- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I thought the name was officially changed to "Fool The Soldier". ;D
Tac Vest does not make the grade.
- Thread starter Britney Spears
- Start date
I thought the name was officially changed to "Fool The Soldier". ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Thanks for all the chuckles ... (i.e. re: kit list for tac vest ...)
One of the buckles tore off while I was getting out of a two-door (German) version of the Mercedes Wolf - seems the old-fashioned problem of "catching on stuff" still exists ... at least for me.
I liked having the bayonet in front, and put a rank epaulette over it (which also served to cover up the scabbard)- a better fit, too, as compared to having the epaulette flopping around on the strap up by the shoulder (... where it seemed to be an after-thought ...)
As for socks ... sheeyah, right ... I carried ammo in every nook and cranny, plus a few "power bars", first aid essentials, and civvie pattern mine tape (took up less space than CF mine tape). Soft stuff like gloves went into the trouser cargo pockets (since it banged and bounced slightly less painfully than hard stuff ...). Pocket knives in my pockets, on my belt, and on my tac vest (so I could always find one in any situation).
Kit list for tac vest ... that's a good one ... hohoho ...
One of the buckles tore off while I was getting out of a two-door (German) version of the Mercedes Wolf - seems the old-fashioned problem of "catching on stuff" still exists ... at least for me.
I liked having the bayonet in front, and put a rank epaulette over it (which also served to cover up the scabbard)- a better fit, too, as compared to having the epaulette flopping around on the strap up by the shoulder (... where it seemed to be an after-thought ...)
As for socks ... sheeyah, right ... I carried ammo in every nook and cranny, plus a few "power bars", first aid essentials, and civvie pattern mine tape (took up less space than CF mine tape). Soft stuff like gloves went into the trouser cargo pockets (since it banged and bounced slightly less painfully than hard stuff ...). Pocket knives in my pockets, on my belt, and on my tac vest (so I could always find one in any situation).
Kit list for tac vest ... that's a good one ... hohoho ...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
bossi said:
You want to talk to the RSM then? ;D I can't even seem to convince a Sgt....
Although on a positive note, I have recently seen one of the Sgt's modifying his TV with bungee cords, so assuming he doesn't get shit on, a lot of this foolishness should dissipate within a few months.
As for the rank, I seem to be the only one in the regiment who's hit on the idea of wearing it over the scabbard. I have a pretty good reason for it though, I have the TV adjusted so it rides high up on the chest, which means the rank won't fit on the shoulder strap. There's no way in hell I'm going to change the way I wear my vest just so I can have my rank in the same place as everyone else, no matter who tells me to do it.
48Highlander said:
I have that problem too...I just followed what my Sgt. did and tucked the rank in itself so that only the actual rank (chevron in my case) is showing. Now it'll fit in what lil space I have left in the shoulder strap. It just looks like a very short slip-on.
Our unit's been experiencing some real hassle trying to get our tacvest. I beleive an OCdtfrom the Hast&PER mentioned earlier that his unit was the only one in 33bde not to have it- beg pardon sir, but you aren't the only one in those shoes. The PWOR was supposed to get them ages ago, but apparently we didn't get any in the 'large' size. Our RQMS has thus decided to hold off issue until we get the large size in- even though we don't have anyone in the unit who couldn't fit in a medium! To add insult to injury, a few people HAVE been issued TVs either because they went to the Bde MilSkills competition, or were one of the people who received avest as a 'reward' for performing well on a weekend FTX. Sorry, but I think that's just ridiculous- but what do I know? I'm just a private.
Strikes me that a simple, and even bureaucratically justifiable fix to at least one TV problem would be to simply expand the four mag pouches so that each can hold two mags instead of one. That gives you 8 + 1 in rifle. very little more mag stuffing needed, in comparison.
Tell me, is there any way to wear a TV and an 82 belt at the same time, mybe with the belt zap strapped or tied to the bottom of the TV? That would make it child's play to jury-rig a buttpack to it, but because the buttpack rides low, you could probably wer both it AND the day pack/nuke bag at the same time, giving you more 'stuff' capacity.
