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

[GO!!!]

Not all CSM's are APS suffering anal retentive pricks (but we can switch it on and off at will, which makes us sort of schizophrenic).  Some of us are forward thinking and innovative and receptive to new ideas, properly presented of course.

While I agree with you, there are certain people on this site **cough unknown c/s cough** who slavishly cling to the status quo as if it was their dying breath.

This capacity for forward thinking has been demonstrated in my unit, (where the leadership has extensively documented the failures of the TV, as identified by the users, and presented it to higher) and in deployed units, by the fact that permission was granted to troops in theatre to use aftermarket kit because the issued kit was woefully inadequate. There is indeed some light in the otherwise dark history of the TV!!

The problem arises when individuals like the abovementioned, in defiance of logic, reason and common sense continue to defend the use of a piece of equipment "because that's the way it is". This was always a poor response, and the weak defences for it come out in open forum (like this)where they are required to substantiate their opinions against the arguments of end - users, who are more than willing to make themselves heard.

In terms of "proper presentation" ideally, I think DLR should be staffed with Cpls, from the Cbt arms, with a maximum tenure of 6-8 months, with a MWO and Maj. for administrative purposes. Let the end users determine the kit to be purchased - we would undoubtedly end up with a superior product and extremely compressed timelines, in addition to lower costs. This would also enable the users to speak with the designers on a one to one basis, instead of the DLR staff saying "this is what you're getting, we have ascertained what you need".

Even better, if they did foist some POS on us - those Cpls have to come back to a unit sometime and face the music!!

 

[ZipperHead]

In terms of "proper presentation" ideally, I think DLR should be staffed with Cpls, from the Cbt arms, with a maximum tenure of 6-8 months, with a MWO and Maj. for administrative purposes. Let the end users determine the kit to be purchased - we would undoubtedly end up with a superior product and extremely compressed timelines, in addition to lower costs. This would also enable the users to speak with the designers on a one to one basis, instead of the DLR staff saying "this is what you're getting, we have ascertained what you need".

Even better, if they did foist some POS on us - those Cpls have to come back to a unit sometime and face the music!!

Man, you've been listening to the voices in my head!!! I have said this very thing for a long time. And not just DLR, but career shops, and every other place where ridiculous decisions seem to get made. But let me put on my Devil's Advocate/cynic hat: the people "they" would send would be the rough equivalent of the people already there (in some, not all cases - ass coverage on my part, there): Yes-men who have little or no current operational experience, who will say anything to advance their careers. Or they would send a guy who always DAGs red, just to get rid of them.

I do like the short term approach. Let's say 12 months, because it would probably take 6 months just to figure things out, another 6 months to get things to happen, and then you would have to pull pole, because the system would drive you over the brink with the inanities of procurement, cost-management, and all the other catch-phrases and buzzwords (I live a tiny portion of that life, and couldn't imagine being in it fully completely). And barring being a complete genius, nobody, I say again nobody, should make their career there. Complacency, and thinking that you are the One, the person who has all the answers and can make all the right decisions, without fail, is what got us to where we are in so many instances: Schools, Headquarters and any other ERE (Extra-Regimentally Employed) positions should NOT be a place where people spend any more than 1/4 of their careers (in my estimate). You have to spend your time in the trenches, so to speak, to have an appreciation for what the soldiers/sailors/airmen (not end-users, or other corporate mumbo-jumbo that is used) need now (or in the near future), not 20 years ago when said decision-maker did their "time".

And people do need to be held accountable for the decisions that they made. Who wouldn't want to beat the people responsible for the old style rain-jacket (w/ detachable hood), the LSVW (Low Stealth Vehicle, Wheeled), or any other piece of kit that should have stayed on the drawing board????

Al

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

US approach and everyone is happy.
The CSM's get unity on the parade square, CTS keeps their fiefdom and the combat troops get kit that is better suited to the job at hand.

 

[Unknown C/S]

While I agree with you, there are certain people on this site **cough unknown c/s cough** who slavishly cling to the status quo as if it was their dying breath.

