Tac Vest does not make the grade.

[RHFC_piper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Overwatch - was it this model?

From the description on the  website, it looks like it has a pretty significant load.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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..." ???