Canadian Armys "Interm Pistol Program"

flashman2 said:
To be fair, that's not quite how it works.

Very smart people at DRDC put lots of effort into determining end user requirements, based on listening to that exact audience and conducting many many working groups. They do all sorts of trials to validate. I used to be at a unit across from a DRDC detachment and would go in all the time to help them out with experiments and trials. They were all civvy nerds who were genuinely concerned with figuring out what the warfighter needed and getting it to them. If it was up to just them, soldiers sailors and aircrew would get exactly what they need. The DLR staff are all army guys who have been there and done that.

The problem is that those wishlists get filtered though the government procurement process and tempered by political reality. The DRDC and Army folks that write the requirements are mostly good sensible people. I've met a few who were protectionist and imperious, but they were the minority.

The Tac Vest is an amazing bit of kit. It's bombproof. It's exceptionally well made.

It's just unsuited to the role it had to fulfill in the first war we used it in.

It's PERFECT for standing gate guard in Bosnia or driving a truck. It's actually ok for most people who don't have an F Echelon job. It's a great product for the 90% job we did when it was conceived.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are serious, or its sarcasm? The Tac vest was a POS. And it's not a original design. The pre cadpat Bosnia jean jacket was the same setup.. 4 Mags. They could have just put elastic sides so could expand to double mag pouches. And it was a PITA to drive in, esp in up armored G wagons and RG31s.

Then the weather weather boots. Skates are better..

When I worked at small engines, Roads and grounds. They put a tender for zero lawn tractors. Well they bought cheap tin deck, that wouldn't last a season. Knowing that most pop curbs with them. Rather then buying something that is quality and last.
 
The thing that frustrates me the most is that Glock (not my favourite pistol, pistol maker or anything even close - but I have owned 4 of them in varying generations from 1-3 and in 17 and 19 dimensions) was selling to police departments from as low as $139/unit 5 years ago. Even if that has doubled and we add as much again for a parts and support contract, we're still under $10 million including training. $10 million is only a lot of money if you're a working person, and it's a joke for a weapons contract. Just do it for Chrissakes.
 
I would love to get the Brit solution of about 80,000 Gen 5 Glock 17 with night sights. Or 75,000 Sig 22(X) and kit out the whole outfit. It will not happen. Maybe CC will licence a CZ 75 based pistol like IMI, Tangfolio and Armalite. Cerakote it FDE and charge DND $3000 each for it. That sounds about right if the ranger rifle is an indicator of small arms procurement.
The Aussies wanted to dump their POS F18 a/bs here last year. What a waste of time and money. 50 years service life for a disposable Navy jr fighter....You’ve got to love PUblic Works Procurement policy.
 
flashman2 said:
To be fair, that's not quite how it works.

Very smart people at DRDC put lots of effort into determining end user requirements, based on listening to that exact audience and conducting many many working groups. They do all sorts of trials to validate. I used to be at a unit across from a DRDC detachment and would go in all the time to help them out with experiments and trials. They were all civvy nerds who were genuinely concerned with figuring out what the warfighter needed and getting it to them. If it was up to just them, soldiers sailors and aircrew would get exactly what they need. The DLR staff are all army guys who have been there and done that.

The problem is that those wishlists get filtered though the government procurement process and tempered by political reality. The DRDC and Army folks that write the requirements are mostly good sensible people. I've met a few who were protectionist and imperious, but they were the minority.

The Tac Vest is an amazing bit of kit. It's bombproof. It's exceptionally well made.

It's just unsuited to the role it had to fulfill in the first war we used it in.

It's PERFECT for standing gate guard in Bosnia or driving a truck. It's actually ok for most people who don't have a dismounted F Echelon job. It's a great product for the 90% job we did when it was conceived and the end user requirements were determined. The tac vest can still carry more than webbing can...

Webbing still has it's place. Chest rigs have their place. Vests have their place. The challenge is a one size fits all solution. In some respects, 37 pattern did that better. Easy enough to throw on a few more bandoleers of ammo. Unfortunately we don't get loaded mags issued in bandoleers.
Click to expand...

