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

[McG]

LAV crews didn't wear their TV's on the move (TF 3-06, A Coy)

There are some pers who wear our armour but never wear a TV (in vehicles or not).  I'll admit that I see this as a concern. 

 

[Armymedic]

The main issue for me with the TV, is that it is completely unsuitable to wear while in the CC hatch of a Bison. I'm a very skinny person, and I cannot enter, exit the hatch quickly without the vest grabbing and holding me in. I've seen the LAV turrets and those hatches look a lot smaller,

You know, that is not an issue with the TV. It is an issue with the hatch size. Armoured vehs regardless of type were/are not designed for people to wear load bearing equipment whist plugging a hole in the veh (dvr, gnr, CC). I have run alot of different gear over the last few years and none of the rigs I have worn would allow me to fit into the hatch on a LAV turret.

 

[Fusaki]

However, I do not think the personal protection side would be well evaluated until too late.  We typically don't do force on force live fire in Wainwright or any other training area, so in your system the effectiveness of PPE would only truly be tested when we get to war.  Once we are at war, what will be noticed is the catastrophic PPE failures or examples of kit which exaggerate injury.  There is a whole range of marginally inadequate PPE which could go unnoticed to the observer more concerned with the immediate fire fight...

...PPE is where I draw the line.  Don't substitute commercial kit in place of issued PPE, and don't modify issued PPE

When it comes to PPE, you have me convinced.  There is better stuff out there, but this is one area where the individual soldier has less of an ability to assess the merits of the gear on his own.  To follow my own logic all the way through, it would not make sense to expect a soldier to be a SME in this area.  Provided that "the system" does it's best to incorporate features desired by the end user, with the opinions of those who use the gear outside the wire weighted heavier than those who will use the gear in KAF, I now see PPE as something that should be tested and approved by the CF.

So in my mind, the question becomes:  What non-issued items can the big army be expected to gain and maintain a reasonable amount of experience in?

Off the top of my head: LBVs, boots, CADPAT clothing (debatable, considering flash protection), drop in weapons mods (slings, scopes, rails, lights, butts, ect), rucks and packs... I'm sure there are others.

 

[medaid]

There is a way to ensure kit for Cbt arms suit the needs of non-combat arms members.

Modularity... MOLLE rigs and equipment that will solve a chunk of your problem right there.

 

[McG]

Modularity... MOLLE rigs and equipment that will solve a chunk of your problem right there.

If you ever get a chance to comment officially make this the first and last point your audience hears.

 

[The_Falcon]

Well here is a chance to make some improvements to CTS (provided you or someone you know meets the quals)

http://www.cfsuo.forces.gc.ca/csss/ro/ro2008/08prt2-reserve-employment-opportunities_e.asp#10

10.    CL B EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY-PROJECT MANAGER CLOTHE THE SOLDIER - MAJ

MSG 071428Z APR 08 DSSPM 8

1.    CLOTHE THE SOLDIER (CTS) PROJECT HAS A CLASS B OPPORTUNITY COMMENCING 01 JUN 08 UNTIL 31 MAR 10 AS PROJECT MANAGER.  THIS POSITION (333230) IS A REG FORCE BACKFILL.

2.    ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS ARE AS FOLS

A.    RANK MAJ

B.    MOS ID EME (LAND LOG OR ATR WITH LFTSP ACCEPTABLE)

C.    LANGUAGE ENGLISH ESSENTIAL, BILINGUAL AN ASSET

D.    SECUR CLEARANCE LEVEL LEVEL II

E.    HEALTH BE MED/DENT FIT

F.    PHYSICAL FITNESS BE PHYSICALLY FIT IAW THE EXPRESS PROGRAM AND WILLING TO COMPLETE CF FITNESS TEST AS REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY WHICH FORMS PART OF JOB ACCEPTANCE

3.    REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE AND QUALS

A.    MUST POSSESS A STRONG KNOWLEDGE OF

(1)    PROJECT MANAGEMENT

(2)    INTEGRATED LOGISTICS SUPPORT

(3)  FIN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND

(4)    PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

B.    DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO USE MICROSOFT OFFICE SUITE

C.    DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO DEAL EFFECTIVELY WITH MIL AND CIV STAFF AT ALL LEVELS IN THE ORGANIZATION

D.    MUST BE SKILLED IN PROBLEM SOLVING AND HAVE  DEMONSTRATED INITIATIVE, ACCOUNTABILITY, RELIABILITY AND ABILITY TO CONTINUE

E.    DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO CARRY OUT TASKS WITH MINIMAL SUPERVISION

F.    GOOD ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION SKILLS ARE ESSENTIAL

G.    MUST HAVE APPROPRIATE EXPERIENCE TO ENABLE EFFECTIVE AND PROFESSIONAL COMPLETION OF THE DUTIES DETAILED IN PARA 4 BELOW.

