• 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!"

It was no different with USMC during Viet Nam era. Our rucks really sucked...so we "acquired" NVA rucks..they were great, until the powers to be thought it decreased the moral of the troops to be using enemy combatant equipment....they should have asked the troops. The complaints came from the REMF's who never got out into the field, but felt they were entitled to the rucks as a matter of course.

As in big corporations, in the military the "peter principal" applies. (people get promoted to their level of incompentance :))
 
CFL said:
I fear they turned a blind eye to this stuff in the past and until policy changes they'll get draconian again with what can and can't be used.

Not really. About every 18 months or so a CANFORGEN or CANLANDGEN is issued describing what to wear and how to wear it.  But, just like our PT standards, enforcement is haphazard and inconsistent. One Army - Many Standards.

The US Army recently went through a simialr issue WRT privately purchased body armour.
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpArchives&archives=defense&htmlId=4009&HtmlCategoryID=30

Stuff like the TV were desgined for the 90% solution.  One vest for all seasons and all soldiers.  If the CF supply system can stock "the best" kit for the DHTC gang, why can't it stock "simply better than average" kit for front line soldiers?
 
Well I know LtCol Hope had given the guys the blessing to wear what kit they wanted and do "enhancements" to their weapons (bolt on add-ons - no permament mods) despite the CANFOR BLATHER to the contrary as he had the understanding (that a good commander has) that the kit issued did not suit the troops.

I can only hope that some of the Brass does not try to exert pressure on him or take other issues to punish him for his enlightened attitude in that respect.


* Despite my own previous personal issues with the good Col. I will praise him for his stand on the above issues.
 
i recall in bosnia in 94 the same thing happend . the troops who were always out doing the real work of keeping the population safe was also treated as 2nd class citizens in the camp...  the base wogs go t the real racks to sleep in we got the beat up cots . after much moaning i eventiully got the cot i was sleeping in exchanged because i needed my helmet that i was forced to use to prop it up ... its always been the wogs vs the pointy end .. .withthe wogs getting the best kit even though they never use it .. ive even seen it here  as a sailor [sigh ] now ...guys on the boat needing a new floater jacket yet thebase guys need them for what reason ?????
 
Army officials here say the military is constructing better, more permanent housing for the infantry troops at Kandahar airfield, but the new accommodation isn't likely to be ready until the summer, when the 1st Battalion goes home after its six-month tour.

Why so long? I saw Supreme put up an iso barrack block for they Hungarians in Camp Warehouse in about a week, complete with plumbing...
 
Mechanic's buy their own tools. Military professional's do the same. I agree I too have to scratch my head sometimes about what the procurement guys are thinking. We spent millions on a heavy rifle that required batteries and looked like something out of star wars. Then they decided to try a slimmed down version XM8, then it was canceled. They decided to go from BDU's to ACU instead of multicam. But the one good thing that PEO did was to come up with the Rapid Fielding Initiative.

https://peosoldier.army.mil/programs.asp

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/04/mil-050426-arnews02.htm

 
T6 -- CTS thinks they are the CF version of RFI  :blotto:

 
I'm going to take exception to Edward's assertion that this is news.  Under the classic definition news is man bites dog, not dog bites man.

I won't argue that your kit is good, nor bad.

I just want to point out that not only were similar articles seen in American and British media in recent months and years, they were also seen in allied media in WW2.  British soldiers wanted Thompson SMGs (Tommy Guns) or German MP40s (Schmeissers or Burp Guns).  Americans and Brits wanted German tanks and Guns. 

In fact it wasn't restricted to the allies - Germans wanted Spitfires and Jeeps.

Good kit or bad kit - soldiers procure their own kit and have been doing it for a very long time.  Plundering the oppositions armour and weapons has been SOP for millenia.

Having said that, I have no doubt that there are areas where the kit needs to be modified, replaced or just supplied in order to adjust to current realities.
 
Kirkhill - I cant comment on the Brit issue stuff - however I get to see the US side of the house quite a lot these days.
At the tip of the bayonet the US Army has been pushing items out to the troops - however yes you do see personal kit in some areas -- but I have yet to see a CF unit be allowed (outside DHTC) design their own chestrig - like one of the US units has done.  Does everyone have an EOTECH yet? Other than Maj LDeS's initiative there does not seem to be ANY rapid fielding of kit.

Two guys in 1VP just had me order them S&B Short Dots due to the C79A2 ELCAN absolute suck ass ability in CQB (and lack of zero retention) and the fact they decided that due to liability reduction they required both a CQB scope and a scope that would allow detection and descrimination of tgt's better than a C79A2 -- so they got a $2,200 scope - thats a big hit on Cpl's that are married with kids...


 
Kirkhill said:
I'm going to take exception to Edward's assertion that this is news.  Under the classic definition news is man bites dog, not dog bites man.

