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

[vonGarvin]

If you firmly believe 5 mags per rifleman is adequate in A Stan then no offence but I hope your not in charge of me.

None taken.

 

[Armymedic]

Irregardless of my personal opinions, or anyones else's of the kit, etc.

I would bet good money that at 0805 hrs Eastern time, the TF RSM got a phone call from NDHQ.

there will just be new directives launched down that say "ISUUED KIT ONLY" ...

Exactly....thanks boys, you just screwed anyone coming into theater behind you. Troops here in Petawawa are just shaking their heads at that article. Thank you very much.

The "No civy chest rigs, or tac vests" order is no doubt being drawn up as we debate this here.

As for the accommodations....Whaa freaking Whaa. What did you expect for your Level 5 hardship? The Hilton, with pool. Anyone remember the articles a year ago where they said that Camp Julien was "luxurious"? Well, guess what, boys, don't expect it to be quite as nice as that once it is built. And KAF ain't quite built up yet.

"The boys were asking Hillier, 'Why do the support people get the good shacks and we get the BATs'," Master Cpl. Prodonick said. "We don't want better, we want the same as everyone else."

Cause you are supposed to be tough infantry soldiers who can handle a bit of temporary discomfort. Suppose we could give you all cots, an pair you up in 4 man tents instead. Would that be better?

This article just pisses me off.
If you want to whine about your kit, your accommodations, anything....never, not ever, whine to persons outside the military. All it does is make us all look bad, and pisses off people who might just be trying their best to bring about change.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Ironically, that is the first time, since I came back that anyone said that. Thanks

Let's get back to the issue

You should have heard it then; I'm truly sorry you didn't.

Back on topic, and tying in with earlier discussion -

The Marines had the right idea, if Caputo's book A RUMOUR OF WAR is any indication.  They began to live like the enemy, and they started to understand him.  The only really great example that jumps to mind is that many of the Marines (this was early on around Da Nang in 65-66, a different war than later on I think) suffered dysentery. They solved the problem by incorporating rice into their diets.

It seems to me that the guys in Vietnam who got the best results were the Marine CAP units and the Special Forces guys, who went out into the villages and lived with the people. A google search on Combined Action Platoons yields some interesting statistics.

I have no idea if that applies to Afghanistan or not, but it seems that the question of cots in 4 man tents vs cots in 100 man tents may be evading bigger issues. How comfortable can one expect combat arms soldiers to be in order to do their jobs?  Are fortified camps with a 6:1 tail to tooth ratio really the answer? And are these public complaints not just a little unseemly given that?

 

[Franko]

I would bet good money that at 0805 hrs Eastern time, the TF RSM got a phone call from NDHQ.
Exactly....thanks boys, you just screwed anyone coming into theater behind you. Troops here in Petawawa are just shaking their heads at that article. Thank you very much.

The "No civy chest rigs, or tac vests" order is no doubt being drawn up as we debate this here.

Thanks for pointing that out....my sentiments exactly, forgot to post it during my ramblings.

Regards

 

[HItorMiss]

The "No civy chest rigs, or tac vests" order is no doubt being drawn up as we debate this here.

Doc you forget this is a 1 RCR lead TF...that rule was stressed on day 1 stand up parade... RSM 1 RCR has passed on that no Aftermarket TAV Vest or Chest Rigs will be worn by anyone in the TF. Much to the chagrin of some (myself included) However his policy on boots seems very liberal, if they look like boots and are the colour of the environment your working (black or tan) then your good to go.

I feel bad for the 2VP boys that have been dropping money on after market kit, seems our RSM doesn't want to play, the VP CSM is less then impressed if rumors are to be believed but what can he do this falls under the TF RSM's domain and for right now if it's not given to you from CQ or QM your not wearing it period.

 

[vonGarvin]

It seems to me that the guys in Vietnam who got the best results were the Marine CAP units and the Special Forces guys, who went out into the villages and lived with the people. A google search on Combined Action Platoons yields some interesting statistics.

Reminds me of a "fourth generation warfare" article I read recently.  The guy with the helmet, MNVG on top, "after-market" chest rigs, bombs, grenades, body armour, rifles that look like they're out of some "B" futuristic war movie, all send a message (according to the author) that we are there to kill, not to help.  There are times for looking like that, but when dealing with Mr and Mrs. Afghani (and kids), the softer touch probably yields far greater fruit than the "vinegar" tree.
Just my opinion.  It was free, and worth every penny

 

[Grunt_031]

"The boys were asking Hillier, 'Why do the support people get the good shacks and we get the BATs'," Master Cpl. Prodonick said. "We don't want better, we want the same as everyone else."

