Making Combat Clothing Better

[McG]

There is no need for a 'garrison vest' why should there be? The shirts pictured are not meant for garrison use at all. They are meant for when you go on active ops or when you are wearing body armour constantly.

That is how the US uses them.  However, you ask why should there be a garrison vest and the answer is that if there is not a garrison vest then there needs to be a garrison shirt (because, as you point out, a Canadian ACS would not be designed as outer wear less the arms).  Besides, it cannot hurt to provide clothing that makes transition from one dress to the other easier (though not for the short durations identified by the US) or eliminates the requirement:

[quote author=http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,149676,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl]Although the ACS was designed to be worn under the Interceptor Body Armor, test participants noted the short breaks between patrols made it impractical to change into the ACU jacket. [/quote]

 

[medaid]

That is how the US uses them.  However, you ask why should there be a garrison vest and the answer is that if there is not a garrison vest then there needs to be a garrison shirt (because, as you point out, a Canadian ACS would not be designed as outer wear less the arms).

Seen, and yes there needs to be a garrison shirt, I would never say there wouldn't need to be one. However, improvements on a garrison shirt are needed so that in a pinch they can be deployed as field shirts and be worn comfortably enough underneath the FV.

 

[McG]

I suppose we address the same issue from opposite ends.  I propose making the field shirt work in garrison while your approach would make a garrison shirt that works as a second resort in the field.

 

[Armymedic]

Why make it complicated?

You have combat cothing we all have been issued. No change, none needed. Add in the "ACS" to be issued to all troops and worn when appropriate or directed.

Also the concept of an "ACS" for under armour loses its appeal when you need to add on enviromental gear to keep dry and/or warm.

When in comes to being warm and dry, I vote for Arc'teryx.

 

[geo]

Arc'teryx - nice gear there....

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I'll kick in my two cents.  "No change" isn't an option.  The combat shirt is a travesty that CTS should have changed when we transtioned to CADPAT.  Instead of being innovative, we are saddled with an ill-fitting garment that is dated in the extreme, complete with FN C1 mag pouches for pockets and baggy lower pockets for grenades - both totally pointless.  It fits very poorly under a flak vest (where the pockets are useless) and makes for exceptionally ugly "walking out dress" - which is deemed to be.  Now we've covered the buttons with "FOD" flaps to make them even less utilitarian.

When, years ago, I asked why the shirt remained the same cut as the OD garment, I was told that "troops love the pockets - you can cut an FMP in half and it fits perfectly!"   :

Yes, I have "issues"...

 

[Haggis]

I'll kick in my two cents.  "No change" isn't an option.  The combat shirt is a travesty that CTS should have changed when we transtioned to CADPAT.  Instead of being innovative, we are saddled with an ill-fitting garment that is dated in the extreme, complete with FN C1 mag pouches for pockets and baggy lower pockets for grenades - both totally pointless.  It fits very poorly under a flak vest (where the pockets are useless) and makes for exceptionally ugly "walking out dress" - which is deemed to be.  Now we've covered the buttons with "FOD" flaps to make them even less utilitarian.

In Ottawa, the wearing of CADPAT is actively discouraged and against Standing Orders in most units outside the Land Staff for WOs and above.  In an Army which really only has two orders of dress, operational and DEU, theres no more "middle ground".

When, years ago, I asked why the shirt remained the same cut as the OD garment, I was told that "troops love the pockets - you can cut an FMP in half and it fits perfectly!"   :

Which is a uniquely Canadian answer to either:

- making an FMP that fits the existing pocket; or
- making pockets that fit the existing FMP.

Yes, I have "issues"...

Most of us do, and being the worst "garrison" dressed of the three services only heightens our sense of fashion inadequacy.

 

[aesop081]

and being the worst "garrison" dressed of the three services only heightens our sense of fashion inadequacy.

Considering that most of the AF wears CADPAT to work, i would say you have company.

 

[Haggis]

Considering that most of the AF wears CADPAT to work, i would say you have company.

Not in Ottawa.

And when I say "garrison dressed", I'm referring to what you Air Force refer to as "Base Dress" the fashion equivalent to our old Garrison Dress uniform, the Candian Tire camo jacket, work dress pants and fallshcmirjager boots.

 

[medaid]

I suppose we address the same issue from opposite ends.  I propose making the field shirt work in garrison while your approach would make a garrison shirt that works as a second resort in the field.

I guess so  ;D Like SMMT said, there are times when the combat shirt won't work and that's when you'll need your 'garrison shirt' to step up and take the ball.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with how our American or British brethren have gone with their uniform system. However I do and still advocate that we need to change the design of our current CTS CADPAT shirts to reflect the current needs. A mandarin collar in stead of the collared weird thing that we currently have will suit our troops better. It keeps the armour from chaffing the neck and it keeps some of the sand out

 

[Fusaki]

Why make it complicated?

You have combat cothing we all have been issued. No change, none needed. Add in the "ACS" to be issued to all troops and worn when appropriate or directed.

Also the concept of an "ACS" for under armour loses its appeal when you need to add on enviromental gear to keep dry and/or warm.