I won't argue that your kit is good, nor bad.

I just want to point out that not only were similar articles seen in American and British media in recent months and years, they were also seen in allied media in WW2.  British soldiers wanted Thompson SMGs (Tommy Guns) or German MP40s (Schmeissers or Burp Guns).  Americans and Brits wanted German tanks and Guns. 

In fact it wasn't restricted to the allies - Germans wanted Spitfires and Jeeps.

Good kit or bad kit - soldiers procure their own kit and have been doing it for a very long time.  Plundering the oppositions armour and weapons has been SOP for millenia.

Having said that, I have no doubt that there are areas where the kit needs to be modified, replaced or just supplied in order to adjust to current realities.

And Sir Sam gave out lucrative Canadian military contracts to his buddies and even his secretary (inventor of the MacAdam shovel, which conveniently turned into a sniper shield due to the hole in the blade) for such dreck as the Ross Rifle (snipers swore by them; the other 99 percent of the Army cursed them), and other goodies we've all read about like cardboard soled boots that fell apart when wet, vehicles that were too wide for European roads, tight britches that were unsuitable for active service, etc.

Sending Canadian troops to war without adequate equipment (ask the Canadians in Korea why they dumped the Lee Enfield the first chance they got for an M-1 carbine - half of 2 RCR in Korea used American weapons) seems to be a tradition.

I think it goes beyond the desire of troops to use enemy stuff - which may be overstated.  During the blood feud between 3 Cdn Div and 12th SS I wonder how many Canadians would have been keen on risking capture armed with a German MP40 or Luger?  Though the examples you mention are just the tip of the iceberg - like all the Canadians in southern Italy freezing in their bush dress until they captured a truckload of black wool Fascist uniforms from the Italians - Farley Mowat tells us the shirts were worn without shame, and he personally wore German jackboots on occasion.

But there too, as you point out, this was not out of any real sense of practicality - most German veterans recall the jackboot with little fondness for its lace of ankle support, and dubbed them 'vein breakers'...

Just some further historical ramblings.  Definitely nothing new under the sun, in any event.
 
KevinB said:
Two guys in 1VP just had me order them S&B Short Dots due to the C79A2 ELCAN absolute suck ass ability in CQB (and lack of zero retention) and the fact they decided that due to liability reduction they required both a CQB scope and a scope that would allow detection and descrimination of tgt's better than a C79A2 -- so they got a $2,200 scope - thats a big hit on Cpl's that are married with kids...

I guess the question is, how big a hit should there be on the taxpayers?  How much less, out of curiousity, are the C79 scopes?

And in who's riding are they being built.... ?
 
This is news?  Throughout history it's always been the same from world war 2 and before.  Boys in the back get the better crap while the boys in the front get crapped on.
 
Michael Dorosh said:
Sending Canadian troops to war without adequate equipment (ask the Canadians in Korea why they dumped the Lee Enfield the first chance they got for an M-1 carbine - half of 2 RCR in Korea used American weapons) seems to be a tradition.

I'd like to know which "half" of 2 RCR dumped their Lee Enfields for M-1 Carbines, do you have a source for this? I'm asking  because according to my old man (he was there) the only piece of equipment that was commonly jettisoned was the "trash can lid" helmet , he buried his in a rice paddy, others threw them overboard on the sea voyage over. The only American weapon he can recall being scrounged was a .50 cal Browning, everyone else used the .303, the sten gun or the 9mm Browning.

Funny thing though, when he enlisted after Louis St.Laurent called for volunteers he and the other recruits waited months to get uniforms and other equipment. Weird that so soon after a major war that supply was such a problem.
 
mz589 said:
I'd like to know which "half" of 2 RCR dumped their Lee Enfields for M-1 Carbines, do you have a source for this? I'm asking  because according to my old man (he was there) the only piece of equipment that was commonly jettisoned was the "trash can lid" helmet , he buried his in a rice paddy, others threw them overboard on the sea voyage over. The only American weapon he can recall being scrounged was a .50 cal Browning, everyone else used the .303, the sten gun or the 9mm Browning.

Funny thing though, when he enlisted after Louis St.Laurent called for volunteers he and the other recruits waited months to get uniforms and other equipment. Weird that so soon after a major war that supply was such a problem.

An article in Infantry Journal regarding the famous photo of the soldier outside the aid station (his M1 carbine is clearly visible), and correspondence with Art Johnson, who served in both 1 and 2 RCR as a rifleman.  What was your dad's job, incidentally, if you don't mind my asking?

The artist Zuber also mentions the weapons in a CBC special on Korea IIRC.

