New Rucksack
- Thread starter Bomber
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I didn't need the Ergonomics Research Group to tell me that. I've already seen this paper passed around a bit. The most common comment so far has been "Yeah, no shit".
I skimmed through the paper and didn't notice any mention of the chafing caused by the hip belt. On a march a couple weeks ago a significant number of guys were bleeding by the end of the 8km route.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,569
- Points
- 1,160
Wonderbread said:
I guess that mannequin they used in the research was too slack and idle to do a 13k march.
NL_engineer
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Wonderbread said:
According to the CTS project manager, no one wears a frag vest :
.Well IMO this ruck was designed to be used by its self without FFO or a belt; and it fails at doing that :
NL_engineer
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Bzzliteyr said:
My guess is more then the cost of buying a better product off the shelf :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
SO let me get this straight.. a whole lot of people tell the army something hurts us.. they say okay, we'll do some tests to see if it really does hurt you and confirm it's not just in your head??
Wow, do NOT let the taxpayers hear about this...
Wow, do NOT let the taxpayers hear about this...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Can't remember who it is on the forums, but we have a CTS rep that pops in every now and then, don't we? Or a guy that is somewhere it that whole chain. I wonder if they take it personally when we bash the kit they work so hard to procure for us? I mean, they probably try their darndest to inform their superiors that they are right "out to lunch" sometimes but those warnings probably fall on "I need to secure a job once I retire" ears.
It's sad. I shed a tear. I also heard every time CTS pushes out a glitchy piece of kit, and angel loses it's wings.. just a rumour though.
It's sad. I shed a tear. I also heard every time CTS pushes out a glitchy piece of kit, and angel loses it's wings.. just a rumour though.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,475
- Points
- 1,140
As I've said before, I first saw this rucksack in 1998 as a prototype. It was black and much like this new one. It's been over 10 years in the making.
No one in 1998 foresaw 9/11 or our deploying to Afghanistan. The CTS people do their best and can't make everyone happy. You also have political and financial considerations added to the mix.
All I'm saying is don't lay the blame at the CTS troops feet.
No one in 1998 foresaw 9/11 or our deploying to Afghanistan. The CTS people do their best and can't make everyone happy. You also have political and financial considerations added to the mix.
All I'm saying is don't lay the blame at the CTS troops feet.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
OldSolduer said:
Why not?
OK, they couldn't foresee 9/11, I'll give them that. But they didn't see the Tac vest coming? It was designed down the hall! They didn't see the frag vest with plates coming? Again, it was down the hall!
This is another case of job security / job justification gone wrong, and all to the detriment of the end user.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,475
- Points
- 1,140
I've worked in enough HQ's etc to know that people like this don't talk to each other......you'd think they'd have coordinated it, I know......but remember lots of these people are engineers....so they don't talk to others......
Towards_the_gap
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 230
Well I was issued it 2 weeks ago, having handed in my 82 ruck.
I have worn it with FFO and CBA, and personally have no problem with it. First time I wore it, on a BFT no less, I did experience some chafing from the hip belt, and found my tacvest had to be lifted up to wear said hipbelt. Now, no chafing whatsoever, but the tacvest is still pushed up somewhat.
I'm sure everyone will agree it is a definite improvement from the 82 POS. I've heard the arguement from Inf types that 81mm baseplates can't be carried with it, or any other specialist kit as can be carried on the 64, to which I reply the CTS ruck has borrowed ALOT from the british bergan, and if British infantry can carry milan firing posts with the bergan, why not with the CTS ruck???
I do not doubt other posters on this site who have had problems with this piece of kit, however, in my unit, I've definitely seen alot of young lads dismiss it as a 'POS', most probably because they've heard some of the old sweats (married to their 64's no doubt, and resistant to change) slag it off.
If anyone really thinks it's that bad, I challenge you to try the old british 'All Arms Bergan', or, Combat Bowling Ball Bag, which was issued to mech/non-inf up until a couple of years ago.
As you can see, it is literally a 80L purse in DPM.
HOWEVER, I do have some criticism of the new ruck: Instead of a 'lay-flat' (for lack of a better word) pocket on the lid, why not stitch it so that the zip is facing the side, and, fully packed, it forms a box on the lid. The lid pocket as it is now, should you pack it with anything and strap down the ruck, is impossible to get to or hold anything bulky. By comparison, both the british bergan and NI patrol pack have box type lids and can hold items as bulky as a 2QT canteen without comprimising lid-closing-capability.
I have worn it with FFO and CBA, and personally have no problem with it. First time I wore it, on a BFT no less, I did experience some chafing from the hip belt, and found my tacvest had to be lifted up to wear said hipbelt. Now, no chafing whatsoever, but the tacvest is still pushed up somewhat.
I'm sure everyone will agree it is a definite improvement from the 82 POS. I've heard the arguement from Inf types that 81mm baseplates can't be carried with it, or any other specialist kit as can be carried on the 64, to which I reply the CTS ruck has borrowed ALOT from the british bergan, and if British infantry can carry milan firing posts with the bergan, why not with the CTS ruck???
I do not doubt other posters on this site who have had problems with this piece of kit, however, in my unit, I've definitely seen alot of young lads dismiss it as a 'POS', most probably because they've heard some of the old sweats (married to their 64's no doubt, and resistant to change) slag it off.
If anyone really thinks it's that bad, I challenge you to try the old british 'All Arms Bergan', or, Combat Bowling Ball Bag, which was issued to mech/non-inf up until a couple of years ago.
As you can see, it is literally a 80L purse in DPM.
HOWEVER, I do have some criticism of the new ruck: Instead of a 'lay-flat' (for lack of a better word) pocket on the lid, why not stitch it so that the zip is facing the side, and, fully packed, it forms a box on the lid. The lid pocket as it is now, should you pack it with anything and strap down the ruck, is impossible to get to or hold anything bulky. By comparison, both the british bergan and NI patrol pack have box type lids and can hold items as bulky as a 2QT canteen without comprimising lid-closing-capability.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I actually went in with a good attitude with this ruck and thought it would suit me as *usually* (depending on the length of the hump) like to have my hip belt tightend up and the weight on my. A 1/3 of the way through the Ironman I undid my hip belt as the chaffing on my lower back was getting too bad and I was more worried about my legs then my shoulders. I'm sure I can overcome that with a better setup on my '64.
However, several good rucks with the CTS ruck later (around 5), I have not been able to come to terms with it. With FPV and TV or without. I can't seem to make it work for me yet and my hopes are dim. I will try but I'm considering going back to my (revamped) '64. MedTech... I WANT that ruck!
Anyway, when I was fitted I brought up the question about wearing it with the FPV and TV and was plainly told since it is intended for use during extended operations, there would be next to no chance I'd ever wear it for anything more then a BFT (13km). :
However, several good rucks with the CTS ruck later (around 5), I have not been able to come to terms with it. With FPV and TV or without. I can't seem to make it work for me yet and my hopes are dim. I will try but I'm considering going back to my (revamped) '64. MedTech... I WANT that ruck!
Anyway, when I was fitted I brought up the question about wearing it with the FPV and TV and was plainly told since it is intended for use during extended operations, there would be next to no chance I'd ever wear it for anything more then a BFT (13km). :
Similar threads
