Personalizing your gear.....

[gorf]

I was wondering, to what extent can you personalize your gear. Can you buy your own rucksack or LBV? Can you camofluage your stuff eg. put "ghillie" style camo on backpacks or webbing? Or maybe this has to do with what unit your in. Any opinions are welcome. 

                                 

 

[arctictern]

I was wondering, to what extent can you personalize your gear. Can you buy your own rucksack or LBV? Can you camofluage your stuff eg. put "ghillie" style camo on backpacks or webbing? Or maybe this has to do with what unit your in. Any opinions are welcome.                       

Personally I like to lick all my gear so no one will steal it.

 

[chrisf]

The rest of us just write our names on our kit to achieve the same end...

I did lick the marker however, as those have a habit of walking away on me.

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

It is a chargeable offence to modify any kit issued to you by the CF however once in a unit there is some leaway as to specific things done to increase comfort etc.

Usually camouflage is the biggest one you can play with because as long as it hides you best and doesnt hinder your job performance, it is accepted.Best bet is have a look around you at what is currently accepted and if you think it will draw attention to you, it most likely will.

 

[gorf]

Cool.....so I'm asumming the most (general) things I'm going to do is mark my stuff. What about buying some of your own stuff (as long as it "looks" Canadian), I was looking at maybe getting the MULES modular chest rig from Drop Zone tactical (they, like CP, are licenced to use CADPAT). This of couse would be after I had at least 6 monthes in to see if I accually need it.  ;D
               
                                                      Thanks 

 

[chrisf]

Why?

 

[gorf]

Well.....as I have never used the webbing for it's intended purpose ie. holding ammo etc. , I have used it for camping and hiking in the boonies. I know for a fact that I cannot comfortably wear the buttpack and rucksack at the same time. Also if I ever get issued the tactical vest I have read here that they are not they best for carrying gear. While I know that I can use them (webbing or vest), why not get something comfortable , effective for it's intended purpose and generally user friendly? 

 

[foerestedwarrior]

Due to most units need to have everybody look exactly the same, you pretty much have no choice but to use only issued kit.

 

[chrisf]

I know for a fact that I cannot comfortably wear the buttpack and rucksack at the same time.

Glad you know this for a fact.

 

[gorf]

Cool....I guess I'll just "go with the flow" and do as everyone else does. 

 

[dglad]

As a sect comd, when we lacked any other direction, I had my sect adhere to a simple rule--if I can see it, it had better be Cdn issue.  I carried that same philosophy on as a pl comd, coy comd and unit CO.  The implication was that I didn't really care what sort of underwear or socks my soldiers were wearing, as long as they all otherwise wore the same kit.  The one area I'd tend to turn a more or less blind eye was gloves, as long as they were black or OD.  The reason for this uniformity is simply that it makes sense for everyone to look similar, and for kit to be of standardized type and carried in standardized places.  Incidentally, the newer kit is far superior to the stuff we had in the 70's/80's, and even into the 90's.

As for cam, it's not really in the same league as "kit", per se.  Within reason, any cam appropriate to the environment is fine.  I didn't want soldiers making ghillie suits, but scrim, hessian, etc attached to the helmet or webbing is alright.

Is this the approach in every unit?  No--but it should be.

 

[Infanteer]

The reason for this uniformity is simply that it makes sense for everyone to look similar, and for kit to be of standardized type and carried in standardized places.

Well sir, Why?

We've discussed the idea before:   What operational value does "it makes sense for everyone to look similar" (by similar, I'm inferring identical)?   I've yet to fathom a reason - and neither, it appears, are the many American and British units going into combat with custom/off the shelf kit.

Incidentally, the newer kit is far superior to the stuff we had in the 70's/80's, and even into the 90's.

In many instances, yes.   However, I know a good many people are more keen to wear the webbing then the new Tacvest.   There is an entire thread here that points out how inferior this design is for a piece of Load Bearing Equipment.

 

[KevinB]

 The reason for this uniformity is simply that it makes sense for everyone to look similar, and for kit to be of standardized type and carried in standardized places.  Incidentally, the newer kit is far superior to the stuff we had in the 70's/80's, and even into the 90's.

As for cam, it's not really in the same league as "kit", per se.  Within reason, any cam appropriate to the environment is fine.  I didn't want soldiers making ghillie suits, but scrim, hessian, etc attached to the helmet or webbing is alright.

Is this the approach in every unit?  No--but it should be.

WTF?

Sorry I don't buy this attitude at all - why cause everyone is different and their are many different missions/roles that even members of the same section understake.  Do we make the C9 gunner use his LBE the same as the Grenadier or the TCCC med guy?  Similarily different stature requires differing load placement etc.

- Cont after supper...

 

[KevinB]

I get the same impression from the people who think haircuts determine your abilities as a solider.  During your recruit or BOT course the standard is designed to teach attention to detail - thus you are training the young minds to notice subtle differences - which in turn can be related to fieldcraft and the warfighting ability. 

However the problem arises either when new troops don't have the attention to detail down part or part of the chain of command does not understand what the standard originated from...

