"The stuff the army issues is useless" and "no non-issue kit over seas!"

[Greymatters]

Maybe you should be issued with the kit from the 1970's. What I see is a bunch of spoiled children who aren't happy with anything given them, but want more more more. If  you don't like the kit, get out. Stop whining and get on with the job.
As for taking the TF RSM to task...go ahead try it out. I've known the man for 20 years and he'll cut YOU down to size in about 3 seconds, and that is on his slow day.

Ive been gone from this thread for a month and the argument hasnt changed an inch...

 

[OldSolduer]

I know I was less than diplomatic about it. IF you want change work within the system, It's slow and cumbersome, but it does work.
I was briefed a few years ago and one of the topics was the issue of the Gerber multi tool. The officer stated that it was the 80% solution, which is about as good as it gets.
The subject of kit is always contentious, but laws have tp be obeyed etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there aren't better things out there, however, when the government has spent millions, sometimes bilions of dollars, its not going to change its mind overnight and spend more to replace what they just purchased.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

But when it's one's own life that's possibly being put at risk by said equipment, that's not satisfactory, thus people feel inclined to break the rules.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

...what's that saying? Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 8?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I'm on the same page as you HS for the most part.  However there is also the possibility of troops putting their lives and teammates in danger by using substandard equipment because they either aren't educated or are just looking for the LCF.

 

[OldSolduer]

I can agree with that sentiment HS. What I object to is the "I don't like our kit" and no solution crowd.

 

[Old and Tired]

I must admit that I've been doing a fair bit of Ghosting on this thread.  Not because I'm just interested in watching the discussion (read occasional dog fight), but mainly because it has been fairly educational as well.  Everything from "Discband/discard DLR-CLS to getting rid of DRDC" to the other end of the spectrum that says, "Suck it up, that's the way it is, and that's the way it will always be"  Given the type and rate of Todays tempo neither one of those solutions will solve the immediate and pressing problem.

I've had occasion to be tasked out to 2 trials before.  The first was in the early nineties for TCCCS.  Suffice to say that the suggestions that we made for relatively minor additions, deletions or alterations to the kit weren't acted on.  The second and more pertinent to this thread is the Phase Two Trial of the TACVEST.  My take on the trial, due to the attitude of those conducting it, was that the final decision had already be made.  Nothing we said, unless it was good, was going to make it anywhere past the weekly debrief/questionnaire.

If you take a look at history within the Army you will rapidly notice that what is passed down from on high as THE WAY IT WILL BE, rarely, if ever survives contact with your average Canadian Soldier.  Take a good look at photographs from any war (not Peacekeeping) that we've fought.  How many variations of kit do you see.  In WW I, we had soldiers literall throwing away their Ross Rifles if they found an abandoned Enfield.  Am I advocating this. NO, Let me say that again to be sure, NO.  We have almost always been behind in load carriage systems, and probably will be given the country we live in.

I think we are selling our Snr NCOs short in suggesting that they don't know what is required to step into the current battlespace.  Likewise I think we are selling our junior leadership short doing the same thing.  This passed Jun 30 maked the start of year 28, and I look around at some of the soldiers and the vast amount of experience that they have.  I feel like one of the Kafasoureses that we all complain about at times.  These guys are far better prepared to deploy than I ever was at their age, career point.  Exercising a modicum of common sense as far as PPE goes, I think we should be leaning toward "Use that Kit that works for you."  Yes, some old time CWO/MWOs may not like the lack o uniformity, but as I noted, historically its not something that we've been overly concerned with anyway.

I can agree with that sentiment HS. What I object to is the "I don't like our kit" and no solution crowd.

Here is one of the problems that I see, and have suffered from.  It's not that we complain but have nothing to offer in the way of solutions.  It's the attitude that troops run into when offering solutions.  I, too, dislike those that whine, moan, b****, and complain just because they can.  When troops offer up solutions or ideas, and get shot down because someone in a staff position somewhere has wedded themselves to one idea and there will be no deviations, I think that's were we start to have trouble, and the previous 113 pages of too and fro.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

He may have been referring to a "footwear allowance" paid to federal government civilian employees who may be required to wear safety footwear due to workplace hazards or a uniform, such as indicated at these sites.

http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/doc.php?did=267&lang=en
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/cdshtm/351-1gl-eng.shtml#_footwear

Thanks that is correct, it commonly called the boot allowance as that is what it was used for. I can see a parallel system where basic boots are issued for garrison and an allowance for approved footwear for people deploying. We have the Brits, Canadians and US deployed in similar combat zones, i can't imagine it would be hard to find good information on decent footwear.

