Tac Vest does not make the grade.

[devil39]

It would kind of help if the rain pants (or jacket) were actually waterproof, and they're about as waterproof as your combat boots. That, and the fact that it doesn't breath, means that if you try to move around you will invariably get wetter than if you were wearing nothing at all.

Last time I checked, 3VP   recce plt troops are issued stealth suits(maybe devil39 can confirm?), so if you want to stretch the truth a bit,   its technically issued kit.

They were issued there 7 years ago when I was in Recce 3 VP, I'm certain they still are now.

Britney, the new/old rain gear is head and shoulders above the old/old   "Rain Decelerator" we used to be issued with.   It didn't stop the rain, it only slowed it down.   1 can of silicone would get you maybe 12 hrs in the field when the rain was falling.   We were in heaven when the new stuff came out.   I still tend to carry a rain jacket top rolled on top of my butt pack for when the weather really sucks.   Must be well maintained and turned in regularly though.

Then again I may be showing my age.   When I was a young RSS officer, my older RSS WO used to carry a wool blanket bedroll (and I ridiculed him).   I may be turning into him, not that it would be a bad thing!

 

[MJP]

For my trade and most of the combat support and support trades this will do the job and much more. The more important thing is that our leaders must realize that we cannot carry all the crap that we use to carry with us.  I personally think the vest is well designed but like the 82 patterned webbing, it will have growing pains while it gets into service.

Kinda the point we are making...the Tac vest suits the CSS types as long as they are doing JUST their jobs.  But the moment you add the need to carry extra ammo/water/medical kit on top of your trade tools where does it go?  The vest was made with no consideration to the need of additional ammo and supplies that a modern soldier must carry and that is why we are arguing that it needs to be changed irregardless of trade.

 

[pbi]

Here is the response (sans pictures...) that I got back from the CTS folks:

LCol Banks
The Project appreciates your feedback on the Tac Vest, sir. While these
comments from your former soldiers are not new, the concensus is equally
unclear when canvassing the entire army for feedback. I have enclosed a
short blurb on what the project is doing to enhance ammunition distribution
in the load carriage system.  The project provided a "Train the Trainer"
briefing to soldiers in both 1PPCLI and 3PPCLI and got feedback on this way
ahead last December/January in Edmonton prior to issuing the Tac Vest. We
also recognise that after a great deal of investment in trialing the human
factors of the entire load carriage system, we will never please all
soldiers.
I will say that generally the feedback on the Tac Vest from the field force
has been very positive. It must also be recognised that product improvement
comes at a price in time, and money with the staff effort being prioritised
based on feedback from the field. It is therefore encouraging that you are
directing the troops to contact us directly as well.
Thanks Again.

Captain L.A. (Laird) Coghill, CD, The RCR
DLR 5-10
Project Director L2646 Clothe the Soldier
Tel 819-997-2017
Fax 819-997-2080
coghill.la@forces.gc.ca
Web Site: www.forces.ca/cts

Here is text of the att:

Thank you very much for your email regarding your concerns of the Tactical Vest.  We at the Clothe The Soldier are always interested in feedback from the field force highlighting their experience and suggestions regarding equipment.

Some historical background

The Tactical Vest requirement and design are meant to satisfy the generic need of the army. The tactical vest underwent several configuration changes at the developmental stage. A greater C7 ammo carrying capability was tried. However, a balanced compromise was reached between load capacity, diversity of ammo and available real estate. In its current configuration, the Tactical Vest gained 85% soldier acceptance from those who participated in the many trials. It was a critical requirement to have participants chosen from various army units from infantry to artillery to ensure the army was well represented.  The breakdown of minimum requirements for user trials has always been: 25% Infantry, 25% Combat Arms, and 25% Service Support.  As well of all soldiers chosen 25% are female. Certainly, there are and will be operational requirements which will require or dictate different ammo capacity. Additional C7 magazine and M203 Grenades carrying capability have been identified. Consequently, CTS has initiated two projects, a C7 Mag carrier and an M203 grenade carrier that will ultimately fit on the Tactical Vest. Both projects have been contracted and results are expected early next year. In the interim, CTS has fielded prototypes of the C7 magazine carriers and has had positive feedback (picture below). The two carriers will hopefully address the ammo carrying capacity.

