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

[George Wallace]

Alternatively why not just issue certain kit to certain troops ie. only issue front line troops with the high speed webbing, plate carriers and the rest. The rest of the army, navy, and airforce rear echelon and support trades can carry on using the old tac vests and what ever else they're issued to carry to their desks.

That is fine if there is a "Defined Front Line"; but what of the case of which there is none, as in Afghanistan?

 

[Jarnhamar]

That is fine if there is a "Defined Front Line"; but what of the case of which there is none, as in Afghanistan?

A clerk should be able to make due with a tacvest even if they are going to a FOB. It wouldn't be economical to give them a SORD riflemen style chest rig. They'll be handicapped in a firefight more by their lack of training than the difference in rigs.

I know the big mantra is that the frontline is everywhere/there is no more frontline but realistically speaking there are a lot of trades who don't need the same stuff that combat arms need.


Boots are more 'common to all' than chestrigs and rucksacks.

 

[x_para76]

The problem lies in attempting to define what "the correct kit for the job they're doing" is.  Ever watch a kit discussion here (or in unit lines)?  Every kit slut is convinced that their setup is perfect and anything else is hopeless.  There is no consensus - other than "Issue kit sucks", which, when you press the topic, results in no useful insights as to why it sucks, or how to make it better.

Which is why you issue a plate carrier and pouch system that is modular. If you look at the issued tac vest it becomes rather apparent that it's design was never derived from anyone who'd been in combat or who'd even served in the combat arms. If you look at CANSOFCOM they don't issue completely different kit for each soldier but instead issue kit that can be configured to suit individual preferences. Moreover they trial and select their own kit. You don't have a Log tech in the navy trialling kit that will then be primarily used by the combat arms.

 

[armyvern]

Which is why you issue a plate carrier and pouch system that is modular. If you look at the issued tac vest it becomes rather apparent that it's design was never derived from anyone who'd been in combat or who'd even served in the combat arms. If you look at CANSOFCOM they don't issue completely different kit for each soldier but instead issue kit that can be configured to suit individual preferences. Moreover they trial and select their own kit. You don't have a Log tech in the navy trialling kit that will then be primarily used by the combat arms.

CTS began in the mid-90s ... long before 9/11/01.  Yepper, it takes that long for Army-trialed kit to come into service here in Canada for anyone who isn't SOFCOM.  And guess what??  All those UCRs on the tacvest post 9/11 recommended ... MODULAR or chest.  Do you really think we are fucking stoopid?

Cripes, I was a Sgt in clothing stores a full decade ago (crap - that just hit me like a tonne of bricks  ) when the CTS trials began for new combat boots ... and they ain't issued to the force yet. 

SOFCOM procurement process & policy is not = to either the Cdn Army, the RCAF or the RCN outside-of-the-CF mandated process and policy for same.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Which is why you issue a plate carrier and pouch system that is modular. If you look at the issued tac vest it becomes rather apparent that it's design was never derived from anyone who'd been in combat or who'd even served in the combat arms. If you look at CANSOFCOM they don't issue completely different kit for each soldier but instead issue kit that can be configured to suit individual preferences. Moreover they trial and select their own kit. You don't have a Log tech in the navy trialling kit that will then be primarily used by the combat arms.

Every point you've tried to argue, about kit, has already been discussed in a whole bunch of places.....ad nauseum.

Will you please....please, go back and read the threads, see where your point has been discussed, digest that first and stop bringing things back to where we were ages ago.

People here, entering into reasonable discourse, are expected to understand the threads they participate in, including all the stuff that's gone before.

Quit showing up at the pool, yelling "I'm here!" and cannon balling into the conversation.

---Staff---

 

[McG]

Which is why you issue a plate carrier and pouch system that is modular. If you look at the issued tac vest it becomes rather apparent that it's design was never derived from anyone who'd been in combat or who'd even served in the combat arms. If you look at CANSOFCOM they don't issue completely different kit for each soldier but instead issue kit that can be configured to suit individual preferences. Moreover they trial and select their own kit. You don't have a Log tech in the navy trialling kit that will then be primarily used by the combat arms.

It was trialed by infantry, but thanks for coming out.

 

[McG]

I was not there, but you could dig back through this thread to find opinions of those who were either there or close enough to observe.

 

[Lightguns]

Canadian designed kit takes a long time from concept to issue.  The current tac vest is better than the previous tac vest which was an improvement on the webbing, it self an improvement on the 64 pattern webbing.  Yes, modular is the way to go but was only discovered by the Canadian military during the recent confrontation.  You will have modular very soon......by 2025...... 6 months after the US Army issues robotic tac gear carriers to it's troops.  Relax, it's coming and all Canadian made too!!!

Seriously, trials are done on a very limited range of concepts, the infantry guys were thinking that this was the best of the options presented.  Take the tac vest, it was comfortable, close fitting and distributed the weight nicely, our webbing pulled on the back of the belt because more weight was at the rear in our peace army than ran around with empty magazines.  The other tac vest was a ill fitting sleeveless bag that sagged anywhere you put weight in the pouches.

