"The stuff the army issues is useless" and "no non-issue kit over seas!"

[COBRA-6]

The only person who is out for LCF is the guy who wants his entire unit kitted out like the clone army so they "look cool" on the parade square. 

Yes! 100% true....

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes! 100% true....

I thought uniformity was about being able to make sure you had batteries for your flashlights and radios, rounds and spare furniture for your rifles and clean pants when yours got dirty.  I also thought that it eased training so that your government supplied buddy was as well trained and capable as you with your natural talents.  I was also under the impression that uniformity reduced the difficulty of inspecting kit thereby reducing inspection times and prep times for missions and allowing more time for you to engage in ...... whatever you engage in when you are not training or engaging the enemy.

That was certainly the intent of those that introduced the Regimental system as a counter to all the PSC/Ds (Contractors or Deliverers? - Hard to keep up with the buzz) that used to dominate the battlefields.

Logistics trumps everything.  It delivers the rifle in your hands, the eleventh magazine when your tenth is empty (or your 99th if its your 98th), the section that ensures you are not alone in an alley, the LAV IIIs of the Quick Reaction Force that can extract you.

Can I ask this?  Can all infanteers in a Platoon agree on what a well designed TV should look like and what their ideal loadout would be?  How about by Coy/Bn/Rgt or Corps?  Lt/Mech? Inf/Armd/Arty/SOFs?  Or is the requirement to supply each individual with a budget to buy what they like in CadPat?  When it breaks who is to supply the replacement?  How soon do you need it? In the absence of your first choice could you suggest an acceptable alternate supplier that the QM can call?

 

[DG-41]

I'd be lying if I told you that those specific examples don't give me heartache. To that, I'll add the unease I have over the idea that soldiers with access to money might have better kit than soldiers who are forced by personal poverty to rely on issue kit.

But it also seems silly to force soldiers to use substandard kit when better alternatives are so readily available.

The best solution is to ensure that the issue kit is of sufficient quality that there is no need to go to the aftermarket.

And if there is no single configuration that is a best fit for everybody, then a modular solution is required.

And if you'll excuse me, I left the Obviousmobile double-parked out front, and I have to move it....

DG

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

1. "Can all infanteers in a Platoon agree on what a well designed TV should look like and what their ideal loadout would be?"
-No they can't.  So you make a modular system that will provide a better choice for the individual.
2. "Or is the requirement to supply each individual with a budget to buy what they like in CadPat?" 
-Seems to work for the Americans and Brits who have seen a lot more combat then we have.
3.  "When it breaks who is to supply the replacement?" 
-You would either use your army issued vest or sign for another one from QM (like you would when your original broke).  Then you have another one sent out if you wanted to or buy one off the vendors in the region.  QM will unlikely have aftermarket boots for those that have chits for them.  The troops will simply have to use what that have until an adequate replacement can be sent.
4.  "How soon do you need it?"
-Well if your on a mountain I suppose you'll just have to make do.  Otherwise you would get a replacement as soon as you got back.
5.  "In the absence of your first choice could you suggest an acceptable alternate supplier that the QM can call?"
-Its not QM's responsibility to find a dealer of aftermarket kit.  Its up to the soldier who choose that road.

 

[vonGarvin]

But that being said, if I was going to send you back in time to fight in WW2, would you want a Sherman or a Panther?
I know I'd want a Leopard....

You've made my point: exactly.  I'd take the Sherman over your Panther  and ESPECIALLY over your leopard.
First of all, the Panther, though good, didn't win the war.  The Sherman did.  (I'll come back to this)
You've sent me back: where will you get the 105mm rounds for the Leopard?  Or the 120mm rounds for the Leo 2 (I assume A6).  Spare Parts? 
LOGISTICS IS KEY.  The Shermans won the WAR (certainly not every battle, but you've sent me to war, a long, protracted thing that isn't won or lost because of a piece of kit).
If you were to send me back in time with a logistical and production tail able to sustain a single regiment's worth of Leo 2 A6s, and tell me to fight a BATTLE (not the whole war, but one battle, say Kursk), then away I go.  I'm pretty sure the lads, if properly trained (can I bring crewmen back in time with me?), we'll kick ass.
Kit is nothing without knowledge.  Some have reverted to hyperbole and said "the blood of the dying" and how they would not be able to drag their wounded buddy out of the line of fire with the TV.  Well, "duh", of course not!  In fact, you shouldn't be doing that (unless you are a medic or other non-combatant).  If you are a combatant (infantry, RMS clerk, whatever), the best thing to do for your buddy lying in the line of fire is to remove him from the line of fire by killing those shooting at him.  THEN do buddy aid/first aid/whatever aid.


