Small Pack Issue

[Douke]

As for the small pack no being made to carry a valise/sleeping bag, I was issued valise securing straps with it, and a paper explaining they were they to secure the classic valise/sleeping bag system onto the smallpack, so I doubt it was not made to carry this task on (and it quite honestly fill that role quite nicely for me as I prefer and carry around a smaller pack for patrol stuff, and the smallpack has pretty much the same load capacity as the old rucksack).

The if it is the best configuration or not I lack the experience to tell and am quite happy to have your judgement on the matter, I am simply curious how you bring your smallpack to the cache if you do not secure it to your rucksack ?

 

[brihard]

I hear a lot of in-experience talking on this topic(aside from armyvern and maybe a couple of others). The Small pack is not designed to be carried full along with your ruck,nor is made for carrying your valise. Not with our cuurently issused sleeping bag.It is meant for use over short periods of time such as short range patrolling. Carrying the small pack with your valise with valise on top is silly. If anyone of my soldiers showed up with that configuration there would be some quick changes made ie. transferring the load to it's proper place. The ruck!
As for the criticism of your CSM. Well maybe he has a little bit more experience than a new Pte. Do as you are told and stop crying.When soldiers are deploying on ex. checks must be done and kit lists issued. I am in the regs and have deployed to the field many times.And prior to deploying i have been on many inspections. You would not belive some of the kit people bring and the stuff left behind.This is necessary in almost all units to ensure people are equipped and ready for the job.(especially new Pte's)
  Now onto the new ruck . It is an excellent piece of kit. I carried it during the 2003 Cambrian Patrol in Wales.The Patrol itself was around 65k in extemely adverse weather conditions and harsh terrain.It perfomed  waybetter than even I expected. As well as the patrol our team logged hundreds of k's during prep. With average loads of 85 pounds it felt as if we were carrying 25 pounds compared with the old ruck. By far the piece of kit I'm looking the most forward to recieving. In case your are wondering where the one I wore during  the Cambrian went. It was sent back to Trials and Evaluations in Ottawa. It was for publicity purposes only we were allowed to wear them in Wales.

I recognize that between the two of us you're obviously the one with both time-in and 'real' (operational) experience, but with regards to the small pack I have to respectfully disagree.

The SPS has as much internal capacity as the ruck, and so far appears to be rpetty durable. The plastic buckles irk me a bit, but that's my only complaint. Straps and buckles were provided to attach the valise to the SPS, so clearly there is some intention for it to be sued that way. The mag can be attached to the bottom if you want, though it seems that common concensus is that it's much more comfortable on top; I personally feel like I'm carrying half the load when it's mounted higher up, which is harder to accomplish with the old pattern ruck. Some of us won't see the new ruck for quite some time, so in the mean time we must make due with what we have. The valise on top is comfortable and it works.

Yes, the ruck is intended to be completely sufficient for sustaining yourself so long as you're resupplied fairly regularly, and I will admit that the SPS was perhaps not designed with that in mind, but I think we can agree that issued kit often finds use beyond its intended purpose, or that simple 'make-dos' will help to make issued kit much more effective. God knows we've all been issued kit that ended up being either more or less effective or versatile than originally intended- the Tacvest threads here would be an example of such.

Uniformity has its place, and I won't argue that, however the SPS is a comfortable piece of kit with a good carrying capacity. I can pack just as much if not more in my SPS than in my ruck and carry it more comfortably. I'd like to think that the primary motivation with regards to kit is the end effectiveness of the soldier utilizing it. I personally find that I can use the SPS more effectively than I can the ruck. I can do the job (such as it is as an R031) with either without complaint, but I find myself more comfortable with the SPS- and all else being equal, should that not be taken into consideration?

If I can be shown a substantive reason why the SPS is a less effective piece of kit than the ruck, I'll gladly go back to using the rucksack, however in the interim I'll continue to use the SPS on exercises. My unit has allowed me to do so, and our NCOs - including at least one former regforce 031 NCO - are approving of it, so I would submit that perhaps there ought to be room for individual preference until and unless it can be shown that the SPS is actually less effective than the ruck in the role being debated here.

