Piper said:
Now I'm no expert, but I would pipe in here to say...having the LAV is all fine and good when your fighting an enemy who does not hide on streets too narrow for a LAV to go down or in terrain where a LAV cannot go.
Then you have a problem.
See my earlier post: re non LAV dudes
Piper said:
Again, no expert here. But the US has been fighting a war since 2001 (in A-stan) and 2003 (in Iraq) where troops are carrying 10+ mags, grenades, extra 203 rounds, machine gun ammo, rockets etc etc. And they have that MOLLE stuff on their frag vests and the ability to strap on sufficient pouches. Also, they are allowed to use whatever vests they see fit to carry all that stuff.
This ain't Iraq. That being said, it's all about priorty and function. With the TV, you can carry 10 magazines (yes, at an expense to something else, but you can only put so much meat in a sandwich before it falls apart) It all depends on the situation.
Piper said:
Are you going to sit there and tell me that we, Canada, have a 'fine' system for the soldier while ignoring a country to the south that has vastly more military experience then us, and maybe we should consider adopting some of their better practices? Or are we smarter then them by desiging a vest that we based on our vaste experience in....Bosina (not to degrade that mission or what happened there, but lets be honest, it was no A-stan or Iraq, especially the later years which seems to be the design period for the vest), and then continuing to ignore the reality that we are now fighting a war in which the individual soldier does not always have a LAV to back him up and must carry enough ammo and other 'stuff' to keep himself alive against an enemy whom you must kill, and kill all of them, because they won't stop coming?
Again, good points, but consider what I posted earlier. Perhaps a modular system of the TV (removable mag pouches? adjustable to height depending on needs?) It's a good system: perhaps not the best, but one hell of a lot better than what we used to have. ANd you can't poo poo Bosnia, because a soldier does what a soldier does no matter where he/she is. Some situations warrant more of "x", whatever "x" is, be it ammo, water, batteries, pamphlets, whatever. The point is: you can only carry so much before it becomes an issue. Those without the LAV in their back pocket will of course need to carry more UNLESS the A1 comes along, but that's highly unlikely in the COE, so....what about a ruck sack to carry extra stuff? Helium filled packs to reduce the weight? Caseless ammo? Whatever: don't focus on the kit, focus on the desired effect.
Consider the Space Race in the 60's. NASA spent a Brazilian dollars developing a pen that would function in a zero-G environment. The Soviets used pencils. THAT was innovative!
And as for comparing US with the U.S., well, they are the big kids on the block, and yes I have been on operations with US forces. Now, get this: they commented positively on our kit, including the much maligned C79 optical sight and , *shudder* the TV. Imagine that
Doesn't mean that what we have is perfect, but compared to some, it's gucci, to others, it's Toyota. In the end, it fills the function. We will not win or lose this war because we have TVs vice modular MOLLE packs. If the current TV can be adapted to suit the needs of "those without LAVs", then that would rock, really. But as for a "TV for us, a TV for the so-called REMFs", may I remind all that there is no more "Rear", so to speak. As someone suggested to me: this ain't battlin' on the old Rhine Line
Garvin out
