• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

boredtoon said:
Not quite, Tables are held at brigade. The unit has SF Kits and C2 sights. We for sure use the SF kits and C2 for famil every year (Mark and lay). But without the tables, we can't do the famil on map and table every year, except for theory lessons.



Not sure how they were re-acquired. But I'm pretty sure it was a case of "we were told to get rid of these, but we're just going to put them in the basement instead".
Click to expand...
I did that with our 51 Pattern webbing and when we ran our SYEP course, we were able to issue them webbing for field exercises, as the system had no extra 82pattern or 64pat webbing.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
I did that with our 51 Pattern webbing and when we ran our SYEP course, we were able to issue them webbing for field exercises, as the system had no extra 82pattern or 64pat webbing.
Click to expand...

And we wore 51 Patt bits and pieces with both the 82 and 64 patt stuff to make it useable.

Call it a webbing Smorgasbord ;)

1750129432237.png
 
Halifax Tar said:
I liked the 82 pattern webbing.

If I could get one dyed blaze orange it would make a great day hunt kit.
Click to expand...
Outside of the yoke, and changing from Bren gunner mag pouches to C1 and then C7 mag pouches, the ‘82 Pattern webbing was really just ‘51 pattern webbing made by an idiot.

The plastic tabs constantly broke (both the attachment to the belt, and the pouch closure), and the ‘secondary’ Velcro tab attachment became the primary…

At least better in concept than the ‘64 that only had the Velcro

But a very good example of the CAF not doing any decent trials for feedback as they would have showed this early.
 
KevinB said:
Outside of the yoke, and changing from Bren gunner mag pouches to C1 and then C7 mag pouches, the ‘82 Pattern webbing was really just ‘51 pattern webbing made by an idiot.

The plastic tabs constantly broke (both the attachment to the belt, and the pouch closure), and the ‘secondary’ Velcro tab attachment became the primary…

At least better in concept than the ‘64 that only had the Velcro

But a very good example of the CAF not doing any decent trials for feedback as they would have showed this early.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is you didn't like it ?
 
KevinB said:
Outside of the yoke, and changing from Bren gunner mag pouches to C1 and then C7 mag pouches, the ‘82 Pattern webbing was really just ‘51 pattern webbing made by an idiot.

The plastic tabs constantly broke (both the attachment to the belt, and the pouch closure), and the ‘secondary’ Velcro tab attachment became the primary…

At least better in concept than the ‘64 that only had the Velcro

But a very good example of the CAF not doing any decent trials for feedback as they would have showed this early.
Click to expand...

I wore the British 58 pattern for years. It was awful too, in its own special way. I still carry 'scars of glory' from various webbing burns.

It's like the GWOT waved a magic wand over all the crap gear out there and magically improved it in a variety of ways.
 
I've come to the conclusion that there are two types of web gear users: grunts - for whom nothing is good enough; and other-then-grunts - who couldn't care less and are mostly fine with whatever they're given. The reason for both of those is obvious.

I had 51 pattern webbing as a young reservist which did the job because I didn't know any better. Oh yeah. It came with the old Brit pattern helmet. The 64 pattern, where I immediately threw the C2 mag chest carrier into the furthest corner of my basement, I supplemented with a 51 pattern bren pouch to my belt for carrying cans of beer or soft drinks as applicable and my old 51 pattern small pack for my rain gear and other shit that I couldn't stuff into my mess tin carrier after throwing away the mess tins. My Melmac plate and cup went into my gas mask carrier. I learned to hate the universal pattern 68 rucksack which, with a PRC 25/77 added to it (FOO, remember) became a torture device.

By the time the 82 came out I was back in the reserves, I was leading a small rifle company that liked playing pirates with their own gear. There was a moment of excitement as it came out and then everyone was back to wanting to adapt it with their own drop pouches or whatnot. It was more a fashion statement thing than practicality. I do have some pictures of me with my 82 pattern in the field after I went JAG. It did the job which wasn't too strenuous. Like I said for non-grunts it's not a biggie what you wear - as long as you can get into the truck with it on.

🍻
 
I've used 82 pattern, and the current vest, and have no great preference for either. There is something to be said about the modularity of the 82 pattern, but that's really about it. The current vest is 'good enough' for most use.

I was saddened to see a troop finish DP1 and go spend $1800 on some fancy coyote brown stuff that he couldn't even wear with his ruck. I'm not going to say he wasted his money, but the fact that the gear he bought doesn't work with our gear makes it incompatible...my suggestion to my troops now is to use what they have in Training Coy, and wait until they've been in the Operational Coy for a year before going to spend money on kit.
 
Main issue with 51pat was the straps on the back did not spread the load well, that was fixed with 82 pattern, but then you had the broken tab issue as Kevin mentioned.
 
Halifax Tar said:
@FJAG

What is this ?

View attachment 94013
Click to expand...
Tail of a rifle grenade.
You could attach a C1 smoke grenade (the ones with the rounded bottom), or a M61 frag grenade to it. There were three clips (see the left hand side) that held the grenade. It had a clip that held the fly off lever in place. You attached the grenade to the tail, made sure the fly off lever was secured, set your gas regulator to zero, loaded a grenade launching blank, slipped the grenade and tail over the muzzle and fired it. Hopefully you had the sight, or you used Kentucky windage. You also had a good bruise on your shoulder as the recoil with grenade and gas regulator was terrible.
When the grenade hit the ground, the grenade was dislodged, the fuze functioned and few seconds later the grenade (whatever type) functioned.

Edit: also had to remove the safety pin before firing.
 
Halifax Tar said:
@FJAG

What is this ?

View attachment 94013

Also I have this and I loved it! Great for coffee in the stand.

View attachment 94014View attachment 94015
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that's the adapter for firing a rifle grenade with the FNC1. You placed a regular grenade in the cup at the left end and the fins over the muzzle and then fired a standard round through the rifle. the adapter had a bullet trap that absorbed the energy of the shot and propelled the grenade to the target where the grenade separated from the adapter, sprung the grenades lever and then blew up. I can say that I never saw the adapter in real life much less seen it used.

I loved my thermos. They worked very well. I heard they stopped issuing them. Is that correct?

🍻
 
AmmoTech90 said:
Not Canadian. We had special blank rounds (black I seem to recall) for them. Called ballistite blanks in other countries. No bullet trap or shoot through for us!
Click to expand...
I certainly wouldn't argue the point with you seeing as I never even saw one much less saw it used. We all know how accurate rumours are by the time it gets to the 1,237th person in the chain. :giggle:

🍻
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top