 

[Patrolman]

O.k I am going to try to clear up a couple of points from my last post. First  in-experience is not a bad thing. The only way to get experience is through time in and trial and error.
  The small pack does come with straps to secure your sleeping gear.However that sleeping gear is meant to be carried in a stuff sack which is not issued with the small pack system. Once you recieve your new rucks( I am still waiting also) you will see the valise is a thing of the past. So once again the small pack is not designed to carry the valise which is currently used with the 82 pattern ruck. Go on the Defence site a do a search for the Clothe the soldier Program and you will see my point are founded in truth.I would post the link here but my computer skills are lacking.I guess it is a lack of  experience.
  As for units allowing soldiers to use the small pack in place of the ruck. If your unit allows it then fill your boots. I myself would find it to uncomfortable to carry valise with the SPS. I think you would be hard pressed to find many reg force units who woulod allow this since the SPS is designed for a 24hr period and most of our exes are far longer. During the summer months carring the SP in place of the ruck for periods up to 72hrs is a feasible idea in colder months though the amount of additional kit required increases making this option a little less likely. I still believe uniformity of kit in an army unit is a must. If one soldier uses the old stle ruck as a primary load carriage system then everyone should. Again a unit call.
  I agree the only way to carry the SP in addition to your ruck is to carry it on the outside.Though empty not full. If possible it should be carried in your follow-up kit providing you have access to it , ready to be used when needed. If you are in a mech unit it should be carried in your vehicle.
The SPS is an excellent piece of kit and once we recieve the rest of the Load Carriage System ie. the ruck and stuff sack this will  be even more apparent. Until then it may be hard for some to invision.
My opinion is strictly that an opinion. You are all entitled to your own and can do as you feel comfortable doing within the guidelines of you units orders. The 82 pattern system outdated ,uncomfortable and is deffinately ready to be replaced . Let's just hope maybe with the next government the procurement process will be sped up allowing for faster kit issues in both the regs and res.
                                                                                                    Thanks Patrolman

 

[brihard]

O.k I am going to try to clear up a couple of points from my last post. First  in-experience is not a bad thing. The only way to get experience is through time in and trial and error.
  The small pack does come with straps to secure your sleeping gear.However that sleeping gear is meant to be carried in a stuff sack which is not issued with the small pack system. Once you recieve your new rucks( I am still waiting also) you will see the valise is a thing of the past. So once again the small pack is not designed to carry the valise which is currently used with the 82 pattern ruck. Go on the Defence site a do a search for the Clothe the soldier Program and you will see my point are founded in truth.I would post the link here but my computer skills are lacking.I guess it is a lack of  experience.
  As for units allowing soldiers to use the small pack in place of the ruck. If your unit allows it then fill your boots. I myself would find it to uncomfortable to carry valise with the SPS. I think you would be hard pressed to find many reg force units who woulod allow this since the SPS is designed for a 24hr period and most of our exes are far longer. During the summer months carring the SP in place of the ruck for periods up to 72hrs is a feasible idea in colder months though the amount of additional kit required increases making this option a little less likely. I still believe uniformity of kit in an army unit is a must. If one soldier uses the old stle ruck as a primary load carriage system then everyone should. Again a unit call.
  I agree the only way to carry the SP in addition to your ruck is to carry it on the outside.Though empty not full. If possible it should be carried in your follow-up kit providing you have access to it , ready to be used when needed. If you are in a mech unit it should be carried in your vehicle.
The SPS is an excellent piece of kit and once we recieve the rest of the Load Carriage System ie. the ruck and stuff sack this will  be even more apparent. Until then it may be hard for some to invision.
My opinion is strictly that an opinion. You are all entitled to your own and can do as you feel comfortable doing within the guidelines of you units orders. The 82 pattern system outdated ,uncomfortable and is deffinately ready to be replaced . Let's just hope maybe with the next government the procurement process will be sped up allowing for faster kit issues in both the regs and res.
                                                                                                    Thanks Patrolman

Seen and understood.

