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

[Kirkhill]

Duey:

IIRC - and ancient memory cells at work here - the upper, slanted pockets in the old combats were not used for carrying magazines.  Magazines were carried in the lower cargo pockets of the shirt or jacket, each equipped with a couple of loops that were just big enough to secure a magazine and just small enough to prevent you easily extracting said magazine.  At least that was the DS solution at Gagetown and elsewhere that I recall.

Cheers.

PS in addition to smokes and one Silva Ranger compass the upper pockets were used to carry one white plastic spoon.

 

[McG]

I would expect that the troops with the more dangerous and demanding jobs would get the better accomodations, but there may be a "bigger picture" here that we are unaware of.

Rgr.  The end-state will have the NCE, NSE, & Bde staff living where they are now.  The BG will live in buildings that are still being constructed.  Because the BG's home is not yet built, most of it is living in temporary accomodations (the BATs & RSOI tents).  In the end, the BG will have the more comfortable home. 


. . . and I've started to find BAT living to be reasonably comfortable (good thing because I'll be staying in one for a while longer still).

 

[Bartok5]

Michael is correct in noting that the upper, slanted pockets of the various marks of OG Combat Shirt (less the ill-fated Mk III) were designed specifically to carry FN C1 magazines.  That is precisely why they were so expensively lined with durable cordura nylon.

Now, before anyone asks how a uniform designer and the approving-authority "powers that be" could be so utterly stupid as to design shirt pockets specifically for the carriage of 6 x fully-loaded 20-rd 7.62x51mm rifle magazines, lets recall the times.  It was the Cold War in Germany.  We had no frag vests, so access to said pockets was not an issue.  What we had was the 54 pattern and (later) the 64 pattern web-gear.  The latter of which was intended solely for dismounting from the APC for a "quick scrap" before re-mounting and bombing back up from the "mother ship".  It may seem ludicrous in today's context, but it made emminent sense at the time.  Versatility of the web-gear (through velcro attachments) was deemed to be more important than carrying capacity.

Times have certainly changed, with the basic rifleman's load having grown to a minimum of 10 x 30-round magazines.  A fact that seems to have clearly escaped the current CTS types.  But I digress.  There is little to be gained from "pooh-poohing" the kit designers of the late 1950s and early 1960's.  They designed and fielded load-carriage gear that was both timely and consistent with perceived requirements.  MUCH unlike today, where our designs and fielding lag at least 10 years behind reality.  We have badly pooched the "end-user" versus "supplier/contractor" relationship.  And then the CTS people have the utter gall to question why soldiers are wearing after-market gear?  Give me a frigging break.  If they weren't personally wedded to their inferior product and had some current field-time they would know why the CTS gear is viewed as utterly inadequate crap by those who are supposed to use it.... 

Thank goodness that common sense still reigns in "most" of the field force and soldiers are therefore permitted by their immediate chain of command to use personal gear (albeit purchased at their own expense) which actually does the job.  The CTS staff, with their repeated "job-protection" denials of design inadequacy have long since lost ALL credibility with the field force.  And that is a fact.  By all means, please bring on my 25-lbs (empty) new rucksack in two (or is it another four?) years from now.  In the mean time, please continue to deny me the 64-pattern ruck-frames that are required to actually do my job because some numpty sold them all off as crown surplus several years ago. 

The current CTS item managers are eminently suspect apologists with an external excuse for every single one of their failings.  Not all, but far, FAR too many.  "Serve the field force"?  Yeah, right.  All I see is a self-defeating combination of repeated obstruction and denial.   

But hey - that's just me.....

Edited for a typo

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Yeah you tell them.

 

[probum non poenitet]

Going back to answer some trivia waaaayyyy back in this thread from VonGarvin about the Germans being shocked by British fire discipline:

You are indeed thinking about WWI.
It was after the first engagments near Mons in 1914. The British Expeditionary Force from that time has sometimes been called "The best trained army to ever take the field."
The Brits had learned from the Boer War that long-range marksmanship was really important.  Every soldier trained to ridiculously impressive ranges ... 1,000 yards and more was expected.
Their fire was so accurate and controlled that the German intelligence overestimated the number of machine-guns issued to British units. They didn't realize it was just well aimed rifle fire.

