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

Well well well another CTS triumph

Really, guess they haven't really bothered to update their own site. 
 
So what do we not like about it?
 
I was wondering the same thing Loachman.

You guys know they do trials on everything right?? Some of their stuff is crap ... but it's not all crap. Really, it's getting old ... and that's what causes the attitude of "it's all crap" to permeate the atmosphere which people like I get to work in everyday. What fun it is made for us -- Not.

[/rant]
 
By the looks of it you can put a lot of "stuff" in it, they're huge!
 
Yeah it does doesn't it??

Thanks for the negative from whichever one of you just threw it on me.

Truth hurts some of you eh??

I call BS like that below ... really bad leadership. You haven't seen it, touched it, let alone use it ... but you're friggin' slaggin it and PEOPLE already. Rock on boys. You look really good and professional.
 
My sarcasm, was at how long this has taken to be fielded, CTS' own documents said the ruck was "supposed" to been fielded 3 YEARS ago.  I don't know anything about the quality of the product, cause I have never seen the thing.
 
So Vern I guess that means I would see it when I make.......WO  ;D
 
Hatchet Man said:
My sarcasm, was at how long this has taken to be fielded, CTS' own documents said the ruck was "supposed" to been fielded 3 YEARS ago.  I don't know anything about the quality of the product, cause I have never seen the thing.

Hatchet man ...

Funny, I had one on my back a couple years ago.

You just slagged something that is in initial distribution now and the people who work there ... based on diddly squat. Unfortunately, because of people and attitudes like yours ... this happens each and every time with every bit of kit ... and people like me get to put up with rants based on ZERO and people walking up to counters bitching at the sup techs about getting the latest and greatest "piece of shit CTS gear."

Bullshit like that laid out below ... is exactly what causes it.

NFLD_SAPPER ... A Sgt --  ;)
 
ArmyVern said:
Thanks for the negative from whichever one of you just threw it on me.

There - balance restored. Happy Birthday again.
 
ArmyVern said:
Hatchet man ...

Funny, I had one on my back a couple years ago.

You just slagged something that is in initial distribution now and the people who work there ... based on diddly squat. Unfortunately, because of people and attitudes like yours ... this happens each and every time with every bit of kit ... and people like me get to put up with rants based on ZERO and people walking up to counters bitching at the sup techs about getting the latest and greatest "piece of shit CTS gear."

Bullshit like that laid out below ... is exactly what causes it.

NFLD_SAPPER ... A Sgt --  ;)

WOW quicker than I anticipated.

BTW I dropped the "_" in my name a while ago Vern ;)
 
Hatchet Man said:
My sarcasm, was at how long this has taken to be fielded, CTS' own documents said the ruck was "supposed" to been fielded 3 YEARS ago.  I don't know anything about the quality of the product, cause I have never seen the thing.

Fielded to trials it was indeed ...  ;)
 
C Coy 3 PPCLI were issued them before they deployed to Afghanistan in Feb 07, the guys I talked to didn't mind them too much. They hardly wore them at all while they were there anyways.
 
Loachman said:
There - balance restored. Happy Birthday again.

Ahhh thanks Loachman,

Oh happy happy day.

It just goes to prove when you call an ass an ass ... sometimes they can't handle it. See they don't mind bitching about your trade etc ... but boy when you point out a fault in them ...  :eek: That'd be their problem vice mine.
 
Jimmy C said:
C Coy 3 PPCLI were issued them before they deployed to Afghanistan in Feb 07, the guys I talked to didn't mind them too much. They hardly wore them at all while they were there anyways.

That's correct. They were the pri issue ... and now initial distribution is ongoing for the other entilted pers.
 
ArmyVern said:
Hatchet man ...

Funny, I had one on my back a couple years ago.

You just slagged something that is in initial distribution now and the people who work there ... based on diddly squat. Unfortunately, because of people and attitudes like yours ... this happens each and every time with every bit of kit ... and people like me get to put up with rants based on ZERO and people walking up to counters bitching at the sup techs about getting the latest and greatest "piece of crap CTS gear."

Bullshit like that laid out below ... is exactly what causes it.

NFLD_SAPPER ... A Sgt --  ;)

Whoa, slagged? I never said it was crap.  In fact I never said anything about the quality of the gear, as I have not seen it or used at all.  I have just not been overall impressed with their timelines of issuing the gear, as they are always consistently off and sometimes by a very wide margin.
 
You want to know what's wromg with the new ruck?? It's design for one, an internal frame is pretty much useless as there is nothing to strap equipment on but the outer shell of the pack of stuff it into the pack itself. I've used the new pack, it sucks for this reason we tried strapping an SF kit to it, the damn thing was so unweildy that it couldn't be carried for more than 2 or 3 kn at a time. The only place to strap the SF kit was to the front of the pack so the SF kit was about 21/2 feet off of theback of the soldier carrying it and the damn thing caused the pack to flop back and forth on his back. The same problem with the 84mm and Eryx missiles.
The so called trial was about 50 or folks walking in circles around our building with nothing strapped on the ruck and a minimal load in it, of course it's much more comfortable than the issued wire frame piece of crap, but not as versatile as the 64 patten ruck. When we asked about load carriage the CTS clown's answer was to place the items inside the ruck...fine if it fits. For what it's worth I'll stick to the 64 pattern ruck.
 
Back
Top