Well well well another CTS triumph

[Spartan]

I caught this as interesting in the description:
"One of the greatest innovations is the hip belt which actually bears weight. A strap on the hip belt is attached to load transfer rods that run up the sides of the rucksack. This allows weight to be transferred between the shoulders and the hips. "

Is it just me or hasn't this concept existed for a VERY long time before the creation of CTS?

 

[RCR Grunt]

I caught this as interesting in the description:
"One of the greatest innovations is the hip belt which actually bears weight. A strap on the hip belt is attached to load transfer rods that run up the sides of the rucksack. This allows weight to be transferred between the shoulders and the hips. "

Is it just me or hasn't this concept existed for a VERY long time before the creation of CTS?

Just them re-inventing the wheel again.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Actually, the load transfer rods were something that is somewhat unique to the CTS ruck.  The load transfer rods are not the aluminum stays, but rather a fiberglass/carbon fiber pole on the sides of the ruck, that when in use, are actually tensioned/bent in the sleeves they are located at in the ruck.  You can see a good diagram of them from the Ostrom Pack site http://www.ostrompacks.com/suspension/suspension.htm Ostrom Packs built the prototype small pack and rucksack for CTS and had the lion's share of R&D work for this project. This tension causes force to be put onto the hip-belt, helping to transfer some of the weight of the ruck onto the hip belt.  Where problems may arise though, is during airborne operations (or any events where there is an impact force put upon the ruck i.e. being thrown off the back of an truck, dropped from the top of a locker, etc.) if the load transfer rods are not removed, they risk breaking, thereby eliminating the benefit of load transfer to the hip belt.

The other main issue I foresee is that when the ruck is worn with body armour, the length of the CF ballistic vest on the torso will prevent effective use of the ruck's hip belt.  Properly sized current issue ballistic vests extend down the torso to the hip region of the wearer.  Additionally, the rear of the vest panel overlaps the front panel.  As such, the hip belt will not sit very well, and any effective transfer of the weight to the hips will be negated.

 

[Farmboy]

the load transfer rods were something that is somewhat unique to the CTS ruck

I know the Drop Zone Mother Rucker has these.  I also had a "Power" backpack when I was 16ish (33 now) that had these as well.

The funny thing is that the exact thing Matt describes happened to my pack, when I filled it up to much once and "abused" it the rods or straps holding them, can't remember which, broke.

 

[Bomber]

At this point, I have not seen a broken load transfer rod, I have some experience working with this new ruck, and can say it is a much better item than before, I have todl this to Matt on the phone, but have still yet to put on the armour and check the fit.  Perhaps today.  Carrying outsized loads is another issue being raised, the new ruck has about 6 compression straps per side, each with a fairly long length of webbing on it.  Loosen it off, and it would probably hold a 105 round securely.  Matt, give me a call when your coming through town and you can be my guest to check out my ruck.  When completing the testing for the shoulder straps, I regularly had 90 plus pounds in it, and was doing it three times a week.  The load transfer roads held up to it, and it makes it very nice to be able to switch the weight from the shoulders, to the back, to the hips, kind of like rocking a car that is stuck.  Wait until you see it before passing hearsay judgement, they are coming out now, the OMLT has been issued, earlier this year I issued them to the FE Dets in Pet, and they are ramping up the production to their full capacity now.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

At this point, I have not seen a broken load transfer rod, I have some experience working with this new ruck, and can say it is a much better item than before, I have todl this to Matt on the phone, but have still yet to put on the armour and check the fit.  Perhaps today.  Carrying outsized loads is another issue being raised, the new ruck has about 6 compression straps per side, each with a fairly long length of webbing on it.  Loosen it off, and it would probably hold a 105 round securely.  Matt, give me a call when your coming through town and you can be my guest to check out my ruck.  When completing the testing for the shoulder straps, I regularly had 90 plus pounds in it, and was doing it three times a week.  The load transfer roads held up to it, and it makes it very nice to be able to switch the weight from the shoulders, to the back, to the hips, kind of like rocking a car that is stuck.  Wait until you see it before passing hearsay judgement, they are coming out now, the OMLT has been issued, earlier this year I issued them to the FE Dets in Pet, and they are ramping up the production to their full capacity now.