  In #1 - they need to get sorted out quick - and #2 the Chain has focus on the mission end state - not how pretty and uniform you all look...

 

[dglad]

Well sir, Why?

We've discussed the idea before:   What operational value does "it makes sense for everyone to look similar" (by similar, I'm inferring identical)?   I've yet to fathom a reason - and neither, it appears, are the many American and British units going into combat with custom/off the shelf kit.

First off, I didn't say "identical" for a reason--that ain't gonna happen.  There are going to be folks with different weapons, folks with radios, folks carrying wire-cutters, etc. etc.

Second--if everyone looks generally similar (NOT identical), it diffuses attention through a larger number of people.  I'll grant that if everyone just wears whatever the heck they want, and NOBODY looks the same, you achieve the same effect.  But a more practical reason is that if folks are equipped generally the same, we achieve what standardization is supposed to--a degree of interchangeability.  There are good reasons why we want interchangable parts, and why we want soldiers to carry their ammo, maps, first aid kit, spare radio batteries, etc. in standardized places.

Incidentally, the newer kit is far superior to the stuff we had in the 70's/80's, and even into the 90's.

In many instances, yes.   However, I know a good many people are more keen to wear he webbing then the new Tacvest.   There is an entire thread here that points out how inferior this design is for a piece of Load Bearing Equipment.

I'll stipuate to this, as I haven't worn it enough to really formulate a firm opinion.  However, based on my limited experience, I'm inclined to agree.

 

[dglad]

I get the same impression from the people who think haircuts determine your abilities as a solider.   During your recruit or BOT course the standard is designed to teach attention to detail - thus you are training the young minds to notice subtle differences - which in turn can be related to fieldcraft and the warfighting ability.  

However the problem arises either when new troops don't have the attention to detail down part or part of the chain of command does not understand what the standard originated from...

  In #1 - they need to get sorted out quick - and #2 the Chain has focus on the mission end state - not how pretty and uniform you all look...

Did I say "identical"?  No--see above.

Is the issue one of "prettiness"?  No--a degree of standardization that promotes improved operational effectiveness.  As you indicate, a 100% degree of standardization is unachievable.  But standardization is not, as some seem to think, an inherently bad thing.  Neither is it an end to itself.  It's another useful tool, no more. 

And as for the chain of command--yes, I understand its role.  Well-trained and well-lead soldiers will understand and adopt intelligent standards in dress, kit, etc. because it makes sense. 

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not sure I'm following the difference between "standardized", "similar" and "identical"

I've yet to see a convincing argument for enforcing the standardization of kit amongst soldiers - some of the better ones I've seen are:

1) Everything needs to be in the same place so that other soldiers can quickly find things for their buddies.

-  This doesn't work because, as you said yourself, "that ain't gonna happen.  There are going to be folks with different weapons, folks with radios, folks carrying wire-cutters, etc. etc".  Individual loadouts are bound to be different, and everyone is going to feel comfortable with their loadouts distributed a certain way, so why jam a square peg into a round hole?  As long as everyone brings what is required of them (mags, extra socks, flashlight, blahblahblah), what difference does it make if his foot-powder is in his bren-gun pouch or in his buttpack?

It seems pretty simple to me.  Mags in the mag pouches, canteen in the canteen pouch, snivel kit in the utility pouches, sustainment/mission essential gear in the ruck.  Does where the pouch sits really matter?

2) Everything needs to be the same so that we can recognize eachother.

-  Well, this one is correct to an extent, but only with regards to the colour scheme of the equipment.  If one guy is wearing a CADPAT chest rig and another guy is wearing the CADPAT tacvest, is there really going to be an issue with identification?  Do we really identify friend or foe by the placement of magazine pouches?  If someone is wearing a Dropzone Recce Smock, is it really discernable from an issued ICE Jacket?

If it looks Canadian (OD or CADPAT) then I don't see the problem.

3) Everything needs to be Canadian issued so that you can exchange it if it breaks in the field.

-  So, in the heat of the battle (or the consolidation), am I going to wrap my webbing with yellow gun-tape, put my name and last 3 on it, and send it back to the CQ for a replacement?  If my issue kit breaks when I need it most (and when replacement is difficult), I'll deal with it the same way I'd deal with non-issue kit - jury rig it so it does work.  If that always fails, I'm sure there will be an enemy or friendly casualty that won't need their LBE (or boots, or rifle sight) - improvisation is one of the hallmarks of a good soldier (unless you're a poor American Logistics type who gets charged, jailed, and dishonorably discharged....).

4) Everything needs to use the issued kit because it is what doctrine says is the best tool for the job.

-  If that was the case, then troops wouldn't be spending their money to buy their own kit.

All in all, there is a line between the two ends of the spectrum.  Unfortunately, it is a line that the Army has failed to acknowledge or define - rather it issues CANFORGEN's that are quickly and quietly ignored.  However, I think it is important to define this line so as to avoid all the silly looking situations that result.  

