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

[Bzzliteyr]

Perhaps he went and asked for an interview and someone has taken offence to that?

We've been trained before and reminded during our tours, speak only of what you know and that seems to be what he has done.

As for kit, it seems we like to complicate procurement by leaps and bounds. We have to have human factors engineers decide that if I decide to try to eat with my tacvest on, I won't spill any of my hot ration on myself,etc...

That's just plain silly.

 

[Gunner98]

The real issue is much higher than DLR or DRDC, it is the PWGSC tender process which forces all Gov't, but especially the CF, jump through many fiery hoops before you can sole-source or off-the-shelf or in many cases buy from outside Canada.  Cdn industry must have a chance to compete for tender before foreign products can be purchased.  The Made in Canada solution takes longer but reduces the hard work for the project managers.

 

[Farmboy]

Yup, been there, done that, still waiting on public works  :

 

[MdB]

The problem lies in in the whole Canadian system.

DLR is not a private company, it doesn't have to be innovative, it doesn't have to make money or answer to shareholders.

Well, DLR just owes it to those who put their lives on the line... That's reason enough in my mind.

They came out with the Tac Vest many years later than it should have been released.  If a private company had done this they would be losing money big time.

The problem is with any company that is government owned.

A private company will renew it's line every couple of years if not every year. They can afford to do it because they don't have to field their products, instead it will be sold in bunches and will have time to produce them. They do it all the time, not on cyclical basis, Govt do it on a need basis. I concede that the innovative side might lack, but that's why we have CANSEC et al.

Private companies are years ahead of what the government is doing.  The military needs to purchase direct from private companies without trying to add their own features.  Quick, easy and cheaper than years of development on obsolete equipment.

I tend to agree, but the normal reaction from private companies is lobbying and having ties with govt officials, leading to huge conflict of interests, can it get any worse? hehe. Again, is it only this process preventing us from having proper equipment in a timely manner?

The real issue is much higher than DLR or DRDC, it is the PWGSC tender process which forces all Gov't, but especially the CF, jump through many fiery hoops before you can sole-source or off-the-shelf or in many cases buy from outside Canada.  Cdn industry must have a chance to compete for tender before foreign products can be purchased.  The Made in Canada solution takes longer but reduces the hard work for the project managers.

I'm curious about what other countries do to keep it ok. Is not having bid process the only solution?

 

[LordOsborne]

It was a translation error. You can watch the original interview in French here http://lcn.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/player/video.cgi?file=/lcn/actualite/national/20080213_dion.wmv where he talks about extra mags and not extra side arms.

By the way, according to this video http://lcn.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/player/video.cgi?file=/lcn/actualite/national/20080213_raymond2.wmv (towards the end) Cpl Beaulieu could be sanctioned by the forces because he went public with this. At the moment, CF do not want to elaborate more as the matter is in hands of lawyers.

Whoops! Thanks for that.

 

[Maybee]

As I understand the procurement process - PWSGC and the Treasury board are involved in addition to DND's own bureaucracy. Complicating matters further all those departments have staff rotational cycles that are not in sync.
Meaning the PWSGC guy who was working on the TV project (or whatever project) changes jobs part way through the process, and then the Tresury guy changes at a different point in the process, and then the DND guy, etc. etc.
All that to say that perhaps the delay we see in new kit can be attributed to the staff turnover and the 'reading in' process. Not to mention the 'new' guys great ideas on how to improve the project. I am not certain that I have the facts straight on that but I recall hearing that in a conversation with a Staff weinie at the Area level. A possible solution to this (maybe) problem is to second staff from Public Works and Treasury to DND - at least all the staff will rotate on the same cycle that way.
In the meantime give Units discretion to buy load carrying gear that they think is suitable - give them a budget to do it. Then all you have to do is argue with your RQ. Add one or two restrictions like "must be CADPAT" must be MOLLE...and whammo!
Someone else on this board used the Hockey player analogy no one wears exactly the same shin pads but they are all in the same uniform...
Just a comment from the cheap seats.

 

[RHFC_piper]

I still don't understand why we don't do like the US WRT LBV/TV etc.  Put MOLLE on our ballistic vest... BAM! Modular Tac vest. 

 

[seamus]

Putting Mollee on our ballistic vests would solve many problems. I would however point out it would create other problems, (gunners and commanders). All they have to do for the present vest is the following. First make it a little bit tougher, I tends to fray and break after long use. Second make the magazine pouches hold 2 mags, and the third is to make it Mollee. Add some pouches c-9 specific and done. I would warn with the experiences I have had to put Mollee on the frag vest, and do not put a camelback on the vest either. Both of these ideas are good in theory but have large draw backs.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

A Ballistic vest with molle on it will be extremely problematic for crew commanders who have to or decide to dismount.

