Winter FTX

[footsoldier32]

...there has been a HUGE increase in the numbers of soldiers (young, new soldiers < 10 service) experiencing problems with the MkIIIs. The reasoning for that increase is that this new generation of soldiers has never worn what my grandmother would call "sturdy shoes" in their lives. This new generation is used to 4 oz running shoes etc, and whenever anything weighted (ie sturdy) is put onto their feet ... it's all new to them and causes problems.

Roger, I'll be first to admit, we aren't as "tough" as they were back in the day, but we are in tough in our own right.  It is a newer more modern world that has developed many things that are better (more that are worse).  I have a lot of respect for those guys but why would I wear something "sturdier" now when I have something comfortable that achieves the same job?  It's time that the CF moves on and gives the soldier several boot options, as every soldier is different and some are not as tough as others.  

 

[armyvern]

Roger, I'll be first to admit, we aren't as "tough" as they were back in the day, but we are in tough in our own right.  It is a newer more modern world that has developed many things that are better (more that are worse).  I have a lot of respect for those guys but why would I wear something "sturdier" now when I have something comfortable that achieves the same job?  It's time that the CF moves on and gives the soldier several boot options, as every soldier is different and some are not as tough as others.  

It's got nothing to do with being tougher than another, but as you've mentioned it twice in your post above, I'll have to ask if you are insinuating that's what I believe?? It isn't. No where in any of my posts have I said anything contrary either.

You won't get any arguements from me on footwear. None at all. I've been one of the ones who's been arguing on the Supply side for years that the troops should get a boot allowance every year (like the BTU allowance) to purchase whatever footwear WORKS for them. I can assure you that I may be a mere Supply Tech, but the nature of my job has allowed me first hand experience to witness just how many people need so many different types of footwear for their own comfort and ease. I get to see many different types of LPOd boots every day. No soldier is the same.

Please, enough with posts that insinuate that I believe anything different. I do not. The proof is in my posting history.

 

[armyvern]

You know you try and stay out of kit threads, not like my opinion on issue kit in general isn't well known.....

Boots...ahh Boots like the Tac Vest argument wont ever go away and the usual suspect are lined up on their usual sides. Nothing new here is there. Wonderbread wants the freedom to buy his kit (within reason) and  perhaps change what is issued and Vern as part of the system that looks at $$$ and such with many many years experience is on the side that what we have is good enough for the vast majority. I think the biggest difference is that many people on the pointy end are saying the mentality of forces wide good enough just isn't. I happen to fall into that camp but I do try and see the other side of coin. I wear non issue boots for deployment and now will wear them at work ( I have a medical chit for them) I truly believe that a soldier any soldier once he has left the training system (BMQ,SQ,BIQ) should if he has the money to spend be allowed to buy kit he would like too use. What I think is the best compromise is a list of allowable non issue kit for purchase put out by Units and carried by the Unit Kit shop. The likely hood of some new guy going of and spending thousands of dollars on useless kit is eliminated or I should say mitigated by the kit shops keeping the list and carrying the kit most bought by the older guys.

Meh what do I know, I don't wear the issue kit anyway, not going to start now ether.

HorM,

As for costs ... budgets are a fact of life. I wish they weren't but they are; if budgets weren't an issue of course we'd all have the latest, greatest Gucci kit. But that's not the way any federal entity works (the RCMP is the same, Canada Post etc etc), not just the CF. It's really got nothing to do with us non-pointy end "usual suspects" taking sides ... it's got to do with federal entities obeying the Treasury Board and PWGSC Acts which limit us with budgets. They are Law.They are Acts that govern each federal department the very same as the CF. We may not like them, but we have to follow them, and the law says we stay within budget.