I'd not heard about the new stuff sack- is it going to be a high compression sack that actually functions to physically shrink the load? that will be a VERY nice bit of kit to have if so; the valise isn't heavy, but it's certianly large, no matter how much you make it resemble a bratwurst by reefing on the drawstrings.

Thanks for clearing that up, and I agree, it's time we see the new ruck.

Regards,
Brihard

 

[armyvern]

Rucksack:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/273_e.asp

Small Pack:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/272_e.asp

 

[DG-41]

So we got the small pack right before Xmas, and I've been playing with it.

1) For a supposedly modular and configurable system... it sure ain't very. It only wants to go together one way, and the loops/attachment points to put it together in alternate configurations just aren't there. Furthermore, the attachment point system is very.... odd, with the pouch compression straps being the same straps that secure the pouches to the main bag. Why they didn't use the same method as the tac vest (little velcro straps with a big velcro backing patch) is beyond me.... And why two butt packs? I only have one butt.

2) The instructions provided are singularly unhelpful. No descriptions of the intended configuration. No advice as to why the thing is designed the way it is. No picture of a fully-assembled system!

3) But I made time to sit down with the silly thing and play with it, and after much experimentation, I got it into a workable configuration. I have the two clip-top pouches on the lower back, one of the butt packs (the one with the simple strap) placed horizontallly above them (some creativity is needed to get this to work; it doesn't want to go this way natively, even though doing so is an obvious configuration) and then I have the spare canteen holder and C9 pouch from my Tac Vest mounted on the sides.

4) My loadout is roughly:
    - socks and underwear in the horizontal pouch
    - a ration in one of the veritical pouches
    - toiletries, wet wipes, and boot cleaning kit in the other vertical pouch
    - odds and sods in the C9 pouch
    - either my regular canteen or the thermos canteen (depending on which is in my tac vest) in the canteen pouch (you can never carry enough water in my book)
    - uniforms, t-shirts, thermals etc in the main pouch
    - raingear, flashlight, gloves, and KFS in the other buttpack (worn as a buttpack, and replacing the 82 pattern buttpack I had similarly loaded and carried as a man-purse)

So confgured, it actually carries more than the 82 pattern ruck - it seems like the main compartment internal volume is similar, but the external pouches are larger.

5) I actually have the new compression sack valise - Wheeler sells them, and they ROCK - and I tied it on the underside of the pack using the supplied straps.

6) I'm working up to being able to do the BFT, and last night, I went for a walk in it. The underslung valise is a loser; it rides way too low. I'm going to try moving it up top and see how that works out. But otherwise, I actually think it may be more comfortable than the 82 pattern ruck, and I'm one of those oddballs that likes the 82 pattern.

It took far more work than should be necessary to get it working right... but I think I can live with it now, and I can't see any reason to carry the 82 pattern any more.

DG

 

[armyvern]

It's modular because not everyone will require all the accessory packs attached at the same time. Depends upon the tasking you are using the SPS for. That's why they're seperate. If you don't require it...don't carry it. I have all 4 of my accessory packs on mine, and I find it very comfortable to carry the way I have mine configed.

As for all the straps and their configuration...try this link:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/3/3_e.asp

scroll down to the Load Carriage System and choose the "User Guide" link for the SPS. It explains why the straps are the way they are and how to go about properly using/adjusting them to balance whatever load you are carrying properly. The PIP (Project Implementation Plan) also explains in much greater detail, but you must be on the DIN to access it.

Vern

 

[DG-41]

That link http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/PDF/SPS-UserGuide_e.pdf is the useless one I'm talking about - that's the booklet that came with the small pack.

Where, for example, does it show a picture of a fully assembled small pack?

It does handle the fit adjustment reasonably well, but it doesn't describe how to put the bloody thing together. Nor - beyond the radio pouch - does it describe the intent for how pouches are to be loaded.

Surely when the thing was developed, they started with a pile of stuff the soldier was intended to carry, and designed around that. There must be a "design loadout" for it. Why not tell us what it is? If nothing else it makes for a good start point.

The DIN link I don't have access to right now.

DG

 

[armyvern]

That link http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/PDF/SPS-UserGuide_e.pdf is the useless one I'm talking about - that's the booklet that came with the small pack.

