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

[Blackhorse7]

And why is that, Mr. Bitter?  If that soldier is over there doing the same job you are for however long the tour would be, why should his kit be different than yours?  I hope you are not implying that just because The Reservist is a part-time soldier that he should have inferior gear.

Because that would just be ignorant.

But I'm sure that's not what you meant.

 

[Britney Spears]

Oh come now, didn't I just explain it? If you had a battalion with 2 coys of regs with reg OC and CSM, and 1 coy os reserve with reserve OC and CSM, would you be suprised if the reserve OC and CSM might have different ideas about non-issued gear than the regs? Obviously knowing where Phil stands in this respect would be helpful in answering his question.

Yes, 1 standard would be nice, but unless the CO and RSM came down with a specific order ruling one way or the other, it might just be left to the discretion of the coy commanders.

 

[Old Ranger]

Phil,
You've got allot of great advice so far.
If you want it, and think you'll be able to use it, then get it.
But heed all that advice about proving yourself and feeling out the Regs there before you wear it.
Did some Reserve in-charge go out of his way to piss everyone off?
Are Reserves targets for backlash?
I'm not meaning to insult or demean anyone here,
just throwing in some extras (from experience) to concider.
What ever you do, I hope your tour goes well.

 

[Blackhorse7]

Britney, read my last post.  I said doing the same job.  And I would like to think that there would be a Regimental standard, not different standards for each Company.

 

[Roy Harding]

Britney, read my last post.  I said doing the same job.  And I would like to think that there would be a Regimental standard, not different standards for each Company.

It all depends on the CO/RSM team.  Some impose such a Bn standard, others leave it up to Coy Comds/CSMs.  I've been in units which dictated (and inspected to ensure compliance) which ruck pocket your socks went into.  And I've been in units that don't issue a kit list - but there's hell to pay if you catch pneumonia because you didn't have your poncho.

Either way worked for me, although it IS nice to know prior to packing a bunch of kit that you won't be allowed to use.

 

[Britney Spears]

OK,

1) The issue is not whether regs or reservists are issued different kit, they're not. The TV is an inferior piece of equipment no matter if you are reg or reserve.

2) I don't know Phil's exact circumstances, but it is entirely possible that the reserve subunit does have a different role than the regs, such as D&S platoon, so they would not really be doing the same job. Although this is hardly relevent to our discussion.

3) The example which I gave above is the format which reserve subunits were deployed for the last 3 or 4 runs in the Balkans. AFAIK the format for the Khandahar deployment will be similar (although I stand ready to be corrected).

4) One standard sounds good on paper, but again, Coy leaders can and often do have discretion, especially on minor issues such as this. Would you *really* be suprised if the single reserve plt or coy in a reg battalion might be a little more anal than the others?

5)I don't believe the Bitter Cpl was asking because he felt that there should be a different standard for reg and reserve, but because there often IS, and it's generally due to the reserve leadership itself. So no one is trying to start another reg vs reserve cat fight, it just helps to know, because the answer might be different. In any case, the answer has already been established, so I see no further need to split hairs over this matter.

 

[Blackhorse7]

I agree.  PhilB, get the darn vest.  Because it's cool.  ;D

 

[PhilB]

Thank you all very much for the advice so far, as well as the lively discussion. So far all very valid pts. I agree reserves generally do have a different standard than the regs, generally due to reserve leadership. I agree reserves can quite easily become targets in the regs i.e. roto 11 D Coy

Ill give you as much info as I have at this point so we can keep this discussion going. Keep in mind that nobody really has a clue about this majical mystery tour so my info my be faulty/out of date. If others on this site have more/different info I would love to hear it;

I am most likely going over as part of a D&S Pl made up of reserves with a reserve Lt and a reserve WO. We have been told that we will most likely be attached to Cbt Spt Coy 1 PPCLI based out of Khandahar. Our probable mission/tasks as stated at this point are gate/camp security, QRF, and local area patrols .

I know that Col Hope (1VP CO) has made a policy that as long as kit is green, black or Cadpat it is good to go in the field. As far as the reserve chain of command for our Pl, they will let green or cadpat gear slide. Most non-issue kit is a non issue in the field (e.g. 3pt slings, smocks, stealth suits, non issue boots, assault packs, modified tac vests etc).

