Chest Rig preference

[IRepoCans]

I'd say I'm a big fan of being able to pack out my armour if the environment or task makes sense to do so (which is more common than you'd think), which is why belt kits and chest rigs will always be something I advocate for.

Protection is huge, and not just from frag, we need the ability to have hard side plates in whatever future armour carrier we roll with: no one perfectly presents their front plates to the threat and your weak side is fairly exposed even when you're engaging something to your immediate front in a close contact.

 

[markppcli]

I'd say I'm a big fan of being able to pack out my armour if the environment or task makes sense to do so (which is more common than you'd think), which is why belt kits and chest rigs will always be something I advocate for.

Protection is huge, and not just from frag, we need the ability to have hard side plates in whatever future armour carrier we roll with: no one perfectly presents their front plates to the threat and your weak side is fairly exposed even when you're engaging something to your immediate front in a close contact.

The idea of humping out your armour is flawed, deeply. It comes from the idea that the threat is direct fire from an enemy detecting visually by soldiers on the ground. Thats simply not going to be the case. If you're detected on a patrol you will be engaged by indirect or drone fire and they aren't going to wait for you to unload your bag to grab armour. Ukrainian SOF does their infil in full kit for that exact reason. Yes it sucks, but so does dieing.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'd say I'm a big fan of being able to pack out my armour if the environment or task makes sense to do so (which is more common than you'd think), which is why belt kits and chest rigs will always be something I advocate for.

Protection is huge, and not just from frag, we need the ability to have hard side plates in whatever future armour carrier we roll with: no one perfectly presents their front plates to the threat and your weak side is fairly exposed even when you're engaging something to your immediate front in a close contact.

And then there's the invisible killer: blast.

 

[markppcli]

Sorry I wanted to add this in. We teach that the infil is always the most dangerous portion of a patrol. So why would we wear our least protection during the most dangerous phase?

 

[PuckChaser]

Sorry I wanted to add this in. We teach that the infil is always the most dangerous portion of a patrol. So why would we wear our least protection during the most dangerous phase?

Because we've built a culture of unfit, soft soldiers. We have ceramic training plates which are "dangerous" on the range so our troops can't even train to shoot with armor on properly. We constantly prioritize literally anything else during a work day other than PT, especially in CS and CSS trades.

 

[MedCorps]

Because we've built a culture of unfit, soft soldiers. We have ceramic training plates which are "dangerous" on the range so our troops can't even train to shoot with armor on properly. We constantly prioritize literally anything else during a work day other than PT, especially in CS and CSS trades.

Is there are directive somewhere which prohibits the use of training plates on a range? If so, can you point me in the right direction?

 

[PuckChaser]

Is there are directive somewhere which prohibits the use of training plates on a range? If so, can you point me in the right direction?

I've been looking as well. No idea if its a Bde rule, a base rule or something someone made up. Couldn't find it in BGL381 which is where it should be.

 

[MedCorps]

I am guessing this is BS JNCO laziness which has crept into the realms of fake regulation / policy / practice.... but I am happy to be proven wrong.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Because we've built a culture of unfit, soft soldiers. We have ceramic training plates which are "dangerous" on the range so our troops can't even train to shoot with armor on properly. We constantly prioritize literally anything else during a work day other than PT, especially in CS and CSS trades.

Them: We need to move the troops 2 kms.

Us: No problem, we'll march there.

Them: No, marching is 'abuse of troops', we need to wait for the trucks.

Us: <wait longer for the trucks to arrive than it would have taken to march 2 kms>

 

[IRepoCans]

The idea of humping out your armour is flawed, deeply. It comes from the idea that the threat is direct fire from an enemy detecting visually by soldiers on the ground. Thats simply not going to be the case. If you're detected on a patrol you will be engaged by indirect or drone fire and they aren't going to wait for you to unload your bag to grab armour. Ukrainian SOF does their infil in full kit for that exact reason. Yes it sucks, but so does dieing.

And I specifically mentioned when it makes sense to do so, such as: hot weather tropical environments such as the jungle; long range ski based movements in the arctic or sub-arctic; and alpine and mountain environments (oddly enough, environments that the Ukrainians don't have any experience in and where short endurance UAS have extreme difficulty operating). There are cases where being able to pack out your armour is useful to enable movement and/or mitigate exhaustion during the infil if feasible given enemy MDCOA and MLCOA.