Where, for example, does it show a picture of a fully assembled small pack?
DG

Relax DG. There is no picture of the fully assembled SPS. As per my below post it is a modular system and is intended to be used based on whatever your personal requirement/task is.
Therefore the configuration of it is always changing based upon what you personally require at the time. I personally have the canteen and the smaller pack on the side, a butt pack on a side and a butt pack on the back. Compression sack on top. That's what works for me. What works for you might be something else entirely. That's the point of a 'modular' system.

You wear what you need when and where you need it. So there is 'no right way' to wear it.

 

[armyvern]

Surely when the thing was developed, they started with a pile of stuff the soldier was intended to carry, and designed around that. There must be a "design loadout" for it. Why not tell us what it is? If nothing else it makes for a good start point.

Because you would have a design load-out for every single trade and individual. What the Infantry guy carries does not equate to what the Arty. Armd, Sup, Trucker, RMS, Medic etc carry. And then break it down futher...what the infantry C9 gunner is carrying doesn't equate to what the infantry signaller is carrying. Therefore there is no one set 'proper' way to load up your SPS.
It's modular...you use what parts you need for what ever your own individual task is. I agree that it would have been a good starting point...but let's face it. Had CTS done this and come up with the "design loadout" specs for this item...then it wouldn't really be modular then would it? And then all the troops would be whining about how this design and loadout does not suit their purposes and isn't really modular.

I give up. No matter what they bring into the system...someone is going to complain about it. Do what's best for YOU.

 

[Infanteer]

Not with our cuurently issused sleeping bag.It is meant for use over short periods of time such as short range patrolling.

Well, from my own experience using one as a "go-bag" and from reading alot of the input over at Lightfighter, the principle behind the 3-day pack or assault pack (what the new pack is) is to act as a tactical load carriage system for short operations.  In many cases, US soldiers and Marines in OEF/OIF would be away from a harbour/camp and be on continuous operations for days with very little time to rest due to high op tempo.  Since the rucksack is becoming more of an administrative thing for carrying your kit from operating area to operating area, the A-pack will is basically a tactical extention of your fighting order.  I would consider it more "2nd Line" kit than "3rd Line" (which the rucksack is) - it can extend you ability to function self-sufficiently from a day to three days with little hassle.

Picture it as an oversized "buttback" which, as originally intended with the 82 system, was put on the load-carriage webbing when operating for extend periods of time.

Now, in my opinion the ideal small-pack should be able to interface smoothly with the rucksack - a soldier should be able to go from 2nd Line+ to Third Line without having to unpack/repack and what-not.  To date, the best system on the market I've seen is the Kifaru dock'and'lock.  The Kifaru Scout, seen here, can be worn as a small pack for short missions or beefed up with pouches like this to make it an effective 3-day assault pack.  If the need for the ruck arises, then the whole system can be easily broken down and attached to a larger ruck like this.  The issue small-pack may not be here yet, but it is a decent system and it is bringing the principle of modularity into mainstream acceptance in the CF (we are always 10 years behind the times....).

I still believe uniformity of kit in an army unit is a must. If one soldier uses the old stle ruck as a primary load carriage system then everyone should. Again a unit call.

...and I can easily guess what your unit is. 

boot cleaning kit in the other vertical pouch

Are you expecting a parade halfway through an Advance or a reconnaissance patrol?  ???

(you can never carry enough water in my book)

Well, technically you can carry too much water.  I've got a few studies on load carriage on operations (one done by the US Army and a few in the Marine Corps) and it was found that water is one of THE biggest logistical burdens (literally) when it comes to going into the bush.  I own one of these that I bought from MEC and it is the cat's meow.  I used it overseas when the local water supply went bad and the camp was very low on water.  The documents in the US point to making these standard issue to help improve austerity and self-sufficiency for small units; a good filter can eliminate the need to carry liters and liters of water into the field.

 

[DG-41]

then it wouldn't really be modular then would it?