It's a sad state the the tail is wagging the dog in terms off soldiers' kit. Why not simply go with a commercial off-the-shelf acquisitions program for a high capacity MOLLE system? If they can spend millions on COTS trucks from Chey, surely they could afford somthing similar for the legs who have to carry their stuff...
Strikes me that a simple, and even bureaucratically justifiable fix to at least one TV problem would be to simply expand the four mag pouches so that each can hold two mags instead of one. That gives you 8 + 1 in rifle. very little more mag stuffing needed, in comparison.
Tell me, is there any way to wear a TV and an 82 belt at the same time, mybe with the belt zap strapped or tied to the bottom of the TV? That would make it child's play to jury-rig a buttpack to it, but because the buttpack rides low, you could probably wer both it AND the day pack/nuke bag at the same time, giving you more 'stuff' capacity.
It's a sad state the the tail is wagging the dog in terms off soldiers' kit. Why not simply go with a commercial off-the-shelf acquisitions program for a high capacity MOLLE system? If they can spend millions on COTS trucks from Chey, surely they could afford somthing similar for the legs who have to carry their stuff...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I stand corrected, then. The issue of the TV has been a pretty screwy issue, but I can't condone withholding kit from troops when its already been shipped because of sizing issues. If they only have mediums, then troops who fit a medium should be issued theirs, period.
In the Hast&PER - in my garrison at least - we didn't have enough to go around at first, so priority went to troops who were at SG04, then at a recently held exercise, then the remainder to those troops participating in an exercise that was coming up at that time. In the end, more were shipped to us quickly and now all members save our BMQ candidates have then, AFAIK.
I would hypothesize that when the TV concept was dreamed up, it probably was state of the art, but the kind of truly flexible adaptable MOLLE type systems readily available on the market now render it outdated, before it's even been fully issued.
In the Hast&PER - in my garrison at least - we didn't have enough to go around at first, so priority went to troops who were at SG04, then at a recently held exercise, then the remainder to those troops participating in an exercise that was coming up at that time. In the end, more were shipped to us quickly and now all members save our BMQ candidates have then, AFAIK.
I would hypothesize that when the TV concept was dreamed up, it probably was state of the art, but the kind of truly flexible adaptable MOLLE type systems readily available on the market now render it outdated, before it's even been fully issued.
Brihard said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
While we're hypothesizing, why is the TV modeled so closely on the old LBV? i.e. 4 single mag pouches, bayonet verticaly in the front, etc. I don't see how either of these features are particularly good, certainly no other army uses such a setup.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Because, as already stated, the Tactical Vest is a development of the Load Bearing Vest, which was first fielded in like, 1993? 1994? Which, I think predates molle. Am I the only one that thinks it is funny that it takes more than 10 years to buy a vest?
[irony]Dude! So your bayonet is right there! Like when you need to whip it out in a hurry! Like your manning a VCP and all of a sudden there is a requirement to rapidly fix bayonets and begin bayoneting something. I think it is part of our doctrine to be able to fix bayonets at a moment's notice even if it means it is positioned in exactly the least convenient position for everything else you need to do. I think it is DLR/ NDHQ doctrine at least.[/irony]
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Large size?, I'll trade my Large TV for a Medium. Then a again, at least i have one. My ASU (at this time) does not have any to exchange.
The 4 MAG issue on the TV has been discussed many many times. I increasingly hear how much more MAG capacity Combat arms need (I'm not disagreeing or arguing with this fact). The LBV was "dreamed up" or "created" at a time of peacekeeping needs. Had OP APOLLO occurred in 1993-1994 "ish" when the LBV came out, today we might have been looking at a different TV that we have now as they would have had "combat tested" the vest. The TV (as most of you know) was "influenced" by the LBV and did not go through the "combat testing" that OP APOLLO put on the vests.
The TV (in my opinion) based on what people have discussed and experienced is not suited for Combats arms who need more MAG capacity. I'm not combat arms and I'm not in any way saying I'm an expert in combat arms area as to the MAG load out as to their needs. Again this is what has been discussed in many thread and forums.