I'm sure as hell not wearing my frag vest and plates when I'm lead climbing or when I have to swim a water feature to establish a rope line.

 

[IRepoCans]

Because we've built a culture of unfit, soft soldiers. We have ceramic training plates which are "dangerous" on the range so our troops can't even train to shoot with armor on properly. We constantly prioritize literally anything else during a work day other than PT, especially in CS and CSS trades.

The main issue isn't so much that they're dangerous (other than producing secondary frag and spalling if struck) is that training safety doesn't require you to have ballistic plates on during live fire manoeuvre ranges until you add explosives to the mix (there are some bases that have modified their RSOs to make that a requirement). There's also a massive shortage of both ballistic and training plates, with the first time most non-infantry folks seeing them is on PDT and on tour.

 

[markppcli]

And I specifically mentioned when it makes sense to do so, such as: hot weather tropical environments such as the jungle; long range ski based movements in the arctic or sub-arctic; and alpine and mountain environments (oddly enough, environments that the Ukrainians don't have any experience in and where short endurance UAS have extreme difficulty operating).

UAS can operate in the arctic, and in jungles. Thats a poorly thought out argument. You will be located, you will be targeted, if thats an FPV or by a recce fires complex it makes no difference.

There are cases where being able to pack out your armour is useful to enable movement and/or mitigate exhaustion during the infil if feasible given enemy MDCOA and MLCOA.

Mitigation of exhaustion is a poor reason to accept higher casualties from the most likely result of dismoinnted movelent. Being located and targeted isnt MDCOA or MLCOA, thats just reality. Training guys to ditch armour at every opportunity and citing "exhaustion" is bad leadership, having it in your ruck is the same weight, and now its not available when you and your guys need it.

I'm sure as hell not wearing my frag vest and plates when I'm lead climbing or when I have to swim a water feature to establish a rope line.

I'd suggest lead climbing is a low probability task for everyone outside of SOF. I'd love to see the number of times anyone has done that in a military conflict in the last 70 years. If we're swimming our way across water obstacles, guess what, we're getting targeted because the enemy is also not stupid and will observe them.

 

[markppcli]

Them: We need to move the troops 2 kms.

Us: No problem, we'll march there.

Them: No, marching is 'abuse of troops', we need to wait for the trucks.

Us: <wait longer for the trucks to arrive than it would have taken to march 2 kms>

I've not once seen that scenario

 

[markppcli]

I am guessing this is BS JNCO laziness which has crept into the realms of fake regulation / policy / practice.... but I am happy to be proven wrong.

I think it was more about driving to have actual armour instead of fake shit on live ranges.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I've not once seen that scenario

You clearly don’t hang around with 39 CBG then…

… where ‘C’ does not stand for ‘Commando’

 

[boredtoon]

The main issue isn't so much that they're dangerous (other than producing secondary frag and spalling if struck) is that training safety doesn't require you to have ballistic plates on during live fire manoeuvre ranges until you add explosives to the mix (there are some bases that have modified their RSOs to make that a requirement). There's also a massive shortage of both ballistic and training plates, with the first time most non-infantry folks seeing them is on PDT and on tour.

The training plates are incredibly brittle and will shatter if dropped. At some point someone made the call to not shoot in them for fear of little ceramic shards being propelled upwards into the face and neck. However, this was never codified into an actual policy. Depending on your range staff were, you may or may not have shot in training plates. When VanDoos ran ranges, we had to take them out, but if the RCR ran the range, we put them back in.

Also, at least in 31 CBG, it was directed at least starting 2 years ago that no range will be conducted without plates. The brigade pushed 10-20 sets of ballistic plates to all the units, and more are available from brigade for use.

 

[Seyek]

I've not once seen that scenario

I absolutely have, particularly on courses, including leadership courses where PT was specifically not allowed except for the PT instruction portion. I hope it's gone away, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it pop back up. I assume it's mostly a reserve thing, with varying forms of stupidity involved and generally only in particular cases rather than a general trend, but I've also taught on BMQs where we were explicitly not allowed to do PT of any kind. Predictably this was a gross disservice to troops involved who faced all sorts of issues including injuries on later courses. But while we have some resources available, the CAF being bad at PT, reserves in particular, is hardly a new issue.

