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

[Ecco]

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

That's an easy one, but I will leave the homework to you:

a) Find the year the TV was designed (hint, it's before it was issued)
b) Find the year MOLLE was introduced (hint it's after date a)
c) Find the year MOLLE stopped having stupid introduction issues (it's after date b)

We have a slow procurement process indeed.

 

[Fusaki]

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’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.

I agree, at this point in time there are alot of uneducated troops and supervisors that just don't know whats good for them.  They don't bother to do the research and it could all end up in a case of "The blind leading the blind".

The problem as I see it is alot of troops "doing it because the Americans are doing it" or "I read it was good in soldier of fortune" or even "The manufacturer claims this dragon skin will take multiple hits 7.62".  These are all kinds of dangers with this and up untill this point the big army has said "No! We're going to check it all out with our tests and on our terms and we're going to choose for you what we think is best". I see the logic behind this.

But I think there is a better and faster way.  I tried to get at this in my last post, but I think I sort of went off on a "big picture" tangent.  The reason the troops do not take the time to research the gear is because the vast majority don't see themselves ever applying the knowledge.  They know that the chances are pretty good that they'll be forces to wear the issued gear, so why bother?  Even if they'll be allowed overseas, there's no way they'll wear it in Canada, so why not just cross that bridge when the time comes?  The solution: open the floodgates to anything CADPAT but non-issue. If we do this, we WILL have a period where guys are all fucked up.  But 10 years from now we'll have a solid base of experienced and educated soldiers.  It might even cost lives in the short term, but in the long term it will save lives because our army will be smarter and it will be able to adapt faster to changing situations.

Imagine if we had opened the gucci floodgates in 1998.  The TV was still developed and issued, but guys who did not want to were not forced to wear them.  It is a peacekeeping vest suitable for peacekeeping operations, but at the same time young PTEs were experimenting with other things.  They were anticipating scenarios, wargamming ideas, testing and evaluating individually and building their experience.  Then in 2006 these Ptes are now MCPLs with 8 years of thinking up good ideas, now they can test those ideas in combat.  In 2008 the MCPLs are now SGTs with 10 years of testing and evaluating, and absorbing the experience of others through word of mouth. The TV is nowhere to be seen, because the guys have been policing each other.  On EX Pte Jones says to Pte Bloggins: "Dude, your chest rig is all fucked up. Try this instead." Guys argue and "what if" each other, stimulating discussion. Eventually trends will form, that have been proven by large numbers of soldiers in combat. It's the best R&D you could ask for. Its a faster, more efficient, and more effective system.

It's like muckleing. As in "you guys go muckle onto those sandbags and let me know when they're filled". Of course you could line everyone up in two ranks, front row with shovels and rear row with bags, now shovel in quick time.  But the troops with a common goal will find their own natural bow and stern. If you tell them to muckle onto something they'll automatically pair up with guys they work well with and bitch each other out for not holding the bag properly.  They'll sort each other out and get the job done faster and better.

The same philosophy is applied to gear.  80, 000 soldiers with the common goal of getting home alive might take a bit to gain experience, but once they do they'll have a better understanding of the way things are and they'll be able to adapt quicker to changing situations.  It will lead to a faster, smarter, and more efficient army.

 

[armyvern]

Wonderbread,

Your idea has been discussed here on the site before.

The major problem with it (hurdle if you will) is that for any item of kit to be "Officially sanctionned & authorized" for wear -- the government has the ONUS to ensure that it is tested for specs to ensure personal safety and that risks posed to the soldier are at the very minimal end of the stick. Soldiers, their families and the Canadian public expect that of them.

Official sanctionning of "off the rack" kit that is not put through the specs and testings required to ensure that it is safe ballistics-wise etc for our soldiers (vice LEO level testing or ANSI testing, etc) would lead to the largest lawsuits in Canadian history the very minute the first troop dies wearing an "authorized, but untested, untrialled, unspeced item of Gucci gear" that the CF "officially" told him he could use without ensuring it was safe for the job.

There is no risk management in that -- therefore it will never fly.

 

[Kirkhill]

Lemesee now...