However In my current experience with the TV, it suits most Combat Support and Combat Service support trades as we do not need as much "immediate" (up front access) MAG Capacity (My opinion of course, some will ddisagree.)
Hopefully some "fix" will come out to rectify this problem whether it is a Mod to the current TV or another rig/vest with a higher MAG capacity. (Yes I know what you are thinking, it costs money, but hey we can dream right? )
Finally, as some are wondering where their TV's are, take comfort that you don't live in BC as we will probably will be the last to see them.
Just a few thoughts
The 4 MAG issue on the TV has been discussed many many times. I increasingly hear how much more MAG capacity Combat arms need (I'm not disagreeing or arguing with this fact). The LBV was "dreamed up" or "created" at a time of peacekeeping needs. Had OP APOLLO occurred in 1993-1994 "ish" when the LBV came out, today we might have been looking at a different TV that we have now as they would have had "combat tested" the vest. The TV (as most of you know) was "influenced" by the LBV and did not go through the "combat testing" that OP APOLLO put on the vests.
The TV (in my opinion) based on what people have discussed and experienced is not suited for Combats arms who need more MAG capacity. I'm not combat arms and I'm not in any way saying I'm an expert in combat arms area as to the MAG load out as to their needs. Again this is what has been discussed in many thread and forums.
However In my current experience with the TV, it suits most Combat Support and Combat Service support trades as we do not need as much "immediate" (up front access) MAG Capacity (My opinion of course, some will ddisagree.)
Hopefully some "fix" will come out to rectify this problem whether it is a Mod to the current TV or another rig/vest with a higher MAG capacity. (Yes I know what you are thinking, it costs money, but hey we can dream right? )
Finally, as some are wondering where their TV's are, take comfort that you don't live in BC as we will probably will be the last to see them.
Just a few thoughts
MJP
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,844
- Points
- 1,260
Yes I would agree with you if conflicts today were anything like wars previously fought( WW1, WW2, Korea). but the trend towards asymmetric battlefield like Like Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam shows that CSS types need more ammo, and training than they currently recieve. We have already shown in this thread that the Tac Vest blows hard for the combat arms soldier. CSS guys have chimed in and said that it is perfect for their world. That they can drive a truck or fix a truck/radio/weapon with their TAC Vest and they can fit everything they need into it. That's fine and like you said it's their opinion, but when the $hit hits the fan wouldn't you rather have more ammo than less? I know I would.....if only I could fit it all in my vest. ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Actual (more or less, maybe a little paraphrasing) conversation between American Colonel and Canadian soldier during the early days of the TV:
Troop: "Morning sir, (salutes)."
Colonel: "Morn...hey, nice bayonet!"
Troop: "Indeed, sir."
Colonel: (turns to his Capt.) "hey, check it out, his bayonet is, like, right THERE!"
Colonel: "...but, why?"
Capt: "Well, certainly, he LOOKS really agressive, wiith the bayonet and all..."
Troop: "Look sir, I just work here, OK?"
Colonel: " Oh, right, well, off you go then."
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
MJP-Point taken. Yes I would like to have more ammo, i just didn't want a combat arms type to say "hey we need more ammo then you, why are you complaining".
I guess the bottom line (as mentioned before) is the cdn military is stuck on the 4 MAGS that WW1 and WW2 mentality as to how soldiers fight. It is doctrine that has not been updated! Perhaps someday.
:warstory:
I guess the bottom line (as mentioned before) is the cdn military is stuck on the 4 MAGS that WW1 and WW2 mentality as to how soldiers fight. It is doctrine that has not been updated! Perhaps someday.
:warstory:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
MPShield,
If soldiers in the field force wait for doctrine to lead the way, they will always be fighting a minimum of 3 to 5 years behind current operational experience. The ongoing training modernization effort at the Combat Training Centre is a perfect case in point of our senior leadership finally coming to grips with this conundrum. There is a firm commitment at the highest levels of the Army to change our training content NOW, in order to better reflect the contemporary operating environment. The prevailing attitude is that "doctrine will eventually catch up".