The irony was, they Brits had less machine-guns (and artillery shells) than the Jerries, and it took them a long time to sort that logistic nightmare out.

The B.E.F. was superbly trained but relatively tiny ... and by Christmas 90% of those who had been at Mons were casualties. 90 freakin' percent!

After that, British marksmanship came down to the level of mere mortals, because the pre-war army was practically annihilated.

They reckon the Germans would have almost certainly been in Paris if not for the Old Contempibles, though.

All right, back to this century ...

 

[TCBF]

"was the 54 pattern and (later) the 64 pattern web"

51 pattern: 54 pattern was Brit, 51 was Canadian.

 

[Bartok5]

51 pattern: 54 pattern was Brit, 51 was Canadian.

My mistake - thanks for the nomenclature correction. 

I suppose I should have known better, having been issued and required to wear the '51 Pattern web gear as a young Res F NCM back in the early 1980s.... 

 

[vonGarvin]

Going back to answer some trivia waaaayyyy back in this thread from VonGarvin about the Germans being shocked by British fire discipline:
You are indeed thinking about WWI.
It was after the first engagments near Mons in 1914. The British Expeditionary Force from that time has sometimes been called "The best trained army to ever take the field."
The Brits had learned from the Boer War that long-range marksmanship was really important.  Every soldier trained to ridiculously impressive ranges ... 1,000 yards and more was expected.
Their fire was so accurate and controlled that the German intelligence overestimated the number of machine-guns issued to British units. They didn't realize it was just well aimed rifle fire.
The irony was, they Brits had less machine-guns (and artillery shells) than the Jerries, and it took them a long time to sort that logistic nightmare out.
The B.E.F. was superbly trained but relatively tiny ... and by Christmas 90% of those who had been at Mons were casualties. 90 freakin' percent!
After that, British marksmanship came down to the level of mere mortals, because the pre-war army was practically annihilated.
They reckon the Germans would have almost certainly been in Paris if not for the Old Contempibles, though.
All right, back to this century ...

Thanks: I indeed was thinking of WWI.  My point (in order to keep this OT) is that skill is superior in relative worth to kit. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thanks: I indeed was thinking of WWI.  My point (in order to keep this OT) is that skill is superior in relative worth to kit. 

You mean like the naked Picts were able to hold off the Romans, by staining themselves with vitrum, which produced the dark blue colour, and carrying sharp sticks? :

 

[KevinB]

Mindset, tactics, and skill are more important over kit.

However there is no intelligent reason to hamper yourself with substandard kit.

Unlike civilians who have to spread their training/equipment budget out over items - the army should be striving to achieve the best in all.

I spent about 20k in training this year - I bought about 4k in kit - however for the most of it my kit are "captial" items that will last for a long time.  I spent an additional 5+k in ammo (but I also hoard for the end of the world..)

 

[HItorMiss]

This fight has been raging for as long as I have been in...not as long as some but long enough I suppose, It finlay came to a head for me when on Roto 0 we had to fight with the NSE contingent to get pistols for our drivers, gunners, crew commanders... you see they "needed" them because having a rifle in their offices while using their computers and doing paper work was inconvenient and it was too big so it got in the way... I crap you not on that little argument... We were the last to move from Mod tentage that blew over in the sand storms with gravel floor a cot and our air mattress to the proper weather havens...3 months or close to we lived like that... I'm not bragging I'm bringing it up that it always seems that the support guys get things better and you know they probably do nothing I can do about it, I just do my job and they do theirs.


However when it comes to my safety and ability to do my job the 80% rule is just total BS! just because our forces are made up of 80% support trades who think the TV is good enough does not mean it should be issued to combat arms forces, If the Support trades like the vest and it does the job well enough for them should DND buy that vest for them yes, should it then issue it to me??? NO! let me and mine ( as in all the combat arms trades ) field test a vest then use your 80% solution on that if 80% of the pointy end finds the vest acceptabler I would hazard to guess then that the vest would be good to go.

Kev I so often think of going private that I started investigating companies....I really am getting sick of somethings..