I've been a gate guard in Bosnia. I can tell you the tacvest wasn't perfect. It was still ####ty, wasn't modular, wasn't comfortable to shoot with.

Gate guards on peacekeeping missions need to be ready to fight at a moments notice, and peace keepers need to be ready and able to switch to war fighting mode quick. I doubt had #### hit the fan again, like we almost had happen in April 2001,we could have got in a fighting rig in time.

The officers involved with the project also all but ignored the feedback and advice from the infantry snco "SME". In his own words they wanted him to shut up and validate the tacvest not offer advice.
 
Last edited:
flashman2 said:
To be fair, that's not quite how it works.

Very smart people at DRDC put lots of effort into determining end user requirements, based on listening to that exact audience and conducting many many working groups. They do all sorts of trials to validate. I used to be at a unit across from a DRDC detachment and would go in all the time to help them out with experiments and trials. They were all civvy nerds who were genuinely concerned with figuring out what the warfighter needed and getting it to them. If it was up to just them, soldiers sailors and aircrew would get exactly what they need. The DLR staff are all army guys who have been there and done that.

The problem is that those wishlists get filtered though the government procurement process and tempered by political reality. The DRDC and Army folks that write the requirements are mostly good sensible people. I've met a few who were protectionist and imperious, but they were the minority.

The Tac Vest is an amazing bit of kit. It's bombproof. It's exceptionally well made.

It's just unsuited to the role it had to fulfill in the first war we used it in.

It's PERFECT for standing gate guard in Bosnia or driving a truck. It's actually ok for most people who don't have a dismounted F Echelon job. It's a great product for the 90% job we did when it was conceived and the end user requirements were determined. The tac vest can still carry more than webbing can...

Webbing still has it's place. Chest rigs have their place. Vests have their place. The challenge is a one size fits all solution. In some respects, 37 pattern did that better. Easy enough to throw on a few more bandoleers of ammo. Unfortunately we don't get loaded mags issued in bandoleers.
Click to expand...

This sentence just negated everything you just tried to prove.
 
Bile said:
This demands a response.

No, the "Tac vest" is not a good piece of kit for anyone. It never was. It was a mistake and continues it's infamous rein to this day. The end.

The folks are DLR are retards. They knew we needed a replacement for the hi power 30 years ago. They purposefully sidestepped 2 generations of pistol advancements and are probably going to sidestep again. It's the same bullcrap every year. The soldiers tell them they need something, they screw it up and the CF is stuck with crap. Examples? AR10 was awesome war purchase that saved many lives. Needed replacement contract 10 years ago. AR10s now no longer serviceable and we have no SASWS capability. The Rain Gear. Doesn't stop rain, stores never issues out the gortex repair kits or water repellent. Troops ask for new clip on nightvision to the long guns since there isn't enough PVS7s to equip the fleet. Plan now is to get some thermal inline stuff nobody know about and will probably be obsolete by the time it enters service. IE the BAE TWS all over again. The Ruck sack. Had "classes" for soldiers to learn to use it. It is a heavy piece of junk that injures troops and cannot be worn with plates. The crew helmets, holy god what a mess. And some turd has a plan for caseless bullpups in the works to replace the C7/8s. The TABV... wow, what have they wasted billions on. The ride never ends.
Click to expand...

Couldnt have said better !

Tacvest is a huge piece of useless garbage. There is a lot of word to describe it, good and efficient isn't and I'm glad we finally got rid of it at our level...

Rucksack looks like a heavy kit bag with straps designed by someone who probably never carried anything more than a fanny pack.

Our helmet weights a ton when compared to what our nato buddies have been using and we cant even replace them because just like our ill fitting uniforms, everything is out of stock. They also have been proven to cause neck injury due to the weight.

The windjacket is not bad, except that it doubles up a a rain jacket and it rumored to be made with pure Absorbium...

Ballistic eyewear that scratches by looking thru it or simply having them in the case. I had my oakleys for a decade while I had to change issued ballistics on a yearly basis.

TAPV: unfinished business and NEA/BCL like quality control and consistency... Bigger than an RG31 but less room and not made for canadian conditions...

Boots... It's just a matter of time until they get a grip on it and phack it all up again !
 