Boots?? Tac Vests?? The usual suspects on the same side?? Me on the systems side for the items you've mentioned?? I think not. And, you've been here long enough to know different. I am not a usual suspect and am firmly on the soldier's side (ie yours) for those items as my posting history indicates. You should hear my mouth going at WGs ... I'm famous for it.     
And, as I've already said below ... I have ZERO problems with people using after market kit ... once they are out of the training pipeline and are comfortable with that issued gear that they may have to use properly one day for whatever reason because their Gucci kit gets trashed and the issued kit is all there is for them to use. Making them train with that issued gear ... is just smart ... just in case.

What seems to be the problem??

Besides my Oakleys being cooler and a different colour than yours??  ;D

Vern

 

[footsoldier32]

Please, enough with posts that insinuate that I believe anything different. I do not. The proof is in my posting history.

Army Vern, while I love coming on to other trades, please understand that I do not think that any one person is tougher than any other.  We all have a job to do and mine is Infantry, yours is supply.  I can't do my job with out you guys and you can't do yours without the crazys like us.  I apologize if that is what you thought...I was implying to the older, more experienced generations that I have a lot of time for.  I, as an Infantry Officer would never do as good a job as I do without the help.  Have a great night and Pro Patria!

 

[armyvern]

Army Vern, while I love coming on to other trades, please understand that I do not think that any one person is tougher than any other.  We all have a job to do and mine is Infantry, yours is supply.  I can't do my job with out you guys and you can't do yours without the crazys like us.  I apologize if that is what you thought...I was implying to the older, more experienced generations that I have a lot of time for.  I, as an Infantry Officer would never do as good a job as I do without the help.  Have a great night and Pro Patria!

Pas de problemo, and I hope that you have a good night too.

Pro Patria

 

[Sig_Des]

I have ZERO problems with people using after market kit ... once they are out of the training pipeline and are comfortable with that issued gear that they may have to use properly one day for whatever reason because their Gucci kit gets trashed and the issued kit is all there is for them to use. Making them train with that issued gear ... is just smart ... just in case.

On the danger of sidetracking more, I'll say this. The thing to recognize is what training pipeline.

Everyone training with the issued gear IS smart, just in case. But when the Pipeline spreads out to predeployment training, individual soldiers should be training with the kit they will be using IN theater.

 

[Michael OLeary]

One thing we have to realize is that those promoting the idea of after-market kit are lobbying for those items with which they have personal experience, or know about through first-hand accounts from others they trust.  They have achieved this state after what has been, in effect, an unofficial trails and evaluation process on isolated items, which has reduced the list of preferred and accepted non-issue options to a rather limited list of all those items and manufacturers available.  Extrapolating this opinion to a general "troops should be allowed to use what they want" is an erroneous conclusion.

It remains to be seen how this generation will react, in a few years when they are the WOs and CSMs, when a new troop shows up wearing a piece of gear they don't have a personal classification of "Good To Go" for.  Will they sit back and say, "yeah, whatever you want troop, because I believe in complete freedom of choice", or will they critically examine that item, and the troop's experience and knowledge base to select that item, before they accept it in their platoon or company? Or will that demand for freedom of choice we hear now be tempered, supporting familiar items, but waiting to see if new items work before allowing them in operational situations?

In the end, the final question will be who's at fault when a non-issue piece of kit does fail and someone dies, either the soldier himself, or one of the soldiers his actions were supposed to be protecting?  True, the "failure" of a toque or some other minor item may never cause a death, but when this attitude extends to equipment like boots, weapon modifications, etc., there remains a reason for caution within the chain of command.

 

[Stauds]

One thing we have to realize is that those promoting the idea of after-market kit are lobbying for those items with which they have personal experience, or know about through first-hand accounts from others they trust.  They have achieved this state after what has been, in effect, an unofficial trails and evaluation process on isolated items, which has reduced the list of preferred and accepted non-issue options to a rather limited list of all those items and manufacturers available.  Extrapolating this opinion to a general "troops should be allowed to use what they want" is an erroneous conclusion.