 

[Unknown C/S]

Seems as though this thread has headed off in a different direction.

Having said that; How long does anyone think that allowing soldiers to purchase their own kit will last? The soldiers protection is at stake here. If DND cannot confirm the individuals safety associated with substandard or non issued kit. How long before there is a pension issue when someone is refused compensation due to the fact the kit that was worn (and deemed to contribute to the injury) was not "officially" authorized, and there is a directive to stop.

The U.S Forces have already put a stop to this practice to a certain degree.


"Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor"
The Associated Press News Agency

WASHINGTON -" Just six months after the Pentagon agreed to reimburse soldiers who bought their own protective gear, the Army has banned the use of any body armor that is not issued by the military.
In a new directive, effective immediately, the Army said it cannot guarantee the quality of commercially bought armor, and any soldier wearing it will have to turn it in and have it replaced with authorized gear."

(Taken from
The Canadian News Digest, RCAC Association)

This will leave the soldiers out hundreds of dollars in purchased kit, and a lot of grumbling.
On the plus side, soldiers will not have to look like some third world army where everyone is wearing different kit.
I guess someone, in Ottawa, is going to have to get off their butt and start looking at an expedited mass purchase of "real" gear.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Somehow I doubt the support trades would appreciate the infantry picking out their computers, desks, vehicles and other trade orientated equipment.

"Well it's good enough for us" wouldn't go over well.

Spartan031 are you the same fellow who was on here a few months back? quit the canadian infantry up in pet becaue it was too boring and had designs of joining the foreign legion?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"The soldiers protection is at stake here. If DND cannot confirm the individuals safety associated with substandard or non issued kit."

Are you for real.  No one here has EVER suggested that we buy our own armour although many of us know there is better stuff out there.  No one is suggested we buy our own helmets either.
You are aware the US army is giving soldiers money to buy aftermarket kit.  You are aware the soldiers in the US are authorized to shop around legitimately from certain aftermarket shops.

If you can tell me how buying ballistic goggles (no not like ours but actual goggles) which keeps out the sand much better then we have from our eyes therefore allowing soldiers to keep their eyes wide open and scanning is risky I'd like to here it. 
If you can tell me how aftermarket gloves and can be fire resistant, knife resistant, or having more dexterity is dangerous I'd love to here it.
If you can tell me how a chest rig with easier access to its mags, more room for kit such as medic kits and easier access to grenades of the thrown and launched type will risk my safety I'm all ears.
Critics that are stuck in the dark ages will argue about build quality and uniformity.  Well a lot of the stuff in the CF sucks build quality wise.  If your TV blows up in the field you exchange it.  If your using aftermarket stuff you go back to your shitty TV until you can order a new one (smart people will research the good companies first).  If you don't have access to your TV back in your barrack box in the rear you simply sign for a new TV and return it when you get back.  As far as uniformity goes.  If you look around you can get rigs in both relish and desert CADPAT now.
So please tell me how if any of this stuff fails I won't be covered.  I would love to explain to them at the press conference why me and the majority of troops felt it necessary to buy aftermarket kit.  P.S.  If we were allowed to train with it at home we would know if it was practical or shitty quality.
Its people in the stoneage of thinking that almost, ALMOST, make me think about travelling up the leadership ladder so I can start having things run with a little more common sense.

 

[GO!!!]

On the plus side, soldiers will not have to look like some third world army where everyone is wearing different kit.

ARRRRGH!!

Since when did esthetics become part of our job description??

Stop trying to apply parade square logic to fighting troops. Uniformity has got to be the weakest argument yet against personal kit, and reeks of desperation from the "old army" camp.

Why not get rid of radios, support weapons and pistols too? After all, these make us look like a third world army with everyone carrying different weapons and kit?  :

 

[Kirkhill]

Its people in the stoneage of thinking that almost, ALMOST, make me think about travelling up the leadership ladder so I can start having things run with a little more common sense.

Marvelous thing about leadership - along with the authority to make decisions, and if you're lucky an appropriate budget, comes responsibility for the decisions you make. In the military you also take responsibility for the lives of the people you lead.

Your words and decisions matter.  They have consequences. And they can be scrutinized and criticized.