Last edited:
DT741 said:
Couldnt have said better !

Tacvest is a huge piece of useless garbage. There is a lot of word to describe it, good and efficient isn't and I'm glad we finally got rid of it at our level...
Click to expand...

To add a bit more context on the Tac Vest, we did some testing at the Infantry School with it in '98.
When the Comd CA (known as CLS back then) came for a visit, a buddy ask him about the limitation with only 4 mags and the CLS responded that we were never to deploy our infantry somewhere requiring more than 5 mags...
All issues that were later reported in Bn were identified.
I was a C6 gunner at the time. Same issue with our C9 gunners... Were the Frack do I put my ammo? Answer provided was to remove the canteen and add the 2nd GP pouch...
 
CZ85Combat said:
To add a bit more context on the Tac Vest, we did some testing at the Infantry School with it in '98.
When the Comd CA (known as CLS back then) came for a visit, a buddy ask him about the limitation with only 4 mags and the CLS responded that we were never to deploy our infantry somewhere requiring more than 5 mags...
All issues that were later reported in Bn were identified.
I was a C6 gunner at the time. Same issue with our C9 gunners... Were the Frack do I put my ammo? Answer provided was to remove the canteen and add the 2nd GP pouch...
Click to expand...
It's a legit answer, as a c6 gunner you don't need water, you should be drinking the blood of your enemies...
 
The only piece of military kit I like is my ranger blanket.... and it is an American one.

The only piece of kit that the Canadian military ever got right was the liner to the old combat jacket... the cardboard one.

That liner was the cats ass.


(And the bib pants... before they made then cadpat)
 
Its sabotage. Same thing the communist did when they started over throwing Russia. If you look at Ottawa it’s the same thing. You can see the ideology clear as day.
 
enefgee said:
The thing that frustrates me the most is that Glock (not my favourite pistol, pistol maker or anything even close - but I have owned 4 of them in varying generations from 1-3 and in 17 and 19 dimensions) was selling to police departments from as low as $139/unit 5 years ago. Even if that has doubled and we add as much again for a parts and support contract, we're still under $10 million including training. $10 million is only a lot of money if you're a working person, and it's a joke for a weapons contract. Just do it for Chrissakes.
Click to expand...

Kindly tell who bought them for a $139 per unit since they didn’t even offer that to the US military ?

gadget
 
calvin in keoma said:
If the new pistol has to be made in Canada, I suggest we put the factory in Acme Alberta. We could call the factory "The Acme Weapons Company", and the handguns could come in crates like this;

5gVmX6D.png
Click to expand...

That's a nice crate anyway, and I'd certainly want one stencilled "Acme Weapons Company" even if it never contains weapons. Ideally should have Wile E. Coyote for a logo, but there would probably be royalties to pay that would make it not commercially viable.
 
GuiltySpark said:
I've been a gate guard in Bosnia. I can tell you the tacvest wasn't perfect. It was still ####ty, wasn't modular, wasn't comfortable to shoot with.

Gate guards on peacekeeping missions need to be ready to fight at a moments notice, and peace keepers need to be ready and able to switch to war fighting mode quick. I doubt had #### hit the fan again, like we almost had happen in April 2001,we could have got in a fighting rig in time.

The officers involved with the project also all but ignored the feedback and advice from the infantry snco "SME". In his own words they wanted him to shut up and validate the tacvest not offer advice.
Click to expand...

Here's the rub though: on a tour when it was an absolute free for all in terms of fighting order, the VAST majority of soldiers still chose to use the Tac Vest. Including a lot of "gun" guys. I'm personally not a fan of the TV, I didn't use it on tour, but I'm also not about to tell a few hundred soldiers who used it during the most intense combat operations in Afghanistan that they made the wrong choice. Heck, even most PPCLI guys wore it... If it was as utterly, indisputably terrible as it's portrayed to be here, that wouldn't be the case. Having a pile of money and the freedom to buy pretty much whatever you want is as close to a true democratic vote on the TV as you could get, and most guys still used it.

Unfortunately the design was a bit too early. Had it been designed even a few years later, safe to say we would have gone with a MOLLE solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom