• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

RHFC_piper said:
wow... those pieces of shrapnel in me must be aluminum...  My bad.
Imstupid.gif






lol_hitting.gif

Ok, so I am at work... And now folks wonder why I am laughing so hard... That avatar of the smily beating another with a "lol" placard is fracking priceless!
 
Further to what Matt Fisher said,

We (I can say 'we' even though I didn't speak a word during the conversation, but it was during the CLS's chat with my platoon that this thing originally got started) didn't so much ask for a non-modular design as ask for some sort of compromise regarding load carriage, just something, anything, better than the TV, even if we had to buy our own stuff. I believe we were told that to go with a modular design with a bunch of different pouches couldn't be done in time for our tour. My pl WO showed the CLS an arktis vest, along with many other off the shelf items that he had purchased, as an example of something more intelligently designed than the TV(of course that's a matter of opinion), so they came up with the arktis trial as a compromise that would hopefully encourage the army to go in another direction. Originally there were plans to purchase rifleman vests and MG vests.

How did it turn out? No idea. After hearing for about 8 months that, "they're coming, they're coming", the last thing I heard about it was about half way through tour, that they were hijacked and going to India Coy for some reason that I would like to comment on but is way out of my lane. You would have to ask one of the India coy guys about how they turned out, but somehow I doubt the vests showed up for them either.

I think the part about all this that suprised me most was that when the CLS heard that the TV wasn't going to get 'er done, he was genuinely suprised, like he had never been exposed to that opinon before. He struck me as an honest man, which leads me to believe that the message is getting derailed long before it gets anywhere near the top.

Anyhoo, thats my 2 cents.
 
RHFC_piper said:
I seem to remember troops from *our tour taking their issued TV to a rigger/ex mat tech in Pet (town of), having the pockets stripped and having MOLLE sewn on... Looked issued, worked better.  So, I agree. Simple MOLLE TV/Rig with various issued pouches based on need.  If the MOLLE on the BV won't do the trick, this is the next simplest step in my mind. 

*I have a feeling you and I were on the same tour (3-06).


I also seem to remember, from way back when I had webbing (yeah... I know 1998 isn't way back... well it's way back for me) and the TV was coming into the system, being told it was going to be fully modular.   What happened? 

According to a Technical Assistance Visit AAR that I read and shared a while back, DLR / CTS seems to think the TV and the Small Pack are defined (in their words) as a modular system in conjunction. They ideally see CF soldiers using the daisy-chain pouches between the small pack OR the TV, and that constitutes 'modular'. Although it would seem that there are different versions of 'modular' when we talk about the TV / Small pack:
  • There's the over-complicated velcro-and-strap system for the 'modular' C9/Canteen pouches
  • There's the Daisy-chain system,
  • And finally, there's the PALS-style bayonet system.
None of these so-called 'modular' systems are easily interchangeable, although I have seen some very creative and thoughtful mutations of the TV by some crafty soldiers. I've seen extra mag pouches placed on the bayonet webbing; I've seen the C9 pouch jury-rigged to go in the same spot as the kidney pouches and countless others.

I almost want to find a way to transfer myself into DLR so I can make my way up their ladder and start issuing common sense. I've actually made mental plans to get posted to DLR / CTS whenever I get too broken to be a Cbt Arms officer.
 
PatrickO said:
I almost want to find a way to transfer myself into DLR so I can make my way up their ladder and start issuing common sense. I've actually made mental plans to get posted to DLR / CTS whenever I get too broken to be a Cbt Arms officer.

Easiest way to do that is move to Ottawa and transfer to either the Camerons or the Foot Guards, then apply for one of the Class B/C positions at DLR which they tend to backfill for the Army.  A good number of the guys in DLR are reservists on backfill positions, including the previous Load Carriage Program Manager for CTS.
 
