A Leg to Stand On

Submitted by Eric Daniel

I’m currently using a Nikon Spotter XL II spotting scope for OP work.  The Nikon is a 16-48x60mm scope.  Overall, I like the scope.  It’s bright, easy to use, and I like the fact that it’s got a pull out sun/dust shield, which is a life saver when out in the rain.  Since this is the first spotting scope I’ve ever had, though, I really can’t compare it to anything else, but so far, the only real complaint I have about it is it’s black (I’ve got an e-mail out to Nikon about painting it brown – at the time I got it, getting it in a different color was not an option, though I currently pack a “square” of desert colored cammo net to conceal it) and at 48x mag you basically have to wear the scope in order to see out of it (that and it is very susceptible to vibration.)

The one thing I really find difficult to use, though, especially in a tactical situation, is the tripod that goes with the scope.  Don’t get me wrong, the tripod, for most, civilian, purposes, works just fine, but I find that, one, the tripod doesn’t get low enough to allow me to lie on the ground without having to prop myself up at an uncomfortable angle, and two, the elevation lock handle, the rod that sticks out of the base of the tripod, interferes with actually getting a good, steady, sight picture out of the scope at max magnification (basically, the rod pokes you in the cheek when you try and look through the scope.)

So now I’m on the hunt for a better tactical use tripod.  One of the tripods I liked was the Ray-Vin Tactical Tripod (its military model is the M-2004.)  The Ray-Vin is all aluminum, and I like the simplicity of its center pole design which allows good access to the scope.

Vortex also makes a suitable tripod, their Vortex Summit Shooting Stand tripod.  Significantly cheaper than the Ray-Vin, the Vortex also is a bit more limited in its height adjustment.

Leupold also makes a nice looking compact tripod.  I like the fact that in addition to having a center pole extension, the legs also extend, giving it a wide height range.  Something else I also noticed with the Leupold set up was the fact that they offer a binocular adaptor, which, unfortunately, does not work with military M22 binoculars, as well as a digital camera adaptor which again, unfortunately, only works with their spotting scope.  That these devices exist, however, gives me hope that I can find similar devices to work with my Nikon scope (which will save me a lot of time and effort in drawing up sketch cards.)

Does anyone have any experience with tactical spotting scope tripods or can you make other reccomendations?

Keep it Simple

Submitted by Eric Daniel

You know, it’s been said that the U.S. Army is the best equipped force in the world but I’m really more amazed by what we don’t have that other armies do than what we do have, or what we want to have that others don’t.

Take, for example, the four shot 25mm XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System currently in the works (the XM25 is itself an offshoot of the doomed XM29 OICW thingie).  It’s supposed to be effective out to 500 meters against point targets, will have a built in multi-spectrum electro-optical sight, and will have the ability to individually program the burst time on the launched projectiles so that they explode behind or over the target, thus defeating any frontal cover the target might have.

Sounds good on paper, and I’m sure there’s no other Army out there trying to develop a weapon specifically designed to attack a target behind cover, but the reality is, we haven’t got one of these either (yet, and I don’t see these getting issued soon either), and there are a lot of really simple weapons currently in service which could just as easily perform this mission. 

Rifle grenades:  What’s wrong with rifle grenades?  We, the American army, used the hell out of them in WWII and Korea, but they went away after that.  Were they not high tech enough, or was this one of those “no guns on jet fighters” decisions, where we decided that the types of wars we’d be fighting in the future would render these weapons obsolete?  There are any number of designs out there now that could immediately enter service with the US military as short range (<300m) anti-personnel, anti-tank (ok, anti-APC), dual purpose, individually fired munitions, yet we haven’t got any.

I understand that we have dedicated grenade launchers like the M203 now that can fill the role of the rifle grenade, but the 203 is an individually assigned weapon, and in the standard infantry squad there are only two (one per team) and in the Army’s table driven organizational scheme, if your unit isn’t authorized any (like mine) then you just go without.  With a rifle grenade, on the other hand, everyone in the unit has the capability of carrying one or two, and they can be fired by anyone (this capability would enable a commander to stockpile the grenades in a defensive position, or with a support by fire element, without disrupting unit organization by shifting grenadiers around.)

Shoulder fired weapons:  Next to the AK-47, the most common weapon carried by the insurgents is the RPG-7.  Introduced as a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon in 1961, it is now the most prolific such weapon in the world.  What is the US equivalent?  The single shot AT-4 (M136.)  The US used to have a reloadable shoulder fired weapon, the M1-M20 series rocket launchers (a.k.a “Bazooka” and “Super Bazooka”) but the Bazooka was retired from service during the Vietnam war and replaced by the M72 LAW (tanks and the new ATGMs like the TOW and the Shillelagh would eliminate the need for a short ranged infantry based AT weapon) and later the AT4. 

