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

[dapaterson]

One issue to remember when talking kit procurement:  DND ins't buying one set - they're buying tens of thousands of (insert name of kit here).  Despite good intentions, that takes time.  Many vendors can provide a few dozen peices, but not a few thousand on short notice.  So just saying "Bill & Ted's Excellent Tactical Wear" makes a great chest rig doesn't mean they can outfit a battle group on short notice.

The procurement system for government can be cumbersome - but the CF can be its own worst enemy, with revolving chairs among those responsible, so there is little expertise in working projects through the system.  "Letting soldiers run the system" won't solve anything - they're already there.  Despite popular perceptions, it's not bureaucrats running amok and inflicting inconvenience on the military - "The fault lies not with our stars, but with ourselves".


Let's try to discuss procurement without:

(1) Accusing PWGSC of hosting a secret cabal dedicated to buying only the worst equipment;

(2) Accusing CTS of being incompentent / uncaring / secretly plotting the overthrown of the Western world;

(3) Prefacing every comment with "When I was in theatre...".

(4) Asserting that the LSVW is really an example of good procurement, that just has a bad rap.


This thread can have good value - but not if everyone's defensive and sniping...

 

[Fusaki]

Some of you are like friggin' little children right now, .....whats next "My Dad can beat up your Dad"?
Have some "professional courtesy", everyone has a job, get over the fact that you might need to thump your chest publically because, truthfully, its ******' embarrassing.

I wouldn't call it chest thumping.  I'd call it lessons learned.

If you want to know what is working and what isn't in Afghanistan, doesn't it make sense to ask someone who just recently returned home?  When weighing the opinions, isn't it significant that on one side you have people who spent comparatively little if any time outside the wire and on the other side you have guys who've spent months at a time living with a round in the chamber?

It's more then just "I'm the man 'cause I was in combat!" I'll be the first to admit that a TIC does not make anyone a SME on anything. But I'd say that when considering two different points of view it's a necessity to see where those opinions are coming from.

There's a fine line between war stories and lessons learned. When one is confused with the other the picture is muddled by those who are way out of their lanes.

 

[armyvern]

Lessons Learned also come from purple trades, amongst others, who've been involved in incidents outside the wire and who also have to use that kit. Therefore their input into that kit is valid. And, you'd be surprised that a lot of them (even IF never shot at) have some of the very same observations that you do. But, the tendency for some to automaticly assume that someone posting not of the "pointy end" side of the house is outside their lanes and has never seen nor sent a bullet flying on the two-way range is also a fallacy. It always seems to be the retort of last resort, and in some cases -- it is erroneously made simply because someone's assumed that poster hasn't been subjected to such.

It's called RESPECT for anothers trade, enviornment. That's "professionalism".

Just remember what assumputions do. Someone may be in a blue uniform now, or in a purple trade -- that doesn't mean they are out of their lanes, nor does it mean they haven't been there.

Some people seem to forget that.

 

[rifleman]

Don't forget Afghanistan isn't the first combat operations either. Previous generations had really crappy kit. I hated the dang Y-yoke on the old webbing, and 20 rd mags in the breast pocket, where did your smokes go?

 

[Armymedic]

It would be nice to have a kit implantation/replacement turnaround at roughly 3-5 years instead of the current decade. Perhaps that in itself would begin to solve the problem

 

[Fusaki]

Lessons Learned also come from purple trades, amongst others, who've been involved in incidents outside the wire and who also have to use that kit. Therefore their input into that kit is valid. And, you'd be surprised that a lot of them (even IF never shot at) have some of the very same observations that you do.

I can agree to that.  Starlight31 posts here. He's an Air Force medic who was attached to my coy and he was in there every day with the rest of us, and to be fair he even sucked up more sharp metal then most of us.  I've seen Veh/FCS/LCIS techs all fucked up and crazy eyed from being mortared every day (PBW, Aug 06). At the time they living in just as much danger if not more then those of us on the sharp end and I have all the respect in the world for those guys doing a job I thought was tougher than my own.

The combat arms NEEDS support to carry on the fight for more than 72 hours.  This support, especially in the presence of an asymmetric threat, often ends up on the pointy end itself.

But the role is different.  My job and the job of any other combat arms guy is first and foremost to do the fighting.  An FCS Tech might find himself hammering rounds downrange with the C6 as his Bison pushes through the killzone, but when he's done his main concern is to fix things so the LAV works properly.  A combat arms guy's job is to think about how he's fighting, and what he could be doing better.  It's his area of expertise.  Overall, the combat arms has more experience fighting the good fight then support trades.  We have a higher percentage of people with combat experience and that experience is concentrated within the units.  It's our bread and butter, and just like an FCS Tech is the best guy for fixing optics, we're the best guys for identifying gear that will suit OUR needs.

 

[armyvern]

Sure, the roles are different.

The kit MUST work for the combat arms types first and foremost, but it must also be compatable with we others who must use it too. Our observations/input is valid.

As to the medics et al (and every other trade) who are performing so awesomely outside the wire -- kudos to them all. And that highlights exactly my point -- it is not on and is simply unprofessional to wield the big "you're not pointy end - you don't know what it's like to be shot at stick" ... when you do not know where the individual you are speaking to has been -- the tendency to do so, and the often erroneous error in doing so, lends nothing to "professionalism", rather it highlights the exact opposite.

 

[Fusaki]

The kit MUST work for the combat arms types first and foremost, but it must also be compatable with we others who must use it too. Our observations/input is valid.

Seems reasonable.  I think we've agreed on this.

But take a look back over the past couple pages of this thread and see who's opinion lies where.  I could be wrong, but my impression is that most - if not all - of those who feel the strongest against the "non-issue kit for everyone" ideas have never spent any time outside the wire in Afghanistan. Regardless of what trade they're in.  You might find someone who did a combat arms tour in Bosnia 7 years ago, before the days of Eagle Industries and before the days of modern counter-insurgency. You might even find someone who was air sentry on a few trips outside of KAF. You might find someone who worked the gate at Camp Julien in Kabul for a few days.

But I'll bet that in the 86 pages of this thread you'll find that the vast majority of soldiers - regardless of trade - who've lived outside the wire - in combat - over the past couple years have held the opinion that the system is broken and going for non-issue gear is the solution.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Seems reasonable.  I think we've agreed on this.

But take a look back over the past couple pages of this thread and see who's opinion lies where.  I could be wrong, but my impression is that most - if not all - of those who feel the strongest against the "non-issue kit for everyone" ideas have never spent any time outside the wire in Afghanistan. Regardless of what trade they're in.  You might find someone who did a combat arms tour in Bosnia 7 years ago, before the days of Eagle Industries and before the days of modern counter-insurgency. You might even find someone who was air sentry on a few trips outside of KAF. You might find someone who worked the gate at Camp Julien in Kabul for a few days.

But I'll bet that in the 86 pages of this thread you'll find that the vast majority of soldiers - regardless of trade - who've lived outside the wire - in combat - over the past couple years have held the opinion that the system is broken and going for non-issue gear is the solution.

I'll bite. It's your observation and statement. How about going back and doing a census for us to prove you're right? Your assertion will carry a lot more weight, if you can back it up. Right now, I'm sitting on the fence.

 

[Fusaki]

I'll bite. It's your observation and statement. How about going back and doing a census for us to prove you're right?

I can't. And I'll admit that it is only an observation and I just don't have the means to prove that I'm right. But can you honestly look back over this thread and think otherwise?

And besides, a census will turn the subject into something black and white. A full survey would be better. But I think the best way of judging this is to look back at each post individually and get a feel for where each individual generally stands on the subject.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think he means that you post every recent post that is for and against and list their trade. ? ? ? ?