In the meantime, we are currently re-writing theory training packages and field exercises to incorporate the current "3 block war/asymmetric threat/insurgent enemy" into our formal training courses along with the more conventional threat (albeit reduced to non-near-peer). The goal is to have all applicable CTC course content revised in time for the spring training surge. The CLS, Comd LFDTS (responsible for both Directorate of Army Doctrine and Directorate of Army Training), Comd CTC, field force commanders and soldiers at all ranks realize that we need to capitolize ASAP on the lessons that have been learned during recent Canadian operations as well as those which are being learned every day by our allies. The training modernization effort is in full-swing, and many changes are afoot based on recent (but field-proven) "Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures".
Don't confuse TTPs with doctrine. Tactics, Techniques and Procedures are the practical "how to" skills and drills that we apply to operations from the individual level right up to (and in some cases beyond) battlegroup. TTPs govern everything from individual fieldcraft techniques, to the conduct of specific operations other than war, to the execution of conventional combined-arms team attacks. TTPs tend to apply at the Battlegroup level and below. They continually evolve based on "lessons learned" and "best practices".
Doctrine on the other hand, is the "over-arcing" theoretical guidance which governs how we as an Army operate and (if need be) fight. Doctrine tends to be more "general" in nature, and speaks to the broader "principles and fundamentals" applicable to specific types of operations. Doctrinal development is a more deliberate process than that of TTPs. The latter change all of the time as new "best practices" are learned during operations and disseminated during training. Doctrine need not necessarily change just because a new "Tactic", "Technique" or "Procedure" has been developed for a particular battle-task.
The most urgent need right now is for the Army's training institutions to better reflect the contemporary operating environment in our formal training courses (particularly leadership courses). This need is not confined to the requirement to introduce new or revised TTPs for the conduct of specific operations, although that is part of the overall modernization effort. It also involves injecting realistic training scenarios into our training courses which better reflect the unique challenges of current and anticipated operations (eg. the asymmetric threat, a mix of conventional and insurgent enemy forces, full-spectrum operations, application of ROE, multi-agency cooperation, media-omnipresence, etc). This sort of "quantum" training modernization is not a simple undertaking, and will therefore take some time. There will be constant "tweaking" to find the right balance and to incorporate new "lessons learned". Gone are the days of "static" course Training Plans (and associated content) based on unchanging TTPs for conventional operations in the "Cold War" context.
Regardless of the challenges, we have to tackle the training modernization process ASAP if we are to remain operationally relevant as an Army. The Commander of the Army has clearly said that training will not wait for Doctrine. The latter will simply have to catch up where doctrinal amendment is required.
This is probably "high level" stuff for the topic at hand, but you need to understand that the "new attitude" applies across the board. If 5 mags are insufficient as a basic rifleman's load, then it is incumbent upon leadership at all levels to change it. If the Tac Vest is inadequate because the procurement system lagged behind a paradigm shift in the types of operations that we now conduct, then it is the responsibility of all ranks to voice their concerns in the form of UCRs staffed through the chain of command to get it changed. If two C6's are required per rifle platoon for dismounted operations, then take two and indent for more through the supply system. It is not rocket science, and change can be effected quite rapidly on actual operations through the submission of UORs. 3 PPCLI Battlegroup had not problem obtaining 10 mags per rifleman and 2 C-6s per platoon prior to Op APOLLO. You just need to use the tools within the system (eg. UCRs and UORs) to effect the necessary change. And if the system doesn't respond in a sufficiently timely manner, then you improvise, adapt and overcome by modifying what you have or replacing it with something better that you can procure elsewhere. Likewise if you know of a better way to perform a particular battle task. Discuss it with your chain of command and convince them to try it out. No leader worth his/her rank is adverse to a "better idea" when they hear one....assuming that it can be implemented under the circumstances.
