Tac Vest does not make the grade.

[OldSolduer]

The problem in winter ops is that you sweat....and hard....and ventilation is encouraged, but I could never enough.

A casualty in winter demands more care and attention than in the desert. Shelter is a must as is good first aid. Evacuation is a problem too.

Body armor in winter, as far as I'm concerned, should be used ONLY on deliberate attacks if at all. After the attack is finished, the CQ and the remainder of the ech roll fwd and resup and take the body armor back.

 

[1feral1]

'Welcome to the suck'.

:rofl: Matt,

Until now I had forgot that term entirely, as I had not heard it since I was in Iraq. Freaky!

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Cleared Hot]

The problem in winter ops is that you sweat....and hard....and ventilation is encouraged, but I could never enough.

A casualty in winter demands more care and attention than in the desert. Shelter is a must as is good first aid. Evacuation is a problem too.

Body armor in winter, as far as I'm concerned, should be used ONLY on deliberate attacks if at all. After the attack is finished, the CQ and the remainder of the ech roll fwd and resup and take the body armor back.

Absolutely, when are people going to remember it is about "risk mitigation", not "risk elimination"?  It might be better to risk one guy taking one in the chest w/o plates than a section's worth going down dehydrated or with hypothermia.  Then again, we would never hear the end of it in the media if we had someone shot w/o plates - the average Joe doesn't really get that what soldiers do is inherently dangerous.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

The problem in winter ops is that you sweat....and hard....and ventilation is encouraged, but I could never enough.

A casualty in winter demands more care and attention than in the desert. Shelter is a must as is good first aid. Evacuation is a problem too.

Body armor in winter, as far as I'm concerned, should be used ONLY on deliberate attacks if at all. After the attack is finished, the CQ and the remainder of the ech roll fwd and resup and take the body armor back.

Which is great if we're operating in a fixed position, non-contiguous battlespace. Unfortunately we don't have the ability to control when/where the enemy may hit us with indirect fire, we might stumble into a minefield, be hit with an IED, etc.  I think that if we were conducting ops in a cold weather environment where the threat matrix is similar to what we're experiencing in Afghanistan, then body armour would be a reality, given that the aversion to casualties by higher command would dictate that level of PPE to be used.  If we were somewhere that had a lower threat matrix, i.e. late 90's/early 00's Bosnia, then it'd make sense to stow it.  Even the US Army (which tends to be about as Zero-Risk/Kneejerk to PPE as it gets) has it as SOP that their forces in Kosovo aren't wearing body armour on ops, but that it's carried in the vehicle accompanying the patrol.

 

[OldSolduer]

Which is great if we're operating in a fixed position, non-contiguous battlespace. Unfortunately we don't have the ability to control when/where the enemy may hit us with indirect fire, we might stumble into a minefield, be hit with an IED, etc.  I think that if we were conducting ops in a cold weather environment where the threat matrix is similar to what we're experiencing in Afghanistan, then body armour would be a reality, given that the aversion to casualties by higher command would dictate that level of PPE to be used.  If we were somewhere that had a lower threat matrix, i.e. late 90's/early 00's Bosnia, then it'd make sense to stow it.  Even the US Army (which tends to be about as Zero-Risk/Kneejerk to PPE) has it as SOP that their forces in Kosovo aren't wearing body armour on ops, but that it's carried in the vehicle accompanying the patrol.

OK now what terrorist group is operating in the Far North....or even in Winnipeg, where it is currently -26C with a wind chill around -42C.
Stowing it in your vehicle is fine, IF you have one. Our troops drag their tent etc on a toboggan pulled by the same troops. The toboggan can weigh 250 lbs. I wouldn't want to be pulling that with body armor on. You're asking for casualties.

 

[daftandbarmy]

OK now what terrorist group is operating in the Far North....or even in Winnipeg, where it is currently -26C with a wind chill around -42C.
Stowing it in your vehicle is fine, IF you have one. Our troops drag their tent etc on a toboggan pulled by the same troops. The toboggan can weigh 250 lbs. I wouldn't want to be pulling that with body armor on. You're asking for casualties.

Maybe not terrorists, but how about a resurgent Russia? (shivers in trepidation at the mere thoguht...)

I remember the whining when we started wearing helmets at 30 below in arctic Norway, but we made it work. The more we train with the gear, the more comfortable we will get with it, as ever.

 

[OldSolduer]

IF the Russians were to attack, we'd be the insurgents. Even the Russians don't like the cold.
I've been on more winter exercises in Canada than summerin 30 years. The issue of body armor on a soldier who is expending energy just keeping warm is tremendous. Now tell them body armor is a must while dragging a toboggan and rucksack around. Someone brought up the point "We do it in Afghanistan". Fine. It' s not -40C in Afghanistan, and if you have a guy go down due to whatever, its a lot simpler evacuating him there than in the cold. The cold weather brings problems. Vehicles break easier, troops expend more energy. Chances are you won't die in Afghanistan due to exhaustion, but you may in the cold.

Maybe not terrorists, but how about a resurgent Russia? (shivers in trepidation at the mere thoguht...)

I remember the whining when we started wearing helmets at 30 below in arctic Norway, but we made it work. The more we train with the gear, the more comfortable we will get with it, as ever.

Helmets are a different issue. Apples vs oranges.

 

[KevinB]

Someone brought up the point "We do it in Afghanistan". Fine. It' s not -40C in Afghanistan, and if you have a guy go down due to whatever, its a lot simpler evacuating him there than in the cold.