This seems the most reasonable to me.

I don't see what's so difficult about borrowing the American design, testing it again in Canada for flash protection, and if it passes just put an order in for X amount of AR CADPAT gucci shirts. Issue out a few shirts to each guy overseas, and maybe later down the road start looking at TW CADPAT versions.

Personally, I've never had a problem with our current combat shirt while in garrison. In the field maybe a smock system would be better. The key though is getting a better AR CADPAT shirt overseas as soon as possible.

 

[McG]

I don't see what's so difficult about ....

PWGSC.  Government contracting policy.  Trade agreements.  Stopping any other testing that is already on-going.  Getting funding approval. 

... and that's not getting into any industry issues that might surround getting the materials in CADPAT.

Getting an ACS type shirt is not impossible, but it can't happen over night.

 

[Ecco]

I don't see what's so difficult about borrowing the American design, testing it again in Canada for flash protection, and if it passes just put an order in for X amount of AR CADPAT gucci shirts. Issue out a few shirts to each guy overseas, and maybe later down the road start looking at TW CADPAT versions.

Problem solved in less two lines, from idea to definition, financial expenditure authority, testing, user trial, requisition, bid evaluation, contracting, distribution and implementation.  :

Oversimplification is a wonderful thing:
I don't see what is so difficult about winning the war in Afghanistan:  We just have to fly soldiers there, kill all the Talibans, then convince every Afghan that democracy is better, remove the production of illegal substances and fly the soldiers back home, and maybe later down the road start looking at fixing the situation in Irak.

 

[dimsum]

A mandarin collar in stead of the collared weird thing that we currently have will suit our troops better. It keeps the armour from chaffing the neck and it keeps some of the sand out

Agreed.  The flying suits and NCD shirts could also use a mandarin collar...seriously, who needs a collar in operational clothing ???

 

[Fusaki]

Oversimplification is a wonderful thing:
I don't see what is so difficult about winning the war in Afghanistan:  We just have to fly soldiers there, kill all the Talibans, then convince every Afghan that democracy is better, remove the production of illegal substances and fly the soldiers back home, and maybe later down the road start looking at fixing the situation in Irak.

I see your point, and I didn't mean to come off as snarky.

I think the question needed to be asked. Keep in mind that we don't see any of that PWGSC stuff at the bottom. Aside from the odd user trial, we just go to QM, pick the stuff up, and pack it in the ruck. Believe it or not, alot of guys think that getting new gear issued is no more complicated then going to the store and buying the latest IPOD.  I think a lack of understanding leads to alot of the frustration with "the system."

 

[Ecco]

I did not mean to come off as snarky either. 

The LFTSP program is a year long intensive course into the basic vocabulary, science and process of kit procurement.  Even after the course, the system seems slow, sluggish, unwieldy and alien.  I am often amazed that it actually works at delivering kit from time to time.  It's frustrating, but it's the only process we have to spend beautiful taxpayer money into capabilities.

As an example, it literally took years for industry (Canadian and worldwide) to find the recipes to print CADPAT unto fabric, make it a durable print and respect the near-IR reflectance requirements.  Changing the underlying materials to flame retardant means that printing recipes have to be redone, etc...  :crybaby:

 

[CrazyCanuck]

If anything needs to be changed it's the synthetic clothing that's now being issued like polypro (least I think that's what it's called). People seem to be forgetting the lessons learned by the Brits in the Falklands... Synthetic stuff melts and causes horrendous wounds. Ya sure it's comfortable but when it melts to your skin it would be a lot less so. As for a better pocket system I don't really think the answer is placing them on the uniform itself, a better tac vest should be designed to accommodate anything extra you need to carry IMO. I hate having stuffed pockets as everything is loose and unsecured and bounces around when you run or march, least in a tac vest it is a bit more secure.

 

[Ecco]

If anything needs to be changed it's the synthetic clothing that's now being issued like polypro (least I think that's what it's called). People seem to be forgetting the lessons learned by the Brits in the Falklands... Synthetic stuff melts and causes horrendous wounds. Ya sure it's comfortable but when it melts to your skin it would be a lot less so.

Since this is a combat clothing thread, I will assume that you are referring to fleece outergarment.  It is actually a decent argument not to wear it as the outer layer, if there is a flash/flame/fire threat in your vicinity:  Coleman stoves in artic tents comes to mind.  Reminds me of an earlier conversation.

Since you appear to be navy, just wear the Nice (pun intended) stuff you are given.  Their FR characteristics are excellent, if worn according to guidelines.  Supposedly, ships burn.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think he was also referring to the lightweight thermal underwear as well.  I am not sure about burns, heat etc but I do know I would feel more comfortable in my own mind if I knew the stuff keeping me warm wouldn't melt even if it is under the combat shirt.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/262_e.asp

 

[CrazyCanuck]

I think he was also referring to the lightweight thermal underwear as well. 

That's the stuff! Couldn't think of the name. Wouldn't want to take it into a combat zone unless I can find proof that it doesn't melt, the fabric just feels like it would.