It remains to be seen how this generation will react, in a few years when they are the WOs and CSMs, when a new troop shows up wearing a piece of gear they don't have a personal classification of "Good To Go" for.  Will they sit back and say, "yeah, whatever you want troop, because I believe in complete freedom of choice", or will they critically examine that item, and the troop's experience and knowledge base to select that item, before they accept it in their platoon or company? Or will that demand for freedom of choice we hear now be tempered, supporting familiar items, but waiting to see if new items work before allowing them in operational situations?

In the end, the final question will be who's at fault when a non-issue piece of kit does fail and someone dies, either the soldier himself, or one of the soldiers his actions were supposed to be protecting?  True, the "failure" of a toque or some other minor item may never cause a death, but when this attitude extends to equipment like boots, weapon modifications, etc., there remains a reason for caution within the chain of command.

If it's an issue of a soldier's experience and ability to judge what a reliable piece of kit is, then is it possible to get the section commander's to inspect any personal items that the soldier wants to use? Surely Sgt's have enough time in and operational experience to know what works and what doesn't.

 

[Michael OLeary]

If it's an issue of a soldier's experience and ability to judge what a reliable piece of kit is, then is it possible to get the section commander's to inspect any personal items that the soldier wants to use? Surely Sgt's have enough time in and operational experience to know what works and what doesn't.

Not necessarily, when it may actually be a question of textile, plastics or metalurgical technology rather than perceived utility of the item's purpose.


(Edit to add "plastics")

 

[armyvern]

Not necessarily, when it may actually be a question of textile or metalurgical technology rather than perceived utility of the item's purpose.

Quite true.

A couple years ago, I had purchased some 'fire-retardent' items on behalf of a school here that was travelling about setting up & running a  new course to the system.  In consult with the course staff, we purchased quite a few aftermarket Gucci items (flash hoods, undies, etc) of different varieties from many manufacturer's. The cocktails pretty much proved that most didn't live up to the standards the sellers had advertised, nor the mil specs. But troops were are actually using some of this crap. After all was said and done, the stocked items actually lived up to their purpose and were still recognizable for what they were. No more LPOd for the course, it stayed with the stocked system items which met the mil specs (that is why they ended up being the stocked item in the first place after all) ... for the soldiers protection.

Mil specs, and the suitability of an after-market item to perform properly in an austere location (ie when you are wearing it during an IED strike) really can't be judged by anyone ... unless they are putting it through the appropriate ballistic trials etc. Some Gucci suppliers do this, some do not. Some items would meet the mil specs, and some would not. Some say they meet the mil specs, but do not.

There really is no easy solution to Gucci kit. If you want to see it on a list as "authorized for wear" then the CF would have to officially certify that it met the MilSpecs, ballistic specs etc. Why's that?? Because once it becomes "authorized" and officially sanctioned, the CF is responsible to ensure that you are protected and not put at undue risk of injury/death due to kit performance. They need to properly WRT safety etc. It's called due diligence. As a soldier, you are already at high risk, the system is just trying to mitigate that risk. Some of you would be surprised at what Gucci kit hasn't lived up to the ballistic standards etc of the stocked item even though the Company's own trials etc says it does.

That's why you'll never see a random listing of after-market items authorized (but not milspec certified) for wear by individual soldiers. The items which do become officially "allowable," become so because the mil specs have been certified as being met. To go on any officially "sanctioned" list each individual item by each individual supplier would have to be run through DRDC etc, and this Nation simply doesn't have the budget for that. And some of those milspecs regarding combustability, ballistic level etc just can't be at the user level, unless of course, you're willing to let that section commander "blow your shit up."

Although, I know a great many section commanders who'd probably love to be authorized to do just that.   

It's not just an Army issue either. Roper gloves are an LPOd item now, but in order to be used by us ... they can't come from just any supplier because they simply do not meet the milspecs for conditions they'd be used for and in by soldiers. We LPOd 5 types, they all looked pretty much identical and then sent them off to be tested and "certified" as authorized ... 2 pairs passed (and neither were the cheapest pairs although one was the most expensive pair).