Some food for thought. Those who know me know very well that I am not a "yes man". I am all too aware that the mechanisms for positive change are often frustratingly slow. However, the ongoing training modernization effort clearly demonstrates that we now have senior leaders who are willing to "break the mold" in order to get on with necessary improvements. Direct your energies towards making a positive change WRT inadequate kit by sumbitting properly staffed UCRs and (if applicable) UORs. Griping about the situation with a bunch of like-minded malcontents (such as myself) on an internet discussion board isn't likely to achieve the change that you desire.
If soldiers in the field force wait for doctrine to lead the way, they will always be fighting a minimum of 3 to 5 years behind current operational experience. The ongoing training modernization effort at the Combat Training Centre is a perfect case in point of our senior leadership finally coming to grips with this conundrum. There is a firm commitment at the highest levels of the Army to change our training content NOW, in order to better reflect the contemporary operating environment. The prevailing attitude is that "doctrine will eventually catch up".
In the meantime, we are currently re-writing theory training packages and field exercises to incorporate the current "3 block war/asymmetric threat/insurgent enemy" into our formal training courses along with the more conventional threat (albeit reduced to non-near-peer). The goal is to have all applicable CTC course content revised in time for the spring training surge. The CLS, Comd LFDTS (responsible for both Directorate of Army Doctrine and Directorate of Army Training), Comd CTC, field force commanders and soldiers at all ranks realize that we need to capitolize ASAP on the lessons that have been learned during recent Canadian operations as well as those which are being learned every day by our allies. The training modernization effort is in full-swing, and many changes are afoot based on recent (but field-proven) "Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures".
Don't confuse TTPs with doctrine. Tactics, Techniques and Procedures are the practical "how to" skills and drills that we apply to operations from the individual level right up to (and in some cases beyond) battlegroup. TTPs govern everything from individual fieldcraft techniques, to the conduct of specific operations other than war, to the execution of conventional combined-arms team attacks. TTPs tend to apply at the Battlegroup level and below. They continually evolve based on "lessons learned" and "best practices".
Doctrine on the other hand, is the "over-arcing" theoretical guidance which governs how we as an Army operate and (if need be) fight. Doctrine tends to be more "general" in nature, and speaks to the broader "principles and fundamentals" applicable to specific types of operations. Doctrinal development is a more deliberate process than that of TTPs. The latter change all of the time as new "best practices" are learned during operations and disseminated during training. Doctrine need not necessarily change just because a new "Tactic", "Technique" or "Procedure" has been developed for a particular battle-task.
The most urgent need right now is for the Army's training institutions to better reflect the contemporary operating environment in our formal training courses (particularly leadership courses). This need is not confined to the requirement to introduce new or revised TTPs for the conduct of specific operations, although that is part of the overall modernization effort. It also involves injecting realistic training scenarios into our training courses which better reflect the unique challenges of current and anticipated operations (eg. the asymmetric threat, a mix of conventional and insurgent enemy forces, full-spectrum operations, application of ROE, multi-agency cooperation, media-omnipresence, etc). This sort of "quantum" training modernization is not a simple undertaking, and will therefore take some time. There will be constant "tweaking" to find the right balance and to incorporate new "lessons learned". Gone are the days of "static" course Training Plans (and associated content) based on unchanging TTPs for conventional operations in the "Cold War" context.
Regardless of the challenges, we have to tackle the training modernization process ASAP if we are to remain operationally relevant as an Army. The Commander of the Army has clearly said that training will not wait for Doctrine. The latter will simply have to catch up where doctrinal amendment is required.