Well sometimes it is near -40 in Afghan. 
The cold weather brings problems. Vehicles break easier, troops expend more energy. Chances are you won't die in Afghanistan due to exhaustion, but you may in the cold.Helmets are a different issue. Apples vs oranges.
[/quote]
Helmets are the same issue -- your experience is just colouring that fact.

 

[OldSolduer]

I surrender. Obviously I have no clue of what I am talking about.

 

[McG]

Obviously I have no clue of what I am talking about.

There's no need for the I'm all correct or throw my teddy-bear in the corner approach here.

As has already been pointed out, PPE posture should be threat based and not temperature based.  It does not matter if the temperature is + 50°C or -50°C or anywhere in between, if you catch frag or a bullet through the skull you are probably going home dead.  The same is true of a chest full frag or bullet.  Unless you are on a linear battlefield and able to accurately predict contact with the enemy (which is unlikely in the near future), then you need appropriate PPE.

Does Canadian PPE work in the extreme cold with Canadian cold weather clothing?  I don't know.  I've never asked the question.  If there is a deficiency, then the solution should be to develop the kit to rectify this short coming (a process which may not be quick, especially if there are other competing Army priorities).

 

[Cleared Hot]

Unfortunately we don't have the ability to control when/where the enemy may hit us with indirect fire, we might stumble into a minefield, be hit with an IED, etc.  I think that if we were conducting ops in a cold weather environment where the threat matrix is similar to what we're experiencing in Afghanistan, then body armour would be a reality, given that the aversion to casualties by higher command would dictate that level of PPE to be used.  If we were somewhere that had a lower threat matrix, i.e. late 90's/early 00's Bosnia, then it'd make sense to stow it. 

This discussion is starting to get silly.  First when have we ever had the ability to control when the enemy will hit us?  But that being said, we certainly know when it is more and less likely which allows us to take calculated risks - it's why we have defile drills, VPCs, different march formations based on the type of ground etc.  Oh and surprise, but there are already different dress states in Afghanistan that may or may not vary based on threat, location etc.  I would go into that further but OPSEC says we should not.  If I may be so bold as to speak for OldSolduer, all he is saying is that the enemy is not the only threat and the likelihood of enemy action needs to be weighed against environmental threats and I for one agree whole heartedly - that is why commanders get paid the big bucks.  But the silly part of this discussion is that the decision to assume risk or not can only be made with a full understanding of all the variables, such as enemy tactics and capabilities, friendly force activity and task, environmental conditions, health/condition of our troops, terrain, availability and quality of intelligence, enemy etc., etc. none of which we have so who is to say what the right COA is?  Then again if we always shut down debate because we don't have all the facts this would be a fairly quiet site. 

 

[Matt_Fisher]

And I'm saying that if we adapt our TTPs to see if we can use appropriate PPE based on the threat environment, the likelihood of sustaining more casualties will be decreased, rather than saying "Hey, the toboggan weighs 250 lbs, there's no way my boys are going to wear body armour and the like..."   

If we're conducting a footborne patrol in the arctic as a 'show the flag' type sovereignty mission, in a time of no declared hostilities, then to me, it'd make no sense to burden the troops with body armour, helmets, etc.

Now, conversely, if we say had to deploy to North Korea, where it does get bitterly cold in the winter, and are fighting in a high intensity conflict, we'd want to know how to use our PPE along with our cold weather kit.

I'm just saying that because it's uncomfortable and there is a risk of environmentally related injuries doesn't mean we shouldn't experiment and practice in peacetime.  Sweat saves blood, but brains save sweat and blood, and sometimes sweat and blood build brains.

 

[Greymatters]

I'm just saying that because it's uncomfortable and there is a risk of environmentally related injuries doesn't mean we shouldn't experiment and practice in peacetime.  Sweat saves blood, but brains save sweat and blood, and sometimes sweat and blood build brains. 

There's nothing wrong with 'experimenting', but commanders who do so should at least inform their troops that they are the guinea pigs and include them in the evaluation and assessment process.  Ive seen a few of these personal 'whims' given pass marks not because an idea was good, but because nobody got injured or complained very loud during the process.  Neither of these factors prove that an idea will work well in battle against a real enemy. 

For example, if you wanted to prove to me that body armour was a good idea for winter ops, I would say to you that I dont care how much armour you are wearing, one mortar/arty round, air strike, or speeding tank is going to take out a section that cant move very fast because they are weighed down too heavy with armour, or pulling a tobaggon overloaded with the weight of tac vests. 

Bearing that in mind, Infidel-6 has spoken of our troops operating in -40C overseas.  This is a valid point, but my question is, was it the same thing?  Were our troops humping a full ruck and full weapon load in winter gear, and hauling a tobaggon behind them, on an operation while wearing full PPE? 

If yes, did they succesfully accomplish their task/mission?  If yes, did the body armour prove itself in preventing injuries?

If still yes, then we've got proof the idea works well and you've made a believer out of me, and laid a convincing argument for anyone else who is uncertain about the idea...

 

[adam561]

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.

 

[RHFC_piper]

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.

If there's no other argument for the old webbing; at least it was modular

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Yeah but fell apart all the time cause of those plastic clips.

Guntape and zap straps held mine together.

 

[RHFC_piper]

heh... yeah..  I remember having to rip mine apart to turn it in for a TV...  wow, did that ever suck.

But, it was modular, and did accommodate the needs of the mission and individual... with enough gun tape and zap straps.



Jeez... just thinking back to wearing that crap... having the plastic nubs on the mag pouches break and they slide around the belt all over the place during a section attack... or having to go back and pick up pouches after an attack. 
But, at least it had a spot for your KFS..  ;D

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Try doing a mine field breach.

 

[Lerch]

With a KFS?!

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Sure why not  ;D