 

[Fusaki]

I think he means that you post every recent post that is for and against and list their trade. ? ? ? ?

Trade isn't a good indicator, as Vern has pointed out. And I don't want to compile posts into "for" and "against" piles because that could easily be interpreted as me lumping people into "wog" and "not a wog". I think that people can judge for themselves without openly pointing fingers.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't care what means you use, or how you do it. I'm not accepting your statement at face value without proof, is all. It's too easy to cast dispersions, when it doesn't have to be backed up. I'm really not that overly interested, truth be told, but opinion should have some basis in provable fact. If asked for your facts, you should be able to produce them. Get my drift?

 

[Fusaki]

I'm not accepting your statement at face value without proof, is all. It's too easy to cast dispersions, when it doesn't have to be backed up. I'm really not that overly interested, truth be told, but opinion should have some basis in provable fact. If asked for your facts, you should be able to produce them. Get my drift?

I follow.  But if I back up my impression with specifics I'll end up in a spot where I'm pointing out certain individuals and saying that "your experience doesn't count as much as you think it does." This, of course, would be pretty insulting and its not what this site needs.

I think that this could be avoided by members looking for themselves and taking the time to draw their own conclusions. No fingers need to be pointed publicly, but I think when all is said and done the honest individual assessments of everyone here should support my statement.

 

[McG]

CTS is a supplier and distributor of gear to the Canadian Forces.

No.  CTS is a project office within the Canadian Forces.

On top of that the system to change things via the UCR is not understood well by soldiers at all levels.  ...  But the flip side is higher in the CoC are people just as ignorant of the UCR system, UCRs sit for months before they are substantiated or are not forwarded at all.

On top of being misunderstood, there is also need for some improvement to the UCR system ... but that might be a topic for another thread (and it has been a few times).  Despite their problems, UCRs do work/help when completed intelligently.

... Also, if you had your tacvest contaminated or damaged, it could be immediately be replaced.  90% of our company had broken vests, and mine was not replaced for a month. In the meantime it was held together by guntape and paracord.

This 90% (I'll assume this is a rough order estimate) with broken vests, were these issued or non-issued vests?  Why did you wait a month for something you say could be replaced immediately?

I can replace any kit I sell, that breaks, faster than the CF can.  Yes I will put money on that.

So, a soldier gets his kit damaged on patrol returns to the FOB and the CQ hands him a replacement that same day.  You are saying that you can beat that from here in Canada?

Until someone who's actually been outside the wire comes in and ...

You do know there are Combat Arms soldiers involved in the selection, trialling, testing, & procurement of kit (and no one person has a job that spans all of this) that have time outside the wire in Kandahar, right?

Now I took both stats and economics at univeristy - and I can remember the factors affecting consumer recalls - was based on whether or not the expected lawsutis for negligence would outweight the costs or the recall.

This doesn't help me want to trust industry with deciding the protection requirements of my PPE.

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.

I have less optimism on this than you.  I think you are correct as far as the issues of comfort, flexibility, durability, mobility, ease of use, etc, etc & all things human factors.  However, I do not think the personal protection side would be well evaluated until too late.  We typically don't do force on force live fire in Wainwright or any other training area, so in your system the effectiveness of PPE would only truly be tested when we get to war.  Once we are at war, what will be noticed is the catastrophic PPE failures or examples of kit which exaggerate injury.  There is a whole range of marginally inadequate PPE which could go unnoticed to the observer more concerned with the immediate fire fight.

The Oregon Aero BLSS and BLU kit provide so much more protection over the leather, paracord and foam POS stuck in the helmet it's not even funny. 

Have you confirmed this for Canadian helmets?  Pads may improve the survivability of US helmets, but our troops don't use those helmets.  I don't know how those specific pads would perform in our helmets but, If I were you, I would be cautious of the implications in making this promise to potential customers without the ballistic & blast testing proof of your product's effectiveness in the Canadian helmet. 

