Soldier Body Armour - FPV, BRP, shoulder pads & throat protectors (Merged Thread)

[HItorMiss]

Wasn't the A-10, it was the day before


EDIT: And on that note that was my 1000 post, not much of a mile stone reply LMAO but hey can't have everything  ;D

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Seen my apologies.

 

[HItorMiss]

You are right though had it of been the A-10 I would not have related my personal experience seeing as well like you said not much is going to stop the main gun of an A-10 firing HErounds LOL. However as I said my experience is different.

And no worries Quag those 2 days get blurry all the time.

 

[teddybear]

On a side note, no kit is 100% fool-proof. My husband was wearing his Tac vest but it didn't save him. Sometimes it's all in the angle that the rounds/shrapnel come in. He said that he should be the most protected in his section b/c he was the smallest, hence the plates would cover more of his torso than the other guys. However the shrapnel came from above and got him above the plates. But it did save his WO during a rocket attack.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Your right TB nothing short of not deploying is foul proof.

 

[HItorMiss]

Absolutely Teddy

There is always a certain amount of assumed risk in these types of things, I find though that the CF is trying to remove it all and the by product to the mods I have described is the lessening of ability to the soldier which when you face it the adage "Best defense is a good Offense" really comes into play with our job. If I cannot shoot then I might as well not be wearing anything as I will surely eat a round.

As for the WO I saw his plate stopped a fair number of pointy bits from making him even more of a pin cushion  ;D

 

[teddybear]

The 1st thing hubby said to me when the incident with the WO happened was that the PPE does work! You could hear the relief in his voice. He was confident that the equipment was worthy. I'm actually glad that he didn't worry about the vest. As soon as the attack happened, he grabbed his kit and got it on. Just goes to show that when it's your time, it's your time.

 

[Douke]

I am not going to drift this thread away from this subject anymore then it already is, but I just wanted to applaud your attitude toward the sad experience you had to endure. My total respect and I wish more people would have your kind of courage and positivism toward life. 

Douke

 

[MG34]

You are making generalizations based on cynicism.  It is true that in the past many things have been purchased based on lowest cost compliant (Note: "compliant" means there was still a minimum performance threashold).  However, you will find that more often we are now looking for value of cost (so we will pay more to get something that is better).

I've seen some of the armour we've subjected to ballistic testing & I've heard some the the results.  There are some sexy brand-name armours that folks like to talk about, but they did not stand-up to the ballistic testing (I won't be giving names as I suspect certain commercial confidentiality issues are at play).  Our stuff is good & there are Canadian soldiers alive today because of it.

Actually I am making a statement of fact, not at all based on cynicism. Our plates are good, I know that from personal experience, I have seen what they can and in cases cannot take.but the vest it's self has some issues that I will not get into here for OPSEC issues. As KevinB has stated in the last couple of years we have taken a step backwards in protection. No doubt these tests were under very specific conditions with an allowable rate of failure and the option to retest, etc...we don't have that luxury on the battlefield. As for the cheapest solution possible..talk to DLR-5 on the C7A2 project

 

[McG]

As for the cheapest solution possible..talk to DLR-5 on the C7A2 project

So, you are going to argue a sweeping generalization based on dropping the name of one project?  I think you know that does not work.

IMHO - in the last year it [protection] took a step back.

... in the last couple of years we have taken a step backwards in protection.

So, you think the old flak vest is better?

 

[armyvern]

As for the cheapest solution possible..talk to DLR-5 on the C7A2 project

A project that, granted, occured years ago under the old system of procurement. Did you miss the part where it was noted that the procurement process has changed and that the "cheapest item that still meets the milspecs" rule (that fact which is no longer a fact??) is out the window??

 

[MG34]

So, you are going to argue a sweeping generalization based on dropping the name of one project?  I think you know that does not work.
So, you think the old flak vest is better?

I provided the first example that popped into my head, if I think about it I can come up with more, but why waste the time to do so when you have bought into the party line and obviously don't considerthe fact that the system is still flawed.
I never said I liked the old flack vest, but the current issued one is different from the previous generation of the same style WRT  the protection offered. We were issed the Vest Protective Small Arms in the past, now we have the Vest Protective Fragmentation, a definate downgrade of protection values.Couple that with the choice of ballistic material used in the Vest Protective Fragmentation the protection performance has downgraded. This is simply fact, not conjecture.

