A
aesop081
Guest
Wonderbread said:
I dont know but i'm starting to think you cant understand / read english........
Public works controls, according to Canadian law, all government aquisition policy. This is not a CF policy issue.
"The stuff the army issues is useless" and "no non-issue kit over seas!"
- Thread starter PhilB
- Start date
I dont know but i'm starting to think you cant understand / read english........
Public works controls, according to Canadian law, all government aquisition policy. This is not a CF policy issue.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Wonderbread said:
While we're making the list, what other plans and policies would you like to see replaced with individual decisions by soldiers?
Wonderbread said:
WB,
Is this the initial step in your campaign strategy for running for Prime Minister? You are not the first to say so, but maybe your voice has more validity than the rest of the choir. That someone sitting behind the desk is just doing their job in accordance with their job description. There is only black and white in your world, while the rest of us are used to the grayer areas.
Thanks for making me smile before bed, now I can sleep more comfortably knowing you are there fixing the system, one snap judgement at a time.
MJP
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,323
- Points
- 1,260
CDN Aviator said:
Somehow I think that way of looking at things is a bit BS. We seem to be able to get C17s and other highly polictical items faster (than lets say a new rucksack), but we can't push through better load bearing system or safety gear. If poor Timmy died in Burning LAV upside down or drowned and his wife/parents/ made a national media stink about it, I bet ya we would get releasable armour faster. Should that be the way...I say No. I stand by WonderBread when it comes to kit, The section commander or WO on the ground makes the call. I did it all the time overseas from telling my guys to get rid of suspect ballistic eyewear to cheap boardwalk chest rigs. It's part of your job as a leader.
We all understand their is system in place to test equipment no one is disputing that fact. But our system is SLOW extremely slow, which worked fine when we weren't in a shooting war, but now we are and troops are demanding their kit be better for the rigors of combat and to allow them the abilty and comfort to kill their enemy before they are shot.
On top of that the system to change things via the UCR is not understood well by soldiers at all levels. Everytime I hear one of my buddies or soldiers complain about kit I direct them to the UCR website. I help them fill it out if needed. No one ever told them they could do that. hell I learnt how to do them from the Army.ca But the flip side is higher in the CoC are people just as ignorant of the UCR system, UCRs sit for months before they are substantiated or are not forwarded at all.
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
Wonderbread said:
Show me one TF Commander who has NOT officially directed his personnel to wear issued gear in-theatre. Every single roto a thread gets put up in here when this directive comes out, "issued and approved kit only in-theatre."
And until/unless the day comes when all that Gucci gear is certified IAW or CF Mil Specs and ballistic requirements -- I'd wager you'd not hear any one of them say anything different either.
- Reaction score
- 9,296
- Points
- 1,260
You should see the latest Warrant's Course (3B) that just finished up - those guys looked like a Lightfighter.com or Tactical Tailor catalog. Some guys from other places didn't even wear issue uniforms. And this is the tip of your pointy end here. Tells you that somewhere, someone isn't really up to snuff on how things are really playing out....
MJP
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,323
- Points
- 1,260
ArmyVern said:
TF1-06 LtCol IC Hope authorized personnel to wear what they wanted as long as it was green/cadpat/black, it was said to the BG many times either on Pde or informally while the CO made his rounds. Funny enough the NCOs took care of soldiers that decided to play loose and fast with crap gear and told them to stow and buy something solid or wear your issued stuff.
RHFC_piper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
MJP said:
TF3-06 followed suit after a few CAS during TICs... Most of the troops already had kit, and those that didn't when they got in country soon pick some up from the 1-06 BG... There was a pile of gear in the CQ, left by C Coy PPCLI, for us...
As for the crap kit; yeah.. If the CoC knew it to be junk, it was ditched... And as for PPE; Well, I'm not about to go out and buy armour. Ours works well enough. Sure, there is better stuff out there, and the concept of quick release armour is damn important, but if the "System" is going to "drag its feet" testing anything, I'd want it to be the stuff that stops bullets and not so much the stuff that carries them. I've seen the issued armour stop rounds... that's good enough for me. If better armour is out there, I'd hope its being trialled and tested (and I know it is, RHFC has done some of the trials for new BVs) before it gets to the troops and I strongly believe that this type of kit (BV, helmet, BEW - to an extent) is stuff that should only be used when the system proves it reliable and effective... (BEW not as much, as there is better one on the market). But when it comes to LBVs and that sort of tac kit; the best trials have been done: on the battle fields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's just my take on it.