While designed as anti-armor weapons, as the insurgents can attest to, they also serve admirably as “pocket” artillery, and what I wonder about is why we don’t use something similar. We have a number of similar weapons (the Marine Corps has the SMAW and the M3 Carl Gustav is in service with SOCOM forces) in our inventory.  The exclusivity of the M3 especially bothers me. Of a similar weight and size of the AT4, it presents a significantly greater capability in that you can reload it and you can fire a variety of munitions through it.  Again it would be a lot easier for an infantry platoon to carry a pair of M3s and 40 seven-pound HE projectiles than it would be to carry 40 AT4s.  Yet its use is limited to SOCOM, while the regular Army has to settle for the AT4.

Battlefield Illumination:  As a tanker, one of the things I missed most about going from the M60 to the M1 was the elimination of that 2.5 million candlepower searchlight.  Yes, I know the M1 had thermal sights and did not need a light source, but there are times where having a way to light up the battlefield is nice, like when you’re working with dismounts, who don’t have thermals, and you want to point out something to them.  Battlefield illumination, I think, has become a lost art. We have become so used to, or maybe even dependent upon, night vision devices, that we simply don’t do things at night if we cant see anything with our NODs (night vision, as you know, multiplies ambient light; if there’s no ambient light to magnify, they don’t work very well.)  We have a number of parachute flares of all sizes in the inventory, but few commanders, that I’ve seen, make use of them (no grenadier I encountered carried 40mm parachute flares and while most NCOs carried red star clusters for medivacs, none carried illum rounds, so if your unit did then I envy you.) One of the things I think folk forget is that the use of illum can have a significant impact on the enemy’s ability to maneuver.  If visibility is limited, popping parachute flares downrange can light up the battlefield, denying the enemy the ability to move freely in the open.  Unfortunately, flares are neither sexy nor expensive, so I don’t think the Army is very interested in using them.

Mind you, I’m not advocating the elimination of any existing weapon system.  All the stuff we currently have does, in fact, work.  What I would like to see though, is for us to expand our capabilities by add some existing low tech weapons to our arsenal to give commanders the ability to better tailor their firepower to the mission, rather than just do without until the wonder weapon we’ve always dreamed about comes on line 20 years from now.

Wiggy's Sleeping Bags

Submitted by Eric Daniel

You gotta love the internet.  I can buy guns on-line but I can’t buy a zipper.  I decided to try a full-up system test of my issue MSS sleeping bag and I have come to the conclusion there’s just no way in hell I’m going to fit in the black bag and the gortex bivy.  To say that I wear the bag is an understatement; I am truly mummified in the bag.  Not only does the bag bind significantly at the shoulders (I can’t zip the bag up from the inside - I need to either get someone to zip it up from the outside, or I need to expose an arm and do it myself, and just leave the exposed arm hanging) but it only comes up to about my collarbone.  The only way I could get all the way into the bag was to hop around like a hopping caterpillar until I could get the “hood” portion of the bag over my head, and then lay down.  All in all, just way too much work, and most assuredly something I don’t look forward to doing in the rain.

So, I’m looking on-line for a replacement sleeping bag zipper for my old M1949 mountain bag (the zipper blew out.)  Unfortunately, these seem to be rather rare things.  Moreover, all the local surplus stores seem to have gone out of business, so even finding an old sleeping bag to cannibalize for a replacement zipper has become an issue.

The end result of all of this is that I’m now looking for a mil-spec sleeping bag that I can use in the field to take the place of the waif sized MSS (or at least until I can get my old M1949 back on line.)  Granted, there are any number of civilian bags out there that would fill the role admirably, were it not for the fact that they were of an exotic color and expensive as hell.  Moreover, I like the idea of a modular system, that I can layer for additional insulation in cold, aka Yakima-like, weather.

One of the sleeping bag systems that caught my eye was the Wiggy’s line.  They offer a stand alone “military style” bag with a break away centerline zipper (the zipper runs town the middle of the bag, rather than on the left or right hand seam) that is large enough for you to get in with your clothes on, and easy to get out of in a hurry.  In addition, they’ve got a nested bag system that you can tailor to your temperature requirements.  This system consists of a standard overbag (rated to +35F, the military bag is rated to +25F) and a number of optional insert bags.  The inserts range in ratings from +20F to -40F and when used in conjunction with the overbag, provide an additional 40 degrees of insulation.

