops in all types of terrain. Carrying heavy rucks for sustained ops, helo casting, S/L para, MFP, blue water amphib and riverine ops, mountain ops, etc.... Webgear was always the best, or ONLY, viable solution to effective load bearing of kit. I will not get into the reasoning, as most who are in the know or NEED to know, can relate.
Cheers.
We also just reconfirmed on PPF that webgear is still the way to go for field ops in all types of terrain. Carrying heavy rucks for sustained ops, helo casting, S/L para, MFP, blue water amphib and riverine ops, mountain ops, etc.... Webgear was always the best, or ONLY, viable solution to effective load bearing of kit. I will not get into the reasoning, as most who are in the know or NEED to know, can relate.
Cheers.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 26,168
- Points
- 1,260
excoelis - as far as issued kit I will agree.
However looking at a certain unit and units down south that conduct those ops regularily they have adopted integrated vest systems
I bought a RAV after exposure to it with abuddy who had it issued...
Paraclete RAV
Dan (a SF medic with 1SFG 1bn Okinawa) with RAV
US SFOD-D Assaulter in IRAQ with one of those funny numbered TF's
USMC pers wearing RAV and Eagle FSBE II
If I had the option to mod the Gen 3 vest to MOLLE/PALS I would do it in a heart beat that would give the troops a modular system w/o the requirment to buy a new system to replace the POS TV...
However looking at a certain unit and units down south that conduct those ops regularily they have adopted integrated vest systems
I bought a RAV after exposure to it with abuddy who had it issued...
Paraclete RAV
Dan (a SF medic with 1SFG 1bn Okinawa) with RAV
US SFOD-D Assaulter in IRAQ with one of those funny numbered TF's
USMC pers wearing RAV and Eagle FSBE II
If I had the option to mod the Gen 3 vest to MOLLE/PALS I would do it in a heart beat that would give the troops a modular system w/o the requirment to buy a new system to replace the POS TV...
Kev,
Which is the heart of the issue really, isn't it?
Modular = versatile.
Versatile = useful for more types of soldiers on more types of ops.
I'm all for a TV if it can be tailored during battle procedure to suit the type of op, different load requirement, etc......
I've still got an old chest rig that one of the guys from 2 CDO made for me back in the day........ ;D
Which is the heart of the issue really, isn't it?
Modular = versatile.
Versatile = useful for more types of soldiers on more types of ops.
I'm all for a TV if it can be tailored during battle procedure to suit the type of op, different load requirement, etc......
I've still got an old chest rig that one of the guys from 2 CDO made for me back in the day........ ;D
Similar threads
