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

[Panzer Grenadier]

YOUR RQ (no, not even your old one) does NOT decide what you can or can not wear in YOUR Unit; your CO does that -- with great input from the RSM.

Our CO and RSM have never gone overseas...nuff said.

 

[vonGarvin]

Our CO and RSM have never gone overseas...nuff said.

And I take it you've never been to Command and Staff College?

...nuff said.

Now, before I get flamed, I'm sick and tired of people poo-pooing their chain of command so flippantly.  Yes, I'm guilty of it; however, in the end, THEY are in charge.  This is a volunteer army, if you dont' like the system, change it or get out.  "This sucks" is not productive UNLESS it's followed up with some sort of suggestion.

For example

Suppose that your RSM and CO have never gone overseas (and by "overseas", I assume you mean Afghanistan).  They both have, however, attained their ranks not through incompetance, but the reverse.  Perhaps they see nothing wrong with the kit.  Maybe they are ignorant of any shortcomings.  Suppose for a moment that you, using the chain of command, you tell them "This sucks" and then follow up with "but this stuff doesn't suck", and then tell them why, perhaps using anecdotal evidence, unsatisfactory equipment reports, or whatever.  Perhaps when presented with enough compelling evidence AND offered an achievable alternate solution, they may change, whether they've been overseas or not.

Give it a try. 

 

[armyvern]

And I take it you've never been to Command and Staff College?

...nuff said.

Now, before I get flamed, I'm sick and tired of people poo-pooing their chain of command so flippantly.  Yes, I'm guilty of it; however, in the end, THEY are in charge.  This is a volunteer army, if you dont' like the system, change it or get out.  "This sucks" is not productive UNLESS it's followed up with some sort of suggestion.

For example

Suppose that your RSM and CO have never gone overseas (and by "overseas", I assume you mean Afghanistan).  They both have, however, attained their ranks not through incompetance, but the reverse.  Perhaps they see nothing wrong with the kit.  Maybe they are ignorant of any shortcomings.  Suppose for a moment that you, using the chain of command, you tell them "This sucks" and then follow up with "but this stuff doesn't suck", and then tell them why, perhaps using anecdotal evidence, unsatisfactory equipment reports, or whatever.  Perhaps when presented with enough compelling evidence AND offered an achievable alternate solution, they may change, whether they've been overseas or not.
Give it a try. 

Ahhh ... such a refreshing read for a change.

As for the bold bit  ... ironicly, it seems to me that's one of the leadership items taught to us NCMs on all our leadership courses ... (you know - a bitch is only a whine unless corrective courses of action are suggested with that bitch [which is also part and parcel of "proper military communications"]); that should be standard knowledge for every NCM type ...

Who'd have thunk it - troops improperly complaining about the COs and RSMs allegedly performing their jobs improperly. Normal. Seems like a whine to me.

 

[NL_engineer]

Does anyone know what is the new vest issued over seas? 

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Does anyone know what is the new vest issued over seas? 

The official CF issue vest in Afghanistan is a CADPAT AR version of the regular Clothe The Soldier Tac-Vest.

 

[Sig_Des]

Our CO and RSM have never gone overseas...nuff said.

Have you?

I have no problem with people with experience offering viable suggestions to non-issue kit that may be superior to what is used. But if you came up with a suggestion, would it be ok for me to say that you don't know what you're talking about, because YOU haven't been overseas?

 

[Panzer Grenadier]

Mortarman Rockpainter,

The chain of command has been aware of the deficiencies for quite some time from members who have returned from Afghanistan and have given their reports through the chain properly and suggestions to remedy set situation. To no avail by anyone. Point of note, the CO and the RSM have not been overseas anywhere, not just Afghanistan as you are assuming.

Beadwindow 7,

Yes it would be ok. Hopefully soon I will get to go overseas.  I have done as much of the paperwork for application to TF 1-10 at this time as I can and am simply in wait out mode until I can complete the rest of the paperwork.  If at such time I do get on TF 1-10, I will look to members of this forum for advice for what works, provided I am allowed to use set items.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Our CO and RSM have never gone overseas...nuff said.

So, what exactly is this statement saying?

How does it qualify as "nuff said".

Are you suggesting that no officer or NCO who has not deployed is capable of making any decision that affects you? Or just that the decisions they make which you don't like can be attributed to that (supposed) deficiency in their career and derided because of it?

I look forward to pulling up every comment like this in a few years the first time some young soldier, just like you, decries a chain of command decision because said he CO "hasn't been anywhere since that A'stan thing long long ago."

Stick around long enough in the service and you too can be mocked for being a dinosaur in your turn.

 

[Panzer Grenadier]

So, what exactly is this statement saying?

Michael O`Leary,

This statement is simply eluding to the fact that neither the CO or RSM have gone overseas in any capacity, so their understanding of what works and does not work (in relation to the Afghanistan theatre), would be limited to what returning members from Afghanistan, would be telling them, and their ignoring or refusal (not certain which would describe better) to allow individual members to wear (within reason) vests/rigs of their own configuration (from reputable sources, many which have been shared on this website), paid out of their own pockets hinders set individual member from the opportunity to train with a rig/vest which best works for them-the individual. 