CTS is a supplier and distributor of gear to the Canadian Forces.
That puts it on a par with a few dozen other suppliers and distributors of kit to CF Soldiers and Wannabes all of whom have the luxury of only supplying one or two bits of kit.

Now let's suppose that there was no CTS and everybody got to buy their own kit.  On that basis I can assume that Infidel 6, Lone Wolf Quagmire and RHFC Piper will all be wearing exactly the same rigs from exactly the same suppliers.  Right?

Not.

Likewise that's the reason that Sportcheck only has one type of shoe in stock.  :

Any shoe on the rack at Sportcheck will get the job done.  Some are going to suit some people better than others and some may have personal preferences for colour etc but they all work.  The variety in stock is possible because the store makes money selling those shoes.  It buys variety and sells variety to you at a higher price making a handsome profit in the process.

The Army doesn't have a Margin available to finance a selection of goods.

The Army's job is to make sure that whatever kit it supplies is capable of fulfilling the role required of it and do it at an affordable price.

 

[Fusaki]

Official sanctionning of "off the rack" kit that is not put through the specs and testings required to ensure that it is safe ballistics-wise etc for our soldiers (vice LEO level testing or ANSI testing, etc) would lead to the largest lawsuits in Canadian history the very minute the first troop dies wearing an "authorized, but untested, untrialled, unspeced item of Gucci gear" that the CF "officially" told him he could use without ensuring it was safe for the job.

So you're saying the problem is politics?

If I'm reading you right, it's about the government more concerned about covering it's ass than winning wars.

 

[aesop081]

If I'm reading you right, it's about the government more concerned about covering it's ass than winning wars.

The government has to follow Canadian Law

 

[Ecco]

And PWGSC, who enforces most of the procurement laws, is DEFINITELY not at war.

 

[Fusaki]

Any shoe on the rack at Sportcheck will get the job done.  Some are going to suit some people better than others and some may have personal preferences for colour etc but they all work.  The variety in stock is possible because the store makes money selling those shoes.  It buys variety and sells variety to you at a higher price making a handsome profit in the process.

The Army doesn't have a Margin available to finance a selection of goods.

The Army's job is to make sure that whatever kit it supplies is capable of fulfilling the role required of it and do it at an affordable price.

If it were as simple as that we'd all be told to wear the grey "Johnny-go-fasters" running shoes we were issued at St. Jean.  Sure, they might get the job done, but at the cost of how many knees, backs, and ankles? IIRC on my joining instructions for BMQ it was actually suggested that I bring my own running shoes.

The government has to follow Canadian Law

So because Canadian law states the government must equip the soldier, the soldier must use that gear despite the fact that he could be more effective with something different?

Thats a little backwards isn't it? Isn't the law there to ensure that the soldier can carry out his duties with the best equipment available?

I can see why the Canadian Government needs to provide a standard set of equipment a soldier will need to complete the mission. What I don't see is the logic behind the CF policy that only issued gear will be used.

 

[armyvern]

And PWGSC, who enforces most of the procurement laws, is DEFINITELY not at war.

Nor is Canada, officially anyway.  :-\

 

[aesop081]

So because Canadian law states the government must equip the soldier, the soldier must use that gear despite the fact that he could be more effective with something different?

Thats a little backwards isn't it? Isn't the law there to ensure that the soldier can carry out his duties with the best equipment available?

I can see why the Canadian Government needs to provide a standard set of equipment a soldier will need to complete the mission. What I don't see is the logic behind the CF policy that only issued gear will be used.

:brickwall:

Write your MP, ask him/her to have the government purchasing laws changed and have a nice day.

 

[armyvern]

So because Canadian law states the government must equip the soldier, the soldier must use that gear despite the fact that he could be more effective with something different?

Thats a little backwards isn't it? Isn't the law there to ensure that the soldier can carry out his duties with the best equipment available?

I can see why the Canadian Government needs to provide a standard set of equipment a soldier will need to complete the mission. What I don't see is the logic behind the CF policy that only issued gear will be used.

You're missing the part where the gear that the government "authorizes for wear" MUST meet safety standards and ballistic testing standard/mil specs.