Yes, the infantry are suppose to be a hardy bunch but it still sucks when there are other people living better than you and you are on the same team. We lived in tents/holes in the ground for 6 months and it sucked too and we bitch about it. The same type questions were asked in 2002 to the CDS and CLS when the REMF's in UAE were in 5 star hotels. Soldier bitch no matter what the situations. Ironically the pers in the UAE were bitching about conditions of things there i.e. lack of air condition work area (Ha-Ha).

As for the TV, 3 PPCLI has been constanting submitting UCR since the TV hit the Bn. After each exercise, the companies sat down and submitted UCR's in reference all equipment and they were submitted up the chain. 3 VP were even one of the trial units from 1997-2001 time period at various times. Majority of suggestions where ignored. I spend some time with the CLS staff and it enlighten me on some of the programs problems, mainly the 80% solution.

-80% of all Regular/Reserve, all trades, all ranks gave the thumbs up. The pointy end is a small percentage in that 80%.

-Directed from consultation with i.e. units RSM and other SM for REG/Res was that everybody had to be the same, hence the lacking in modular design.

-the design had to be current with doctrines at the time (90's) IE 5 mags, 4 in pouches and one on rifle. Remember we only had the webbing 2 mag pouches.

Once the program had been completed, with millions spent in development and trialling, it will be near impossible to change the TV without major redesigning and complete re-manufacturing. You can't simply pull apart the TV and resew it. Is this right, NO! but it is the reality, to try to come up with a new TV/LBV that intergrates in to the whole loading carrying system is not going to happen or will take another 12 years. The major problem with the CLS program is inability to keep up with change of the Army needs and the lack of new doctrine for the army in years. I still think that the cbt load for an infantryman as not change since the 80/90's.

Most RSMs and COs out west identify with this and have allowed the troops to use other equipment that is more effective. We the west have heard the cries of no unauthorized kit for the last 10 years but yet it still is here and will be for the future, especially when the leaders at the pointy end agree.

 

[vonGarvin]

-the design had to be current with doctrines at the time (90's) IE 5 mags, 4 in pouches and one on rifle. Remember we only had the webbing 2 mag pouches.

I really dont' see a difference between jumping out of a M113 in Fulda and jumping out of a LAV III in Khandahar.  If anything, you'd need about 50 magazines in Fulda (assuming you survived the Regimental Fire Plan before the deliberate attack by 40+ T 80s and a boatload of BMP 2s).

Once the program had been completed, with millions spent in development and trialling, it will be near impossible to change the TV without major redesigning and complete re-manufacturing. You can't simply pull apart the TV and resew it. Is this right, NO! but it is the reality, to try to come up with a new TV/LBV that intergrates in to the whole loading carrying system is not going to happen or will take another 12 years. The major problem with the CLS program is inability to keep up with change of the Army needs and the lack of new doctrine for the army in years. I still think that the cbt load for an infantryman as not change since the 80/90's.

Agreed.  Not really that much since we first got the C7/C9 family in the sections.

Most RSMs and COs out west identify with this and have allowed the troops to use other equipment that is more effective. We the west have heard the cries of no unauthorized kit for the last 10 years but yet it still is here and will be for the future, especially when the leaders at the pointy end agree.

There is a point to the madness; however, we're not talking about rainjackets that don't stop the wind (let alone the rain) or other relatively minor stuff.  The article in question makes it sound (again!) that we are a rag-tag army, patched together with little or no thought.  In my dealings with LFTEU, they bend over backwards to trial the stuff, yet stuff happens.  Take the LUVW "uparmoured" turret thingy.  LFTEU trialed a variety of weapons and mounts on those things.  They found that the .50 up there just wasn't good, due to the weight of the system.  Then some guys over "there" put a MATTECH made turret on there, complete with .50.  Even made the Maple Leaf!  Innovative, they said.  Then the LUVWs started to fail under the added stress.  Don't know where it stands now, but if there is a need for it, identify it, and get the word out. 

 

[Grunt_031]

The article in question makes it sound (again!) that we are a rag-tag army, patched together with little or no thought.

We had the same articles in 2002 in regards on painting our webbing and weapons with tan paint and using LBV's. As for the up armoured turret i was there when they were measuring and making a wood mock up. I though they were out of their minds and NEVER though it would actually happen because of the weight issue and from the failed 50 trial they did, without the turret.

 

[vonGarvin]

We had the same articles in 2002 in regards on painting our webbing and weapons with tan paint and using LBV's. As for the up armoured turret i was there when they were measuring and making a wood mock up. I though they were out of their minds and NEVER though it would actually happen because of the weight issue and from the failed 50 trial they did, without the turret.

My point exactly.  The guys in LFTEU aren't a bunch of dummies.  Senior Captains and CWOs all.  Very experienced.  Very bright, too, mostly tech trained and combine that with field experience, and a wad of cash, and you get a fairly good group. 