C7 Magazine Carrier
Currently a sub-project is ongoing to provide the additional capability of carrying ammunition.  The C7 Magazine Carrier is an insert that holds an additional 5 magazines of ammunition that can be placed in the C9 drum pouch on the Tac Vest.M203 Grenade Carrier

There is also another sub-project ongoing to design a second insert for the C9 drum pouch, this one to carry additional M203 grenades.  The aim of the project is to design an insert that is capable of carrying an additional 7 x M203 grenades.  In the interim, there is a specifically designed M203 Grenade Accessory Pouch that holds 7 x M203 grenades and is substituted for a C9 Drum pouch or Canteen pouch on the TV.

The Small Pack System

Also, the Small Pack System (SPS) is quickly making its way to the units. The SPS is designed to complement and augment the TV capabilities. It increases the fighting order capabilities and addresses the battle order dress. Hopefully, it will also provide the load carrying flexibility to address a wide array of operational load carrying requirements, including increased ammunition capacity.  Included in the SPS are 4 accessory pouches; 2 x 7.5 Litre pouches, and 2 x 5 Litre Pouches.  All pouches can be clipped onto the Tac Vest using the daisy chain system and the numerous buckles on the pouches.  The 7.5L pouch also has a hip-belt strap so that it can be worn as a fanny pack with the TV
Unfortunately any further requirement to carry additional ammunition has not been formally recognized and included in doctrine.  Although our aim is to support all operational troops to the best of our ability, it is short sighted to design army wide equipment such as the Tac Vest based on only one operational theatre.

Notwithstanding the above, we will continue seek better methods to answers the soldiers needs and for that reason alone, feedback from the field is a vital link to reality.
Thank you for your concerns.

Cheers.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The Tactical Vest requirement and design are meant to satisfy the generic need of the army.

I think when it comes to soldiers performing footpatrols (or other dismounted stuff in an operational theater) reaching a "compromise" is a poor concept.

Considering the large amount of kit an infantry soldier (or perhaps armored or artillery in a similar role?) has to carry while doing their job compared to a CS or CSS type, it's crazy to think there is an acceptable level of compromise. A sort of one size fits all.  The infantry simply need something better to do their job.  Someone who keeps their tacvest locked in their barracks box (not intended as a jab) can easily get by with it holding 4 magazines and limited storage space.  The guys who carry 15 or 20 magazines, water, medical supplies, GPS, maps, tools so on and so on simply need something better suited to their job.

I really liked the tacvest. It was new, i found it very comfortable to drive with and on marches and I thought it looked pretty good. I found there wasn't that much room in it and i was trying to find ways to pack more stuff into it. I can't imagine the needs of the guys in Afghanistan or how they get by with it.

I can't see the current tac vest changing enough (with add on's and side projects) to be used effectively by foot soldiers. i think you can only put so many bandaids on it  

I know it's a long shot but what about designing a sort of combat arms tac vest?  Something  designed and made not for the Canadian Forces but for the combat arms/infantry with a view to being used by the guys on the front line?  Would it be a sort of pride issue to say the tacvest isn't up to par for the infantry and a different design is required?  The idea of a one size fits all tacvest still bugs me because the difference in needs/useage is just too big.

To quote someone on this board I believe talking about shotguns in the CF and wether it's a waste of time to have them or not
"Try golfing with just one club"
I think it can be to the idea of the tacvest as well.

 

[Britney Spears]

The idea of a one size fits all tacvest still bugs me because the difference in needs/useage is just too big.

The idea is fine, I don't see any reason why a CSS type cannot wear a vest designed for an infantryman.

The good Captain's reply makes an underlying assumption that a vest designed for the infantry is  inadequate for the needs of CSS troops. I find this idea to be highly suspect, but since he's the one with the  CD, I'll take his word for it. , Assuming, then, that a trucker cannot fit into her truck with both her breasts and 8 magazines on her chest, I agree there should be a seperate infantry vest.

I would like a CSS trooper to explain to me why having double magazine pouches on the chest will make him/her less effective.

Or even better, how about a MODULAR vest that can be configured according to mission requirements? 

 

[Jarnhamar]

The idea is fine, I don't see any reason why a CSS type cannot wear a vest designed for an infantryman.

I see your point.
I think the vest should have been designed with the infantry in mind afterwhich it could easily be used by CS and CCS.
It's better to only have to fit 4 magazines in a vest designed for 15 than fittign 15 magazines in a vest designed for 4.  If non combat arms soldiers have extra room in their vest then great.