Has anyone had any experience with the Wiggy’s bags?

Check out the Wiggy’s sleeping bag line here

QuikClot Combat Gauze

Submitted by Eric Daniel

I just saw that the Army named this product one of the “Top Ten Greatest Inventions of 2008.”Now, I know that there were a number of these rapid clotting products fielded, but I thought most, if not all, of them were recalled because they were a bit exothermic in their operation, or that they caused blood clots to form internally.  Apparently, though, this one is still out there.

Well my question to you all is, have any of you seen this or used it?  As a Guardsman in a non-enhanced readiness unit, I’ll see these things right about the time the regular army transitions to robot warriors, but I’m curious if any of you active duty types have encountered either this (which appears to be a kaolin impregnated gauze bandage) or the other product offered, QuikClot, which appears to be a powder (like the sulfa powder of old) that you apply directly to the wound.

In the blurb I read, the combat gauze is described as being inexpensive and easy to use (civilian prices for this range from $30- $50 so clearly the Army has a somewhat corporate concept of what constitutes “inexpensive”) and I was just curious if anyone had ever actually used it (the SF folks we worked with had something similar I believe, though I don’t think it was QC) and whether it was worth trying to trick my supply SGT into getting some.

In an interesting aside, it seems there’s some discrepancy as to who invented this stuff.  According to the Army, it was invented by  the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, while Z-Medica Corporation insists it invented it.  I wonder if these are two different products with the same name or if they’re debating about what the definition of “invented” is.

Check out QuikClot Combat Gauze here.

Petzl Tactikka XP Adept

Submitted by Leo

I think that for military use the Petzl Tactikka XP Adapt is more useful because you have 4 color-filters/diffusers of witch you can always carry two, one in the light and one in a special holder on the elastic band.  In addition, you can also click it to your molle vest or helmet.  Last but not least you have a boost button to give you instant maximum lighting ideal for looking at something far away.

ED - Leo, I’d considered the Tactikka XP (REI didn’t have the XP Adapt) before selecting the Plus.  While the XP and the Adapt do have some nifty features, I thought both were more light than I was looking for.

For me, what I wanted was some thing small, light, durable, and capable of both red light and white light.  While the XP has a spotlight capability as well as a “maximum output” mode, I’ve already got the spotlight function covered with the GI-issue Surefire Millennium flashlight mounted on my M4.  Moreover, while the 4 color capability of the XP and Adept are nice, but nine times out of ten all I ever use is red light, and if I need to use a different color for something, then I’ll brake out a box of chemlights (not to mention that, while you can change colors on the XP light, there’s no place to store the additional filters, other than in your pocket or someplace similar, which for me, is just more parts to lose in the dark.)

Bottom line, I can’t fault the XP Adept, it is a good light, and like I said, I did consider it, but at the time it was more money than I wanted to spend on more light that I didn’t need.

Check out the Petzl Tactikka XP Adept here.

Lights Out

Submitted by Eric Daniel

Well, I have finally joined the 21st century when it comes to flashlights. Gone are all my bent neck D-cell dinosaur GI issue flashlights, AA-minimag lights, and my 4 cell “gold miner” style USFS headlamp. I have replaced all these lights with a single Petzl Tactikka Plus LED headlamp.

There are a number of things I really like about the T-P; it’s an LED light, so it doesn’t weigh a lot and the lights last forever, as do the batteries (the T-P has 4 LED lights with a battery life (3 x AAA batteries) which will provide power for between 100-150 hours of use, depending on power settings.) Furthermore, light comes with an integrated red/white light filter (in this case the filter is a hinged cover on the front of the light) which enables you to flip it between red and white light on the fly (there is no lens cap to unscrew like there was with the old bent neck flashlights or the minimags, though in the case of the T-P you are limited to just red or white light.) In addition, while the Tactikka-Plus does come with an additional LED light for greater illumination (the T-P has 4 LED lights as opposed to the 3 in the regular Tactikka) what I really liked about the T-P over the regular one was the fact that the mode button (which you use to cycle through the three power settings and the flash mode) is a push button on the top of the light, rather than a sliding switch. This allows for easier one handed operation, and makes it easier to change power settings (you don’t have to fight the slide to find the power setting you want, you just push the button on top.)

As with most headlamps today, the Petzl Tactikka Plus is water resistant, and comes with a black elastic headband (actually, I prefer wearing the light around my neck, rather than on my helmet or PC since I’m less likely to lose it if I’m going through brush. Besides, if I’m moving tactically, I’ll be using NODs most of the time, so the light will just be needed for a quick bit of light.)