The problem arises when individuals like the abovementioned, in defiance of logic, reason and common sense continue to defend the use of a piece of equipment "because that's the way it is". This was always a poor response, and the weak defences for it come out in open forum (like this)where they are required to substantiate their opinions against the arguments of end - users, who are more than willing to make themselves heard.

In terms of "proper presentation" ideally, I think DLR should be staffed with Cpls, from the Cbt arms, with a maximum tenure of 6-8 months,

GO,

Does this mean that I will not receive an invite to your place for a beer  :crybaby:

So you don't agree with me. I am not surprised. I was a jr nco at one point and I know the jr ranks mess is filled with people who have all the answers. (this can also be applied to the other two messes)
If you noticed I have made my statements based on the logistical (and tactical) problems with soldiers "doing their own thing" I am not critical of the equipment, more to the point, I am critical of the herd mentalitilty. The troops have decided that aftermarket kit is the way to go. (to the point that if a soldier likes the issue stuff he/she is somekind of goof and therfore "uncool"

Put yourself in the Pl WO's position, trying to divide up the mission load but having to sit down with the knowledge that everyone is wearing different kit and trying to figure out what each is capable of carrying.
(Your assumption is that Pte's and Cpl's know what they need, so don't hassle them)
Giving "carte blanche" to bring your own kit opens up a can of worms.

I think it stems from a generation of young people that grew up with the mentality of " mom, just give me the money and I will buy my own clothes, I have to look like my friends, and you don't understand."

And where does it stop? boots, TV, eyewear will quickly move to sidearms, shotguns, personal thermal image sights........................

Perhaps I can move a bit on this one, If the CSM issued a list of approved (limited) kit that may be purchased that way a standard is maintained. "However the troops no doubt would quickly claim that this list was junk"

"DLR should be staffed with Cpl's"
Jeez don't stop there, Career shop, CDS etc. nobody in most positions of authority know what they're doing.

I shall probably never agree with you. Is that bad? nope If everyone just agreed here, who would you debate with.
Yes I am old school. this is an age old argument. WWl, ll, Korea all had examples of soldiers not being happy with the kit. It is impossible to make everyone happy.
Can our govt do a better job of supplying the soldiers on the ground? certainly.
Does rejecting the issue kit prove anything? Who knows, it does make for soldiers who are lighter in the pocket though.

Now you and CFL will pick this apart, tell me I know nothing and privatly hope my computer implodes. Leaves me wondering about who is not flexible here.  ;D

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

But that [mail system]is NOT going to change anytime soon.......

I think we can agree on one thing.........its not the kit issue that is the problem, its the issued kit.
Fix that up and this arguement [ and thread] are farts in a windstorm......

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

Put yourself in the Pl WO's position, trying to divide up the mission load but having to sit down with the knowledge that everyone is wearing different kit and trying to figure out what each is capable of carrying.

Whats the big deal? The US manages to do it. Whether you change the jobs of the individual soldiers, ie: switch a guy from assault to weapons det, you've still got the same amount of equipment. The soldier can simply switch his kit with someone elses. I dont see the big problem, especially since the Pl WOs already have to sit down with the knowledge that the TV cant possibly cope with carrying all the possible equipment assigned. It would be much easier, IMO, to give permission to soldiers to buy their own kit for overseas duty, as long as it has a certain load capacity OR its modular. It doesnt take much space to carry around extra pouches now, does it?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Unknown C/S the majority of front line units in the CF have at least offered the option for troops to use better kit.  Now if these WO and CSM's can work around this issue why can't the rest?  As mentioned the US gives an intial issue like our military but also allows for troops to get other kit from authorized dealers.  Will the troops push the limit on what companies they want included.  Of course they will.  The point is that the troops will have their standard issue stuff to fall back on if needed.  The QM shouldn't be held accountable for stocking stuff from these authorized companies only the stuff they issue.  I don't see anyone arguing different with that.  You are right the kit has made vast improvements in the past years and some of the kit is good.  That said the procurment of the kit is terrible.  It sound not take 10 years to come up with kit that is outdated when it makes it debut.  No army will stay ahead of the kit curve, just like computers.  However some of this can be negated by allowing authorized dealers that stay up to the curve.  As far as kit loads and WO's not knowing what their troops can carry most aftermarket rigs can carry more and I thought the WO told each section what they were responsible for and to handle it.
I don't have a problem looking exactly like the next guy.  What I have a problem with is not being allowed to better myself and potential save my own life and my fire team partners.  That's how I look at aftermarket rig.  As a potential life saver because it can hold more essential kit, more ammo, and quicker draws with that ammo getting the rounds down range quicker.
No one here is saying the want to do permanent mods to their wpns or helmets or flak vests, or carry side arms etc.  Do I want better body armour.  Sure do but 1, I can't afford it and 2, I'm trying to pick my battles.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

