R711 posted:

In regards to attaching the boggan/pulk hauling system to the ruck, it’s a no-go in Canada due to doctrine and in our high arctic we deal with a lot of rivers/ice. Hence we have a separate system to haul and a rather convoluted resupply system.  We view our rucks as a vital survival system and we bring it everywhere with us in the winter. 

The new CTS ruck weighs in at 20lbs empty and the hesitation to stop using our 64 PAT ruck (Jungle Ruck to you Americans, notice the similarities and comparison between jungle/arctic)

For a new ruck look at floating lid, snow collar, compression straps, total volume 100+L. Currently I’m trying to make/convert a Danish PLCE Bergen by adding a floating lid, external carrying strap and maybe some extra MOLLE attachment points

I don't understand your doctrine here.

Don't you have SOP's for crossing ice or blue terrain? If we have to cross a frozen body of water, we have several steps that we are required to take, such as recce of the crossing site, potentially checking ice thickness, adjusting our gear in case we go through and have to ditch in order to recover ourselves.

On the line up, pretty close, but something like this:

New DG1 assault pack, 25-30L; could integrate with larger rucks

New DG? small day pack, 35-40L; could integrate with larger rucks

DG3 medium 55L legit 72 hour pack

DG16 large 85L+ long range pack

Mk7 large 110L+ long-er range pack

Mk7 AW 110L+ Artic Warfare variant

Who adopts it remains to be seen; could end up being UKSF, Swedish SF, Norwegian, Canadian, USSF, USMC, or some other guys; who knows.  

Has there been thought to AW versions of others? I am using the DG3 this weekend, in the 72 hour sense you have above, but if it was any colder, I'd go to the 16 to get the space for extra cold wx gear. 

I won't need 110L for 2-3 days in the cold, but some other cold-resisting features might be useful sometimes on many of the sizes. May be a useful market. 

I am a big fan of external frame for heat/moisture management reasons. It sucks to have a non breathable internal frame pack on, get to your destination then have a big wet spot on your back shaped exactly like your backpack. All your insulation layers are compromised in that wet spot.

Arctic1 when we do SOVOPS we cross large swaths of sea ice as it’s easier to navigate over the ice then land (on one EX we covered over 200km on sea ice before we switched to land). Plus the harness we use for pulls/toboggans is a chest strap with a simple loop over the shoulder. Then throw in the fact that we are a snowshoe vs ski army  

Winter terrain in Canada is very complex and in certain regions the most effective ways to navigate is via rivers. We do recces etc and have an excellent quick release on our rucks. 

Well yeah I think some of the features from an AW ruck will probably filter down to the other rucks.  I like the idea of a storm flap over the zips, with reinforcement in case the zip blows.  A new attachment system we're working on is probably going to work in all sorts of weather.  And detachable top lids across the board.

One take-away I have seen from these threads, is that winter/artic terrain is not just one type fits all; there is enough variation that different units have different SOP's.   Indeed, snowshoes vs skis.  Wet vs dry.  Pulks vs other support.  Warming tents, which I really never appreciated the importance of, vs cold routine.      

Add Reply

Post
Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2020
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×