One thing to bear in mind with this light, however. Petzl specifically recommends against using lithium based batteries in the headlamp, as the increased power output from the batteries may burn out the LED lights.

Check out the Petzl Tactikka-Plus here.

Up in the Morning, Full Day...

ED - Kayaker had this to say...

Blousing the boots ??? It shows discipline of the soldier and uniformity. Why is it a problem now with this generation of soldiers ?? It was NEVER an issue with those of us who served from the 80's onwards...
If you people are too hot, go back to wearing Jungle Boots then or DRINK MORE WATER and stop whining.

Let the soldier decide if he wants to blouse or not ??? Are you mad !!! You start letting Joe make up his own mind about certain things like this and he won't even get out of the rack in the morning. Get over it ! NCO's lead troops, not some rear echelon pogue or TRADOC weenies who never deploy anywhere.

Kayaker, thank you for articulating my point.  The above photograph is a picture of an Airforce Pararescue Jumper (PJ) serving in a Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) unit in Afghanistan.  By your measure, this individual is the epitome of undisciplined - no gloves, sleeves rolled up, trousers un-bloused, and there he is, discharging his weapon from a moving helicopter (I bet he didn't call range control first...) To think that he went through at least two continuous years of some of the most intensive training the military has to offer, yet he doesn't have the self discipline to dress himself properly in the morning (I bet you he is very good at what he does though.)

The uniform for the USFS wildland firefighter consists of nomex pants, nomex long sleeved shirt, hard hat, leather boots, leather gloves, and a fire shelter.  In addition to that, as a Crew Boss, I required everyone  on my crew to pack a headlamp, spare batteries, an MRE, 1 gallon of water, 4 fusees (road flares), a mill bastard file, a personal first aid kit, a roll of fiber tape, and a change of socks in their line bag.  I didn't expect your pants and shirt to be starched and ironed, or even washed daily; it just had to be serviceable, meaning if you tore it up on the line, you replaced it at the end of shift and reported the following day ready to work.  If you used a fusee, you replaced it.  Your tools were always sharpened before next shift, and the edge was covered with a double strip of fiber tape.  On the line, you had to wear your kit; off the line you can wear what you want.  My measure of discipline was being able to come from the shift briefing, hand out briefing material to the Squad Bosses, hop in the trucks and drive to the line, not how straight the line was that they parked the trucks on the night before, whether or not the hem of a firefighter's trousers rested between the 3rd and 4th eyelettes of their boots, or if their pockets presented a bulged appearance.  It was in getting down to business, day in and day out, and getting the job done.

I think we've lost sight of that and placed form over function.  Again, when it came to wearing body armor in the cantonment area, I was told we wore it in case we got attacked or shelled.  Now that is all good and well, but then why aren't we wearing it when we're running PT?  Of all the various classifications of folk on our FOB (American Contractor, American Soldier, Special Forces, Local National, Iraqi Army, Foreign National, etc...) the only ones who wore armor on the FOB were the regular joes (everyone on the FOB, except for the non-American civilians had it, and were required to wear it if they ever left the wire).  If it's for safety, shouldn't we all wear it?  What sort of immunity do all those other folk have to artillery attacks that I don't have, and why isn't the Army buying me some of that immunity?

Now a days, when I hear leaders talk about discipline, I more often than not insert the word "stupid."  Standing out in the rain getting soaked because one person forgot their gortex isn't disciplined, it's stupid.  Putting on your armor, helmet, and ammunition to walk the 30 feet from your bunk to the porta-john, just so you can take a leak isn't disciplined, it's stupid ( it isn't smart either - just change into PTs next time.)  What we really need to focus on is getting the job done.  Unfortunately, I just see us getting more disciplined...

 

If I Only Had a Brain...

Submitted by Eric Daniel, photo by Michael Yon

News flash folks – The Army has decided to review the suitability and utility of the “new” ACU camouflage pattern for the fighting in Afghanistan (This is old news to the folk in the SF community – They were granted an exemption a year ago to wear the old BDUs in place of the ACU in select theaters) and now they’re going to outfit two battalions with new camouflage uniforms.  But there’s nothing in the report that mentions correcting any of the more egregious faults with the construction of the ACU uniform itself.
 
While I was mulling over this tidbit, I came across an interesting photograph. It was a picture of some British soldiers returning from a patrol in Afghanistan.  What caught my eye was the number of “uniform violations” I saw.  Folks with their sleeves rolled up, some not wearing helmets, some with trousers bloused, some not, and the greatest infraction of them all, mixed uniforms!!  Can you believe it!!  There were soldiers, exposed to public scrutiny and ridicule, appearing in uniform items of different colors!!
 