Librarian: Sure the system has changed on big ticket items yet boots, weapons acessories, clothing, and other systems have not benifitted from this so called new system. A one shot deal on Aircraft and RG 31 (although the vehicle has some major faults...smaking of the "old system" )doesn't mean the system has changed, nothing in the military happens overnight.
You may disagree but that is the view from the trenches, it may be different on the supply warehouse floor.

 

[Farmboy]

It is still the lowest compliant bidder.  Unless of course I've been reading all the tenders wrong that come out.  :

Which means as long as the item complies with the specs that are written, then it comes down to the cheapest.

Now the key is, who is writting the specs, and what are they basing the knowledge on? 

I've seen some screwed up specs written for gear and I know it comes down to marketing.  Get the tender written for gear and you're good to go.  The tender comes out on the market with the specs written for your gear, it's open for a few weeks and no one else can get in because of the short time frame, and bamm, you're stuck with what was marketed effectively to the CF.

You'll notice there are still the POS "patrol sling" being purchased.  That's because the tender was written for it, even though it's junk.  The Vickers sling can't be purchased in bulk by the CF because there needs to be a tender written specifically for it.

 

[McG]

I provided the first example that popped into my head, if I think about it I can come up with more, but why waste the time to do so when you have bought into the party line and obviously don't consider the fact that the system is still flawed.

I’ve never suggested the system is not flawed (I know there is room to improve).  You on the other hand suggested that everything is purchased at lowest cost compliant.  I’ve called you on this falsehood and you’ve obfuscated and avoided the issue since.  You’ve made false appeals to authority (SARP II and then “more”), but have not shown how these prove all things are bought lowest cost.  In a final attempt to snow job your readers, you’ve also resorted to ad hominem in suggesting I’m some sort of boogey-man selling the party line.  However, the end of it is that you are wrong; not everything is purchased lowest cost compliant.  In fact, the bullet proof plates (BPP) were not lowest cost compliant.  They were cost-performance based (meaning spend more for something that will do more).  You don’t have to take my word though, find the CID through the DWAN and look-up the project.

I never said I liked the old flack vest, but the current issued one is different from the previous generation of the same style

Thank you.  I knew there had to be some disconnect in my understanding of what you’d said.

We were issed the Vest Protective Small Arms in the past, now we have the Vest Protective Fragmentation, a definate downgrade of protection values.  Couple that with the choice of ballistic material used in the Vest Protective Fragmentation the protection performance has downgraded. This is simply fact, not conjecture.

Soldiers complained that the Gen 0 FPV was too inflexible & inhibited movement.  The changes made were not driven by cost so much as the soldiers’ opinion as was being communicated to Ottawa.  However, the only mention of protection that I have found is that both generations are equivalent.

Do you know protection has been sacrificed, or is it assumption & rumour based on a change of manufacture’s labelling?

 

[KevinB]

The insert "Small Arms Protective" was Level IIIA and provided protection from pistol round and rifle rounds at a low velocity.
The new one is thinner and less protective ---

I run Level IIIA soft under my plates - and I know a few people that have been saved by the soft armour when AP ammo has pentrated their vehicle.

I find it hard to beleive that soldier opinion mattered on the FPV -- when it does not on the Tac Vest, C7A2 - and countless other projects.

 

[Farmboy]

Soldiers complained that the Gen 0 FPV was too inflexible & inhibited movement.  The changes made were not driven by cost so much as the soldiers’ opinion as was being communicated to Ottawa

So how many years apart were the two ballistic vests made?  There has been a huge advancement in armour in that time period .

The conversation with the company went something like this...?

"Yes, our soldiers are saying the 30yr old armour is to bulky and stiff so we want to down grade the armour level instead of looking at newer, lighter, more flexible armour with the same or more protection"

You on the other hand suggested that everything is purchased at lowest cost compliant

Every tender I have seen come out in the last two yrs is still lowest compliant bidder.

 

[armyvern]

The rules have been changed recently farmboy.