Man, this ain't no movie, this ain't Iraq, we are not JTF2, and if you cannot wear what you are told to wear, what will you say when they send you out to possibly die?

The TV ain't the ross rifle.  The Candian Corps didn't win Vimy because of it or in spite of it (or any other weapon for that matter).  The Germans had cool tanks, but they were logistical nightmares (re: Panther).  Logistical nightmare: check out the Panther D (?) at Kursk: failing transmissions, lack of MG power, etc.  Not till about 1944 were they good enough.  By then it was about 18 months too late.  But, oh, their kit was better!  Big friggin' deal: we won, not because of or in spite of any piece of kit.  Kit is a tool.  If it's broken, fix it.  If it could be better, improve it.  Otherwise, shut up and watch your arcs

 

[rifleman]

How about go one step further and just give every soldier a cap badge and some money. They can buy what ever they feel they may need when launched into battle. That way time can be spent wondering if everyone bought kit that will work, whether they bought enough of it. Heck, we can just get more trucks and personnel to keep track of the buckles, and caliber of ammo that each individual section decided to use.

I guess I'm a little old school too.

 

[Kirkhill]

-No they can't.  So you make a modular system that will provide a better choice for the individual.

CFL I am not in your shoes and a long time ago, back in the age of the dinosaurs, I wasn't faced by being in your shoes so I don't want to get into a slanging match with someone I respect but....

While I understand the value of a modular system I don't entirely understand how much of the kit you carry is your personal decision when it comes to the needs of the mission.  If you are the only cargo carrying capability available to your commander doesn't he or she decide on whether you are going to carry a spare Jerry of water for the section, or an extra box of 7.62 link, or a couple of 60mm HE, or spare batteries for the radio?  Back in the days of tyrannosaurus rex that was certainly true.  As a platoon commander I was informed by the OC whether my weapons det was carrying the 60mm or the CG or the Browning GPMG.  Ammunition, water, batteries etc were to be dispersed around the platoon.  

Perhaps things have changed that much that the OC doesn't need your back to carry cargo and you are at liberty to decide for yourself how much load you can carry,  what you can carry and how far you can march carrying it.  If that is the current situation it must make for some interesting planning sessions and O Groups.

Cheers.

 

[rifleman]

How about go one step further and just give every soldier a cap badge and some money. They can buy what ever they feel they may need when launched into battle. That way time can be spent wondering if everyone bought kit that will work, whether they bought enough of it. Heck, we can just get more trucks and personnel to keep track of the buckles, and caliber of ammo that each individual section decided to use.

I guess I'm a little old school too.

Wait showing up with whatever you want.........that's old school

 

[combat_medic]

A modular system wouldn't be as logistically cumbersone as people here seem to be making it out to be. Each soldier would get issued a vest, and the pouches that go with it (standard set to start off with... just like the old webbing). The soldier would configure it to comply with their own comfort, left or right-handedness, and other preferences. If someone gets tasked as, say, a C9 gunner, they would hand in their mag pouches, and get issued extra C9 pouches, or 203 pouches, or whatever it is you need to do your job. If a pouch breaks (which, in my experience it's more likely for a single pouch to break or tear than the entire vest), it's a relatively simple matter of exchanging a single pouch, rather than the entire vest. There's only a half dozen or so pouches that would need to be created, the only real changes would be the quantity of each that are issued.

Also, if someone wants something more gucci, they can invest in a couple specialty pouches, rather than having to buy an entire vest themselves.

It's pretty simple, and god knows there are other (clearer thinking) militaries who have done exactly this. Everyone would still be wearing the same thing, but they could wear it the way they want it. It will work for people who are left and right handed, for all different jobs, and, in the long run, would probably SAVE money on replacement pouches.