My plan is to wait until after the BTE to see what the reg guys are using in the field and also how well or poorly we integrate with them. If things are fine and most troops use non issue kit then good to go, if not well life sucks. As far as my own chain of command, we have been working together since May so individual skills have been established and attitudes and opinions formed. The introduction of a non issue chest rig is not going to be an issue in altering someone opinion of you.

I am concerned about two things 1.) I have heard from different people, predominantly reservists that did D&S Pl when B Coy 1 VP was over, that they were allowed to use chest rigs and the like on work up but as soon as they got in country it was strictly issue only. 2.) Although I think it is a better plan to wait to purchase/use and really gucci kit until after the BTE I would like to use it and become familiar with whatever rig I buy before deploying and trusting my life to it.

Just to clear up certain impressions before we go any further. The main reason that I am considering a new rig is because we have been told that we will be carrying 10 or so magazines with us, this basically negates the issue tac vest as a viable peice of load bearing equipment. I do not want a rig to look cool or carry tons of shit or have useless "what if" pouches. I want a streamlined chest rig that will accomodate 10 magazines plus the rest of the kit that I will be required to carry.

Thanks again for all the help

 

[PhilB]

???anyone???

 

[Britney Spears]

I think you should do it. If it doesn't work out you can just turn around and sell it to some 3rd Bn Johnny for a slight discount and be out a few dollars.

 

[Gunner]

Phil,

It doesn't matter if you reg or res with this issue as TF 1-06 will no doubt have a standard kit list that you will be expected to follow.  Hence, CO 1 PPCLI may be fairly liberal, but, Comd 1 CMBG may not be.

I'll give you my 2 cents based on our experieneces on Roto 2.  

There is considerable pressure placed on deployed army elements, by the CLS/Army CWO, to wear issue kit.  We are approaching the end of a very long procurment program (Clothe the Soldier) that was designed to move our equipment from the 40s - 70s technology into the 21 st century.  A lot of time and money went into the CADPAT, ICE, gortex, etc.  It is embarrassing for some elements in the army that soldiers are still buying their own kit.  Hence, the CLS and Army CWO have been very direct in the use of non-issue kit with deployed TFs.  Right or wrong, we all salute in the end and soldier on.  But make sure you put your UCR's in.  I had a very nice $70 holster from the PPCLI kit shop and I never wore it once and lived with the issue crap.

The Load Carrying Vest is not well liked by some elements in the infantry, in that, the location of the bayonet precludes pepper potting and the feeling that 5 magazines isn't enough in a firefight.  This was B Coy, 1 PPCLI, view on the deployment and they fought very hard to be allowed to wear the one you describe (allows space for 10 magazines).  In the end, I think they were forced back into the issue LBV.

If the LBV passed infantry trials, someone in the infantry must have said it was a good piece of kit.  I would like to believe that the system trialed the LBV prior ot purchasing it.  Does an infantry soldier require 10 mags on him at all times or only 5?  My personal opinion is 5 is fine for most types of operations (vicinity of a vehicle) and the threat environment.  But I'm not an infantry soldier and many will provide excellent arguments (Kevin??) as to why the current issue LBV is not adequate.  I won't even get into the whole issue of the location of pockets on the sleeves of the CADPAT.

Finally, if you want to buy one, go ahead, but be prepared to be told that you can't wear it.  If you are still willing to part with the $, then go ahead.

Cheers,

 

[Hatless Dancer]

I agree with gunner. Those of you who may remember 64 pattern webbing, or even the 53 pattern(my first issue as a reservist in 1979) would truly appreciate just how far we have come along in 25 years. Make do with what you are issued, because from my vantage point, issue kit looks pretty bloody good these days! 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

actually HD I think that for some of it, the drive by troops to have better kit has kicked the CF's butt into gear to issue the newer stuff.  Ie civie undergarments evolve into a CF issue, bivy bags, load carriage etc.  Have the issued stuff on hand and feel the waters so to speak. I realize that it wasn't too long ago when we had the jean jacket but if we settle for what the CF gives us and don't gently push the envelope we will quickly fall behind the kit 8 ball.