On one end of the spectrum is the "anal RSM" who deplores any derivation from the norm - apparently what looks good on parade is what works in the field.  This only stifles imagination and forgets the maxim to "train as you would fight" (BUT WE WILL FIGHT WITH 5 MAGS!!!).  At the other end is a gypsy caravan that looks like a NATO fashion show - clearly unacceptable, especially when on operations, where you want to know who the hell is walking towards you - A Canadian, a Brit, a Hungarian, or a translator who got lucky in a swap.

I think the line is, as usual, clearly down the middle.  I believe Mark C expressed it quite well in his (now famous) post regarding kit regulations on OP APOLLO:

Provided the boots were black or green, the load-carriage system was green, the gloves were black or green, the headgear was green, etc, soldiers were able to wear whatever they determined worked the best for them. The "measuring stick" if you will, was that the external appearance had to remain unmistakably Canadian. That wasn't terribly difficult to achieve when wearing Temperate Woodland CADPAT in the desert....

Can't argue with that - it did, after all, take us through Afghanistan in a manner which held our contribution to high praise.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[KevinB]

Well-trained and well-lead soldiers will understand and adopt intelligent standards in dress, kit, etc. because it makes sense.  

It just appears your idea for "intelligent standards" are quite opposite from mine.  

As a sect comd, when we lacked any other direction, I had my sect adhere to a simple rule--if I can see it, it had better be Cdn issue

I call that blind obediance - what if the Cdn stuff sucked? or Brit or US gear was superior?  Sorry but that reminds me of when all else fails, do a frontal...

Simialrily

The reason for this uniformity is simply that it makes sense for everyone to look similar, and for kit to be of standardized type and carried in standardized places

Why does it make sense?  Just cause it is habit?  - What if I like my rifle mags lower on the chest for I can reach them better theur for my body type?- and others favour higher chest mounting?  What if since I have a TCCC leg bag and a Safariand 6004 on my other leg - where I do I put my map? - in my left leg pouch so I will be similar to others? (but then cannot use my map?)

I mean I did Cyprus - startched combats and shone boots so we would look proffesional  : Unfortunately the Army never figured out that looking "Sharp" was well and good for a parade square - but had no relativity to combat effectiveness.

I have also done patrols wearing 140+lbs of kit that I never would have managed using issue kit for it simply was not designed with in those parameters.  The unfortunate fact of "issue" kit is that is the designed by comittee so it is the "80%" solution - in that it does 80% of what we need for 80% of troops - those other 20% - which it always seems to end up being Light Infantry end up with gear that is nest to useles for them - the 82 Pattern Ruck is a prime example - that fact that piece of garbage has been allowed to remain in service for over 20 years is a testiment to the fact that the CF has NO CLUE about equipping our soldier for the missions and roles we require for them.

It is clear to me that the kit required by a trucker will not be the same as a LI-SO infanteer, or a Mech Inf, or a Combat Engineer, or an Armoured troop etc.

Now don't am not suggesting we all look like a bunch of gypsies for the sake of it.  I was part of the 7 merry men in which only two people in the 7 wore an issue vest and all the other five wore different outfits - German Desert Flectar Chest Rig, Brit OD Chest Rig, CADPAT Chest Rig, CADPAT AR Patrol Vest etc...
- However we all knew where the maps and first aid stuff where...
We also had five different optic system on our carbines

The key to remember is the Sucessful completion of the mission is #1 - everything else is #2  If the troops don't have confidence in their equiptment they should be able to get kit they do have confidence in - and leadership should listen to the concerns of the troops in the equiptment (and other aspects) arena.

I would like to see an authorized manufacturer list that troops can purches COTS items from in a reasonable colour that the CF would accetp - OD, CADPAT (AR OT TW), TAN  etc. 


Unfortunate CTS seems to be a sacred cow and no-one wants to deal with another multi-million boondoggle (Wet-Weather boot soles anyone...)

 

[Britney Spears]

Is the American style Rapid Fielding Initiative at the unit level a better system? Would it be better if all the funds for CTS were divvied out to the individual units as part of an RFI fund? THe obvious drawback would be 1) they money may not all stay in Canada, despite the fact that there are reputable kit manufacturers in Canada too.  2) The truly revolutionary stuff in CTS would be foregone. I'm not sure what these are, certainly neither the TV nor any of the ICE stuff seems to be starship trooper level stuff. Also, It would be a much more efficient way of evaluating the merits of various pieces of equimpment, instead of the 2 sgts at NDHQ (or whatever, together with the 1 major who works the ID tag cutting machine) have the last word on everything.    Not sure if this could effectively extended to weapons and optics, better just stay with the innoculous stuff for now.

 

[gorf]

Personally, I agree with the "as long as it looks Canadian"......I mean really, if someone wants to make thier kit better, why not let them (as long as it is within reason). I think the solution to this whole problem is to get someone in who accually knows what they are doing, to design gear. Again, the CF issue ruck is a prime example, I have used it with a faily light load (around 40 lbs) and welds started to snap, and the thing was screeching and making noise like a bat out of hell. Man....the stupidity!!!  :crybaby: