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

[KevinB]

Bin -- my issue is that you commented based on a small operational understanding of gear.

I've been quite lucky and had a chain of command that either did not care or supported my excessed of kit experimentation when I was in.  One of the problems with T&E'ing kit - is if you dont have a large experience base -- or if you dont have a large segment of kit to trial.


IMHO I beleive the CF NEEDS a releasable armour system.  I think the GenV Vest and the tac Vest are ill suited for todays conbat environment -- it may be an 80% solution -- but not for the 20% that is fighting in it.
  I have some insights into testing as well -- one issue I have is some of the tests grade a pass fail beyond what the wearer will be able to sustain physically -- great Cpl Bloggins helmet is good to go after a blast -- but his head has been caved in due to the pressure...

Having had to suffer thru the biomechanic peopel explain that my armor setup and vest was not ideal, I can tell you that as an end user that no amount of book learning will allow one to understand what a soldier needs to fight with.  That unfortunately needs to be learned by training and exposure to combat.

  Unfortunately a very skilled soldier who was involved in the design of the DHTC patrol vest and chest rig left the CF, and left tactical nylon design -- but he is still working in gear manufacture for a Canadian company -- and hopefully he will be able to influence some future kit for the CF.

 

[NL_engineer]

I totally agree with the above. The Army lags way behind in this area as compared to the Air Force. The CF, in general, has a very far way to go regarding FR.

And, for OPSECs sake, I won't post any of the testing results or videos of those side-by-side blowing ups of gucci next to CTS gear either ... some people would be shocked to see the money they'd wasted on certain items.

Can you send me those video's on my DWAN email (pm inbound with it)?

 

[dangerboy]

Maybe this is a good idea (not posting the video openly) show the soldier in a classified brief the test results, so the soldier can get the full picture.  After all a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[armyvern]

Ask your CoC at work then. They're out there to be seen. You don't see them ... sounds like a problem at your end n'est pas? It's not like they don't come with a "for widest distribution" ...

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I'm in his CoC and this is the first i have heard of these video's.

 

[armyvern]

I'm in his CoC and this is the first i have heard of these video's.

Now, let's get this straight. Is that my fault? Those videos have sweet FA to do with the Supply System. And, I really hope that you are not insinuating that the CF would purposely (and with malice apparently judging by the "normal" vein of CTS rants given on this site) outfit you in unsafe and untested PPE -- because even you know that's BS.

IIRC, snippets of the BEW testing (as an example) made it up on this site a couple years ago. DIN search should give you a hand to find them. Testing results etc etc. Specs are available there too. This is not new info, and has been posted on this site before.

Now, if you guys want to start jumping all over us Supply Techs simply because we happen to point out that the frequently heard arguements about why CTS kit sucks and is dangerous are the very same arguements applicable to gucci gear ... fill your boots. I don't need "lanes" to point that out to you.

Fact of the matter is it IS safe. It IS tested. It HAS outperformed Gucci gear in testing. It IS cheaper than Gucci gear (because it's issued for free!!). It lasts JUST as long as Gucci gear. The CF does NOT go with the cheapest manufacturer for it's contracting of it (and hasn't for years). Your CTS gear was also field trialled before it was brought into the system by soldiers like you (not rear elechelon LEG/WOGs -- whatever the term of the jour is for people like me today). ANSI specs are well and good, but CF specs meet OR exceed ANSI specs (exceed, in the vast majority of cases).

Some of it is not comfortable, so some of you will say (and have said) that therefore, may cost a soldier his life. Well, guess what?? SOME soldiers including some of them who've been in the sandbox ... can same the exact same thing about many items of Gucci gear being pushed around here.

What is comfortable for one person, may not be comfortable for the next. Period. Those are facts. Those are facts which are applicable to both CTS gear and to Gucci gear. So, while there is a tendancy on this site by some to slam CTS gear as "useless" (and usually the people who work there too) because SOME of it is not comfortable etc ... the EXACT same argument could be made by inserting "Gucci Brand name" here because the EXACT same thing applies.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Is it your fault?  Absolutely not.  Nor was I implying that in any way shape or form.

 

[armyvern]

Is it your fault?  Absolutely not.  Nor was I implying that in any way shape or form.

My bad then. My apologies.

Perhaps I'm just overreacting from the normal tendancy on this site to automaticly use their big wide brush to tar CTS, the people who work there, the supply system, and anything CTS instead of "Gucci" as BAD, BAD, BAD; automaticly and even when it's just not borne out by the facts. And then, when some of us point out the facts we get told to "stay in our lanes" even though some of those facts are available to us in our jobs (ie specs and testing) and are therefore very much "within" our lanes. I'm am NOT an "organizer and issuer of kit." How fucking insulting is that?

The Tac Vest f'n sucks. Everyone knows that. And because of THAT piece of kit -- some people people will go to good lengths to continue to slam each and every piece of CTS gear they can. But, how many times does it need to be said that the Tac Vest was designed in the early 90s --- when we were a peacekeeping nation -- a purpose for which it would be suitable? 99.9% of those slams ... have SFA to do with CTS gear being untested or unsafe --- but the posts on this site would certainly have the uninformed believing that CTS gear is unsafe and will get you killed -- and that's BULLSHIT. It's untrue. It's not borne out by the facts, and is a completely improper perception to be giving to those just entering the CF, their families who worry about them, and the average civilian visitor to this site. And, I'm tired of the "stay in lanes" comments that come out to we who dare point out that CTS gear is not unsafe, or who dare to say it tested better than some beloved piece of Gucci gear.

Sometimes, I gotta sit back here and wonder if some of the members here are getting kickbacks from the companies involved. Because their distinct anti-CTS streaks are obvious -- whether they've used the gear or not -- it's just an automatic "CTS is bad, and evil, and unsafe."

 

[armyvern]

Interestingly, a quick review of some of the profiles of posters here in this thread -- certainly does show an association with various of the "Gucci kit" manufacturers. Yeah, absolutely no baisness there.

 

[KevinB]

My bad then. My apologies.

Perhaps I'm just overreacting from the normal tendancy on this site to automaticly use their big wide brush to tar CTS, the people who work there, the supply system, and anything CTS instead of "Gucci" as BAD, BAD, BAD; automaticly and even when it's just not borne out by the facts. And then, when some of us point out the facts we get told to "stay in our lanes" even though some of those facts are available to us in our jobs (ie specs and testing) and are therefore very much "within" our lanes. I'm am NOT an "organizer and issuer of kit." How fucking insulting is that?

The Tac Vest f'n sucks. Everyone knows that. And because of THAT piece of kit -- some people people will go to good lengths to continue to slam each and every piece of CTS gear they can. But, how many times does it need to be said that the Tac Vest was designed in the early 90s --- when we were a peacekeeping nation -- a purpose for which it would be suitable? 99.9% of those slams ... have SFA to do with CTS gear being untested or unsafe --- but the posts on this site would certainly have the uninformed believing that CTS gear is unsafe and will get you killed -- and that's BULLSHIT. It's untrue. It's not borne out by the facts, and is a completely improper perception to be giving to those just entering the CF, their families who worry about them, and the average civilian visitor to this site. And, I'm tired of the "stay in lanes" comments that come out to we who dare point out that CTS gear is not unsafe, or who dare to say it tested better than some beloved piece of Gucci gear.

Sometimes, I gotta sit back here and wonder if some of the members here are getting kickbacks from the companies involved. Because their distinct anti-CTS streaks are obvious -- whether they've used the gear or not -- it's just an automatic "CTS is bad, and evil, and unsafe."

Get off your high horse.


You've lost all objectivity in this issue.  Your not acting like a mod your acting like the den mother to CTS/DLR

 

[armyvern]

Get off your high horse.

You've lost all objectivity in this issue.  Your not acting like a mod your acting like the den mother to CTS/DLR

I'm not posting as a mod. I don't post as a mod in Supply threads ... never have. What's being a mod got to do with this at all? That's the way this site has always worked. You're quite aware of that.

It's not a high horse I6.  And you should be one of the last to tell me about "objectivity" given your frequency to slam everything CTS just because it is CTS.

Pointing out fallacies in the "slam everything CTS" posts that claim it is all dangerous and will cost lives is now being a den mother?? Even when that arguement is not true? Cute that. But, bullshit none-the-less.

 

[Ecco]

Okay I will offer some logic in this arena -- I will offer that as far as an PBA end user I am a SME (feel free to argue this).

I am an end user of a car.  I have been for years, most days.  It does not make me a mechanical engineer.  I have opinions about which cars I prefer, but that's about it.
I am an end user of food, both prepared by myself or from restaurants.  I can tell you what I like, but I am not a chef, or a nutritionist.

The end user of a product is not a SME.  He is an interested stakeholder into procurement.  The user can provide invaluable insight about ergonomics, human factors and feature preference.  However, as opposed to boots for example, the main requirements of a ballistic piece of kit is not related to personal preference, it is related to boring laws of physics and material resistance.

I think the GenV Vest and the tac Vest are ill suited for todays conbat environment

There is no such thing as a Gen V vest.  I will assume you refer to the CTS FPV, which could be referred to as a Gen 3 vest.  Gen 1 and 2 were slammed hard by the Chief of Review Services Report years ago and were quickly replaced (they were the vest that were not compatible with the helmet.)

 

[McG]

I’ve stolen a few thoughts from the weapon’s mod thread, because I think they important to address here.

I think the solution is not in standardization, but instead in education.

Standardization and education are not mutually exclusive.  Non-standardization has a time & place within reasonable scope. Education absolutely is essential.  Even where the information is out there, the Army is doing an inadequate job at this.  Soldiers do not understand their protection requirements, they don’t understand why many items of equipment have been chosen and they don’t understand the sometimes essential relationships between all the various items of equipment.

One effect is that we have soldiers buying unauthorized equipment based on inadequate civilian, law enforcement, or other nation’s mil standards.  In many cases, these soldiers will be less protected simply out of ignorance and not by an educated decision to sacrifice protection for mobility or comfort.

I've stolen a couple of thoughts

Contrary to what some might claim, sub-unit commanders have been turning a blind eye (even authorizing?) ...

Overall, I think the fact that this is becoming commonplace is a step in the right direction.  But I've also seen these "unofficial sub-unit policies" manifest themselves in pretty retarded ways too.  ...  As much as I think that letting troops take some initiative with drop-in weapons modifications is a good idea, I have to admit that it's a double edged sword.  Some would be better off sticking with the issued gear.

You did a good job of illustrating the inadequate rational that goes into weapons decisions in the other thread.  At this point, I’d ask you to consider the dangers of a supervisor as inadequately educated as the subordinate being the one to decide the acceptability of a given item of PPE.

There is a kit problem.  I don’t see a panacea.

 

[Farmboy]

I am an end user of a car.  I have been for years, most days.  It does not make me a mechanical engineer.  I have opinions about which cars I prefer, but that's about it.
I am an end user of food, both prepared by myself or from restaurants.  I can tell you what I like, but I am not a chef, or a nutritionist.

The end user of a product is not a SME.

Your right.  Just because I-6 and some of the other end users, use the kit on a daily basis, does not make them able to sew gear, like you driving a car does not make you an engineer.

Like you using your car on a daily basis though, you, like I-6 and others with gear, are able to point out what works or doesn't work in certain applications.

You can tell us if the smart car you drive is able to carry all of your family members to the hockey game, how many time you have had to repair it, if it starts in the winter, if it can make if up the icy hill, or if the new SUV your using does a much better overall job.  It's the same feedback.


The Tac vest has been beaten to death, yes it sucks.

The BEW looks pretty good for protection, which has made me go back to one of my suppliers and say "This needs to be improved" and it will, very quickly.  The issue ones still give me a headache though every time I put it on.

Yes the CF still goes with the lowest bidder (unless it is a request for proposal), I am on MERX everyday trying to do business so don't tell me otherwise.  They also like to steal or "take over" designs, then farm it out to the lowest bidder.  

The reason people are so cranky is because some of the very basic things have not changed.  Helmet suspention/protection, Tac Vest and patrol sling are very simple to change yet nothing has been done.

Here is a conversation that took place at CANSEC with me and over 10 CF members who could make changes;


CF: "Anything new we should look at?"

Darren: "Yes, the Blue Force Gear slings, specifically the Vickers sling"

CF:  "Why is that?"

Darren:  "Well the Vickers sling was designed for combat unlike the issue slings, it's approved for use with the RCMP, LE Tactical Teams and has been purchased by CF Units"

CF:  "What's wrong with the issue slings?"

Darren: " You know how the patrol sling has that little snap/button that always breaks or seizes and never works right?"

CF: "Yes"

Darren "You know how guys always have that duct taped up, so it makes it pointless?"

CF: "Yes"

Darren: "You know how the rubber pieces on the sling loops are alwasy broken and have to be tied on with more paracord?"

CF: "Yes"

Darren: "You know how that extra strap running along the C7/C8 gets in the way when you have to do your immediate action drills, or gets caught on gear?"

CF: "Yes"

Darren: "Well the Vickers sling................

CF: "Well I'm happy with the patrol sling"

??!!!???!!!!

They just put a tender out for 10,000 more - yes to the lowest bidder.

Soldiers do not understand their protection requirements, they don’t understand why many items of equipment have been chosen and they don’t understand the sometimes essential relationships between all the various items of equipment.