If the pouches only fit one way, then it isn't "modular" - save the fact that individual pouches can be removed, and really, what's the point then? I never once said "gee, I really wish my 82 pattern ruck's front pouches would come off"

Weight savings? I bet the weight of all the extra loops and buckles approaches or exceeds the weight of the pouches just being sewn on (like the 82 pattern) and there's a lot less straps to get hung up on.

I'm genuinely curious here (seeing how you appear to be a member of the Clothe the Soldier team) What's the value-add of having removeable pouches that only fit one way, and then not providing documentation as to what way they are supposed to fit on? What operational requirement is being met here?

We're not talking about specialized load carrying kit here, like an entrenching tool carrier or a C9 barrel carrier - these are generic pouches. You could take "my" configuration, and hand it to a medic, an infanteer, a trucker, or a chaplain, and while they wouldn't necessarily put the same stuff in the same space as I would, it would still do the job.

Hell, the only specialized section of the whole small pack is the radio carrier inside the main pouch... and that ISN'T removeable.

I give up. No matter what they bring into the system...someone is going to complain about it. Do what's best for YOU.

Nothing personal, but that's a cop-out.

We got issued these things en masse, and the natural inclination for anybody given a new toy is to play with it. So pretty much right away, we had a bunch of experienced, capable, well-educated soldiers trying to figure out how their new small pack went together. There was MUCH confusion, much of it related to the apparently self-contradictory nature of the small pack design: it's supposedly modular, but the fasteners only line up one way, supporting only a single configuration. It (apparently) only has one design configuration, but there is nothing in the documentation that describes what that configuration is - not even an example picture of a sample fully-assembled configuration. Two of the pouches have straps that enable them to be used as butt packs, but they have different style waist belts (why?) and there doesn't seem to be a design configuration for the small pack that mounts one butt pack horizontally on the bag, and has the other one worn as a butt pack.

Do you *not* want user feedback?

DG

 

[48Highlander]

There was MUCH confusion, much of it related to the apparently self-contradictory nature of the small pack design: it's supposedly modular, but the fasteners only line up one way, supporting only a single configuration.

Kinda reminds you of the Tac Vest, no?  ;D

I think there's a very basic misunderstanding in some higher levels of our procurement system when it comes to the definition of the word "modular".

Not that I'm not happy with the new kit.  The Tac Vest IS an improvement over the old webbing, and the SPS is an improvement over the....well, over having to buy you own kit or go without.  But neither one is truly modular, and the role of either could have been much better filled by existing off-the-shelf equipment.

 

[Pte_Martin]

Not that I'm not happy with the new kit.  The Tac Vest IS an improvement over the old webbing, and the SPS is an improvement over the....well, over having to buy you own kit or go without.  But neither one is truly modular, and the role of either could have been much better filled by existing off-the-shelf equipment.

I agree it is better than the old stuff or what we didn't have and had to buy, But what do i do now with the stuff that i did buy 

 

[48Highlander]

I agree it is better than the old stuff or what we didn't have and had to buy, But what do i do now with the stuff that i did buy 

I gave mine to my little sister  ;D  she'll be the coolest kid in 7th grade!

 

[NATO Boy]

I agree it is better than the old stuff or what we didn't have and had to buy, But what do i do now with the stuff that i did buy 

Sell it to people who play airsoft or paintball. Hell, why not put your stuff up on the Buy / Sell forum and see what you can sell / trade for it?

 

[mudgunner49]

...What the Infantry guy carries does not equate to what the Arty. Armd, Sup, Trucker, RMS, Medic etc carry. And then break it down futher...what the infantry C9 gunner is carrying doesn't equate to what the infantry signaller is carrying. Therefore there is no one set 'proper' way to load up your _ _ _ _ _ ...It's modular...you use what parts you need for what ever your own individual task is....

This is incredible logic!!!  Oh, how much further ahead we would all be if this sort of thinking had been considered when "they" were designing/developing that other newish piece of sh... kit the short form of which sounds very like the abbreviation for "television"... ;D ;D

blake

 

[kyleg]

mudgunner, if I recall correctly you have a RAID pack, do you not? Mine arrives in a couple days ;D

On that note, how do you guys feel about the top-loading design of the SPS, as opposed to a panel-loading design? Personally I can't wait for my RAID to arrive because I HATE having to dig to the bottom of my small pack every time I need something. While I realize there are certain advantages to a top-loader, I feel that this type of design slows down the end user. Assault packs are meant to give the soldier quick access to supplies.

