CFL:
In regard to the post about Marines being required to buy our own gear...that's half-true. Each active duty Marine is given an annual clothing allowance that is for replacement of uniform items, such as boots, combat uniforms etc. Each Marine will receive an initial issue while at boot camp, however after that, you're required to maintain the prescribed number and types of uniform items. Now, depending on your billet and posting, you'll get issued organizational equipment from your unit, such as ruck, sleeping bag, load-bearing vest, body armor, etc. That stuff you can exchange as it becomes unserviceable, same as in Canada. The quality of kit we get from supply ranges from good to horrible. On the good end is our sleeping bags, bivi sack, Interceptor Body Armor with SAPI plates, Marine Corps Individual First Aid Kit and Gore-Tex jacket and pants. On the horrible side is the medium ALICE pack without frame (logic is that our packs just get strapped to the vehicle anyways...which is half true, but if you ever try fitting 7 months of kit into a Med. ALICE plus your sleeping bag, you're hating life). We also get issued the old ALICE LBV which is crap. We're probably the last unit in the Marine Corps not to have switched over to the MOLLE system.
Since our LBVs and rucks are crap, the policy on non-issue kit is pretty liberal in the unit. In recruit training and during your School of Infantry, etc. you're required to wear the issued gear (crawl, walk, run), however after that, most units allow alot of individual discretion. Have a look at pictures of Marines in Iraq and I challenge you to find a single Marine whose gear layout is the same as the Marine next to him. In our unit the SOP is that each Marine carries the minimum required amount of ammo, water and have their first aid kit in an identifiable location with the prescribed contents. As long as your gear is OD, Coyote Brown, Woodland, or Desert Camo it's good to go.
As hypocritical as it sounds (with my non-issued Kifaru EMR and TT MAV with assorted pouches), I'd personally like to see a bit more standardization within the unit in regard to LBVs, but since the issued stuff is the garbage ALICE LBV that's incompatible with the interceptor body armor (shoulder straps are too wide) it's hard to force everybody to go out and buy decent stuff that's all the same. We're almost on the other end of the spectrum, where the troops are encouraged to the point of feeling forced to go out and buy gear, as was done when we got deployed to Iraq and possession of Camelbaks was made mandatory, even though they weren't issued and troops had to go out and purchase them with their own funds.
As far as leadership in relation to using issued or non-issued gear...I've never found it to be an issue. The saltier Marines will often point the new guys in the right direction in terms of kit that works and doesn't work. It's never been an us vs. them scenario where certain ranks can get away with wearing stuff that the Jr. ranks are forbade from wearing. I'm in the position of platoon gear queer and show the newbies how much money they can spend in a single online transaction at Lightfighter, Optactical or Tactical Tailor in order to get decent kit that works for them and will meet mission requirements. ;D
In regard to the professional appearance issue of wearing non-issued gear, I think that the only people who really notice whether somebody is wearing an issued CTS cadpat lbv is the project manager of the CTS LBV program who might be reading the issue of the Maple Leaf that you were pictured in, or a glimpsing shot on The National. Professionalism lies more with conduct than with whether you're wearing a drop-leg holster that you bought on your own dime.
IPC10:
As far as the field replacement argument goes, how is showing your supply guy a blown out non-issue LBV and temp-loaning an issued one that's in stock different from trading in one that's been destroyed, or what about a soldier who loses his LBV? Do you only exchange or reissue kit to someone who's got something to trade in? When I was in Norway a few weeks ago, our LAV got rear ended by another LAV. One of the Marines in our LAV had his ruck (non-issue Lowe Vector pack) strapped to the exterior of the vehicle as per SOP. During the collision his ruck was literally torn in half, completely destroyed beyond repair even with a Red Green Handyman's corner amount of duct tape. He simply temp-loaned one an issued from the MAGTF supply when he got the chance and submitte a loss report along with the vehicle accident report for reimbursement of the value of his ruck. He was lucky that they even had spares, as when we were in Iraq, if your gear went for a crap, you had to make due for quite awhile as we didn't have any spare stuff for quite some time. It was actually faster to have commercially available replacement gear sent to you through the military mail system than it was to wait on supply to get it through the channels. During our 7 month deployment we only got 1 pair of desert boots issued to us in theatre to replace the one pair we were sent over with.
I can't imagine the drain on logistics if every piece of personal kit that was damaged had to be transported out of theatre back to Canada or the US for disposal once it was exchanged for serviceable gear. Simply, as gear becomes unserviceable, a report should be included with that gear as to what the specific failure is that makes the gear unserviceable and it is put on file (just have it entered into a simple database) and if a repitition of specific problems occur, those reports would be gathered and put into an UCR. The unserviceable gear should be repaired by a mat tech./rigger or cannibalized for materials (buckles, webbing, patches of cordura, etc.) and destroyed/disposed of in theatre.
About the only downside to using non-issued gear is the event that it is destroyed and you cannot get the government to reimburse you for it. I've often though about how much its going to suck when my $500US Kifaru EMR & accessories gets a lethal dose of shrapnel from an IED and I'm stuck using the crap medium ALICE bag sans/frame (we don't get issued frames in our unit...go figure) that I have to temp loan from supply. :'( However that's my decision to make. Hopefully Kifaru will honor its lifetime warranty and if nothing else humor my war story with a replacement ruck. ;D
Where does the answer lie? I think that the Brits have got a pretty good handle on the use of non-issued kit and still maintaining uniformity and professionalism. They've been conducting ops around the world in both combat and peacekeeping situations using a variety of issued and non-issued kit. Their performance has been often admired and emulated in the CFs and yet the subject of them having such a liberal policy on non-issued gear and how it affects their professionalism (if at all) is rarely discussed.
I think that the first step would be to expand the availability of Cadpat licenses to some reputable gear manufacturers such as Kifaru, SO Tech and Tactical Tailor, etc. and then develop a list of approved aftermarket manufacturers. The real emphasis should be put on the sub-unit (company/squadron, etc.) setting the standard for what the soldiers load-out will be and going from there and using some common sense. As long as the gear is OD/Cadpat/Coyote (whatever matches the environment within reason) and it is from a list of approved vendors, and the soldiers load-out meets established requirements it should be authorized for use in the field.
I hate to say it, but alot of these issues of using or not using non-issued kit boils down to the fact that the CFs have not had to engage in a major shooting conflict since Korea to highlight the deficiencies in issued equipment, and I am well aware of 3VP in Afghanistan and ops in Bosnia/Medak pocket, etc. but these just further point out how the mindset has moved away from combat to...well whatever (?) in regard to providing equipment and support to the pointy end.