How much impact testing has been done of dropping the ruck from heights with the load transfer rods under tension?  Fiberglass/carbon fiber materials have a tendency to stress fracture over time, resulting in catastrophic failure eventually; i.e. look at the failure rates of carbon fibre hockey sticks.  They give no outward appearance that they are under stress or are damaged, until they snap/shatter.  I've gone through enough fiberglass and aluminum tent poles to realize that over time, they weaken and will snap; Given that the load transfer rods are very similar in size and structure to a fiberglass tent pole, we can assume that they will behave in a similar manner.

I'm not saying that utilizing a load transfer rod in the ruck is a bad principle, but how much testing was done to warrant that the rods snapping is not a problem?

 

[Bomber]

Couldn't tell you Matt, I kow it got thrown from a plane a bunch of times and survived, all be-it in the drop bag.  A benefit of the composite/fiberglass rods is that over time, they won't degrade in performance, until they actually fail, much like the hockey sticks.  The materials are less suceptible to fatigue than metal and wood.  This si why it is always at critical/surprising times to the players when their sticks fail, that, and the fact that they modify the hell out of them, but I doubt a troop will be enhancing the curve or lowering the weight of the load transfer rods on the new ruck.  Also, if they fail, grab a new one, and pop it in, it takes about 30 seconds to replace them, and if they fail, the ruck is not a write off, it is just going to be a little less comfortable if you are used to using them under tension.  When not tightened, you can remove them from the ruck while it is being worn, so if it snaps, loosen it off, and carry on.

 

[Big Daddy142]

Where does the sleeping bag go?

 

[Bomber]

The simplest way to describe it is two compression sacks sewn together, the top one faces up, the bottom one faces to your rear.  O, when the bag is standing up, th ebottom if empty is floppy, but the top can be filled, and compressed with the straps.  If the ruck is laying down, on the shoulder straps, the bottom one is now facing up.  both bags have fairly comparable capacity, but I prefer to pack the sleeping stuff in the bottom.  I am larger, and prefer to have more weight on my shoulders.  Once packed, the entire system can be pulled very tight with the compression straps, and it sinks in on itself very well.

 

[Yeoman]

So, getting back to the first post... when is everyone expected to get it issued? Are TF3-08 pers considered priority?

to my last understanding, no we're not. might not even get them before we leave.
again what I was told.
................so am I going to have to exchange my 64 and 82 frames *shudders*
yes I know Vern, we had that talk a while back about the new things for jumpers, but it wouldn't suprise me if they made us try it out at least once.
this thing is indeed big, I've only had a few minutes to play with it three years ago and I'm sure they designs have had some more changes to it. but I really didn't mind it at all and it is a step up then what's currently issued. but not by much.

 

[LordOsborne]

Well.. I'm disappointed that it took this long to finally finish this project, but I'm not really surprised. I'll give this new ruck a chance, and see how it all works out. It sounds though like it's going to be an empty-heavy design like the small pack. I suppose just about anything is an improvement over the wire-frame ruck I currently use.

Regarding the earlier discussion of getting some experienced Cbt Arms soldiers working in CTS - I think it's a great idea, but after having read the TAV AAR on load carriage in the TF, I can't help but think that any opinions voiced by those in the "know" would only get silenced by the holier-than-thou attitude that CTS seems to have; especially in the way they rub words like "bio-design" and "human factors" in everyone's face like the troops don't know what they're talking about. I personally think they mean well, but they're just terribly misguided.

 

[R031button]

I'd just like to comment on the holier then thou attitude of the DLR. A few months ago we had a delegation from DLR come to B Coy, and they wanted to talk to the troops about what the troops though about tac vests, and what could be done to improve them. Which is fine, it's more then fine actually, it's great and is what should be expected of DLR when their planning a new project. However, the manner in which it was conducted wasn't that of an interview, or a town hall open house, it was definitely more of an inquisition, troops being questioned on  why, if they wanted modularity, had the Arktis 1600 series Battle Vest been suggested as an example of where to go. They also focused on asking troops "what is modularity" as opposed to simply asking, what do you want, they sculpted answers into a picture of the troops not really knowing what was actually wanted. All in all, it was an hour of questions from persons who clearly wanted to find answers they would like, and wanted to validate their own opinions through a token questioning of soldiers.

