GPSGuided wrote:I read that soldiers are permitted to shop for their own equipment, as long as it adheres to published spec guidelines. Outdoors equipment manufacturers often have special product lines that suit the colour and needs of the military. My pair of Outdoor Research's Flashpoint tactical gloves in desert colour is an example. It talks about fire/flash resistance and gun handling...
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
With respect to the Australian Army I'd say, 'not quite'. Concerning boots, the Chief of Army has a (short) list of approved 'alternate-to-issue' brand-and-model combinations that officers and soldiers can purchase and then wear
in the field/on operations only. When in barracks the issued 'Redback' rubbish is
supposed to be worn. Similar prescriptions apply to certain aspects of load carrying gear (e.g. only
approved ammunition pouches may be used), protective eyewear, smaller patrol-type packs and similar, even wristwatches. However, Commanding Officers/Officers Commanding usually apply a degree of common-sense; such has certainly been my practice, and that of the majority of my peers.
In the past much/most of the issued equipment was decidely grim at best. Since the establishment of 'Diggerworks' at the DMO a few years back, the general standard of our issued gear has significantly improved, and in many cases is the best available anywhere. The reason for this has been 'real-world' input/testing from officers and soldiers with immediate operational experience.
What I've been waiting 25 years for is a decent sleeping ensemble and decent field boots. Until both are available I, like very many others of my acquaintence, will continue to purchase and employ commercially available alternatives.
Postscript: As for what 'RS' was wearing on the day(s) leading up to his VC-awarded engagement, he chose to wear his 'Brooks' runners for the combination of light weight and stealth they provided. For interests' sake, they were 'written-off' in the process
All the best.