We also had it passed on to us by Army lesson learned that the tac vest held your guts in in the event of evisceration.

This is complete nonsense.  If this was passed to you by the ALLC, then someone in that organization is failing to communicate what was explained to them.  However ...

... tacvest or chest rig over issued body armour is not going to effect the capabilities of the body armour....

... the tacvest does in fact help the performance of the FPV against some threats.  There are other options out there which might be able to reproduce this aid to protection, and there are still others which cannot.  I will not elaborate any further in order to avoid butchering the message as badly as was done by the ALLC rep.  If you need more information, ask your CoC to seek out the information from better informed sources than I.  The message to take away from here is not that the tac vest cannot be replaced; the message is that whatever replaces the tacvest, in addition to meeting the users' preference, may also have to meet a certain capability to assist the FPV.

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. 

PPE is where I draw the line.  Don't substitute commercial kit in place of issued PPE, and don't modify issued PPE.  The tac vest (despite helping the FPV) is not PPE and its deficiencies (though sometimes exaggerated) are well documented in several threads on this site. The tac vest is an excellent example of an item for which it would be fully reasonable for the local CoC to exercise some discretion in allowing alternatives.

Once again I will state, education of the soldiers & CoC is essential but I do not see any panacea to kit problems.

 

[NL_engineer]

This is complete nonsense.  If this was passed to you by the ALLC, then someone in that organization is failing to communicate what was explained to them.  However ...... the tacvest does in fact help the performance of the FPV against some threats.  There are other options out there which might be able to reproduce this aid to protection, and there are still others which cannot.  I will not elaborate any further in order to avoid butchering the message as badly as was done by the ALLC rep.  If you need more information, ask your CoC to seek out the information from better informed sources than I.  The message to take away from here is not that the tac vest cannot be replaced; the message is that whatever replaces the tacvest, in addition to meeting the users' preference, may also have to meet a certain capability to assist the FPV.
PPE is where I draw the line.  Don't substitute commercial kit in place of issued PPE, and don't modify issued PPE.  The tac vest (despite helping the FPV) is not PPE and its deficiencies (though sometimes exaggerated) are well documented in several threads on this site. The tac vest is an excellent example of an item for which it would be fully reasonable for the local CoC to exercise some discretion in allowing alternatives.

Once again I will state, education of the soldiers & CoC is essential but I do not see any panacea to kit problems.

Please explain

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I follow.  But if I back up my impression with specifics I'll end up in a spot where I'm pointing out certain individuals and saying that "your experience doesn't count as much as you think it does." This, of course, would be pretty insulting and its not what this site needs.

I think that this could be avoided by members looking for themselves and taking the time to draw their own conclusions. No fingers need to be pointed publicly, but I think when all is said and done the honest individual assessments of everyone here should support my statement.

But that's exactly what you're doing though, isn't it. Anyway, I hope you get the point. Put away the broad brush.

 

[McG]

Please explain

Please read to the end of quoted para in which you bolded some font.

 

[PuckChaser]

I can't see how the TV can help the FPV stop rounds, other than just the kit inside slowing the projectile down to assist the plates. That can be accomplished carrying any COTS rig.

The main issue for me with the TV, is that it is completely unsuitable to wear while in the CC hatch of a Bison. I'm a very skinny person, and I cannot enter, exit the hatch quickly without the vest grabbing and holding me in. I've seen the LAV turrets and those hatches look a lot smaller, so I'd have to guess those crews have the same issue (LAV gunner/CC can shed some light that'd be awesome)? Without my TV, all I had was my 2 mags for my C8 and the C6 before I'd be required to duck in for ammo, leaving a nice lull in fire superiority. I think for the whole tour my TV sat on the bench behind me, and didn't ever move.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

LAV crews didn't wear their TV's on the move (TF 3-06, A Coy)