Wow…. The irony of it all though is, I know there are folk out there saying exactly that, and I think this is where the Army is really going to miss the boat on this whole uniform redesign thing; the issue isn’t so much what color we make the uniform (though that is important), but just what exactly makes a combat uniform in the first place, and exactly how important “uniformity” (i.e. our fixation on wear and appearance) is in combat.
 
Firstly, let me say that I realize and fully endorse the idea that we need uniforms.  Besides helping to tell friend from foe, the Geneva Convention also requires it.  Secondly, I think Rumsfeld was right in that you fight with the army (or in this case the uniform) you have, not the one you want.  Thirdly, with that having been said, I think the Army needs to practice what it preaches regarding unit esprit de corps and readiness – a unit with high esprit de corps, cohesion, and morale will modify and personalize its equipment to meet individual and mission needs, which means taking the uniform you have and making it get the job done.
 
Why did those British soldiers look the way they did?  Because someone in their food chain used their brain and made some tactical decisions regarding “uniformity” and mission accomplishment.  The British don’t have a “one color works nowhere” uniform like we do; they have a green one and a tan one.  The problem is, they don’t operate in an area that’s uniformly green or tan, so in order to bust up their signature they mix the tops and bottoms.  I’m sure the decision to allow that was made at either the company or battalion (i.e. local) level, whereas for us (in the U.S. Army) such decisions are usually reserved for TRADOC. 
 
Why were their trousers unbloused?  Because it’s frikkin hot, that’s why.  I don’t know why the Army blouses its trousers (the story most commonly told is it originated with the paratroopers during WWII, who did it to provide additional storage space for things like socks and medical bandages) but in combat, blousing or not should be at the discretion of the soldier, for thermoregulatory purposes only.  If you’re hot, open em up and let some air in.  If it’s cold and windy, tie them off, but for God’s sake, let the soldier decide; calling back to Regiment to see if the wet bulb temperature warrants a unit-wide modification to the uniform is just silly (and for the record, I know there are some units out there that are actually combat minded and will make these decisions at the local level, I’ve just never served in one.)
 
The same applies to your sleeves.  Will the world come to a screeching halt, or will he become completely combat ineffective if Joe rolls his sleeves up a little to let some air in?  Or maybe he just wants to keep them out of his food, or out of the filth that he’s currently searching.  How many Americans have lost their lives from sleeve placement, and yet it is a “point of emphasis” in Army uniform regulation enforcement.
 
The U.S. Army is all about force protection, and that means you wear as much armor as you possibly can, always.  You never take your armor off (well except when you’re doing PT, because body armor isn’t part of the authorized PT uniform) and you most assuredly never appear in public without it.  When last I was in Iraq we had to go to Kuwait to pick up some equipment.  Division uniform policy at the time required that we would wear full kit when ever we were in theater, so while folk were wandering the PX in shorts, flip flops and Hawaiian shirts, there we were in 50 pounds of body armor looking like a bunch of wallies.  But we were safe!!  Yes, I understand that the warfare there is non-linear, and you can be attacked at any moment (for the record, our camp was rocketed almost daily yet in the year I was there we sustained no casualties) but you need to weigh the risk of hypothetical injury from a hypothetical attack with the real fatigue and discomfort caused by wearing all that crap all the time.  If Joe wants to shed his armor and dome of obedience inside the wire, let him.  Oh, if only the U.S. Army had the same faith in the decision making capabilities of its soldiers that it seems the MoD has in its.
 
Well, as long as we’re on the subject of the Army’s new combat uniform color, while I laude the Army for looking into a more effective camouflage pattern, a new color is only half the problem.  What we need is a uniform that was built with combat in mind, not power point presentations.
 
The velcro has got to go.  I don’t know what idi…individual came up with this idea, but it is the worst of the worst.  Velcro just has no place on a combat uniform.  As I understand it, the rational behind adopting the velcro for pocket closures and patch placement was to eliminate the issue of lost buttons, facilitate securing the sleeve cuffs, and to save soldiers a couple bucks when they PCS.  Well, paying $2/patch every 3 years when you PCS (to sew on a different unit patch) is a small price to pay when compared to buying an entire uniform (remember, you can’t mis-match uniforms of different “ages”, so if you’ve got a faded uniform top with worn velcro, you can’t just buy a new top) just to replace an ACU top that has had the velcro pile “patches” wear out.  Moreover, while I’ve never lost a sew on U.S. ARMY tape low crawling in BDUs I have lost them, as well as that all important full color American flag, crawling around in ACUs.  This becomes a real mission critical issue when uniform conscious leaders identify the discrepancy and render you NMC until you acquire a replacement (naturally, a squared away soldier carries a pack of replacement unit patches, rank, and name tapes for just such an emergency, but the point is, we didn’t used to have to.) 
 