Having said that, once they make a recommendation (observation?), it's up to Ottawa to make the final decision on things.

 

[GAP]

What I have preceived throughout this thread is that there has been outsourced equipment used where needed, the onsite commanders have obviously taken note as to whether the standards are met/exceeded and not made an issue out of it, or , I daresay, ruled it out where applicable. what's the problem?

Others have pointed out the procurement profiles/procedures. Put yourself in the same position and I suspect the end result wouldn't be too different.

There is not an armed force that wouldn't like this or that to do their mission better, but they all seem to get it done with what they have, so I guess the total composite wasn't that far off target.

Flexability seems to be one word not used here. It obviously is being employed and is successful. I for one am pretty proud to the troops and the job they do

 

[GO!!!]

GAP,

The problem is that we the soldiers are almost expected to make up for the ineptitude of the DND in the area of kit acquisitions.

We are then supposed to be greatful when permitted to do the life threatening job we are mandated to with a piece of kit that may save our lives.

Perhaps the last civvie shot in Kandahar would have lived if the shooter had had a laser indicator, better scope etc. Perhaps not. The point is, that the contract we sign stipulates that we bring the body and mind, they bring the kit and orders. Right now, we have to bring the kit to carry out the orders.

CTS and DLR have been broken for a long time, I would suggest doing what the US and UK did, take their budget and break it up among the 031s in theatre, and tell them to buy what they want, as long as it is CADPAT. Simple, effective, cheap.

 

[GAP]

We are then supposed to be greatful when permitted to do the life threatening job we are mandated to with a piece of kit that may save our lives

Without trying to sound disparaging or for flaming anyone...yeah, that's part of the flexability and it sounds like it is appreciated, even if the original reasoning for getting it is not.

CTS and DLR have been broken for a long time

It would be interesting to find out if the procurers have any field experience.

I think I am out of my depth and am serverly dated. I think I will excercise your motto

Often have I regretted my speech, never my silence

and butt out

 

[Armymedic]

It would be interesting to find out if the procurers have any field experience.

All the CTS pers I have dealt with over the last 8 yrs were mostly Cbt Arms Officers and Sr NCOs, with a good chunk of civilian specialists for the scientific testing.

 

[HDE]

GO!

   I agree with you  In my job I'm allowed x hundred dollars per year for "professional advancement", basically money I can use as I see fit to keep on top of what I need to do my job.  Classes, membership fees for my profession, journals, etc.  I could certainly see a case made that, depending on the trade, there's a need for various pieces of kit chosen by the people who'll be using it.   I like the idea of the enduser dealing directly with the supplier; less money spent on "process" ;D

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Someone said what will 2VP do.  Well once out the gate some have told me that they will ditch their authorized kit and go with what works.
God bless the RCR hierarchy.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Has there been a Roto that stuck to the authorized chest rig rule?

 

[GINge!]

Having said that, once they make a recommendation (observation?), it's up to Ottawa to make the final decision on things.

Actually, we did both. There are paras on the Trial Report for recommendations and for TO Comments (observations). On completion, the report becomes the property of the PM, not LFTEU (though copies are retained at the unit). I'd love to see greater dissemination of trial results so that LUVW+50cal incidents are reduced; I imagine the Armd CWO who ran that trial was less than impressed to see his hard work ignored. Hmm, ignored is the wrong word, the Mattechs probably had zero idea a trial had even been conducted, nevermind knowing what the results were. Before I left LFTEU, I proposed to the CO to create a Trial Team on standby to deploy & conduct in-theatre user trials...yeah, it was my selfish way of trying to sneak in a few weeks overseas  :-[ I'm not sure if that idea was ever implemented though, but I think it has merit especially given UOR purchases.

The current policy is that trial reports are classified, which makes sense for a number of reason, however that blanket policy could perhaps be examined on a case-by-case basis where the normal reasons for security do not apply & the PM ok's the release of the information. 

 

[GO!!!]

GINge,

NO NO NO!!

Endless trials, reports that no - one reads, CWO and captains generating paper and employment - BS, all of it.

The LUVW turret was an example of how to do business. Cut all of the HQ naus out of the loop and link the end user directly to the producer.

If you had been allowed to do your trials (taking years) the LUV turret would not be deployed and at least 2 men would be dead or seriously injured. They are not perfect, but they are better than the nothing we had before. Even worse, once you did get us something, it would be akin to the TV, utterly useless, incredibly expensive and with a bunch of HQ zealots demanding that it be used, even though the requirement for it was 5-10 years previously.

No thanks.

I know what kit I need. Ask any infanteer, we are not shy.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Just don't ask the RSM.