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
Well now, there's a tidbit of knowledge for the books.
Glad to hear too that the NCOs dealt with the superwannabeninjasnipers.
My whole concern with this entire thread is the posts which insinuate that CTS gear is unsafe and will get one killed. That's not factual -- and it's why I entered this thread in the first place.
And, I will continue to post the "actuals" of CTS safety whenever someone wants to post differently.
We have newbies who've NEVER even worn, let alone been issued CTS gear posting on this site and asking about paying for Gucci gear because they don't want "unsafe" or "crappy" CTS gear, who are under the distinct, but non-factual, impression that just because something is CTS means it doesn't work, is unsafe, or will get them killed.
That's simply NOT the right impression to be giving. You want to say "brand X" is better --- then state why. But don't presume that "brand X" outperformed CTS in trials, or is safer because that's not necessarily the case.
I dislike just as many CTS items as the soldier next to me -- but that doesn't mean the CTS items are less safe, or will get me killed.
Glad to hear too that the NCOs dealt with the superwannabeninjasnipers.
My whole concern with this entire thread is the posts which insinuate that CTS gear is unsafe and will get one killed. That's not factual -- and it's why I entered this thread in the first place.
And, I will continue to post the "actuals" of CTS safety whenever someone wants to post differently.
We have newbies who've NEVER even worn, let alone been issued CTS gear posting on this site and asking about paying for Gucci gear because they don't want "unsafe" or "crappy" CTS gear, who are under the distinct, but non-factual, impression that just because something is CTS means it doesn't work, is unsafe, or will get them killed.
That's simply NOT the right impression to be giving. You want to say "brand X" is better --- then state why. But don't presume that "brand X" outperformed CTS in trials, or is safer because that's not necessarily the case.
I dislike just as many CTS items as the soldier next to me -- but that doesn't mean the CTS items are less safe, or will get me killed.
RHFC_piper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
ArmyVern said:
WRT safety concerns for the BV; I have a "war story" that, I believe, sheds some insight on these concerns (strap on your helmets);
Op Medusa, 03 Sept 06... Since everyone knows the major details, I will skim quickly; we walked into a horseshoe of hell.
During the few hours of fighting, I, inevitably, had to change mags... I informed the LMG I was standing over and moved behind the LAV to get 'er done (we were standing beside the LAV).
I looked around to keep the SA up, and noticed a rifleman from the other platoon standing relatively in the open beside his LAV, engaging the enemy. Just then, he dropped, having been hit in the chest. Of course, I thought the worse and turned to tell the Sgt, but just as quickly as he dropped, he popped back up and moved behind cover.
After we withdrew, I found him in the CCP in the wadi. the BV plate was cracked, along with some ribs, and he had a neat 7.62XMushed souvenir for his troubles. The BV did it's job and saved his life. As I said before; I'm sure there are better BVs out there, but the one we have certainly does the job it was bought for.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Well said Vern & RHFCpiper.
Industry is producing new kit at a tremendous pace - hard to keep up with it if you know what I mean... but someone is always coming up with something they feel is better than the last piece of kit.
I figure that the procurement people are probably more concerned with replacing kit that no longer does it's job or has become waay too old...
While the BEW can be improved - it does the job and has been shown to do the protection it was designed for.
Ditto for the LBV & the Body armour.
Industry is producing new kit at a tremendous pace - hard to keep up with it if you know what I mean... but someone is always coming up with something they feel is better than the last piece of kit.
I figure that the procurement people are probably more concerned with replacing kit that no longer does it's job or has become waay too old...
While the BEW can be improved - it does the job and has been shown to do the protection it was designed for.
Ditto for the LBV & the Body armour.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Alright, I'm back at 'er...
I thought a bit about what I had said here and I can't find anything wrong with it. In fact, anything else seems ridiculous. The troops on the pointy end are the dog, and all the other government and military support is the tail. The dog wags the tail, not the other way around. What we need in terms of equipment is based around how we are going to win the firefight. NOT how we're going to win the firefight is based on the equipment we're given. I know it's unreasonable to think we can have everything we want. In the real world we have to work within our limitations. People are always going to die and nothing will ever be perfect. But less people will die if we can streamline the system. We can stack the deck in our favour by adapting our equipment and our tactics faster and more efficiently. Instead of letting the tail wag the dog, how about we let the dog do what he does best and have the tail follow behind him.