Velcro is also noisy.  Now, I’ve not done any scientific acoustical analysis, nor do I have any data to evaluate how many friendly positions were given away by the noise created by opening a velcro pocket, but coming from a noise and light disciplined oriented organization, I absolutely cringe with terror at the phrase “prepare to copy” because the next thing you hear is a patrol base wide “RIIIIIP” as everyone rips open their pocket to get their notebook out.  The bottom line here is, is the noise created by opening velcro pockets a tactical liability?  I don’t know, but it sure as hell makes a lot more noise than buttons.
 
Speaking of buttons, velcro is a poor substitute for them.  I don’t know about the rest of you, but trying to peel that tiny velcro flap on the ACU chest pockets is a real pain, especially with gloves on.  The same applies to the sleeve pockets as well.  More often than not, if I want to access these pockets I need to use both hands; one to pull open the pocket, and the other to pull back on my uniform to compensate for the friction of the velcro (that is until the velcro wears out or packs with mud, whereupon the pockets won’t close at all.)  Better that we’d retained the buttons (and I would have made them larger, to be easier to manipulate with gloves on.)  Finally, it’s an easy enough thing to replace missing buttons in the field (yes, a squared away Joe carries a sewing kit with him) but it’s flat out imposable to replace worn, torn, or frayed velcro anywhere.
 
It’s a combat uniform, not a prom dress.  How a combat uniform looks is important, I believe, but only from a mission accomplishment perspective, not a social perspective.  Combat uniforms should have pockets, and those pockets should be large and capable of carrying large bulky items, even if they do make you look “poofy.”  The original issue BDUs had large pockets on the blouse and on the trouser thighs, and these pockets were equipped with expandable bellows sides (as well as drain holes) but as time went on, the pockets got smaller and thinner until you got to the point that folk were cutting off the pockets off all together and just sewing pocket faces back on.

When I first got to Iraq in 2004 many of us cut the bottom pockets off our DCU blouses and sewed them on to the bicep.  While this provided us with access to a large pocket that would have otherwise been unavailable (covered by our body armor) as a sharp eyed and uniformity conscious CSM pointed out, that modification was not only not authorized but it didn’t look professional, and looks are everything (go take a look at pictures of all those uniformly dressed paratroopersfrom WWII.  How such an undisciplined and unprofessional appearing fighting force such as this, which would go into combat with unauthorized uniform modifications, ever beat the Nazis is beyond me.)

While the ACU pockets aren’t that bad, they certainly don’t have the same utility as the original BDUs (with the old BDUs you could put a complete MRE in the pocket and close it up, you can’t do that with the ACUs).  For starters, the calf and bicep pockets are simply worthless.  The calf pocket is tiny and down by your boot, which means it’s exposed to possible immersion in water or mud, so whatever you put in there had better be water and shock-proof.  The bicep pocket is small (one of the reasons they made the pockets slanted was to make them easier to get your hand in.  It also helps if you actually make the pocket big enough to get your hand in in the first place.) and with all that velcro on it, it’s a pain in the ass to open.  In order for me to open that pocket I need to grip the cuff of the sleeve with the pocket I want to open, just to create enough resistance to get the pocket to open.) 

Does having large pockets mean you have to walk about 24/7 looking like a corn-fed chipmunk?  Of course not, but it sure as hell would be nice to have the capability if you needed it.  Moreover, I don’t think it would be such a bad idea to re-introduce the large bellows pockets on the bottom portion of the uniform blouse.  Yes, I know, we wear body armor now, so those pockets are covered up, but that armor also covers up the top pockets we retained, and again, I’d rather have them and not use them, than want them and not have them; that or increase the length of the blouse and make it more like a safari jacket, where the bottom pockets are below the body armor.
 
As mentioned previously, buttons are great for closing up pockets, and we should have never gotten rid of them.  In fact, we could probably have made the pocket ones a little larger to make them easier to use with gloves on (I remember seeing old pictures of 1980’s era Canadians.  They had huge single buttons on their pockets, which allowed them to manipulate them with mittens on.)  The same can be said with respect to the zipper they use on the ACU blouse now.  Yes, it makes it easy to get on and off, and this can be a boon to medical personnel trying to get access to a casualty’s wounds, but Joe is just plain screwed if the zipper breaks; he has to replace the entire top rather than sew on a new button.