As far fetched as my idea of designing (or just adopting) a vest soley for the infantry, scrapping the curret tac vest (and side projects) and redesigning the whole thing seems much less likely.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Based on the reply that Captain Coghill gave pbi, I am thinking that CTS completely missed the boat on finding a vest body that through a modular PALS system could have met the needs of all roles in the Army due to its modular construction.  Now they are left scrambling to try and nail square pegs into round holes with such things as the C7 and M203 inserts.

The design of the Bosnia-inspired Tac-Vest seems to fly in the face of what Capt. Coghill says:  "It is short sighted to design army wide equipment such as the Tac Vest based on only one operational theatre" if his comment is to be taken as an elusion that 3PPCLIs experience in Afghanistan and their desire for increased ammunition carrying capability should not be taken as a basis of lessons learned for current and future operations in the War on Terror.

 

[KevinB]

I guess the good Captain cant read, or conviently misunderstood the UCR's from ALL of the Infantry Reg'ts...  :


Maybe I was mistaken but I go the impression of "why on earth would we change our design to a war fighting vest..."

 

[aesop081]

I guess the good Captain cant read, or conviently misunderstood the UCR's from ALL of the Infantry Reg'ts...   :


Maybe I was mistaken but I go the impression of "why on earth would we change our design to a war fighting vest..."

I know i am joining this topic late but does Ottawa's reaction surprise anybody ?

 

[Infanteer]

I am unsure of why this is rocket science to some.   The modular-PALS system provides a degree of adaptability that would ensure that no one would be unhappy.   All that is required is one or two simple carrier designs (it's really easy, I drew one up in 5 minutes for myself) and the sky's the limit.

I think the fact that the CTS are still "sticking to their guns" implies that they are trying to justify their decision of buying a Lada when the Ferrari was sitting right next to it, priced to sell....

 

[48Highlander]

From what I've seen, the main problem is how the people in charge of the project look at complaints and suggestions.  They start off with the assumption that what they've designed is good, but might need some changes.  Then, when they're told that their product is crap, they automaticaly go into defensive posture and try to justify why they did it that way.  Instead of saying "ok, how can we fix this?" they automatically reply with "well, that's because....".  They only finally give in an make a change when there's enough complaints to make all their justifications irrelevant.

 

[Thompson_JM]

The idea is fine, I don't see any reason why a CSS type cannot wear a vest designed for an infantryman.

The good Captain's reply makes an underlying assumption that a vest designed for the infantry is   inadequate for the needs of CSS troops. I find this idea to be highly suspect, but since he's the one with the   CD, I'll take his word for it. , Assuming, then, that a trucker cannot fit into her truck with both her breasts and 8 magazines on her chest, I agree there should be a seperate infantry vest.

I would like a CSS trooper to explain to me why having double magazine pouches on the chest will make him/her less effective.

Or even better, how about a MODULAR vest that can be configured according to mission requirements?  

speaking as a CSS trooper....  I honestly cant see why more ammo would make me less effective. the only concern I might have would be with having an overloaded Tac Vest while trying to drive a vehicle. To use the MLVW as an example, when we had the buttpack on our webbing it made if very difficult to sit comfortably in the truck. (and by the i mean i was basicaly sitting into the steering wheel) I think the Tac Vest has made our lives in the CSS world considerably easier, but even I have found times where i am trying to find space to carry everything I require. My compromise was to get an off the shelf NBC bag from canadian peacekeeper, and more or less, it has solved some of the problems. Infanteer had a concern with the maglight pouch not being able to accomodate any of the better flashlights out there, and last night while going over my kit, i realized that you can fit a streamlight scorpion into the pocket. its a tight fit, but it will work.

tight fit however is not acceptable in my opinion when it comes to front line combat arms troops.
I think the nail has been hit right on the head with the idea of a modular vest. Not only would this allow cbt arms troops to be able to carry the extra kit they require, but it would also enable us CSS types to modify our vest to carry what we might need. given the lack of money in the CF a modular design would have probabbly been the most cost effective way to go in the long run. it wouldnt surprise me to see in the future a modular design being introduced to operational troops, then the regs, and possibly the PRes. sadly  i think this is still definatly a long way off...

Cheers.
  Josh

 

[Andyboy]

The problem is that the expertise to design a decent vest did not exist in Canada when the project was started.