 

[Ecco]

I can see a parallel system where basic boots are issued for garrison and an allowance for approved footwear for people deploying. We have the Brits, Canadians and US deployed in similar combat zones, i can't imagine it would be hard to find good information on decent footwear.

It's so easy...   :
Could you please name one canadian-manufactured combat boot which, in your opinion, would fit the requirements of the Land Forces?  In order to start building that list of approved footwear, I mean...

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Ahh the 80% solution.  Since 80% of the CF isn't Combat Arms, perhaps we should look at the 20% solution.  Of course within the 20% there won't be 100% agreement but I bet it we would have more effective kit for those most often in harms way if those who are outside the wire drive the progression of new kit.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's so easy...   :
Could you please name one canadian-manufactured combat boot which, in your opinion, would fit the requirements of the Land Forces?  In order to start building that list of approved footwear, I mean...

Listen to the soldiers, you have combat vets from 3 NATO countries all who have tried out different footwear, which is a popular subject by the way considering I see long threads here, Arrse, Tanknet, etc,etc. I suspect it would take a couple of smart individuals about 2 months to get a short list, and it does not have to Canadian made, just available in Canada.

 

[Ecco]

I suspect it would take a couple of smart individuals about 2 months to get a short list, and it does not have to Canadian made, just available in Canada.

Wishful thinking that only exists in imagination.  :'(

Unfortunately, there are laws that regulate the way the Canadian taxpayer money is invested into capabilities (none of them are CF limitations, they are Canadian govt laws). 
Long story short:
-If there are more than 1 manufacturer in Canada that can build something, then you have to compete it in Canada.  There are at least 4 manufacturers of footwear in Canada that can make the kind of numbers the CF are interested in (namely, in alphabetical order, Boulet, CanWest, STC and Terra, and there are smaller others).  Thus, combat boots must be Canadian manufactured.  It's a law.  Furthermore,
-For any procurement contract of over 1M$, there must be 100% industrial regional benefits.  It's also a law and it's dutifully enforced by PWGSC and Industry Canada.  This would block any attempt to use Canada-based retailers of foreign made boots.  (This rule explains how certain small contracts can go through, like LPO or stuff for Special Forces...  their amount are under 1M$, so they go under the radar...  no, it's illegal to contract-split).  Furthermore,
-There is also rules concerning the minimal amount of Canadian Content in the actual boot.  I won't go into details here, but it also blocks us from using non-Canadian boots.  Also,
-For Canadian manufacturers, CF boots are about 50 to 60% of their annual market share.  Politically, this makes it impossible to ask for exceptions or such, that MAY, under special circumstances, be allowed for out-of-rule procurement.
(BTW, US procurement laws are very similar)

The "magic solution" of boot allowance for LF footwear is only wishful thinking, as there is no COTS or MOTS market for combat boots in Canada.

Ahh the 80% solution. Since 80% of the CF isn't Combat Arms, perhaps we should look at the 20% solution.

I guess that's the beauty of having multiple choices.  I personally believe there is no single type of combat boot that would provide 80% user acceptance, wherever they are manufactured.  However, offering multiple choices might be a potential, realistic solution.  For example, let's say we have 3 types of combat boots, each with 60% user acceptance, and the soldiers is still issued 2 pairs of boots.  He can choose any two pairs amongst the 3 types offered.  With such a setup, 80% user acceptance may be achieved.  Now the biggest challenge is to find 3 pairs of Canadian-manufactured boots that can be offered, that meet Land Forces requirement, while not increasing unduly the log stocks, the supply risks or the monetary expense of the Crown.  It's still a monumental task, but it makes much more legal sense.

Let's stop the hijack here, this thread is not supposed to be used to offer solutions.  >

 

[Towards_the_gap]

errm....we could also simply allow people to wear the boots they feel work best for them. As long as they are black and mid-calf/above the ankle. EDITED TO ADD: or tan for use in the sandbox.

I myself swear by Altberg boots. Not canadian made, but until a canadian company manufactures a boot that matches the low-weight, comfort, support and toughness of these boots I will buy foreign. That's globalisation.