Now there still is the requirement to train with the Tac-Vest, there should simply be the option to train with both.

Are you suggesting that no officer or NCO who has not deployed is capable of making any decision that affects you?

I simply take set decision affecting myself, and my fellow members, with a few more grains of salt than of those Officers and NCO’s who have deployed. Now that being said, there are Officers and Nco’s who have not deployed who fully understand and agree with set points of this thread (i.e.: use of non-issue kit relating to the Afghanistan theatre) who are stifled and cannot pursue using non-issue kit for training purposes whatsoever as, with every other unit, the buck stops with the CO and that's that. We can still whine about it though. 

 

[geo]

Well Panzer grenadier,

You have a choice... if you are really and truly not happy with the decisions taken by your unit CO & RSM, you can either get out..... or bail out to another unit.... where you will probably also be dissatisfied by some (or all) of the decisions taken by your CO - under the RSM advice.

Don't want to be flippant, don't want to suggest that you don't know what you are talking about BUT, if you are prepared to criticize your leadership for the simple fact that they have not been deployed AND don't agree with you, then you are in one heap big load of crap.

As you were, carry on.....

 

[Panzer Grenadier]

No, I've said my peace on the matter. Im good.

 

[George Wallace]

No, I've said my peace on the matter. Im good.

WOW!  I must say that I am not too impressed with the crop of Ptes we are getting in some intakes.  To have just read a Reserve Pte, with no Tours, and no real TI, commenting on his C of C in such a manner is not at all what I would call "Refreshing". 

I really can't believe this. 





I am kinda curious why you call yourself "Panzer Grenadier" when you are a GGFG? 

 

[NL_engineer]

The official CF issue vest in Afghanistan is a CADPAT AR version of the regular Clothe The Soldier Tac-Vest.

That's the one I figured I'd be getting, but we were told they were trying a new one.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Probably with the double sized mag pouches.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

That's the one I figured I'd be getting, but we were told they were trying a new one.

There was a Mission Specific Load Carriage Trial done by the members of TF 1-08 that started during their work-up training around May/June of 2007 and then into their Afghanistan deployment.  From there, I understand that some of the rigs were left in Afghanistan for use by the follow-on TF, however, the trial was ended by the time of the hand-over.

The equipment procured for the trial was:

Arktis 'Rifleman' Vest (either the 1601 Ops Vest, or the 1602 Hybrid Marine Battlevest)
Arktis 1605 Minimi Battlevest (for C9 Gunners)
Fellfab 'modified' Tac-Vest
Pacific Safety Products DHTC Patrol Vest
Pacific Safety Products DHTC Chest Rig

Probably with the double sized mag pouches.

Again, the CADPAT AR version of the Tac-Vest which is issued to TF-Afghanistan pers, has the exact same load carriage capacity and configuration as the CADPAT TW one; 4 single mag pouches, 2 frag grenade pouches, 2 small utility pouches, Mini-Maglite pouch, whistle pouch, and a set of C9 and water bottle pouches with smoke grenade pouches to be attached to the sides of the tac-vest as per the user's desired configuration.

 

[armyvern]

Warning from Vern: 'Lil hijack occuring here ...

...
The equipment procured for the trial was:
...

1 X Axeman cadpat nametape ...  > (which I really must thank you for Matt - I was told by the buddy who ordered/picked-up from CP Gear heard that you were curious as to the 'story'  >)

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Again, the CADPAT AR version of the Tac-Vest which is issued to TF-Afghanistan pers, has the exact same load carriage capacity and configuration as the CADPAT TW one; 4 single mag pouches, 2 frag grenade pouches, 2 small utility pouches, Mini-Maglite pouch, whistle pouch, and a set of C9 and water bottle pouches with smoke grenade pouches to be attached to the sides of the tac-vest as per the user's desired configuration.

Matt a few years back when I was with trials and errors LFTEU they where looking at a double load TV (i.e. 4 double mag pouches) not sure how far they went with it though.

 

[NL_engineer]

Thanks Matt,

Guess I'm stuck using the issued vest as we aren't allowed to have any non issued kit on  : (they went as far to say no underclothing other then CF issue  :), but there allowing non issued boots  ;D

 

[R031button]

Matt a few years back when I was with trials and errors LFTEU they where looking at a double load TV (i.e. 4 double mag pouches) not sure how far they went with it though.

The modified vest that matt mentioned is exactly that. It's the tac vest with the mag pouches and small utility pouches swapped, and hte mag pouches have been extended to hold 2 (i saw three in a couple but I'm not sure if that was the intent) magazines each. The grenade pouches were also removed, and the side panels changed to molle as opposed to that god awful velcro / strap system. Overal it was not well recieved as the mag pouches were poorly designed and the small utility pouches interfered with drawing magazines.

 

[Soldier1stTradesman2nd]

Speaking of what is and isn't allowed to be worn, what is the current state of affairs with TF 3-08 and beyond? What's the actual word from the sandbox and where are the follow-on BG's going with non-issued kit? It would be interesting to get a sense of the trend, preferably from someone in theatre at the moment.