BigRudy,

In reference to the Arktis trial vests, I am not sure if they are the same ones that were purchased for you but the BG has been issued the rflmn and C9 arktis rigs to trial. These rigs, in addition the RCMP TV, and the DHTC vests are what comprise the trial that is being run currently. The general consensus on the arktis vests is quite negative (at least in my platoon!) The arktis vests adjust poorly, the "multi functional pouches", although a jack of all trades, are not particularly good at carrying any one thing. The vests are overly large, un-streamlined, and there have been some issues with durability. The RCMP TV is a joke, basically a TV with rearranged pouch placement. Finally the DHTC rigs, there are two. One a patrol type vest, and the other a chest rig. Nobody in my platoon has the vest so I cant comment, however the chest rig seems good to go. It has 4 fixed mag pouches and then PALS on the sides. The only problem is that no additional pouches were issued with the vest, so guys cannot really do a fair trial on it, as it is incomplete. Hope this helps.
 
Matt_Fisher said:
Easiest way to do that is move to Ottawa and transfer to either the Camerons or the Foot Guards, then apply for one of the Class B/C positions at DLR which they tend to backfill for the Army.  A good number of the guys in DLR are reservists on backfill positions, including the previous Load Carriage Program Manager for CTS.

Truth. We have a number of 'flag of convenience' officers who work various positions in NDHQ and who appear on our rolls but seldom on the armoury floor.

PhilB- doesn't sound very promising. Thanks for the update, though.
 
PhilB said:
BigRudy,
The only problem is that no additional pouches were issued with the vest, so guys cannot really do a fair trial on it, as it is incomplete. Hope this helps.

And to top that off there's an order here that no additional pouches will be added to the trial vests, either

::)
 
ParaMedTech said:
And to top that off there's an order here that no additional pouches will be added to the trial vests, either

::)

It almost sounds as if they are intentionally trying to sabotage the trial in order for troops testing it to return telling them it doesn't work, giving DLR/CTS the "see I told you so" position on using something other than the TV.

Matt_Fisher said:
Easiest way to do that is move to Ottawa and transfer to either the Camerons or the Foot Guards, then apply for one of the Class B/C positions at DLR which they tend to backfill for the Army.  A good number of the guys in DLR are reservists on backfill positions, including the previous Load Carriage Program Manager for CTS.

Being a Foot Guard myself, I just may look into one of these positions. 
 
Panzer Grenadier said:
Being a Foot Guard myself, I just may look into one of these positions. 

Normally most of the positions are for MCpl.+ on the NCM side, and Lt - Maj on the officer side.  I don't know what they may or may not have available for a Pte such as yourself, but once you get some time in and get promoted, who's not to say you couldn't end up working for them.
 
Matt_Fisher said:
Normally most of the positions are for MCpl.+ on the NCM side, and Lt - Maj on the officer side.  I don't know what they may or may not have available for a Pte such as yourself, but once you get some time in and get promoted, who's not to say you couldn't end up working for them.

I do plan on staying in, plus a tour or 2 (hopefully), and whatever courses I can get my name onto. Who knows where I will go, I may even become a gear designer.  ;D
 
From The Christian Science Monitor:

March 06, 2008 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0306/p03s06-usmi.html

U.S. troops buy own gear for safety, style in battle

Since 9/11, the market for tactical war gear has grown to $150 million annually.

By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

FORT BENNING, Ga.

Commando Military Supply on Victory Drive here is about as different from a musty Army surplus store as you can imagine.

More REI than M.A.S.H., Commando is regularly jam-packed with deploying grunts and sergeants, poking around for custom gear including $200 flashlights, $150 Oakley protective sunglasses, $180 Thinsulate boots, and $20 thermal socks.

"When you're comfortable and you know where all your gear is, it makes you a better fighter," says Lt. Tucker Knie, an Army Ranger perusing custom ammo pouches and techno-fiber socks. "You don't want to be rummaging around in your pocket during a firefight."

The traditional Army credo is that it's guts that win the glory – not fancy long-johns or Oakley sunglasses. But that old-school thinking is wicking away like perspiration through Gore-Tex as US soldiers today go beyond military-issue battle dress uniforms in favor of top-of-the-line gear to help them get home in one piece – and look sharp, too.