MG34, I have never said once that there were not problems with the procurment system. Quite frankly, your remark about the "Supply warehouse floor" also does little to substantiate what you are saying and is utter tripe. I said it (the system) was getting better. And yes, we do indeed have the capacity to purchase better and more effeciently with those changes to the system...and not just the big ticket items either. The items you have cited in your post below...were all contracted under the old system and we be brought in under those vaild contracts that apply to them until they expire. I suggest you re-read my posts.

Most people on this forum should know by now that I am a very strong advocate of the soldier first mentality, and that includes their kit, and I voice those soldiers opinions on that same kit when I attend those WGs etc, and your insinuation otherwise is, quite frankly, BS. I'll go back to my warehouse now, you can fend for yourself. I am quite aware of which kit is not appreciated by you infanteers...I'm married to one...and count a great many of them amongst my friends.

 

[McG]

So how many years apart were the two ballistic vests made?   There has been a huge advancement in armour in that time period .

The difference is less thatn 5 years.  As MG34 pointed out, the "older" vest he has been talking about was just the first run of the current vest.  Your 30 year comment is moot.

Every tender I have seen come out in the last two yrs is still lowest compliant bidder.

How many Requests for Proposal have you seen from PWGSC, and what where they for?  I know you have a distributor, but what type of things do we send your way?

 

[Farmboy]

The rules have been changed recently farmboy.

I'll be interested to see what happens.

edited to add:  This one came out today:

INSOLES, FOOTWEAR

Trade Agreement: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)
Tendering Procedures: If 3+ bids offer Canadian goods/services
other bids will not be considered
Attachment: YES (PWGSC) Paper
Competitive Procurement Strategy: Lowest/Lower Bid

Very detailed specs as well so even if there is something better, it won't be accepted.

How many Requests for Proposal have you seen from PWGSC, and what where they for?  I know you have a distributor, but what type of things do we send your way?

Can't say how many RFP's I've seen as it's not just DND stuff I look at.  I get only about 5% of the stuff I carry from a distributor, everything else I either am the distributor, or I deal direct with the Mfg.  Nothing has been specifically sent my way.

 

[MG34]

I’ve never suggested the system is not flawed (I know there is room to improve).  You on the other hand suggested that everything is purchased at lowest cost compliant.  I’ve called you on this falsehood and you’ve obfuscated and avoided the issue since.  You’ve made false appeals to authority (SARP II and then “more”), but have not shown how these prove all things are bought lowest cost.  In a final attempt to snow job your readers, you’ve also resorted to ad hominem in suggesting I’m some sort of boogey-man selling the party line.  However, the end of it is that you are wrong; not everything is purchased lowest cost compliant.  In fact, the bullet proof plates (BPP) were not lowest cost compliant.  They were cost-performance based (meaning spend more for something that will do more).  You don’t have to take my word though, find the CID through the DWAN and look-up the project.
Thank you.  I knew there had to be some disconnect in my understanding of what you’d said.
Soldiers complained that the Gen 0 FPV was too inflexible & inhibited movement.  The changes made were not driven by cost so much as the soldiers’ opinion as was being communicated to Ottawa.  However, the only mention of protection that I have found is that both generations are equivalent.

Do you know protection has been sacrificed, or is it assumption & rumour based on a change of manufacture’s labelling?

Do you want specific examples : OK here goes

The upgrade to the C7A2 was given a budget of $500.00 per rifle, hence the most inexpensive upgrade was done..not the best. The RG31 was purchased despite several known issues with the electric system, especially when the RWS was added resulting in vehs being removed from combat..once again the cheapest system not the best..the Bolle Desert boot is totally inadequate for the task, a great deal of discussion was generated here on the very same subject....cheapest, not the best.. TCCC bags made by a local rigger, not a dedicated manufacturer, which are inadequate to the task and have been discarded by all who were issued them...cheapest, not the best.I could go on through the catalog of items but you get the point, the system new or old is flawed and borderline incompetent.
  AS for the protection level being decreased yes it is a fact by any standard  body armour is judged and rated, Lvl II will never equal Lvl IIIA. you may want to look  up the NIJ Standards which are near universal as the "approved" armour rating system.  You know some of us actually may know what we are talking about here.
I suggest you delete this thread as what you have demanded is a breach of OPSEC...then again I already told you that didn't I.