The training plates are incredibly brittle and will shatter if dropped. At some point someone made the call to not shoot in them for fear of little ceramic shards being propelled upwards into the face and neck. However, this was never codified into an actual policy. Depending on your range staff were, you may or may not have shot in training plates. When VanDoos ran ranges, we had to take them out, but if the RCR ran the range, we put them back in.

Also, at least in 31 CBG, it was directed at least starting 2 years ago that no range will be conducted without plates. The brigade pushed 10-20 sets of ballistic plates to all the units, and more are available from brigade for use.

Hopefully with the budget increases we can eventually get everyone into armour including plates, for all training from their BMQ onwards, but I haven't heard or seen anything one way or another, and the many years of being unable to supply rucksacks or even sleeping gear at times to troops inspires little confidence.

 

[WestIsle]

The training plates are incredibly brittle and will shatter if dropped. At some point someone made the call to not shoot in them for fear of little ceramic shards being propelled upwards into the face and neck. However, this was never codified into an actual policy. Depending on your range staff were, you may or may not have shot in training plates. When VanDoos ran ranges, we had to take them out, but if the RCR ran the range, we put them back in.

Also, at least in 31 CBG, it was directed at least starting 2 years ago that no range will be conducted without plates. The brigade pushed 10-20 sets of ballistic plates to all the units, and more are available from brigade for use.

There was also the case back in 20/21 where a soldier was killed on a live range when they were shot in the back while wearing training plates. When hit the plates pretty much act like a claymore into the body.

That was also a reservist attending a 3VP range so just another example of the 3 kingdoms each having their own ideas of safety leading to people getting killed.

 

[IRepoCans]

UAS can operate in the arctic, and in jungles. Thats a poorly thought out argument. You will be located, you will be targeted, if thats an FPV or by a recce fires complex it makes no difference.

Long endurance for sure can, but the absolute proliferation of short endurance UAS largely characteristic of your reference of choice works poorly those environments; with the arctic (and we'll toss in sub-arctic during winter in there) being the worst of the lot. The insulated batteries don't work as well as advertised and a bunch of heating packs taped to it doesn't work well either.

And from what I've heard from some friends at Vandoos on the jungle side, short endurance UAS also has difficulties there with weather, climate and vegetation.

So is there a good chance we might be detected during some part of this theoretical patrol of ours? Probably. BUT, depending on the environment there very well may be obstacles or conditions that require folks to temporarily pack their armour to clear said obstacle.

I'd suggest lead climbing is a low probability task for everyone outside of SOF. I'd love to see the number of times anyone has done that in a military conflict in the last 70 years. If we're swimming our way across water obstacles, guess what, we're getting targeted because the enemy is also not stupid and will observe them.

I take it you've never done an amphibious exercise in Europe, or done a Norway before and that's fine; but I sure as hell can tell you that climbing is very much not a SOF specific skillset that's just specific to mountains; and there have been multiple times conventional forces have had to make use of vertical skills in the past 70 years on operations and training (to include Afghanistan).

Mitigation of exhaustion is a poor reason to accept higher casualties from the most likely result of dismoinnted movelent. Being located and targeted isnt MDCOA or MLCOA, thats just reality. Training guys to ditch armour at every opportunity and citing "exhaustion" is bad leadership, having it in your ruck is the same weight, and now its not available when you and your guys need it.

And to reiterate: I never specified that armour would be absent or stowed for the infil? But there are times where it makes sense to take it off for specific tasks or obstacles where it becomes a detriment (such as lead climbing or swimming). Sure, the ruck is the same weight but I can use the ruck as a floatation device even with the armour inside it; and when climbing the frag vest restricts a lot of the range of motion you need to ascend a vertical face that isn't just a 8-12 foot wall.

All I was in support for was having an armour system that can be stripped down and is compatible with chest rigs (via placards or running it over) or belt kits referencing a use case; and that we look at side hard plates more so than soft side armour which is a fine middle ground for shrapnel/low velocity projectiles.

 

[IRepoCans]

There was also the case back in 20/21 where a soldier was killed on a live range when they were shot in the back while wearing training plates. When hit the plates pretty much act like a claymore into the body.

That was also a reservist attending a 3VP range so just another example of the 3 kingdoms each having their own ideas of safety leading to people getting killed.

The army of the West pops up a lot in the ASAIC training safety lessons learned discussion.