One reason, critics say, is that military procurement, especially of life-saving equipment, is still too slow. Quietly, however, the Pentagon – with the Army leading the charge – has begun bypassing rigid procurement rules, loosening uniformity requirements, and even spearheading technical innovations in gear, ranging from flame-retardant shirts to low-infrared signature zippers.

"The idea now is, 'If it helps Joe do the mission, let him have it – as long as it's not hot pink,' " says Army veteran Logan Coffey, founder of Tactical Tailor, a custom-maker of packs and pouches in Lakewood, Wash. "It's a giant change" in the military mind-set, he says in a phone interview.

Since 9/11, the market for tactical war gear has expanded from nearly nonexistent to nearly $150 million in sales each year, which includes sales directly to soldiers as well as to the Pentagon, according to industry sources.

CIA operatives, domestic SWAT teams, and Border Patrol agents are also rounding out their gear at bazaars like Commando.

To some critics, the sight of soldiers buying their own battle gear symbolizes a divide between frontline grunts and rear echelon procurement officers who may never have seen battle. Rep. Gene Taylor (D) of Mississippi told the House Armed Services Committee last week that supplies such as body armor and uparmored Humvees "[have] taken entirely too long" to get to frontline troops.

In some cases, charity groups have stepped in to help. Operation Helmet, founded by Bob Meaders of Montgomery, Texas, shipped special helmet liners to soldiers to replace what many soldiers said were poorly designed helmet pads issued by the Army and the Marines. Just as Operation Helmet thought its work was done late last year, more requests came in from troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The Army is planning a $20 billion future combat system, and they can't provide boots that don't wear out," says Roger Charles, editor of DefenseWatch, an investigative website that advocates on behalf of frontline soldiers. "There's no priority for taking care of relatively mundane items where most people would think, 'Gosh, that's so simple. Why don't they have the best boots, the best uniforms, the best helmets, and the best flak jackets?' "

But through new and rejuvenated efforts like Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier, the Soldier Battle Lab here at Fort Benning, and Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Mass., the Army has quickened the supply chain, sometimes against daunting odds, experts say.

For example, PEO Soldier's Rapid Fielding Initiative recently turned around an order for special mountain boots for units in Afghanistan in a month's time. "The Army has never been able to field such updated equipment so quickly before," says Lt. Col. John Lemondes, head of Clothing and Individual Equipment at Fort Belvoir, Va. "We really are moving at the speed of lighting with respect to equipping the war effort."

And at Ft. Lewis, Wash., one unit commander is putting an array of new protective glasses to the test this month. The unit will use discretionary funds to buy the glasses the soldiers prefer.

Moreover, the Army and Air Force Exchange Service reports that sales of tactical gear to units have climbed from $60 million in 2005 to $90 million in 2007. At the same time, there's evidence that soldiers are spending less of their own money on gear: One study found that two years ago, marines were spending $400 of their own money on extra gear; last year, they spent an average of only $100.

"The military is now doing a pretty good job of outfitting the war fighters with what they need, and a lot of it comes from effort and real caring," says Drumm McNaughton, a Navy veteran and management consultant who has written about the struggles of military procurement.

Because little enhancements can make a big difference, soldiers often choose to pick up their own "dirty packs" to augment the issued gear, especially as many feel flush from combat bonuses.

"What's 100 bucks for a flashlight if it's going to work during an attack, and help you fend off a knife fight?" says a Commando clerk, who didn't want to be named because he wasn't authorized to speak by the store manager.

But many soldiers don't blame the Army. One lieutenant shopping at Commando says standard issue gear is usually good enough. His one complaint: the clunky Army cap, which has a thick bill that can't be formed baseball-style. "They need to change it," he says. "It makes you look like a dork."

Even in life and death situations, fashion means something on the battlefield, soldiers say. "The Army does issue everyone glasses, but the young soldier wants to look cool, fashionable. He wants to look sexy," says Mr. Coffey.

The sales growth in custom tactical gear is partly made possible by manufacturing advances that allow companies to make profit on small batch orders. But for war fighters, a perk to the hard slog is being allowed to put their own spin on the Army look.