Ergo, each and every piece of OTR kit you want a soldier to have on "that list" of approved for wear ... will have to go through the exact same ballisitics testing/mil spec certification trials that our issued gear does and has gone through. And, it therefore follows that it must also meet OR exceed those specs upon testing (some of the gucci items have already been tested and determined to have performed worse than the CTS gear in ballisitcs tests) in order to get put onto that list.

That takes craploads of money -- and TIME. Is it cost-effective and time-effective to do that when our gear has already met and passed those tests and proven to be safe? (We are not talking Tac Vest here).

We are NOT a nation of unlimited funding -- much as that would be nice, it simply is not realistic.

 

[Michael OLeary]

What I don't see is the logic behind the CF policy that only issued gear will be used.

Who would be at fault when some young troop's personally acquired Super Ninja Lightweight Ballistic Plates didn't stop a bullet?

 

[George Wallace]

Who would be at fault when some young troop's personally acquired Super Ninja Lightweight Ballistic Plates didn't stop a bullet?

or if some superninjawannabe in a deployed unit bought a shinny Desert Eagle and it malfunctioned in a TIC.  (I know.....A little extreme.)

 

[riggermade]

Personally when it comes to body armour then use what is issued...it has been tested and approved

When it comes to anything to improve on the Tacvest and carry the ammo load vice what the tacvest does then go for it...tacvest or chest rig over issued body armour is not going to effect the capabilities of the body armour....there are other organiztions doing the same thing, not in combat but still with the risk of being shot at

The arguement about contractors could go on forever ...I know vests that were approved that fell apart because of poor workmanship and I know there is kit out there that is on more than one tour and holding up

I can see both sides but it is getting rediculous the arguing on this thread

We all know there is approved kit and other kit and every individual has there own idea what works and there has been how many answers to solve the problem

Some people are taking this a little to personal and that is on both sides of the arguement

 

[armyvern]

So you're saying the problem is politics?

If I'm reading you right, it's about the government more concerned about covering it's ass than winning wars.

Not what I said at all.

It certainly wouldn't be the governemnt suing itself with a

"My son is dead because the CF allowed him to use a plate OTR that let a 7.62 round pass through it without even testing it. They failed in their responsibility to ensure my son was adequately mitigated against risk; And, that is their Duty to my son whose Duty was to serve the country."

 

[Fusaki]

You're missing the part where the gear that the government "authorizes for wear" MUST meet safety standards and ballistic testing standard/mil specs.

Ergo, for every pieve of OTR kit you want a soldier to have on "that list" of approved for wear ... will have to go through the exact same ballisitics testing/mil spoec certification that our issued gear does and has gone through. And, it therefore follows that it must also meet OR exceed those specs upon testing (some of the gucci items have already been tested and determined to have performed worse than the CTS gear in ballisitcs tests) in order to get put onto that list.

That takes craploads of money -- and TIME. Is it cost-effective and time-effective to do that when our gear has already met and passed those tests and proven to be safe? (We are not talking Tac Vest here).

Then don't make a list of authorized non-issue kit.  Just say "If its CADPAT go for it. If your section commander shuts you down, too bad you've wasted your money."

If everyone had the freedom to choose what they wanted and what they didnt the good gear would thrive and the bad gear would die out. Under Armor is a perfect example of this.  I'm sure the CF has banned Under Armor outside the wire.  Now, I'll bet that if people still wanted to wear it they could get away with it. But NO ONE wants to have that stuff melted to them.  It didn't take a study or the chain of command to stop me from wearing under armor. It took one horror story of a guy getting that crap melted into his skin.

It goes back to what I was saying earlier about natural selection.  If everyone had the freedom to experiment on Ex in Canada and overseas in combat the good gear would thrive and and the bad gear would not.  No two guys would be wearing the exact same equipment, but common trends in design and features will develop over time.  Guys would know what things to avoid and they'd be looking for those things in their next purchase. Over time, Section commanders and PL WOs would have the experience to guide their soldiers and they'd be able to shut down really silly ideas at the lowest levels.  More often though, guys would sort each other out - passing info by word of mouth.