4.    BASIC DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES

A.    WRITE AND STAFF FOR APPROVAL PROJECT DECISION DOCUMENTS

B.    PREPARE AND PRESENT PROJECT BRIEFS AND OTHER PRESENTATIONS INCLUDING TO DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL MEETINGS

C.    IDENTIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES AND, AS REQUIRED, TECHNICAL ELEMENTS THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE OVERALL PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

D.    IDENTIFY, DEVELOP, MONITOR AND EFFECTIVELY MANAGE PROJECT COSTS, SCHEDULES, QUALITY AND OVERALL PERFORMANCE

E.    WRITE STATEMENTS OF WORK (SOW) AND PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

F.    WRITE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PLAN FOR COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT

G.    REVIEW DRAFT REQUISITIONS AND DRAFT RFPS

H.    PARTICIPATE IN BIDDER CONFERENCES

J.    PERFORM TECHNICAL REVIEWS OF SUPPLIER PROPOSALS USING EVALUATION CRITERIA

K    PARTICIPATE IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS (WHEN REQUIRED)

L.    CONFIRM THAT GOODS DELIVERED OR SERVICES RENDERED ARE CORRECT AND ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT OR PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION WHEN THEY ARE UNSATISFACTORY.

5.    R AND Q NOT AVAIL.  MOVE OF D HG AND E MAY BE AUTHORIZED. APPLICANTS RESIDING WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF OTTAWA WILL BE GIVEN PREFERENCE

6.    NOMINATIONS MUST BE SENT VIA CHAIN OF COMD TO THE OPI NLT 30 DAYS FROM DGT OF THIS MSG AND MUST INCLUDE

A.    (SN), (SURNAME), (GIVEN NAMES), (RANK) PROMOTED (DATE OF PROMOTION), MOS ID (MBR MOS ID), BELONGING TO THE (SEA, LAND OR AIR) ENVIRONMENT WITH THE (CURRENT RES F UNIT), (UIC) SINCE (TOS DATE)

B.    LINGUISTIC ABILITIES AND, IF AVAIL, TESTING DATES

C.    SECUR CLEARANCE LEVEL AND DATE

D.    DATE AND CATEGORY OF LAST MEDICAL AND ANY MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS

E.    CF EXPRES COMPLETION DATE OR DATE SCHEDULES TO BE TESTED

F.    COVERING LETTER DESCRIBING MBRS QUALS AND EXPERIENCE IAW REQUIREMENTS LISTED ABOVE

G.    PERSONAL REF COORDINATES

H.    CONFIRMATION OF WHETHER OR NOT MBR IS IN RECEIPT OF A PENSION UNDER THE CFSA, OR WHETHER OR NOT MBR IS A FORMER CONTRIBUTOR TO THE CFSA

I.    DOB (IF 55 YRS OF AGE OR OVER PROVIDE CURRENT CRA EXTN END DATE OR CONFIRM ELECTION OF CRA 60)

J.    ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFO THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE EMPLOYER (PERSONAL LIMITATIONS AFFECTING SVC PERFORMANCE, ETC)

7.    INTERVIEWS ONLY THOSE APPLICANTS SELECTED FOR AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONTACTED
8.    OPI PRUDHOMME MICHEL LCOL, 819-997-99751, DSSPM, EMAIL PRUDHOMME.MJ (AT) FORCES.GC.CA

 

[George Wallace]

;D

So?  How does one go about becoming a Reserve Major?  ;D

 

[Shamrock]

So?  How does one go about becoming a Reserve Major?   ;D

I have some major reservations, does that count?

 

[Danjanou]

;D

So?  How does one go about becoming a Reserve Major?   ;D

You could always ask a certain dapper defence analyst and sometimes saviour of Saudi Crown Princes. I heard he told CFRC they should enroll him as one based on his knowledge and contacts. 8)

 

[darmil]

About a month ago we had this major come from CTS with the new neck guard and shoulder pads and that gay visor that thing is terrible!.Never got them from CQ over here didn't bother cause more velcro and snaps.The FPV should be MOLLE like the marines with built in neck guards with side plates.We talked to this Major about the new items then talk to him about the Tac vest and said why don't you guys make it MOLLE. So you can have a rig for a rifleman,c9 gunner,M203 even can equip it for CSS types.He was like whats MOLLE :.LOL we explained it to him and he said thats a good idea! :Not sure if he was just bullshyting us.
I travel in RG's and drivers ,crew commanders ,and gunners don't where the TAC vest just the GIBS.

 

[McG]

... that gay visor that thing is terrible!

That thing, when worn with your BEW, will provide your face the same level of protection as you get from your ballistic plates.  As a rear-sentry,  you could take a 7.62mm bullet to the face & live with your eyes still functioning and your face still pretty.

The FPV should be MOLLE like the marines

MOLLE does not belong on the FPV.  Load carriage should be a separate over-top item because there are several circumstances which can require the removal of load carriage while armour must remain on.

He was like whats MOLLE :

This surprises me as I have heard people directly involved with CTS speak quite favourably about MOLLE going several months back (though maybe not all speak favourably of it).  I suspect if you were to look into this individual's background, he may not even look at load carriage in his daily work.  He may be fully consumed with mounted soldier survivability items (the neck guard, brassards & face shield about which he came to speak).