"One of the basic tensions is that in the Army there's pressure for a strong collective identity ... to develop this feeling of belongingness and camaraderie," says Frederic Brunel, a marketing professor at Boston University. "At the same time, there is a basic human need to pull away from that ... [to] retain some sense of self-identity that is separate from the group identity."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
 
Loachman said:
From The Christian Science Monitor:
March 06, 2008 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0306/p03s06-usmi.html

Since 9/11, the market for tactical war gear has expanded from nearly nonexistent to nearly $150 million in sales each year, which includes sales directly to soldiers as well as to the Pentagon, according to industry sources.

I'd say this number is much lower than what is spent on tactical equipment, even that which is personally purchased (in the US).
 
Matt_Fisher said:
I'd say this number is much lower than what is spent on tactical equipment, even that which is personally purchased (in the US).

DITTO

Just crunching a few number on some small items I get a MUCH larger number
25th Inf Div RFI'd Redi-Mag's, Surefire Scout Lights, EOTECH 552's just for weapon accessories, let alone other items.

3 and 4ID have even more generous RFI weapon accessory purchases.
 
I used to deride it a lot, but after going to CFSAC last year and getting some in-depth coaching on how to use it properly, I had the opportunity to take the time and the ammo to dial the sight in at all sorts of ranges and in varying wind conditions. My confidence in the sight has grown to the point where I'm actually comfortable with it. I used to seriously doubt my point of impact before I was given the chance to become properly familiar with it. I find the C79A2 to be a lot more crisp and bright, which speaks to the quality of the glass which, IMHO, is very good. I will freely admit that I haven't 'been around' enough to compare it to many other optics, though. (I have fired L85A2 + SUSAT and found I liked the C79 more)

I have also seen the flipside of the C79 - poorly maintained, old model C79 sights at the CTC Infantry School during my CAP course. I have seen sights with missing rubber armour coating, still being handed out to candidates. The one I was issued with had a damaged windage screw and was causing me to hit all over the target. The staff thought i was a bag of hammers until one of them poked my sight with his finger and it shifted a good 5mm to the left. They told me to tighten the screw as much as i could, and keep going. I've also seen damaged elevation drums where cranking the sight from 300 to 400 would cause a zero shift of about 5 inches at 300m.

My final opinion is that it has nice glass, a nice reticle and a decent amount of eye relief, but the mount is garbage. I6 says it better though  ;D

Edit: fixed a typo
 
PatrickO said:
I came across this article on CASR - looks like we're buying more EOTechs as well.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-npp-eotech-hws.htm

EO 553 -- and to Richmond, Ontario...


IMHO its complete idiocy that there has not been a combat optic trial in the Army -- admittedly I do have links to Aimpoint (and beleive them to be a better sight than the EOTECH for military duties) - I also think that a replacement to the C79 should have been looked at seriosuly before the C79A2 went ahead -- I'd offer croynism and corruption allegations but most already know it to be true.
 
:warstory:In 93 when 2VP deployed to Croatia, we first trained at Ft Ord, California and Hunter-Liggett. We used the old C7 with the open sights....then a month before we deploy, some wingnut decides we should re-equip with the C-79 sighted rifles, after the entire battalion zeroed and shot the PWT with the old rifles.
No one had any training on the site, and I remember guys doing all kinds of things to at least rough zero before attempting to live fire them.
Another example of lack of common sense.
 
Embarrasing regimental note -- it was a Patricia officer that pushed the C79 -- In fact a SENIOR (and now retired) officer -- who bragged about it at the 90th Birthday so much that I felt I had to go up and put him on the spot to buy is a round for it - I figured he owed us at least that...
  I won't name him by name -- but he is pretty easy to figure out in his postion


 
Infidel-6 said:
Embarrasing regimental note -- it was a Patricia officer that pushed the C79 -- In fact a SENIOR (and now retired) officer -- who bragged about it at the 90th Birthday so much that I felt I had to go up and put him on the spot to buy is a round for it - I figured he owed us at least that...
  I won't name him by name -- but he is pretty easy to figure out in his postion

The same guy who said we didn't need grenades!!  Or that we'd never to advance to contact!!!
 
Back
Top