My father's advice still seems appropriate: Seek out opportunities to accept responsibility.

Cheers.

 

[Unknown C/S]

I see...................

Have a couple of old toyota pickups shipped over, load up the back with Earl, Billy Bob, and Elmer. (much faster to travel) Your John Deere ball caps (keeps the sun out of your eyes) no hair cuts and six days facial growth. A a Carhartt barn jacket (warm on those cool mountain nights)
As y'all know Gov'mint issue stuff was made to git us fellers kilt

ROE? ROE??..............We don't need no stink'n ROE's

The only thing worse than the old dinosaurs from the cold war era and their acceptance of conformity , are the new generation of Mountain Equipment CO-OP wear'in, designer boot buy'n, Camel pack tot'n non conformists That have all the answers and are willing to kit thenselves out in the latest Gucci brand name field wear because they can.

"Since when did esthetics become part of our job description??"
It is not about esthetics, it's about quartermasters being able to keep the machine running with stocked kit.


"So please tell me how if any of this stuff fails I won't be covered.  I would love to explain to them at the press conference"

There will not be a press conference years after you return from theatre and you apply for that pension.

I can see your VAC letter now, "Dear Sir, the medical report indicates that the blindness to your left eye you suffered in theatre (200?) was caused by plastic infiltration by the "Terminator"  eye protection you chose to wear and the fact that they were not issued. As well, the back problems you suffered and the associated claim, is not being accepted. It is a result of the design of the "Bounty Hunter" tactical vest you were wearing. (Bounty Hunter went bankrupt due to lawsuits from this flaw)
We are sorry.

The benefit of doubt I'm sure will side with the insurance / payor.............................that's life

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"Dear Sir/Madam we regret to inform you that your son is dead because he ran out of ammunition and couldn't get out the grenade that was stuck in his issued TacVest"

Discussion of haircuts and ROE's was brought up by you for some unknown reason.

Never once did I say I was getting substandard kit.  You are aware of product technical sheets that tell you product X sustained a shot gun blast from distance Z with 0 penetration right.  I suppose all the SF guys wearing certain kit do it just to look cool too.  Jackass.

P.S. you do know that Camel Packs are issued now for operations right.  Of course you did.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"It is not about esthetics, it's about quartermasters being able to keep the machine running with stocked kit."

I guess you haven't payed attention to the models presented here where by the QM would cont.. to hold its issued stock and all troops would be issued all standard army kit.  I guess the APS is rotten your brain.

 

[Unknown C/S]

"Dear Sir/Madam we regret to inform you that your son is dead because he ran out of ammunition and couldn't get out the grenade that was stuck in his issued TacVest"

Discussion of haircuts and ROE's was brought up by you for some unknown reason.

Never once did I say I was getting substandard kit.  You are aware of product technical sheets that tell you product X sustained a shot gun blast from distance Z with 0 penetration right.  I suppose all the SF guys wearing certain kit do it just to look cool too.  Jackass.

P.S. you do know that Camel Packs are issued now for operations right.  Of course you did.

Haircuts ? .........esthetics not important to todays fighting soldiers (apparently)

Product Technical sheets? Companies never doctor them up right? Long term test? Durability testing specs?
perhaps you suffered a head injury falling off the turnip truck, it is making you lash out.........

Now when you bring up SF guys you hit the nail on the head. If you want to act like SF..........go SF

No one brings their own camel packs? I believe you are mistaken

You also chose not to address the resupply issues. perhaps later in your career (if you get there since you seem to have a problem getting grenades tangled up in your equipment?) you will have a better appreciation for the finer details of the supply chain.

Goes something like this:

CQ, " Give me the n/s kit (TV) on the resupply and I'll exchange it one for one

Gucci Soldier,  "I don't have it WO. I left it back on base and was using my own version"

"CQ. That's alright, I have nothing better to do than make the trip back to base, cut the lock off your locker dig through your kit till I find it. make the return trip, and bring your issue one out, and while I'm at it I will mail that old one with the warranty card back to the manufacturer for you when I get back to the CFPO.
No problem, that other section anticipating an attack can wait until tommorow I guess.......an ammo drop is not that important

(Please no name calling)