From the CBC article (doesn't mention American weapons directly)

 
Canadian soldiers 
Canadian infantry were at a tremendous disadvantage through the entire war. They were outgunned, Canadian World War II rifles needed to be re-cocked after each round. The Chinese used automatic weapons that fired as long as the trigger was pressed

"Imagine you're going up a Chinese position at night, and there's only 12 of you. You're 12 abreast. You're going up this Chinese position. There's probably 1500 Chinese up there, all equipped with 8 and 900 rounds per minute burp gun. And they open fire and you're trying to give them return fire one bloody bullet at a time? I thought it was disgusting."

Enterprising soldiers at the front always have a knack getting things done.



Canadian beer


Our troops had beer, but no modern weapons.

American troops, had modern weapons but no beer.

So unofficial deals were made; a sort of early free trade agreement.

"A lieutenant, myself and another corporal went down to Pusan with our jeep to do some trading," Hibbs recalls. "What my colonel or my major wanted was a jeep trailer, and two walkie-talkies, that was what our project was. So we went downtown to Pusan and I had to look around, I found an American GHQ, general headquarters, and I went in there to the sergeant on duty. He asked me what have I got to trade and I got a bottle of rum out of the jeep. "I said, 'I need a trailer.'

"He says 'I'll get you one, I'll get you one.'

"So I gave him the bottle, I got the two walkie-talkies, the two 45's. And about ten minutes later he comes driving up with a two-and-a-half-ton truck with a two-and-a-half-ton trailer on the back, and says 'There's your trailer.'"

"And I said, 'I can't pull that. I have only got a jeep.'" "He said, 'Well take the truck.' So I did."

http://bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net/Korea_-_Pte_Heath_Matthews_2_RCR_WIA.jpg

  Note the M1 Carbine at right.
 
S_Baker said:
"T-6"  I have to disagree with you on a couple of points.

I am speaking from an Acquisition Officer perspective and the "rifle" you speak about was not just a rifle.  It consisted of a grenade launcher with balistic computer, and a kinetic weapon (5.56 mm rifle).  Yes, it was too heavy, that is why they canned the project!  They are still working on the technology to lighten it and have longer lasting batteries.  

Then a PEO got an idea to replace the Kinetic weapon system with a newer gee-wiz system, aka. H&Ks XM-8 and not have a new bidding process.  Guess what?  Several other companies out there protested the procurement and won.  That is the reason we are not getting the German re-engineered M-16, aka XM-8, at least not yet.

As far as the ACU?  I agree with the uniform replacement, I don't necessarily agree with the pattern selected.  Then again, I haven't been out in the field  since A-stan almost 2 yrs ago.  So I can't comment on the utlity of the pattern.  We agree on the rapid fielding iniative!  

The XM29 was a dumb concept. The M16/M4 weighs in at 10 pounds maybe less with attachments. The  XM29 was 18 pounds about what an M60 weighed. The troops didnt like it. It was stupid. The XM8 is on hold primarily because there is a caliber debate and the fact that Army SOCOM bought the SCAR-L. Procurement does alot of good, but they also do stupid stuff and to make it worse they wont admit it. Not to mention waste. I spent my career as an infantryman [when I wasnt in staff/schools] and one thing you learn pretty quick" Major Baker", is that light weight is good and reliance on batteries is bad. I also spent some time as an RTO so I know all about batteries. The 25mm grenade launcher is a great idea as a stand alone crew served weapon. The ammo is a bit expensive though.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Feb/Army_Tests.htm

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Feb/Army_Tests.htm
 
Its news because the public have an attention span of 3 Seconds.  Its also news to those that aren't members of army.ca or the Forces as a whole who barely recognize our existence let alone kit deficiencies.  I would like to see some kind of reimbursement like the Americans are doing.
 
Reimbursement is limited to $1100 I think, for body armor or other health/safety items. Won't cover $5000 for dragon skin body armor, yet there are guys that have bought it to get that extra edge.
 
Well, speaking solely as a reservist REMF and apprentice bean counter, isn't there a law of diminishing returns as far as expensive kit?

How many Canadians have engaged in Close Quarters combat in Afghanistan, and is there really a justification for 500 sets of $2200 sights?  Is anyone seriously saying we need to spend 11 million dollars on sights that in all honestly will probably never get used in anger?

Even if the price came down 50% with a government discount or somefink (though we're all familiar with the phrase "war profiteer") that's still 5.5 million bucks on kit that will never really get used.

What am I missing here?

On the one hand, you have guys complaining that 4 mags isn't enough (at least 10 mags are necessary according to one quote) in any firefight they get into, and in the next post we see that a 2200 dollar scope is necessary for pinpoint accuracy. If you're firing 3000 rounds down range, is the 2200 dollar scope really a must? ;)
 
You have to wonder how many black eyes the supply chain can take before someone actually fixes the damm thing. 

I always thought they were responsible for handing out the kit but I guess in the field is no different then in garrison.  They sort through the mess and take the best dishing out the rest.

I can't believe the sleeping conditions quote though that pissed me off.

 
Back
Top