One item for which I catch a lot of flack, is my belt, or lack thereof.  I don’t wear one.  In its place I wear suspenders, and by suspenders I mean the riveted in, six button type suspenders, not those willie foo foo ones you use with your wet weather pants at the wash rack.  Wearing suspenders is a habit I picked up as a wildland firefighter for the USFS.  Between cutting line, running a chainsaw, or being on a southern California hillside where the temperature of the water in my canteen is 108, I found suspenders to be a significant improvement over a belt.  Not only do they keep your pants up, but they don’t constrict the fabric at your waist, which allows for a good flow of air, and it allows debris which may have fallen down your shirt to fall through your trouser legs, which can prevent chafing or similar friction related injuries.  While I’m not saying that suspender use should be mandatory, it should be a viable option in any combat uniform we select, which means the buttons should be built in.

I am told they made the ACU baggier than the BDUs but I don’t recall ever tearing out the crotch on my BDUs while now I can’t go six months without tearing one out in the ACU.  Combat uniforms should be baggy, everywhere, not just in the legs.  Remember the old issue OD-green field pants with liner and parka?  Well those days are gone, and all you have now is your uniform and your Gortex, so your clothes have to be cut large enough to accommodate the additional layers you’re going to be wearing in the winter to keep warm on patrol.

So, while evaluating a new color for our combat uniform is all good and well, I wish the Army would also take the time to stop and think about functionality of the uniform it was slapping that color on.

The Stick

 
Submitted by Eric Daniel

It really does seem like camouflaging yourself and equipment has gone out of style.  It was one thing to get stared at while wearing my cabbage patch hat (CPH) but I was really shocked when I brought up the concept of personal camouflage at a squad level training session and got nothing but blank stares.

You mean to tell me none of you have ever applied camouflage to your skin?

No Sergeant.

But you guys are all infantrymen, yes?  What did you do in Basic? 

We did a lot of glass house stuff, and convoy operations.

Sigh…

Yes, call me old fashioned, but I still think that camouflaging your person still has a place in the infantryman’s repertoire.  No, you don’t need to cover yourself in shrubs if you’re going to be standing on a street corner or doing a mounted presence patrol on the MSR, but you should know the principles behind camouflage and know how to actually apply it.

That having been said, my personal favorite to this day is still the old issue two tone camo sticks.  Yes they are thick.  Yes they will clog your pores and make you break out.  Yes they are difficult to apply and a royal pain in the ass to get off, but, in terms of battlefield durability and effectiveness (and those are really the only criteria that matter) nothing, in my opinion, beats “The Stick.”

Through trial and error I have found that the easiest way to apply the camouflage is to heat the stick up (use a candle, a Zippo lighter (I carry one for just that reason) or put it in your pocket) and rub a goodly portion into the palm of your hand and then use your fingers to transfer it from your palm to your face (while you can apply it directly from the stick, I’ve found that if you push too much stick out of the tube, it snaps off, and if you don’t push it out far enough, you carve your face up with the metal edge of the tube.)  This method also makes it easy to do your ears, since you can just rub a paint covered palm over the ear to coat it.)  Removing the paint is best accomplished with baby wipes (if you have them) or soap and water over a period of days.

I know there are a lot of more modern products out there, that are significantly easier to apply and remove, but they just don’t have the durability of those old issue sticks.  With the old stuff you could low crawl through dirt, brush and salt water and it wouldn’t rub off, nor would it run with sweat like makeup does - that stuff was on for life.

Check out the GI camo sticks here.

The Cabbage Patch Hat

 

Submitted by Eric Daniel

A while back we were conducting some MOUT training out at the combat village at Camp Pendleton when I had an interesting conversation with an OCS candidate that went something like this...

SGT Daniel, what’s that on your head?

A helmet.

I know that, but what that on the helmet?

It’s a camouflage cover.

It looks like a bunch of old cut up BDUs.

That’s exactly what it is.

What’s it for?

Camouflage.

What do you need camouflage for?

I unno, hide from the enemy?

That doesn’t make sense. The insurgents in the building, so they wouldn’t see you anyway until you went inside, and at that range no amount of camouflage is going to help, so really, it doesn’t accomplish much other than make you stand out and look silly.

True, but what if we were fighting an enemy who wasn’t in a building? What if they were in the forest, or a jungle, or a botanical garden?   What if I were on an OP and I didn’t want the enemy to see me, or what if we were conducting a cross country road march and I wanted to break up my silhouette?

Why would we do that?

I unno, because we’re infantry and that’s what infantry does?