The vest that Pappy posted here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/20031.0.html was designed at PSP in one year (inconjunction with the chest rig he posted too). The issued TV took seven years from start of project to start of production. Both cost in the same ballpark to produce per item, even though the Pappy-vest was built in much smaller numbers. To those of you not familiar with economy of scale this means that in the same prodcution quantities the Pappy-vest would have been much less costly to produce.  Difference? A professional designer vs. not.

The Pappy-vest may not have undergone the "rigorous Human Factors testing" that the issued TV is purported to have undegone but a lions share of that testing was to ensure that the issued TV was compatible with the new ruck. What new ruck you ask? Good question. After seven+ years we have a vest that the worst case end user (Light Infantry) finds unacceptable but which may or may not be compatible with the as yet non-existant new ruck. Kudos everyone involved. How do you spell boodogle?

I guess it DOES look good though, being CADPAT and everything. Style over substance, right?

 

[KevinB]

Typical  :

Well we have enough broken PAC's and PEQ's with the TRIAD that we could have likley funded an entire freefloat rail system for the C8SFW's...


Nothing like getting an amateur to do work for us...

 

[pbi]

From what I've seen, the main problem is how the people in charge of the project look at complaints and suggestions.   They start off with the assumption that what they've designed is good, but might need some changes.   Then, when they're told that their product is crap, they automaticaly go into defensive posture and try to justify why they did it that way.   Instead of saying "ok, how can we fix this?" they automatically reply with "well, that's because....".   They only finally give in an make a change when there's enough complaints to make all their justifications irrelevant

.

I think, unfortunately, that you are not too far wrong here. Years ago (Oh, God, here he goes again....) I attended a briefing in Comox given by the NDHQ Directorate at that time responsible for individual clothing and equipment. The team was lead by Romeo Dallaire (I think he was a LCol at the time...), and the audience was the assembly of all the officers of 1 CMBG. The subject came up from the floor that our rain gear was   no good. Now, I don't know if any of you recall the rainsuit we had in the early 80's, but it was the POS to beat all POS. It was utterly, utterly useless and had a very short life expectancy. Every field soldier knew it was shyte. Dallaire (whom I otherwise have great respect for...) demanded to know on what grounds the complaint was being made. This was explained. Then, to the amazement of everybody in the room, Dallaire stated, quite hotly, that he had never heard a single complaint about the raingear, which meant that there was nothing wrong with it. The room exploded into laughter, jeers, and shouted accusations from the floor. Dallaire, being a rough and tumble guy himself, yelled back. Finally BGen Milner had to restore order. It was probably the ultimate example of the "defensive reaction", as well as an example of that yawning gap between the Field Army and NDHQ.

On another note, I strongly encourage all of you to e-mail the CTS shop directly with your complaints and suggestions. You guys have raised some excellent issues, and those people need to hear them without any "filters". Evidently the UCR system is not doing all that we want it to. CTS needs to hear from the coal-face. Go for it. Cheers.

 

[McG]

Dallaire stated, quite hotly, that he had never heard a single complaint about the raingear, which meant that there was nothing wrong with it.

I saw the same thing on a reply to a UCR on the cold weather gloves.  No other unit had ever complained that the gloves do not provide protection from the cold, so a complaint that was typical in the regiment must have been wrong.

 

[aesop081]

OFFICIAL CTS POLICY:

THE EQUIPMENT IS GOOD, IT"S THE SOLDIERS THAT ARE DEFECTIVE  !

I'm sure that's it.......... :sniper:

 

[pbi]

Aesop: you think you are joking. I remember shortly after we got the "new" ruck in 1PP (you know, the one with the shopping cart frame insert...) we did a UCR to NDHQ. The basis of the complaint was the inability of the pack to carry heavy loads, among other things. The response we got back was that the pack was fine; the Infantry was just trying to put too much into it! Cheers

 

[Britney Spears]

TV, Rucksack, Gortex jacket, CWWBs......

Well, we're consistent, if nothing else.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Here's something that may help the M-203 Grenadier out:  The Tactical Tailor 40mm Grenade Belt
http://www.tacticaltailor.com/products/belts/40mm_belt/

The Grenadier can either carry this bandolier style, or wear as a belt below the Tac-Vest.  In some ways, wearing a separate M-203 rig is advantageous in that if the Grenadier goes down, the other section members can simply pick up his rifle and 40mm belt and carry on.