One last point (for now I suppose).  Most soldiers who buy kit don't do it for change sake but it makes them more comfortable, safier, or that much better with their kit.

 

[Unknown C/S]

CFL

Point taken, My concern would be the soldier who bought the wrong kit, ie: an old C2 vest and then went to wal-mart and picked up some boots (just for example) The soldier does not have the money for the Gucci Kit but tries anyway....................
Or the young soldier with 5 kids and a spouse that does not work, just scraping by as it is, he can't afford all the high tech stuff. Is he now a liability?

Does the unit kit shop stock the equipment that is "unofficially" authorized? would they have a deferred payment plan?

Just my view

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I think what the problem that some have [ myself included] is that how can we be sure some 19 year old first tour guy isn't going to be thinking LCF before personal safety?

..and the arguement about "authorized" dealers/ kit is not a strong one either. I walked down Canal street in Chinatown about 3 weeks ago.....who knew Oakley glasses,Rolex watches and Gucci purses could cost so little......

EDIT: Unknown C/S posted it before I did however......

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from Unknown C/S,
Does the unit kit shop stock the equipment that is "unofficially" authorized? would they have a deferred payment plan?

Now, this is the kind of thinking that might help.............

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Our kit shop as sold stuff such as Magpul Ranger Tabs and their standard pulls.  (helps get the mag out quicker).  I also don't think they would not stock other kit if the need presented itself.
Your right a new soldier may screw himself intially that's why I personally think the troops should use the kit in Canada first.  That said he would have his intial issue as back up.  (make it an SOP to have your issued stuff on standby as it were).  Also by having select aftermarket companies you would hope they would be held to a higher standard.
The troop without the aftermarket kit may be more uncomfortable then the next guy.  Liability comes into play when he has to go to his patrol pack to get more ammo or can't get his grenade out quick enough.  I suppose then he would be a liablity.  Bottom line is that you can squeak by as a front line troop with the issued gear but have options available.

 

[spartan031]

The TV only holds 4 mags and that isn't very much.

If you run out of ammo a knife isn't going to be much help in a gunfight no matter what kit your wearing.

 

[COBRA-6]

Point taken, My concern would be the soldier who bought the wrong kit, ie: an old C2 vest and then went to wal-mart and picked up some boots (just for example) The soldier does not have the money for the Gucci Kit but tries anyway....................

That's where the section and platoon leadership should come into play, making sure the soldier is using high-quality and functional kit, and that the gear is tested and the bumps worked out before they hit the sandbox...

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

As far as chest rigs go, I'm not sure there is much LCF there.
You are right, one can buy knock off Oakleys or whatever but if I knew someone in my section was using crap I'd sort him out quick fast and in a hurry.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

But again CFL, and I do agree with soldiers being able to have an ability to "go with what works", just how does one find out he/she bought a knock-off pair of Oakleys? Well its usually when needed most...........untill then they don't look like " someone in my section was using crap "...........I go back to Unknown C/S's idea about the QM's having the "right" stuff to sell as a great idea.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Simple remidy would be to use the kit in Canada first.

 

[DG-41]

I can almost envision a unit-run CTS-esque cell, where kit is tested, and goes onto an "approved" list or not.....


DG

 

[Daidalous]

Just to add to this discussion.  On the Ticker on CNN, All US military personal heading to Iraq or Afghanistan will no longer be allowed to use there own Body armor.  Seems a new company has won a contract to supply cutting edge body armor.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well isn't that nice.  We'll have to wait and see how cutting edge it is.