However, it would require some intelligent and forward thinking... of which we seem to have a lack.

 

[vonGarvin]

A modular system wouldn't be as logistically cumbersone as people here seem to be making it out to be. Each soldier would get issued a vest, and the pouches that go with it (standard set to start off with... just like the old webbing). The soldier would configure it to comply with their own comfort, left or right-handedness, and other preferences. If someone gets tasked as, say, a C9 gunner, they would hand in their mag pouches, and get issued extra C9 pouches, or 203 pouches, or whatever it is you need to do your job. If a pouch breaks (which, in my experience it's more likely for a single pouch to break or tear than the entire vest), it's a relatively simple matter of exchanging a single pouch, rather than the entire vest. There's only a half dozen or so pouches that would need to be created, the only real changes would be the quantity of each that are issued.

Also, if someone wants something more gucci, they can invest in a couple specialty pouches, rather than having to buy an entire vest themselves.

It's pretty simple, and god knows there are other (clearer thinking) militaries who have done exactly this. Everyone would still be wearing the same thing, but they could wear it the way they want it. It will work for people who are left and right handed, for all different jobs, and, in the long run, would probably SAVE money on replacement pouches.

However, it would require some intelligent and forward thinking... of which we seem to have a lack.

Pretty reasonable argument.  As I said, the TV certainly isn't the "be all, end all" to combat load bearing equipment.  NOTHING is.  Heck, in ten, twenty or thirty years they will be arguing over what kind of hovertank is the best, I suppose.  It's all an evolution.

 

[DG-41]

LOGISTICS IS KEY.

Logistics of CONSUMABLES is key.

Fuel, ammunition, food, water - and yes, to a certain extent, tanks.

The Shermans won the WAR (certainly not every battle, but you've sent me to war, a long, protracted thing that isn't won or lost because of a piece of kit).

But they did it because of superior logistics, right? The issue here is that while the Panther was the superior tank in every possible QUALITATIVE way, (once the early-run transmission problems had been fixed) there was a lack of production QUANTITY.

Here's the important part - had the Panther been available in similar numbers as the Sherman, thus taking the logistics aspect out of the equation, we might very well have seen a different result.

And the other aspect to this is that there is NO logistics part of this argument. NONE. There is no production penalty associated with switching the current TV to a (say) MOLLE-based modular one. I'm sure we could draw up a Request for Tender for the (say) DropZone vest design and a selection of pouches, send it out for bid, and have enough to equip everybody currently on tour or slated for the next roto in VERY short order - if there was the money and will to do so.

This isn't a question of superior quality vs superior numbers. We can have both.

(Never mind the fact that the whole defence-of-Germany thing in the Cold War was a quality-vs-numbers contest, with NATO holding the "quality" position and the Soviets holding the "numbers" position. Good thing that never made it to a shooting war, huh?)

Man, this ain't no movie, this ain't Iraq, we are not JTF2, and if you cannot wear what you are told to wear, what will you say when they send you out to possibly die?

Who is indulging in hyperbole now?

By that argument, Arther Currie should have taken Vimy with the Ross and the original issue "paper" boots and all the other deficient kit the Canadian Army started out with, instead of scrounging Lee-Enfields and local purchasing boots.

Kit is a tool.  If it's broken, fix it.  If it could be better, improve it.  Otherwise, shut up and watch your arcs

Would you like to borrow the Obviousmobile for a while?

Isn't this what we have been saying all along?

1) The guys on the ground have been finding certain items of issue kit are suboptimal for the current mission.

2) They have been addressing this situation by purchasing replacement kit

3) This, in turn, is a suboptimal solution.

4) The answer is to fix the issue kit so that it meets current requirements.

5) And the real problem appears to be with Step 4 - either there is no commitment to do this, or no money, or some other problem, and the Minister (one hopes) will be unsticking this process after his investigation.