Actually, in the infantry we focus on conducting raids.  When would we ever do that in a forest, where there are no buildings?  All that camouflage stuff is irrelevant.  I mean, if you want to spray paint your M4, that’s cool, but that helmet thing is just stupid.

Okie dokie….

What caused this scholarly discourse on field craft was my modified helmet cover.  Referred to as the “cabbage patch hat” or CPH back in the day, they were the defining symbol of the light infantry.

While I could fault the candidate for his limited grasp of infantry operations, the reality is, for many folk, especially those newly come to military service by way of the National Guard, raids ARE the only thing they've done, and this is what all their training focuses on, to the detriment of all other battle drills and combat skills.  No one thinks about setting up patrol bases, OPs, or conducting legitimate recon missions.  For them, being infantry means getting on a conveyance (be it a chopper, humvee, LMTV, Stryker, Bradley, what have you), driving out to a location, dismounting, and running into a building.  Once the "mission" is over and the house is cleared, they mount up and go "home."

To this end, I have been trying to reintroduce field craft into what we do (by MTOE, my unit is a dismounted recon troop) and that includes camouflaging yourself and equipment.  Since bringing back the CPH, a number of joes have asked me how to make one, so I figured, if they were asking, I might as well throw this out to everyone out there and you fellers can take it or leave it as you will.

Now, before I tell you how I do it, let me preface this by saying I consider this a “cat skinning exercise”; as the saying goes, there are a thousand ways to skin a cat.  Well, this is how I make CPHs.  If you make yours differently, that’s great, I’m not saying mine is better or worse than yours, this is just how I do it.

First, identify the material you’re going to use to make the camouflage strips.  You can use any material that you want and that your chain of command will let you get away with.  Some have used burlap, which can be spray painted repeatedly, which allows you to change up the pattern as terrain requires, but I prefer to use old uniforms (BDU/DCU in this case) as they are more durable (burlap disintegrates easily and looses it’s weave.)

I cut the material into strips about 2” wide (this is not an exact science, just SWAG it) and 6” and 9” long (two different lengths.)  In the 6” strips I put one overhand not in the center of the strip, and in the 9” strips I put two overhand knots (one at the 3” mark, and one at the 6” mark.)  It’s these knots that will give the cover its “poofy” appearance, and prevent it from lying flat when wet.

Put a camouflage cover on your helmet (oh, if you’re going to put rank on, sew it on now because it’ll be a pain to do later.)  Take a black sharpie and draw a series of rings around the helmet, starting about 2” from the bottom edge.  Keep drawing rings, 1.5-2” apart, until you get to the top of the helmet, making sure the lines stay relatively parallel to one another (think of them as lines of latitude.)

Now, take the helmet cover off the helmet and start sewing strips on to the cover, following the sharpie lines as a guide.  Sew the strips on about 2” apart, and make sure you stagger (like bricks in a wall) the rows, so you don’t end up with gaps in the coverage.  My recommendation is you make that first row all 6” strips, and then alternate a six and a nine on all the remaining rows.

When sewing on the strips, I fold over the “top” half inch of material (to give the seam more strength) and sew the strip on upside down (with the strip oriented towards the top of the helmet) and reversed (with the inside portion of the fabric (in this case, the lighter side of the old BDUs) facing out.  By sewing them on like this, the strips have a little “bow” in them at the seam as they fall over, which not only helps break up the outline, but also promotes twisting in the strips.  If you were to just sew the strips on pointed down and with the camouflage pattern facing out, the strips would lay flat like shingles, especially when wet.  Once you get to the top of the helmet, just make a small circle or triangle out of the last ring so that you don’t end up with a “bald spot.”

Once you get all the strips sewn on, put the cover back on the helmet and try the helmet on for size.  My preference is to have the strips come down far enough to just touch my shoulders.  In the front, so that you don’t get mistaken for a fungus covered sheepdog, you can trim back, or cut out completely, strips to improve your visibility (don’t go overboard though; you’d be surprised how well you can see out with the strips hanging down, once you get used to them.)

At this point, you’re pretty much done.  The CPH is good to go, and will only improve with age and use (as the strips fray they will improve in their function.)

Though it’s possible to keep the CPH off and use it only “in case of war” (you can keep a regular helmet cover on for formations, inspections, uniformity if you have to and just slip on the CPH as needed) I like to keep it on all the time because in addition to functioning as battlefield camouflage, it also provides a good deal of shade when you’re out in the sun (your neck and face are completely shaded) and it provides insulation from the sun (if you dunk it in water, it’s downright cool.)