So then inform us, educate us, why Daisy Chains were used on our gear instead of MOLLE?!?!?!?! 

One effect is that we have soldiers buying unauthorized equipment based on inadequate civilian, law enforcement, or other nation’s mil standards.  In many cases, these soldiers will be less protected simply out of ignorance and not by an educated decision to sacrifice protection for mobility or comfort.

In this case you're speaking of BEW, helmets and body armour.  Tell us why you think non-issue holsters or vests can't be used. 

 

[armyvern]

"Best Value" does not equal "Lowest Bidder", nor has it for quite a few years now. 

There's already another thread on the site discussing that.

 

[Canadian Sig]

If the Tac Vest and issued Biannchi holster equal "best value" Then I think we need to re-define that term.

I would'nt presume to go after the CTS folks as I have never done a day in their jobs nor a mile in their shoes. However, I do have to say that it seems to me that the system is very slow to adapt. I dont think thats in anyway the fault of CTS. I think it's higher than that.

Just my .02 centavos

 

[armyvern]

If the Tac Vest and issued Biannchi holster equal "best value" Then I think we need to re-define that term.

I would'nt presume to go after the CTS folks as I have never done a day in their jobs nor a mile in their shoes. However, I do have to say that it seems to me that the system is very slow to adapt. I dont think thats in anyway the fault of CTS. I think it's higher than that.

Just my .02 centavos

As said before, the Tac Vest is a piece of crap. It is most definitely NOT suitable to war-fighting. Surprise. It is also a piece of kit designed in the mid-late 90s (well before "best value" & well-before our current "realizations of kit improvements/modifications required due to warfighting) ... when we were affectionately still known as "Peacekeepers" ... did you miss that that being said numerous times on this site? It would have served it's purpose way back when.

 

[Canadian Sig]

No. I did'nt miss that. It just happened to be first on the list, followed by: BEWs, Holster, Helmet Suspension, Sling, Desert boots......and I'm not gonna start on the TCCCs radios (and lack of a bag that holds them with any comfort while fully kitted.).


edit: Some of our issued kit is great. I love my Gortex ICE kit and my new raingear. The boots are progressing well and from what I hear the new ruck is a step-up.

 

[Farmboy]

I never said it does.  

I said  

Yes the CF still goes with the lowest bidder (unless it is a request for proposal),

in response to you saying they don't.

"Best Value" is used for new items they would like to see in the system.

Most tenders are already written for a specific company or product though. The company just has to send in the paperwork to make it official.

It is also a piece of kit designed in the mid-late 90s (well before "best value" & well-before our current "realizations of kit improvements/modifications required due to warfighting) ... when we were affectionately still known as "Peacekeepers

So why has it taken so long to do anything about it?

You have to realize the problem is not with you, it's the fact that the Tac Vest is still issued and being made to be worn for combat.

 

[armyvern]

I never said it does.  

I said   in response to you saying they don't.

"Best Value" is used for new items they would like to see in the system.

And, resupply or recontract of stuff already in the system is expected to meet the exact same minimal specs of those "best value" items brought in originally. So, of course the cheaper price would be fine in that case --- because the kit by that original supply has already suited the "best value" parameter ... or increased spec -- it certainly doesn't decrease in spec with subsequent purchases.

Most tenders are already written for a specific company or product though. The company just has to send in the paperwork to make it official.

Quite often the arguement made, and usually found to be utterly baseless, by suppliers who didn't "win". Hey, why wouldn't they complain --- it's business to them after all; shareholders in those businesses love having a slice of valuable government contracts.

So why has it taken so long to do anything about it?

Because, unlike our big rich military neighbour to the south -- we don't have the capability to go into trillion dollar defecits (or even billion dollar deficits) here in the land of 33 million people.

And, because purchasing is Federal and governed by Federal regulations. Involving TB & PWGSC. Slow, tedious beaurcracy at it's finest, but that's the way it works in Canada. You make it seem as if there's no move forward. Surely you're aware of chest rigs being trialled in-theatre etc etc? It's not as if the CF is sitting on it's ass and NOT trying to get a suitable item out there -- ergo why are the chest rigs under discussion and being looked into, and trialled in-theatre? Perhaps even one from the company you advertize in your profile has one over there being tested at this time (I really don't know if one of yours is there or not)??

You have to realize the problem is not with you, it's the fact that the Tac Vest is still issued and being made to be worn for combat.

Is it?? Not judging by the posts around here it isn't. Once outside the fence where it counts --- it seems to be perfectly acceptable and common practice to ditch the TV and put on a chest rig.