Cadpat Overboard?

[Arctic Acorn]

yeah but a can a cam net be used in combat? I think it's mostly for stationary vehicles right?

Yup...I hear they did trials in Valcartier on the use of cam nets on mobile vehicles, but they had issues with the poles & cam spreaders staying in place.

 

[Bomber]

GM Covers makes a kit that was displayed at CANSEC last year, and will probably be there this year.  All the cam is in panels and is buttoned and fixed onto the vehicle.  It was a co-op effort with the pers cam net people, and looked amazing.  I know the Cam guys at the office were looking into it.  It is really friggin effective, cause it is vehicle specific, but breaks up the shap incredibly.

http://www.gmacover.com/

The only picture I see online is the hummer on thier main page.

 

[chrisf]

The idea behind camnets is to break up your sillhouette as well as provide cover from observation... from a far enough distance, and assuming it's well placed, it'll hide the vehicle, but under direct observation, the advantage of camnets is that it hides what's under the net... in theory, you could hide the nature of what's being hidden, such that your enemy doesn't know if it's say, a tank, a radio truck, or a dummy posistion (An empty space with a cam net over it).

I can't see a cam net that hugs the body of the vehicle serving any real purpose, except to break up texture, I can really see it being a hinderance more then an asset on a vehicle that's moving/loading and off-loading troops (Ever get caught in a cam net? Then you know what I mean).

That being said, purpose built cam nets/fixing points for windows would be lovely, but hessian is reasonably quick, and having a stock of hessian on hand is useful, because it's mulit-purpose.

 

[McG]

I can't see a cam net that hugs the body of the vehicle serving any real purpose, except to break up texture,

Texture is one of the reasons that things are seen.  I've seen photo's of Australian Leopards in this type of cam-net.

 

[George Wallace]

I have to agree with MCG.  In the early Eighties, we bolted Cam Nets to our Lynx's, and cut out the hatch openings, for a Recce Competition and you would be surprised at how different the veh looked.  It really did a lot to change the Recognition Features and helped it blend in to its surroundings while on patrol.

 

[chrisf]

Not saying it's a bad idea, just pointing out a few drawbacks (Or maybe just reliving one too many incidents caught like a fish in my own cam net), though really the only major one I can see is getting caught in it...

Given that the newer cam nets are designed around absorbing heat to reduce the thermal signature, there are other excellent reasons...

 

[George Wallace]

Wasn't as much chance of getting caught in it when it was bolted down

 

[herbie021]

Ive seen the boot at NDHQ and even the soles are CADPAT.

 

[Synthos]

one thing that someone else mentioned (this is related to cadpatting vehicles, not so much the net subtopic) is that if you were to cadpat a vehicle it would complicate matters if you wanted to paint vehicles white for winter (and from winter to temperate).

 

[chrisf]

How so? Our trucks are green now... we don't paint them white for winter now either...

(Though back to the subject of camnets, bolt on cam nets would provide an easy option to change to a winter or desert cam scheme...)

 

[buzgo]

Ive seen the boot at NDHQ and even the soles are CADPAT.

I've seen the boot too, and it looked like the sole was green only.

 

[Goober]

The sole of the boot is green, not CADPAT.

 

[COBRA-6]

It just seems like they're wasting time going CADPAT crazy, instead of getting us kit we need.

CADPAT leather gloves? WTF for? How much more do these cost vs solid black or brown? Why do they have time to waste on these when we still don't have a decent Goretex rainjacket?? Priority of work people!

 

[buzgo]

I think the real question is how much did it cost CTS to develop this stuff? Why didn't they buy off the shelf stuff and adapt it? Why can't I have a CADPAT Arcteryx jacket?

 

[Arctic Acorn]

Someone from CTS could have gone to Arctery'x or MEC (both Canadian companies) and just said, "I'll take 40,000 sets of that jacket/rucksack. Make it CADPAT, add two pockets here and there, and I'll see you in 6 months." Civilian companies specialising in outdoor equipment, while not product testing for combat, test their kit under some pretty harsh conditions.   I think that it would NOT be a big deal to piggyback onto that. If someone else is willing to put the R&D time into a product, why reinvent the wheel?

Done and dusted.  

Don't we have some CTS folks who read this site? Was this COA ever considered?

 

[buzgo]

Arcteryx is already making 'military' clothing through their LEAF programme. All they need to do is get the license to use CADPAT and they are good to go.

Maybe thats what could happen, the CF licenses CADPAT to lots of 3rd party manufacturers and then we get to pick and choose... talk about CADPAT overload!

 

[Synthos]

That's an excellent idea. Giving soldiers an option to choose between different makes of the same equipment by different companies. It would create competition for the companies, and ultimately better equipment for the soldiers.

 

[MacKenzie1NSH]

It would create competition for the companies, and ultimately better equipment for the soldiers.

Not only would it mean better equipment but it would be cheaper too, and then there would be more accesability to it, insted of waiting for the next order which could take a while. 
Chris

 

[Synthos]

yeah good point.

So what's stopping them from doing this?? Other than scrapping the "Clothe the Soldier" program which they start just a couple (? how long?) years ago.

 

[McG]

Would it really be more accessible to soldiers in the field & on deployed ops?  There is no MEC in Wainwright or Afghanistan when wire shreds the waterproof membranes in your clothing.