 

[RHFC_piper]

A Ballistic vest with molle on it will be extremely problematic for crew commanders who have to or decide to dismount.

Thats where a TV/LBV comes in handy...

Or.. another option; if Crew wants to/has to dismount and know well in advance, carry extra mag pouches and such in the LAV... would be a good idea anyway, just in case more mag pouches are needed or some get worn/damaged. 

Either way, having everything on the BV is 1 less layer for every one... might be easier, even for crew... just take stuff out of the pouches till needed.

The way I see it; it's hard to cater to everyone's needs, and it just seems more logical to cater to the needs of those who need the right kit all the time, not just some time or on occasion.  The dismounts would benefit the most from this and if the crew needs to dismount, it would be no different than it is now; put on TV/Rig and go.

As for the uniformity aspect for garrison; have a generic layout for garrison and allow the troops to do what they want/need for ops. 

Maybe it's just me, but the whole MOLLE on the BV seems just too easy and simple...  I've heard no complaints from the US soldiers I've spoken to about the subject either (any here have issues?). 

Sometimes the simplest solution is the right one.

 

[daftandbarmy]

+1. Keep the options open. Let the troops decide what they need, and then give it to them.

 

[OldSolduer]

Thus far I've seen a good debate on this subject.
If we are going to at some point in the future issue a modular type vest where the soldier puts his pouches where he wants/needs them, let the soldier do that and leave it at that. No lay out for "garrison" and one for the field. I know this is preaching sacrilege to the the "garatroopers" and preaching to the converted as well.
As for uniformity on a parade....uniformity is good for DEU parades. Even then we are not truly "uniform".
All in all, let the soldier decide the layout of his tac vest or MOLLE or web gear etc.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Exactly. I would say that 'garrison' layout is DEU. Once you get the CADPAT on, what makese sense for battle should be the 'dress of the day'.

 

[KevinB]

DS solution --- issues MOLLE pouches w/ 1 X releaseable armour vest, 1x chest rig and 1x Patrol vest  -- the user can tailor the kit to HSI (or her) NEEDS.

 

[OldSolduer]

Thank you Inifidel 6. You seem to be the SME on this topic.
DO you have any pictures of what you're talking about? Please post if you do. I, for one, would like to see what you're talking about.

 

[seamus]

I think it goes, simple solutions for complex problems will not be tolerated? ;D

 

[RHFC_piper]

...  I only mentioned the "garrison layout" as I know there are some out there who would/might complain...  I have a more utilitarian view of how operational/tactical kit should be organized... it just seems to conflict with everyone.


But, as for the MOLLE BV;  In my short time overseas, I had contemplated going to the seamstress in KAF and have them install some MOLLE straps, but I had 2 resounding issues;
1) I figured, upon returning it, I would get jacked for altering kit
2) I had already spent $600+ on a rig.

I did price it out though... $40 US at the one on the Board walk... Plus another $100 for pouches (coyote tan) at the tac shop...  shoulda thought of that before... oh well. 

 

[OldSolduer]

RFHC you wouldn't get jacked by me, just a very mile reprimand....there are some personnel is key positions that need "education" (reality check) on why troops do what they do when it comes to web gear, tac vests etc.
They do it because it works for them. I say let them do it. 

 

[RHFC_piper]

RFHC you wouldn't get jacked by me, just a very mile reprimand....there are some personnel is key positions that need "education" (reality check) on why troops do what they do when it comes to web gear, tac vests etc.
They do it because it works for them. I say let them do it. 

See... this goes along with my "utilitarian view" of tactical equipment.

Here's how I see it; and this comes from working as a machinist.  If you take your job seriously, and are professional, you want to make sure you do your job to the best of your ability.  In trades dependent on tools and equipment, this means having the best/right equipment for the job.  Some employers supply equipment which is suitable to get the job done, but sometimes you want equipment which will help you work more efficiently, quickly and/or comfortably... This is when you pull out of pocket to get what you need.
This equipment doesn't have to be the most expensive, just what works for you, since you're the one using it.  But either way, you, as the professional should know, or will learn with time, what you need. And if you don't, all you have to do is merely pay attention to those around you who have more experience doing the same job, and see what they use... use this as a basis and develop your own needs.
There are a lot of companies out there who allow this, and even give allowances for it.  I worked for a shop which gave yearly tool allowances for hand tools, measuring equipment and storage, and when you're done working there, no matter the reason, you kept what you bought... in the event you required it for your next job (I have a lot of tools).  This may not work for the CF, but if such equipment is retained, then it can be reissued when a member wants to spend some cash on the same piece of kit... thus saving money.
So, in summation; The kit we carry, no matter the trade, element, rank, etc, should reflect our needs to get the assigned job done, and should not be dictated by the parade state of the unit... The enemy doesn't care what we look like on parade and our ability to do our job, no matter the trade, should be paramount. Simple as that.
 