Write your MP, ask him/her to have the government purchasing laws changed and have a nice day.

Or in other words:  "Used the issued kit because thats the way it is". :

Who would be at fault when some young troop's personally acquired Super Ninja Lightweight Ballistic Plates didn't stop a bullet?

It would be his fault.  But maybe if he had a better TV he'd have shot the bad guy before the bad guy shot him.  People are always going to get hurt. Bust less people will get hurt by an army that can adapt faster to a changing enemy.

 

[aesop081]

Or in other words:  "Used the issued kit because thats the way it is". :

Save the rolling eyes and lecturing for someone else, i didnt join the CF yesterday. I've used a piece or two of non-issued kit in my days.

 

[armyvern]

Then don't make a list of authorized non-issue kit.  Just say "If its CADPAT go for it. If your section commander shuts you down, too bad you've wasted your money."

If anybody SAID that they would be benefacto "approving" it -- and NO ONE has the authority to do that unless it has been put through that testing process. Is that really too hard a concept to grasp?

:

 

[Michael OLeary]

It took one horror story of a guy getting that crap melted into his skin.

It goes back to what I was saying earlier about natural selection. 

Why did it even need one horror story, what's wrong with the CF testing process to determine acceptable standards?

Natural selection? So, your acceptable solution is the CF saying: "Sorry Mrs Bloggins, Jimmy died because he wasn't smart enough to buy himself better kit.  Yeah, we had workable stuff, but he chose not to use it and that was his right.  Oh, by the way, he signed the waiver, so you can't sue us.  Sorry, he didn't get any medals, but his section did nominate him for the Darwin Award."

 

[Fusaki]

Why did it even need one horror story, what's wrong with the CF testing process to determine acceptable standards?

Natural selection? So, your acceptable solution is the CF saying: "Sorry Mrs Bloggins, Jimmy died because he wasn't smart enough to buy himself better kit.  Yeah, we had workable stuff, but he chose not to use it and that was his right.  Oh, by the way, he signed the waiver, so you can't sue us.  Sorry, he didn't get any medals, but his section did nominate him for the Darwin Award."

How about "Sorry Mrs Bloggins, but Jimmy was trapped inside a burning LAV because his gear got all caught up in a tangled mess.  Maybe if the government had been faster to issue a releasable armour system he'd still be alive."

People are going to die and thats not good. But less people are going to die if the equipment they use can keep pace with the speed the gear industry evolves.  Whats wrong with the system? It's SLOW.  Releasable armor is GOOD idea. But despite the fact that the concept has been around for awhile now, and despite the fact that the US army is now issuing releasable armour, the CF will take another 10 years to get on board. By the time it is issued it will be 2008 technology and the industry will be already be two bounds ahead.

How many lives will be lost between now and 2018 because a guy couldn't crawl out of his burning LAV fast enough? How about training accidents in Canada soldier falls into the river, can't get his gear off quick enough and drowns? What are you going to tell their parents? The technology is there, but we didn't move fast enough? The law says we need to do it this way?

I'm not saying our issued gear is unsafe. Safety is a relative term.  Sometimes the safest thing is to wear less armor so you can move and fight faster. What is considered "safer" today will be "safe, but not as safe as this" 10 years from now.

Like I keep saying, equipment we use should be in a constant arms race. You can never have the "best" of anything. The most you can do is adapt fast enough that you're ahead of the curve.  The COTS gear industry moves one hell of alot faster then the CF beurocracy and if we can find a way to keep up with it our soldiers WILL BE SAFER.

If anybody SAID that they would be benefacto "approving" it -- and NO ONE has the authority to do that unless it has been put through that testing process. Is that really too hard a concept to grasp?

But it happens anyways and overall the troops appreciate it!  Find me someone who's been in a Battlegroup, OMLT, Force Protection, or anywhere on the pointy end over the past couple years who says that we should exclusivly use issued gear.  Whether or not they have "official authority", switched on COs and OCs have been making the call.  All I'm saying is the sooner we embrace this common sense approach to things the faster our army will have the experience to know what is good gear and what isn't.