As for the ruck, I cannot comment on it other than to say it looks like a kit bag with shoulder straps.  But I can say that as a young soldier, we all hated the P64 ruck, it was a shoulder buster.  We longed for the big frame hiking pack or comfy internal frame pack.  We debated it often in the common rooms of Kapyong Barracks.  Now that we have that, the troops prefer the ruck we hated.  I sometimes whether it is the equipment procurement system or our wants that is problem.......

 

[armyvern]

Well that what were the infantry guys thinking who passed it?

They thought it was awesomely suited for those blue beret peacekeeping missions that were their 'deployments' at the time; they recommended some changes, trialed it, and out it came years & years later when - suddenly - it wasn't about blue berets anymore.  Perhaps though, you have ESP?

Word up; I am not infantry, but it seems to me that you may think you are the only competent apple in the bushel.  I have a different opinion on that and am now setting you to [/ignore].

 

[DirtyDog]

If only there were still fron lines in battle... COIN won't allow that to happen and a clerk can suddenly find themselves on the pointy end in a heartbeat.

Oh c'mon, man!

 

[DirtyDog]

They thought it was awesomely suited for those blue beret peacekeeping missions that were their 'deployments' at the time; they recommended some changes, trialed it, and out it came years & years later when - suddenly - it wasn't about blue berets anymore.  Perhaps though, you have ESP?
[/ignore].

Not only that... when some DLR clown has you trialing something that has effectively been his baby for months or years, and you tell them it's crap, they tend to ignore you and tell you how you're using it wrong.

 

[PuckChaser]

Not only that... when some DLR clown has you trialing something that has effectively been his baby for months or years, and you tell it's crap, they tend to ignore you and tell you how you're using it wrong.

I think you've found the biggest problem IMO in our procurement system. People have been allowed to build their careers around a certain piece of kit and refuse to admit mistakes.

 

[armyvern]

Not only that... when some DLR clown has you trialing something that has effectively been his baby for months or years, and you tell them it's crap, they tend to ignore you and tell you how you're using it wrong.

Yepper, but that was also post 9/11.  I think that bunch should be retired shortly.

I think the failure was that while wonderful for peacekeeping ... it absolutely was 500% wrong for warfighting and everyone who had to do that bit was able to figure it out about 1 minute into the very first TIC of that conflict.

;D

 

[KevinB]

The problem lies in attempting to define what "the correct kit for the job they're doing" is.  Ever watch a kit discussion here (or in unit lines)?  Every kit slut is convinced that their setup is perfect and anything else is hopeless.  There is no consensus - other than "Issue kit sucks", which, when you press the topic, results in no useful insights as to why it sucks, or how to make it better.

I says pardon...

  Oh clearly you never read one of my UCR's -- I had 15 pages of how I hate the TacVest and what should be done to fix the issue.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I says pardon...

  Oh clearly you never read one of my UCR's -- I had 15 pages of how I hate the TacVest and what should be done to fix the issue.

I have just lived through a detailed explanation by a senior person (who shall not be named, and who has zero operational experience) who described exactly why the wonderful life saving tac vest is EXACTLY the piece of kit we need - because it stops the body armour from 'billowing' up when your vehicle is htt by an IED. Chest rigs are death.

Hoo rah 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Sorry this person does not deserve to have their name redacted.

 

[MJP]

I have just lived through a detailed explanation by a senior person (who shall not be named, and who has zero operational experience) who described exactly why the wonderful life saving tac vest is EXACTLY the piece of kit we need - because it stops the body armour from 'billowing' up when your vehicle is htt by an IED. Chest rigs are death.

Hoo rah 

I was told the exact same thing.  Pure rubbish.  Like Kev I wrote with a great deal of assistance from various folks a UCR that gained some great traction and comments from my CoC.  I can't echo enough that complaining is one thing, but people need to write UCRs to really start the ball rolling.  I am pretty sure that I wrote up a how to in this  thread a few years a go for anyone looking.  An example UCR and a how to are on page 58/59 of this thread.

 

[Dissident]

I says pardon...

  Oh clearly you never read one of my UCR's -- I had 15 pages of how I hate the TacVest and what should be done to fix the issue.

And your UCR was when? 2006?

On a tangent, The MP branch at least solicited advice through email for the upcoming replacement of the issued ballistic vest and carrier. I did some research and asked advice from a reliable sources and gave supporting documentation. I am REALLY curious if any of my suggestions will be taken into consideration. Actually I never even got confirmation that my suggestions ever made it beyond Coy level.

 

[KevinB]

2003-2004

I know that MJP's made it beyond 1 VP and beyond 1 CMBG.


However I was talking to Bill Morley (rank not used as I thought he was a MWO, but recently another told me he is now a Capt)  at Warrior East and he explained how an idiot in DLR/CTS managed to fuck the whole replacement program up.

 

[McG]

... an idiot in DLR/CTS managed to fuck the whole replacement program up.

How?