 

[Loachman]

A REAL expert's opinion (note the assumption that we still use twenty-round magazines and other fallacies):

Soldier’s complaints present weighty questions

By SCOTT TAYLOR On Target
Mon. Feb 18 - 5:00 AM

LAST WEEK, there was certainly no shortage of media attention focused on Canada’s role in Afghanistan. In terms of domestic politics, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion were delicately dancing around the wording on a face-saving compromise that would avoid them sending Canadians to the polls over the duration and nature of our military commitment to Kandahar.

Then came the allegation from a serving soldier that Canadian troops in Afghanistan are poorly equipped. Anxious as always for any new angle on the Afghan debate, the media eagerly gave voice to the concerns expressed by Cpl. Daniel Beaulieu.

His resume seemed very impressive: An 11-year veteran with the Royal 22nd Regiment, Beaulieu served a tour in Bosnia and has just returned to Valcartier from his second tour in Afghanistan. This experienced rifleman’s memos of complaint had fallen on deaf ears within the chain of command, so he decided to take his message to the local TV station.

To a civilian, Beaulieu’s comments no doubt sounded pretty scandalous. According to this corporal, our contingent is equipped for "peacekeeping, not war-fighting" and to argue his case, he listed several shortcomings. Beaulieu pointed out that the current protective vests issued to our soldiers only have pouches to hold four magazines of C-7 rifle ammunition. Add to this the 20 rounds of ammunition in the magazine already on the weapon, and our soldiers carry into combat 100 preloaded 5.56 calibre bullets. According to Beaulieu, this should be increased to 15 spare magazines or a total of 320 rounds of ammo.

Nobody thought to ask this combat veteran just how he planned to carry the extra 35 pounds of weight this would add to an average soldier’s current full kit load of nearly 80 pounds. Nor did anybody inquire if there has been a single instance in Canada’s six-year military experience in Afghanistan where our front-line troops have been forced to break contact with the enemy as a result of an ammunition shortage.

During Beaulieu’s seven-month tour in Kandahar, there were no prolonged firefights with insurgents. The only casualties suffered in the Van Doo battle group came as a result of roadside bombs. Given the nature of this threat, I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to travel around with 300 bullets strapped to their chest.

When our troops have fought insurgents in major offensive operations, they have done so close to their armoured vehicles that offer them not only heavy fire support and protection, but also ready access to additional ammunition.

Beaulieu’s second gripe about bullets was that infantry soldiers are only issued with one spare clip of ammo for their side arms. He felt they should be issued with at least two spare magazines for their pistols.

As side arms are intended for use only as an emergency backup or in extremely close-quarters fighting, I cannot imagine a scenario to date in Afghanistan where any of our soldiers would have expended one clip, let alone three, of pistol ammo.

Complaint No. 3 was that the service-issue holsters made the pistol too accessible. Sometimes the handguns would fall out unexpectedly, and Beaulieu stated the obvious by saying this might cause an injury. To date, we have had three Canadian soldiers killed and several wounded by accidental weapon discharges, but these all involved C-7 rifles, or in one case a shotgun — not handguns. As one military spokesman explained in the wake of Beaulieu’s public charges, the pistol has to be able to come out of the holster easily — that’s the way they’re designed.

The last big revelation from Beaulieu was that the desert boots were substandard. Sure they may be state-of-the-art footwear that retail at around $300 a pair, but after Beaulieu went on long patrols, his feet hurt. I will pause here for a moment to let everyone who once served in the infantry roll their eyes skyward in disbelief.

Cpl. Beaulieu says he fears retribution for his public outburst, but the military would be wise to heed his advice. They should design the corporal a vest that can hold 15 ammo mags, issue him the extra pistol clips and insist that he carry them all the time.

Admittedly, there was a time in the mid-1990s when our troops were serving overseas in threadbare combat clothes, and rotating soldiers had to exchange helmets and flak jackets at the airport, but those days are long gone.

If anyone wants to see ill-equipped soldiers, perhaps the media should focus on the ragtag Afghan National Army, which we are supposedly committed to turn into a self-sustaining military force by 2011.

( staylor@herald.ca )