Just my two cents,
Pinky

 

[DG-41]

I think there's a very basic misunderstanding in some higher levels of our procurement system when it comes to the definition of the word "modular".

I'm forced to agree. A *truly* modular system uses parts that are completely interchangeable, regardless of their position or orientation on the base unit.

It's odd, for example, that the mag pouches, grenade pouches, and the small pouches on the tac vest are sewn on, where the canteen pouch and C9 pouches are removeable.

Not that I'm not happy with the new kit.  The Tac Vest IS an improvement over the old webbing, and the SPS is an improvement over the....well, over having to buy you own kit or go without.

I agree with this too. I liked the old webbing, and it fit requirements well, but it had its problems too. Specifically, the clip attachment for the main straps had a nasty habit of failing, especially if you tried to configure it without a buttpack (to make living with a vehicle easier) I used to have to take my webbing off every time I got into a vehicle with the old webbing, but with the tac vest, it can stay on all the time with no real downside aside from not having a place to keep raingear - and with the new buttpack that comes with the small pack, that problem is addressed.

The small pack... it really seems like a ruck replacement more than a separate small pack. There's no way to carry an 82 pattern ruck and the small pack at the same time (like there is with some of the civvie two-part ruck systems, where the "small pack" detaches from the ruck frame of a larger pack system) so I can't see bringing both the small pack and the 82 pattern ruck to the field at the same time - in fact, I doubt I'll ever use the 82 pattern again. There really is more room in the small pack.

I've mounted the compression sack up top and tried that out... it's not a real positive mount, like it is with the 82 pattern; it's just kinda up there, hanging on. But it does go, and it seems comfortable enough, and there's lots of helmet room - and with the valise up top, the buttpack fits. Configured this way, I can actually wear the tac vest plus buttpack plus small pack (filled with everything I used to carry in my 82 pattern) and everything fits and doesn't interfere. That's a definate step forward.

If I were to change the small pack, I would:

1) Add more loops to the base pack so that any pouch from either the tac vest or the small pack could be attached either vertically or horizontally

2) Change the attachment method to that of the tac vest (the velcro straps plus the backing patches)

3) Delete the butt pack waist belt off one of the long pouches

4) Change the strap ends so they can be rolled back on themselves and tucked away once adjusted for length (like the 82 pattern) so that the strap ends aren't dangling all over the place

5) Adopt the 82 pattern shoulder strap quick releases

6) Maybe rethink the valise attachment points up top to make it more positive... somehow. Maybe.

None of these are critical though. Overall, it's a step forward. It's just not as big a step forward as it could have been.

DG

 

[kyleg]

1) Add more loops to the base pack so that any pouch from either the tac vest or the small pack could be attached either vertically or horizontally

2) Change the attachment method to that of the tac vest (the velcro straps plus the backing patches)

These two seem contradictory to me. Firstly, the method by which the C9/canteen pouches attach to the TV is far from the best. Look up MOLLE or PALS on google, you'll be pleasantly surprised Second, if they were to change to this method on the SPS it would severely limit the possibilities because the attachment method is very demanding in terms of placement and orientation. Again, a MOLLE-like attachment method is the way to go. I feel that the daisy chain system is a step in the right direction, but it could still be improved quite a bit.

5) Adopt the 82 pattern shoulder strap quick releases

I have to disagree here as well. The velcro can wear out quite quickly on those quick releases, to the point where some of my buddies had to tape the pull straps in place to stop them from popping off at the wrong time. A modification that voids the entire reason for having quick release straps. A fastex (AKA side release) buckle in place of the usual ladder-lock would do much better IMO.

6) Maybe rethink the valise attachment points up top to make it more positive... somehow. Maybe.

I don't DISagree, I just feel that you suggest this for the wrong reasons. Remember, the current issue (82 pattern) valise was not designed for use with the SPS. A much smaller compression sack is supposed to be used.

Cheers,
Pinky