This is probably "high level" stuff for the topic at hand, but you need to understand that the "new attitude" applies across the board. If 5 mags are insufficient as a basic rifleman's load, then it is incumbent upon leadership at all levels to change it. If the Tac Vest is inadequate because the procurement system lagged behind a paradigm shift in the types of operations that we now conduct, then it is the responsibility of all ranks to voice their concerns in the form of UCRs staffed through the chain of command to get it changed. If two C6's are required per rifle platoon for dismounted operations, then take two and indent for more through the supply system. It is not rocket science, and change can be effected quite rapidly on actual operations through the submission of UORs. 3 PPCLI Battlegroup had not problem obtaining 10 mags per rifleman and 2 C-6s per platoon prior to Op APOLLO. You just need to use the tools within the system (eg. UCRs and UORs) to effect the necessary change. And if the system doesn't respond in a sufficiently timely manner, then you improvise, adapt and overcome by modifying what you have or replacing it with something better that you can procure elsewhere. Likewise if you know of a better way to perform a particular battle task. Discuss it with your chain of command and convince them to try it out. No leader worth his/her rank is adverse to a "better idea" when they hear one....assuming that it can be implemented under the circumstances.
Some food for thought. Those who know me know very well that I am not a "yes man". I am all too aware that the mechanisms for positive change are often frustratingly slow. However, the ongoing training modernization effort clearly demonstrates that we now have senior leaders who are willing to "break the mold" in order to get on with necessary improvements. Direct your energies towards making a positive change WRT inadequate kit by sumbitting properly staffed UCRs and (if applicable) UORs. Griping about the situation with a bunch of like-minded malcontents (such as myself) on an internet discussion board isn't likely to achieve the change that you desire.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Marc C, very well put. I agree completely. I have read alot of your post before and you always have a good clear way of making a point.
I was not in any way saying we should wait for doctrine. However it is usually doctrine that influences what type and how we use equipment. Sometime we have no choice. I do know what happens in reality and we in the CF have to change things to work in "real life". I had this discussion with my PL WO and we aggreed that in the most part doctrine is used as a "guideline" more or less as times change and situations differ. A book cannot tell you every situation that you encounter therefore as you said, you don't wait for them to write it or rewrite the doctrine.
QUOTE "I guess the bottom line (as mentioned before) is the cdn military is stuck on the 4 MAGS that WW1 and WW2 mentality as to how soldiers fight. It is doctrine that has not been updated! Perhaps someday."
What i meant by that comment, (my mistake for not clarifying) was that the LBV and TV were base on old doctrine. If the doctrine was updated, then those who created the TV may have realized they need more MAG capacity when they were making the thing.
Just my 2 cents.
I was not in any way saying we should wait for doctrine. However it is usually doctrine that influences what type and how we use equipment. Sometime we have no choice. I do know what happens in reality and we in the CF have to change things to work in "real life". I had this discussion with my PL WO and we aggreed that in the most part doctrine is used as a "guideline" more or less as times change and situations differ. A book cannot tell you every situation that you encounter therefore as you said, you don't wait for them to write it or rewrite the doctrine.
QUOTE "I guess the bottom line (as mentioned before) is the cdn military is stuck on the 4 MAGS that WW1 and WW2 mentality as to how soldiers fight. It is doctrine that has not been updated! Perhaps someday."
What i meant by that comment, (my mistake for not clarifying) was that the LBV and TV were base on old doctrine. If the doctrine was updated, then those who created the TV may have realized they need more MAG capacity when they were making the thing.
Just my 2 cents.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The two upper breast pockets on our combat shirts where originally made to hold FNC1 mags. They came quite handy but you had to be careful when running or you could get a mag in the jaw. Also the cargo pouches on you combat shirt was designed to hold 4 (2 in each) mags. Again at the time they could be a pain when running.
I think they should design our new CADPAD shirt to hold two or four mags in the breast pockets and maybe hold one or two mags in a slit of the shirt cargo pocket. I do not think it is the greatest solution but one that can be easily done. On a other note, I really miss the rear bag from the 82 pattern webbing but find the Tac Vest a nice peace of kit. Where is everyone carrying there KFS?
I think they should design our new CADPAD shirt to hold two or four mags in the breast pockets and maybe hold one or two mags in a slit of the shirt cargo pocket. I do not think it is the greatest solution but one that can be easily done. On a other note, I really miss the rear bag from the 82 pattern webbing but find the Tac Vest a nice peace of kit. Where is everyone carrying there KFS?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
i never even thought about that one....umm good question is there a spot? now your going to make me look at it 
Similar threads