I realise it's not perhaps relevent to the topic of the ruck, but I think it shows where the DLR's head is at when it comes to equipment fault sand problems.

 

[geo]

Hmmm... If DLR wanted opinions on the TV, shouldn't they have been talking to the troops who have just come back from overseas deployment and have used the TV with the balistic protection vests?

Talking to 31 CBG reservists who mostly work in Canada and work with the vest alone, without anything else, will result in DLR not addressing recommendations from the people who really need em.

(PS - not dissing the reservists)

 

[medaid]

I don't think you're 'dissing' us at all. In fact you brought up a very valid point. However PRes personnel who have recently come off tour DO have relevant things to say and inputs that should not be taking lightly. I may be a cynic, but I hope it's not another one of DLR's ploys. " Oh look! We did talk to troops, and hey they think it's great!" Kind of thing...

EDIT:

I will now stop posting from my crackberry... most of my posts become hard to read and full of errors!  :-[

 

[geo]

Yup, reservists just coming off tour certainly do have opinions that mirror Reg force opinions
It's just that you are not going to find a critical mass of cuirrent Afghan Roto experience in any one reserve rifle coy.

The tac vest alone is not much of a problem
The tac vest worn together with the balistic vest and all sorts of other strap on stuff IS a problem.
Fix the problem and you'll end up with a better product.... with & without the extra gear.

 

[Infanteer]

Maybe Rucks are like boots - everyone's body (like their feet) is different and thus different folks prefer different things.

Is there any thought that rucksacks may be becoming somewhat obsolete as a piece of tactical gear?  Do we really want to launch guys into battle wearing a 90 liter backpack (regardless of external/internal frame or any other issue).  I'm happy with lighterweight layers/sleeping bags/etc that are compressed and can fit well into my 25 liter assault pack.  We need to get the dimensions and weight of our rations down so deploying with 3 days of food doesn't require 50% of your space.  As well, water is a huge logistical burden; any thought to water purifiers/filters as a piece of individual issue kit so we don't have to carry 5-10 liters per man - I remember seeing a product at an AUSA show that turned swamp water into gatorade (I actually drank it and didn't come down with dysentary).

Rucksacks suck, old or new; we still put guys out with too much weight on them, ultimately detracting from their ability to fight.  Perhaps lightening the logistical load is the real future, not a fancy new backpack with flex rods?

 

[medaid]

Infanteer should we split this? Maybe name it

Light Infantry Loadbearing In Modern Warfare: A split from CTS Triumph

 

[R031button]

Hmmm... If DLR wanted opinions on the TV, shouldn't they have been talking to the troops who have just come back from overseas deployment and have used the TV with the balistic protection vests?

Talking to 31 CBG reservists who mostly work in Canada and work with the vest alone, without anything else, will result in DLR not addressing recommendations from the people who really need em.

(PS - not dissing the reservists)

Sorry I should have specified, that's B Coy 1VP, I'm attached for TF 1-08. But agreed, they should be tlaking to returning, rahter than departing troops.

 

[KevinB]

R031 - DLR/CTS likes to show up pre tour and brief troops on their kit...
  They dont take feedback anyway - so they like to show up pre-deployment
*some do take feedback but are muzzled or ignored

 

[MG34]

Yup, reservists just coming off tour certainly do have opinions that mirror Reg force opinions
It's just that you are not going to find a critical mass of cuirrent Afghan Roto experience in any one reserve rifle coy.

The tac vest alone is not much of a problem
The tac vest worn together with the balistic vest and all sorts of other strap on stuff IS a problem.
Fix the problem and you'll end up with a better product.... with & without the extra gear.

Actually the Tav Vest is a problem , we do not wear it without ballistic protection even when training. It is a substandard piece of crap even without the farg vest and plates. The frag vest is a whole other matter that should be opened for debate.