CTS buttpack strap question

[Knad]

Why do the buttpacks have different strapping in them? One has a simple two inch belt, but the other has a double one inch strap. Is the double one inch strap supposed to be used differently?

I've searched and asked ppl about this and can't seem to get an answer.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

It was probably some good idea fairy during the CTS design process that has long since disappeared into the mists of time, for the simple reason that no one wears them as 'buttpack's' anymore, out of fear of being told they are wearing a 'fanny pack'. They are just used as extra large pouchs to be buckled onto the rucksack or day pack, using that horrendous daisy chain system.

 

[Lightguns]

The double strap is designed to secure a clothing or air mattress roll under it.

 

[q_1966]

I know the buttpack can also be slung over your shoulder with the the two small side buckles, is that what your talking about?
edit: sorry didn't realize you were talking about the CP Gear CTS buttpack and not the 82 pattern webbing buttpack.

Attaching CTS Butt & Patrol Pack Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv6gdb3c9t4

 

[Lightguns]

I believe he is speaking of the butt pack that came with the patrol pack as part of the CTS program. There are two; one with a 2 inch belt and one with a dual one inch belt that fits in an X at the buckle. The CP gear is a copy of the former. The OP is speaking of the later. Again when secured to the pack the X belt is used to secure bed roll type package.  CTS's greatest failure was to not produce a product manual and put it in wide distribution.

 

[The_Falcon]

CTS's greatest failure was to not produce a product manual and put it in wide distribution.

Lol, that was HARDLY the greatest failure of the CTS program.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Again when secured to the pack the X belt is used to secure bed roll type package. 

Hang on, you're telling me that this marvellous wonder of soldier-orientated, weight bearing technology was developed as a modular fighting system for today's net-centric, effects based operational theatres, and it came with the technological feat of BEING ABLE TO STRAP A BEDROLL like a civil war johnny reb, for those times when you can bed down on hay next to your horse and munch your hard-tack and bully beef???

It truly beggars belief.

NB. I don't doubt what you are telling me Lightguns, that's the saddest part.

 

[Lightguns]

Actually I was using "bedroll type" as an adjective. The straps are designed to hold circular objects when the item is connected to the pack system. There is quite a bit of modularity in the CTS system considering they limited themselves to nonpatented rucksack tech. The big issue is the lack of documentation surrounding the features. And yes I agree that off the shelf MOLLE would have been more efficient but that was patented by US DoD. While you can buy it off the shelf easily it may have cost DND a lot more per unit at the time.

My formative years were spent in P64,  I compare everything since to that standard and with P82 I was happy. With CTS I am still reasonably happy. The ammo capacity was poor but I seem to recall that we were all supposed to bandoliers of throw away mags as part of war deployment. I confess that I have hung onto the P64 ruck. But remember how we all lauded the P82 ruck back then as it allowed access to the bag without disassembling half the ruck.