VERY QUICKLY EDITED TO MODIFY LEG LENGTH!!!

 

[medaid]

As long as they are black and mid-thigh.

Err.... I don't know what military you're in... but it must be rather kinky. Mid-Thigh you say? I mean, even the cavalry didn't wear mid-thigh boots. What a scary scary thought...


Vern? Take it away with the Mid-Thigh boot talk!

 

[Schafer]

I believe "Towards_the_gap" is referring to the Germans in WW2 with there boots.... But I'm not sure just taking a guess. ;D

 

[armyvern]

But when it's one's own life that's possibly being put at risk by said equipment, that's not satisfactory, thus people feel inclined to break the rules.

errm....we could also simply allow people to wear the boots they feel work best for them. As long as they are black and mid-calf/above the ankle. EDITED TO ADD: or tan for use in the sandbox.

Listen to the soldiers, you have combat vets from 3 NATO countries all who have tried out different footwear, which is a popular subject by the way considering I see long threads here, Arrse, Tanknet, etc,etc. I suspect it would take a couple of smart individuals about 2 months to get a short list, and it does not have to Canadian made, just available in Canada.

Just to be clear.

These rules are the LAW. This is Canada, not another NATO country. The Treasury Board and Financial Administration Act are applicable to ALL federal departments. Like it or not, we are one of them too. There's a whole hell of a lot of people here who could make up a short list in about 30.5 seconds --- that does not make it implementable OR legal.

I think that Old Soldier's point is (and I've said it MANY times before) is that the soldiers need to understand where the blame lies and start doing something about it.

That means officially. That means by contacting your local politicians too - to get those laws changed.

The Supply Tech, CTS, DLR DLSS, the Army, nor indeed the CF has any say or control of the procurment laws which are applicable to us while spending TAXPAYERS money. So, take your arguement above to your local politician and present your case - ask them to pass it on and back you up. Challenge them to bring forth an Act of Parliament to change the way the CF can purchase/contract to supply it's personnel. That IS what it will take if you want to see change. Certainly 'lil old Miss Vern is not capable of effecting these changes, nor is the CLS, the CDS etc.

So, for those of you who keep insisting it's "so easy" to do this or that in contravention of those laws ... Do you keep missing that "it's the law and we in the CF have been DIRECTED to follow it by the government" part??

It's not as easy as you all seem to be insisting, and meanwhile - you all keep putting the blame on the wrong people/entities. It sure does come off as whines when there is a continued trend for 80% of you to ignore the facts of the matter - and that's that the law is applicable to us. Don't like it? Start doing something about that. That IS where the problem lies ... it does not lie with me or the old CSMs, or the purchasers, or the CTS guys, or the CDS who need to follow those laws as we have been directed to do.

 

[armyvern]

Vern? Take it away with the Mid-Thigh boot talk!

I have two pair that I love, but must say --- there's no way in hell I recommend them as the new footwear mil specs. 

 

[Towards_the_gap]

But on the other hand, what TB/fed gov't rules prohibit soldiers from purchasing, and then wearing their own equipment? Particularly in reference to boots, seeing as half of pet cut about in magnums that are surely not purchased using taxpayer money.

In my own case for non-issue kit, I find the new combat boot ok for garrison wear and field work. However, the boots I used to wear in my previous incarnation are far superior, and so I have had a new pair bought and currently en route from england. Where is the harm in that?

And in regards to the thread, I honestly say I've yet to see one very valid reason for forcing soldiers to wear issue kit, particularly on deployments. Of course, apart from 'because you're ordered to'.

 

[armyvern]

But on the other hand, what TB/fed gov't rules prohibit soldiers from purchasing, and then wearing their own equipment? Particularly in reference to boots, seeing as half of pet cut about in magnums that are surely not purchased using taxpayer money.

The point about this was that some here are "advocating" the "simple" making up of a list and it's implementation to be used as an "authorized list" from which persons can buy and wear their own kit. Totally different vein.

As also addressed before, any such "simple" list of OTR kit is not so simple (or even legal to be advocated) when one considers that in order to be "officially authorized" for wear -- kit must ALSO be tested and certified to be IAW Mil Specs by federal entities as per the federal  laws/guidelines that we in federal departments ARE subject to.

Ergo - the "you need to advocate this change in Federal Law" to the politicians if you ever want to see this "official authorization" occur.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Ah right makes sense.