DG

 

[Michael Dorosh]

A modular system wouldn't be as logistically cumbersone as people here seem to be making it out to be. Each soldier would get issued a vest, and the pouches that go with it (standard set to start off with... just like the old webbing). The soldier would configure it to comply with their own comfort, left or right-handedness, and other preferences. If someone gets tasked as, say, a C9 gunner, they would hand in their mag pouches, and get issued extra C9 pouches, or 203 pouches, or whatever it is you need to do your job. If a pouch breaks (which, in my experience it's more likely for a single pouch to break or tear than the entire vest), it's a relatively simple matter of exchanging a single pouch, rather than the entire vest. There's only a half dozen or so pouches that would need to be created, the only real changes would be the quantity of each that are issued.

Also, if someone wants something more gucci, they can invest in a couple specialty pouches, rather than having to buy an entire vest themselves.

It's pretty simple, and god knows there are other (clearer thinking) militaries who have done exactly this. Everyone would still be wearing the same thing, but they could wear it the way they want it. It will work for people who are left and right handed, for all different jobs, and, in the long run, would probably SAVE money on replacement pouches.

However, it would require some intelligent and forward thinking... of which we seem to have a lack.

And if the RSM wanted everyone dressed the same for parade : , you keep rifle pouches in stores and everyone changes for the parade.

 

[combat_medic]

For a course, or if the RSM wanted a parade, you just move the pouches back. I had to do that with the old webbing all the time, nothing new there.

 

[vonGarvin]

Somebody once asked in this thread what/where it said what do we carry for a "basic load".  This is from B/GL/300-004 FP 001 "Land Force Sustainment":
In the Army,despite the merits of total asset visibility, units will continue to carry a basic load spread out through its F, A1, A2 and B echelons while the formation will hold the maintenance load in CS units. The basic load equates to the scale of material carried by units to assure a limited degree of selfsufficiency. The basic load generally amounts to three days of combat supplies. It is calculated on an estimated daily usage basis. The size of the basic load can be altered by the commander."
So, there is no "magic number" as such (eg: 250 rounds, 400 rounds, whatever).  It's all situationally dependant.  I can't remember who asked this, but they can find this on the army electronic library site, available on the internet.

 

[Kirkhill]

Logistics of CONSUMABLES is key.

RecceDG:  At the risk of being facetious - High Explosives have a tendency to render an awful lot of stuff "consumable".

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"I don't entirely understand how much of the kit you carry is your personal decision when it comes to the needs of the mission.  If you are the only cargo carrying capability available to your commander doesn't he or she decide on whether you are going to carry a spare Jerry of water for the section, or an extra box of 7.62 link, or a couple of 60mm HE, or spare batteries for the radio?  Back in the days of tyrannosaurus rex that was certainly true.  As a platoon commander I was informed by the OC whether my weapons det was carrying the 60mm or the CG or the Browning GPMG.  Ammunition, water, batteries etc were to be dispersed around the platoon."

No you are right in the respect that someone above my pay grade will tell me what extra things I need to carry (ie C6 ammo, water etc).  That being said if I can get my "personal" equipment all on my chest rig that leaves room for an empty ruck to but water, ammo etc in.  Where as if I have a chest rig that can't hold nearly as much I will have to use that ruck or patrol pack to also carry those things.  By having a chest rig that is comfortable, made well, changeable, upgradeable you are allowing yourself to be a more efficient pack mule by having that ruck or patrol pack empty for all the other things.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

We are no longer in the postion to be wishfully thinking of better things but in the postion to make a descion to have the best we can afford.  I haven't seen any TF commanders complain about their troops who have opted to use aftermarket equipment.  As long as we appear to seem uniform why does about wha I wear?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

P.S. Kirkhill I don't believe we are in a slanging match are we?

 

[DG-41]

High Explosives have a tendency to render an awful lot of stuff "consumable".

If my tac vest has been consumed by high explosives, I have bigger problems than "if it is replaceable by the RQ or not".

DG

 

[dapaterson]

Pretty reasonable argument.  As I said, the TV certainly isn't the "be all, end all" to combat load bearing equipment.  NOTHING is.  Heck, in ten, twenty or thirty years they will be arguing over what kind of hovertank is the best, I suppose.  It's all an evolution.

Please.  Hovertanks?  Give me an OGRE any day...