 

[MG34]

The issued kit clolothing wise has made leaps and bounds,the load bering equipment however has not.The TV although well intentioned is a far cry from waht was intended in the first focus groups back in the early 90's,the origional requirement from the Infantry was for a modular vest that was easily mission tailored by the user with a totally modular design. The first prototype met this requirement,unfortunately the production versions did not meet the requirements,and do not to this day. The TV while it may have worked on the low level balkan tours and other low level deployments and training it does not fit the bill for high intensity operations such as we find ourselves in Afghanistan.
  If any of my troops justifies the need for a supplemental load carriage system I support him fully,as once in country I too will be wearing a non issue LBV,a HSGI Warlord Version 1 chest rig to be exact. The CF supply system and procurement chain cannot keep pace with the current deployments much less any future operations,as such personal kit will require augumentation from other sources.
Uniformity is a wonderful thing on the parade square but even the most newest of the new soldier realizes that every soldier carries a different load and there is no way that everyone can be expected to carry different gear with the same kit.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I agree with gunner. Those of you who may remember 64 pattern webbing, or even the 53 pattern(my first issue as a reservist in 1979) would truly appreciate just how far we have come along in 25 years. Make do with what you are issued, because from my vantage point, issue kit looks pretty bloody good these days!  

And I'm sure that your set of 53 pattern was more well suited for your tasks than the white leather crossbelt and black leather haversack carried by Wellington's forces at Waterloo.  The point is that despite how bad kit the old kit was, the guys receiving the 'Clothe The Soldier' stuff are largely disapointed by the quality of the kit when compared to the money and resources put into the program, especially compared to what other NATO forces are equipping their troops with.  

 

[Andyboy]

Having worked for a little while in the industry I can echo Gunner's comments, there is indeed a lot of political capital wrapped up in the CTS project that is going to be very difficult to work through, BUT, CFL is equally right. A large portion of what CTS produced is outdated and if you guys on the pointy end don't challenge the powers that be you'll be stuck with it and live with the consequences.

In my opinion the attitude that you should take what you get and be happy with it doesn't help anyone, soldiers, kit makers, or the system in general. The system is supposed to be there to get you guys the kit you need rather than serve as a means to build careers. CTS was intended to do just that, Clothe the Soldier, and if you guys don't keep up the pressure then it will have served as a career buildier rather than  what it was intended to do. Part of keeping that pressure up is telling anyone who will listen why the kit is good, bad, or just plain inappropriate using reasoned arguments.

Part of the problem with the system we have for procuring kit is that there is far too much central control and no accountability for the results of the procurement process. A lot of people in the system take the attitude that they are doing you all a favor by providing you with any kit at all and that has to stop, people's lives depend on it.

 

[Hatless Dancer]

I suppose my point is this. Canadian soldiers have never, ever had better personal kit than they have now. We did the job(just fine, thank you very much!) with kit that does not even compare with what you have now. One also has to look at the cost of this program. My understanding is that CTS  is more or less fully implemented, or at least well on the way to being so. Do you think the taxpayer should be on the hook for a complete do over because a few troops are dissatisfied with what most people would consider to be excellent kit?

 

[Britney Spears]

a few troops are dissatisfied with what most people would consider to be excellent kit?

Who are you referring to by "most people"? I've never seen a single one!

 

[Andyboy]

I suppose my point is this. Canadian soldiers have never, ever had better personal kit than they have now. We did the job(just fine, thank you very much!) with kit that does not even compare with what you have now. One also has to look at the cost of this program. My understanding is that CTS   is more or less fully implemented, or at least well on the way to being so. Do you think the taxpayer should be on the hook for a complete do over because a few troops are dissatisfied with what most people would consider to be excellent kit?

Well I'm not going to get in to a review of Canadian Kit through history with you,as much fun as that might be it would take too long. The real point it this, you have to compare what we have with what we COULD have, not what we did have. We COULD have kit that is second to NONE, but we don't we have kit that is not good enough. The only way we will get kit that is good enough is by changing the way we select the kit we wear. The way we select the kit we wear won't ever change if we refuse to acknowledge that the way we currently select kit is not effective, and if we refuse to acknowledge that the kit we have selected is ineffective then the system we use to select it will never change. Ever wonder why we had the craptastic rain jacket that didn't keep out the rain? No one bothered to complain (officially) and it took many years to get replaced all the while troops either bought their own or got wet. I suppose it was better than a canvas tarp though right?

You seem happy with what you are issued which is great, CTS can add your name to the "satisfied customer" list. I won't question your ability to judge kit, if you are happy then that is all that is important. For the rest of is who aren't satisfied how about allowing us the option of buying our own? Other than offending someone's ego, what difference does it make?

 

[Hatless Dancer]

I guess I am a little confused with all this whining. The kit you have is just fine.