 

[Stauds]

Not necessarily, when it may actually be a question of textile, plastics or metalurgical technology rather than perceived utility of the item's purpose.

I am specifically talking about items such as Chest Rigs. For example, I have a chest rig from High Speed Gear Inc, and I know it is a quality rig and will not fall apart at the worst times. The company's products are tried, tested, and passed with amazing results. They are recommended from soldiers who have actually used them in theatre.

Now is my judgement and research sound? From a higher up point of view, a private may not be able to be trusted, but I have done my research and purchased a quality product. So, to confirm this, would it not be possible for my Section Commander to check my rig over and make sure it's not a piece of crap that will break?After veryifying this, I should be allowed to wear the vest. I think this would be a acceptable comprimise.

 

[George Wallace]

I am specifically talking about items such as Chest Rigs. For example, I have a chest rig from High Speed Gear Inc, and I know it is a quality rig and will not fall apart at the worst times. The company's products are tried, tested, and passed with amazing results. They are recommended from soldiers who have actually used them in theatre.

Now is my judgement and research sound? From a higher up point of view, a private may not be able to be trusted, but I have done my research and purchased a quality product. So, to confirm this, would it not be possible for my Section Commander to check my rig over and make sure it's not a piece of crap that will break?After veryifying this, I should be allowed to wear the vest. I think this would be a acceptable comprimise.

Interesting.  Your judgement has nothing to do with this.  Your research may.  Your Section Commander has no authority to OK any piece of kit that you may want to utilize.  Your Sergeant Major may.  You are trying to circumvent the 'System'.  Have you thought about processing your 'research' through the System, using the proper formats and channels?  If you haven't, as a no hook Pte you are going to loose.

If you do use the proper procedures to put forward a suggestion/recommendation, then many will benefit from your work.  If you don't you either benefit only yourself if you are allowed to utilize a particular piece of kit, or you make many enemies in the higher ranks who will look at you as not being a 'Team Player'.

Submit the proper paperwork through the proper channels.  Everyone will be happier  (Remember - the system is very s  l  o  w.......)

 

[Michael OLeary]

I am specifically talking about items such as Chest Rigs. For example, I have a chest rig from High Speed Gear Inc, and I know it is a quality rig and will not fall apart at the worst times. The company's products are tried, tested, and passed with amazing results. They are recommended from soldiers who have actually used them in theatre.

Now is my judgement and research sound? From a higher up point of view, a private may not be able to be trusted, but I have done my research and purchased a quality product. So, to confirm this, would it not be possible for my Section Commander to check my rig over and make sure it's not a piece of crap that will break?After veryifying this, I should be allowed to wear the vest. I think this would be a acceptable comprimise.

You have just described the process that sets the scene for this comment:

One thing we have to realize is that those promoting the idea of after-market kit are lobbying for those items with which they have personal experience, or know about through first-hand accounts from others they trust.  They have achieved this state after what has been, in effect, an unofficial trails and evaluation process on isolated items, which has reduced the list of preferred and accepted non-issue options to a rather limited list of all those items and manufacturers available.  Extrapolating this opinion to a general "troops should be allowed to use what they want" is an erroneous conclusion.

It remains to be seen how this generation will react, in a few years when they are the WOs and CSMs, when a new troop shows up wearing a piece of gear they don't have a personal classification of "Good To Go" for.  Will they sit back and say, "yeah, whatever you want troop, because I believe in complete freedom of choice", or will they critically examine that item, and the troop's experience and knowledge base to select that item, before they accept it in their platoon or company? Or will that demand for freedom of choice we hear now be tempered, supporting familiar items, but waiting to see if new items work before allowing them in operational situations?