My comment might have been a knee jerk reaction, but it's still bang on. The responses to it are nothing more then cheap pot shots that do nothing to address this my point:
Until someone who's actually been outside the wire comes in and applies common sense:
And this I could not have said any better myself:
Now onto this:
Sure it does the job it's been designed for. It's just too bad we're not doing that job. The TV might have been OK for Bosnia - the job it was designed for. But it blows for an army at war. The TV is an unsafe item of gear. It is unsafe because it limits the soldier's ability to return fire effectively and carry on the fight. Safety is more then just absorbing bullets. It's also about stopping them at the source. The same can be argued for the body armor. While it may be OK for our current threats, new threats might need to be solved by wearing less armour so we can move faster or by wearing more armour if the situation dictates. But in the time it will take for the system to adapt, how many soldiers will have died?
I would have expected more from the DS then roundabout insults and smartass one liners.
I thought a bit about what I had said here and I can't find anything wrong with it. In fact, anything else seems ridiculous. The troops on the pointy end are the dog, and all the other government and military support is the tail. The dog wags the tail, not the other way around. What we need in terms of equipment is based around how we are going to win the firefight. NOT how we're going to win the firefight is based on the equipment we're given. I know it's unreasonable to think we can have everything we want. In the real world we have to work within our limitations. People are always going to die and nothing will ever be perfect. But less people will die if we can streamline the system. We can stack the deck in our favour by adapting our equipment and our tactics faster and more efficiently. Instead of letting the tail wag the dog, how about we let the dog do what he does best and have the tail follow behind him.
My comment might have been a knee jerk reaction, but it's still bang on. The responses to it are nothing more then cheap pot shots that do nothing to address this my point:
Until someone who's actually been outside the wire comes in and applies common sense:
And this I could not have said any better myself:
Now onto this:
Sure it does the job it's been designed for. It's just too bad we're not doing that job. The TV might have been OK for Bosnia - the job it was designed for. But it blows for an army at war. The TV is an unsafe item of gear. It is unsafe because it limits the soldier's ability to return fire effectively and carry on the fight. Safety is more then just absorbing bullets. It's also about stopping them at the source. The same can be argued for the body armor. While it may be OK for our current threats, new threats might need to be solved by wearing less armour so we can move faster or by wearing more armour if the situation dictates. But in the time it will take for the system to adapt, how many soldiers will have died?
I would have expected more from the DS then roundabout insults and smartass one liners.
A
aesop081
Guest
RCR Grunt said:
Ahh yes, us poor uneducated REMFs really dont have a clue do we. I was wondering when it was going to become an "i've been to Afghanistan and you havent" conversation. I mean, after all, 11 years in the combat arms has not taught me anything......what a waste.
If you think that you combat arms guys have the monopoly on gear that you feel is unsafe and/or could be improved then you are sadly mistaken.
- Reaction score
- 5,580
- Points
- 1,360
I'm not sure which Mod locked this but after a quick peruse of the Mod forum I couldn't find any answer so I am opening this for the time being.
Folks, I grow weary of the sniping and the "I've done more than you bullshit".
Some of you are like friggin' little children right now, .....whats next "My Dad can beat up your Dad"?
Have some "professional courtesy", everyone has a job, get over the fact that you might need to thump your chest publically because, truthfully, its fuckin' embarrassing.
Now the reason some posts went missing is we had what we would call an official report that there were some OPSEC issues. We here at milnet.ca take that serious and those posts have disappeared.
Don't bother asking, just accept it, because that's how it works.
NOW LETS TRY THIS AGAIN ACTING LIKE ADULTS.
Folks, I grow weary of the sniping and the "I've done more than you bullshit".
Some of you are like friggin' little children right now, .....whats next "My Dad can beat up your Dad"?
Have some "professional courtesy", everyone has a job, get over the fact that you might need to thump your chest publically because, truthfully, its fuckin' embarrassing.
Now the reason some posts went missing is we had what we would call an official report that there were some OPSEC issues. We here at milnet.ca take that serious and those posts have disappeared.
Don't bother asking, just accept it, because that's how it works.
NOW LETS TRY THIS AGAIN ACTING LIKE ADULTS.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Mike ran a report, and it turns out my big fat fingers clicked on the lock without me realizing it.
I did that unintentionally. Please accept my apologies, as I still am stoked about getting issued a Polar Fleece tracksuit if that does not date me with regards to Gucci kit.
I did not intend to suppress anything.
dileas
tess