 

[Matt_Fisher]

That thing, when worn with your BEW, will provide your face the same level of protection as you get from your ballistic plates.  As a rear-sentry,  you could take a 7.62mm bullet to the face & live with your eyes still functioning and your face still pretty.

There is definitely a time and a place for increased levels of PPE.  Lets just hope that the command element realizes that everything is a balance between protection and functionality and knows when to apply common sense in either direction to best suit the threat environment and the mission.

 

[NL_engineer]

That thing, when worn with your BEW, will provide your face the same level of protection as you get from your ballistic plates.  As a rear-sentry,  you could take a 7.62mm bullet to the face & live with your eyes still functioning and your face still pretty.

So those test video's on the DWAN are not true? the one were the object passed right through the visor, to get stopped by the BEW, but only after stretching them back over 5".

 

[MG34]

There is definitely a time and a place for increased levels of PPE.  Lets just hope that the command element realizes that everything is a balance between protection and functionality and knows when to apply common sense in either direction to best suit the threat environment and the mission.

I couldn't agree more, but in our current risk adverse climate I can forsee that the visor will become a permanant fixture
Now can someone explain exactly how the TV is an essential part of the PPE, as passed onto members of the OMLT/POMLT,"the issued TV is key to allow the PPE to do it's job" Now there are some issues here, is the PPE not designed well enough to stay on by itself?? Why does the TV need to be worn? The answer given was that the TV will hold the PPE on in the event of a blast from an IED, now I have been to 8 IED incidents as a first responder not once have I seen any PPE be physically blown off of an individual,eventhose wearing only chest rigs.If the force of the blast was such that you would need the TV to hold the PPE on,wouldn't both the armour and TV be destroyed in the blast? I w0on't even get into the comments made that the TV will hold your guts in if the PPE is breached by a projectile.  :
  It is comments like that from those who should know better that totally undermine the work of the enlightened ones out there that truely get it

 

[McG]

So those test video's on the DWAN are not true?

I will not be on the DWAN in the near future, so I cannot put the video into perspective for you.  What I've told you is what the system (visor + BEW) will do.

I won't even get into the comments made that the TV will hold your guts in if the PPE is breached by a projectile.  :

As I mentioned earlier, this is an untruth.  It is not coming from those responsible for PPE or Tac Vest (in fact, I've heard them specifically reject this statement as falicious).  This is a telephone game problem in that the statement has been added somewhere along the line by somebody who should not have been taking artistic license with the facts.

However, the TV does enhance the performance of the FPV.  To avoid misrepresenting the issue, I still am not going to try explaining it, but I share your concerns.  Many times pers wear only the FPV & BV (and some pers always wear only the FPV & BV) and so that should out of necessity meet the full system requirement without the need for the TV on top.

 

[NL_engineer]

I will not be on the DWAN in the near future, so I cannot put the video into perspective for you.  What I've told you is what the system (visor + BEW) will do.

Stop an 7.62 FMJ at ranges greater then 250 m

BRP is a ceramic composite that has improved ballistic protection against 5.56mm Armour-Piercing bullets at point blank range and 7.62mm Armour-Piercing bullets at ranges in excess of 250 metres.

 

[darmil]

Yeah I can agree with you on the need for having just FPV on being a crew commander and gunner.Would agree with the rear air sentries wearing the visor in a LAV not RG but the way it sounds its like they wanted it to be worn all the time.Theres a place for it but this guy said its meant for all the time.well hopefully the TAC vest is fixed soon make it MOLLE and give us double mag pouches!
Oh yeah does anybody have the new issued high temp gloves the two piece ones like the mortar gloves and the white high temp liner like the old green combat glove liner.Those are ridiculous.We are authorized to wear the Hatch Nomex gloves from the PX.Why do they come up with these useless designs.

 

[McG]

The system (visor + BEW) will provide your face the same level of protection as you get from your ballistic plates.  I don't think it is really that complicated a statement.

While I don't know what you watched on the DWAN.  It seems there is a publicly released video: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/movie/BPV-BEW%20Combo.wmv

You will note that the deflection of the BEW is many times less that 5 inches.  Maybe .5 inches but I judge it to appear even less than that.

 

[NL_engineer]

I seen that one on the DWAN, the one I referenced was a 32oz projectile at a higher speed then the one shown in that video.

But that 1/2" could still destroy your eye.

 

[McG]

But that 1/2" could still destroy your eye.

Well, that really depends on a lot of factors not shown in the video.  Was it really .5 inches?  What effects will your nose & cheek bone have on deflection?  You want to assume that the protection level is less than what I've told you and so you are grasping at incomplete information to prove this for yourself.

Is this what you are talking about: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/movie/Blunt%20Impact.wmv
There is no penetration here, and the object is certainly not going faster than in the previous video.

... a 32oz ....

Where are you coming from with this?  It is Canadian research; it is done metric.