In the end, the final question will be who's at fault when a non-issue piece of kit does fail and someone dies, either the soldier himself, or one of the soldiers his actions were supposed to be protecting?  True, the "failure" of a toque or some other minor item may never cause a death, but when this attitude extends to equipment like boots, weapon modifications, etc., there remains a reason for caution within the chain of command.

So you researched one chest rig, does that make you an expert on every chest rig that any soldier wants to use during the rest of your career?  What about weapon mods?  What about boots?  You made yourself knowledgeable about one item as described in your example, that does not an make you a qualified expert able to "authorize" any after-market kit a soldier under your command would want to use in future.

And what happens when a soldier shows up in your section wearing something from a manufacturer you wrote off during your research?  What will your response be?  Probably, a very strong "no fucking way!"  But maybe he did the research and their quality is better at that point; could be, but still OUTSIDE your "expertise."

The point being made was that limited experience with select kit DOES NOT make any of us experts on all after-market options.

 

[Fusaki]

Interesting.  Your judgement has nothing to do with this.  Your research may.  Your Section Commander has no authority to OK any piece of kit that you may want to utilize.  Your Sergeant Major may.  You are trying to circumvent the 'System'.  Have you thought about processing your 'research' through the System, using the proper formats and channels?  If you haven't, as a no hook Pte you are going to loose.

If you do use the proper procedures to put forward a suggestion/recommendation, then many will benefit from your work.  If you don't you either benefit only yourself if you are allowed to utilize a particular piece of kit, or you make many enemies in the higher ranks who will look at you as not being a 'Team Player'.

Submit the proper paperwork through the proper channels.  Everyone will be happier  (Remember - the system is very s  l   o   w.......)

Thats interesting...

Is there an official form for this? Is it submitted in memo format? what is required? I know I could always ask at work, but for the benefit of everyone else here...

So you researched one chest rig, does that make you an expert on every chest rig that any soldier wants to use during the rest of your career?  What about weapon mods?  What about boots?  You made yourself knowledgeable about one item as described in your example, that does not an make you a qualified expert able to "authorize" any after-market kit a soldier under your command would want to use in future.

And what happens when a soldier shows up in your section wearing something from a manufacturer you wrote off during your research?  What will your response be?  Probably, a very strong "no ******* way!"  But maybe he did the research and their quality is better at that point; could be, but still OUTSIDE your "expertise."

The point being made was that limited experience with select kit DOES NOT make any of us experts on all after-market options.

I agree, there are so many expensive options out there that no one person could possibly be an expert on everythng. One thing I have seen done is a stern warning from the CSM: "You're big boys, so bring what you want on this ex as long as you look like a (Canadian) soldier. But if you don't bring enough warm kit or your gucci ******* mitts fail and you go down in the field, you'll be fucking charged. I'll ******* hammer ya."

This has been enough for most troops to err on the side of caution, and encouraged them to do their research. I don't know if this is an official rule, but in my own unit its commonly held that if you can't do your job because you've swapped out your issued gear with non-issue stuff you'll be up in front of the CO doing the hatless dance the minute you're out of the base hospital. I can't think of any instances where this has actually happened, but the threat is always there.

This system might not work as well overseas, but I think we're hoping that by that time the troops have gained the experience required.

 

[armyvern]

Thats interesting...

Is there an official form for this? Is it submitted in memo format? what is required? I know I could always ask at work, but for the benefit of everyone else here...

There most certainly is. It's called the UCR. You write up the shitty piece of kit (ie the issued one you choose NOT to use and state the reasons why) and in the "Suggestions/Recommendations" block (which asks for specific examples/samples etc) you insert the name of the supplier, manufacturer part # etc, of the Gucci kit item that you choose to use instead and state your reasons why that particular piece of kit would be a better item to hold or utilize within the system than the one that is issued. Include a sample of it, as it will have to undergo MilSpec testing etc ... and it's got to pass that testing to be authorized for use/issue.

I won't get into the UCR process...the SOPs for them and how to submit them (and to whom) are already posted on this site.