Bushwalk Australia

interesting
someones done a photo inventory of what various soldiers around teh world wear... lots of readily available recogniseable brands and models there

http://tatarmy.wordpress.com/

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...

really smart move given how unique feet are and how different brands can suit some feet shapes more than others...
must be the pits trying to shoehorn into generic boots... i remember getting those in cadets and all the blisters they caused people

Some good stuff in OR's military line.
http://military.outdoorresearch.com

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... 2wyfl.html

Apparently He was wearing everyday brooks runners.

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...

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.

that might explain why despite the wide array of footwear there werent any vibram five fingers in the lineup....

wayno wrote:that might explain why despite the wide array of footwear there werent any vibram five fingers in the lineup....

Wayno,

Ha, ha. I have a couple of friends who are 'water operators', and they occasionally do wear 'five-fingers', just not for very long

All the best.

Spartan wrote:...they were 'written-off' in the process

Interesting perspective Spartan! Glad to hear that the quality and utility of gears have improved dramatically.

Now, what did you mean by 'written-off' there? Disintegrated during the engagement or what?

forgie wrote:http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/supersized-mannequin-required-for-victoria-cross-recipient-ben-robertssmiths-uniform-20131105-2wyfl.html

Apparently He was wearing everyday brooks runners.

I believe the SAS are given much more freedom of scope with what they use - they could probably go bare foot if they figured that was best for them!

nq111 wrote:

forgie wrote:http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/supersized-mannequin-required-for-victoria-cross-recipient-ben-robertssmiths-uniform-20131105-2wyfl.html

Apparently He was wearing everyday brooks runners.

I believe the SAS are given much more freedom of scope with what they use - they could probably go bare foot if they figured that was best for them!

Correct. There are no restrictions on footwear or pretty much any other form of equipment in the Aus SAS.

GPSGuided wrote:

Spartan wrote:...they were 'written-off' in the process

Interesting perspective Spartan! Glad to hear that the quality and utility of gears have improved dramatically.

Now, what did you mean by 'written-off' there? Disintegrated during the engagement or what?

Hmmm. Not so much a case of them disintegrating as being unable to adequately scrub them clean. If you get my meaning.

All the best.

Got it. Didn't think in that direction.

Anoola wrote:

nq111 wrote:

forgie wrote:http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/supersized-mannequin-required-for-victoria-cross-recipient-ben-robertssmiths-uniform-20131105-2wyfl.html

Apparently He was wearing everyday brooks runners.

I believe the SAS are given much more freedom of scope with what they use - they could probably go bare foot if they figured that was best for them!

Correct. There are no restrictions on footwear or pretty much any other form of equipment in the Aus SAS.

Nope. Whilst there is a fair degree of lattitude allowed to operators from both SASR and 2 CDO REGT on much of their personal gear (most notably their footwear), it's by no means an open 'free-for-all'. The uniforms, weapons systems, navigation aids, eyewear, ballistic protection and load carrying equipment are drawn from a pre-selected group of preferred manufacturers. And when it comes to those items where personal preference really does rule the day, most tend to gravitate towards the same brands and models anyway.

I'll put it this way: if you were to see a photograph of an 'average' conventional Infantryman in Afghanistan and a photograph of an 'average' SOTG Operator in Afghanistan, the most noticeable difference would be the rifle (the former would be carrying an F88, and the latter a M4).

All the best.

Wrong. It is a 'free for all' as you put it on most personal gear. The main exception being weapons. Most do tend to wear similar brands and models as you said. The reason being that whatever it is, is a quality item. Not because that's what they were told to wear.
Anyway...

Anoola wrote:Correct. There are no restrictions on footwear or pretty much any other form of equipment in the Aus SAS.

Nope. Whilst there is a fair degree of lattitude allowed to operators from both SASR and 2 CDO REGT on much of their personal gear (most notably their footwear), it's by no means an open 'free-for-all'. The uniforms, weapons systems, navigation aids, eyewear, and load carrying equipment are drawn from a pre-selected group of preferred manufacturers. And when it comes to those items where personal preference really does rule the day, most tend to gravitate towards the same brands and models anyway.

All the best.

Wrong. It is a 'free for all' as you put it on most personal gear. The main exception being weapons. Most do tend to wear similar brands and models as you said. The reason being that whatever it is, is a quality item. Not because that's what they were told to wear.
Anyway...

Anoola, I really don't want to argue the toss with you on this but I believe you're mistaken. By the way, who made the claim, "... because that's what they were told to wear"?

All the best.

I guess we don't have an SAS member on this forum to arbitrate.

GPSGuided wrote:I guess we don't have an SAS member on this forum to arbitrate.

Perhaps ...

I'm not trying to start an argument either. Just politely letting you know that you're wrong.

Anoola wrote:I'm not trying to start an argument either. Just politely letting you know that you're wrong.

That's fine. On what basis did you make your assessment? First-hand experience or second-hand?

All the best.

First hand mate, and you?

Anoola wrote:First hand mate, and you?

The same. Third herd. You?

Spartan wrote:Perhaps ...

I thought SAS members have to maintain their secrecy, so as such will not reveal their position publicly. It's alright. It's not an important enough issue to argue over.

The other thing I was curious from the report on Canberra's War Memorial's exhibition of VC recipients was the GPS. The made a point of mentioning the GPS carried by the SAS VC recipient. Don't soldiers also use mass market handheld GPS units? I recall some US soldiers talking about using eTrex units in Iraq. Is it the same here? Or are there military grade handheld GPS units issued?

GPSGuided wrote:

Spartan wrote:Perhaps ...

I thought SAS members have to maintain their secrecy, so as such will not reveal their position publicly. It's alright. It's not an important enough issue to argue over.

Well, nobody has really claimed anything. Besides, what could be more 'anonymous' than using forum nom-de-plumes?

Post script. Regarding GPS, the Garmin Foretrex 401 is fairly popular.

All the best.

Interesting banter....

So, which of you has served in SAS? ......

One of my best friends was a member for many years.

A

andrewa wrote:Interesting banter....

So, which of you has served in SAS? ......

One of my best friends was a member for many years.

A

Hi, Andrew.

There are degrees of 'service' in SASR. Not every soldier posted to the unit is a qualified ECN 353 Operator; many others serve in support roles. However, there is one 'truism' that serves as a general rule of thumb: those in the know generally don't feel the need to say so. To be honest, the only people you can expect to beat their chests and boast of their 'SAS glories' are those who have vivid imaginations and low self-esteem (see http://www.anzmi.net/)

"Yawn"

slparker wrote:"Yawn"

I take it you didn't get the humor intended by my response? We're all having a little fun to while away the hours, so you probably shouldn't take things so seriously.

All the best.

slparker wrote:"Yawn"

+1

Anoola wrote:

slparker wrote:"Yawn"

+1

Clearly it's time to return to the purpose of the thread.

Anoola, can I ask: where did your preference in military boots turn?

All the best.