Disclaimer:  Airsofter, not professional user.

A decade of fighting overseas revolutionized the armor carrier market, bringing us from SPEAR vests and OTVs to 6094s and JPCs.  Following the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, we've seen a dramatic reduction in the size of the tactical gear market, as well as the number of new and innovative designs being brought to market.  The products that have been recently introduced seem to be focused on different markets--specifically low-vis, minimalistic equipment for police officers and range shooters.  Others have introduced radical changes while exploring new ideas, such as the AVS, Strandhogg, and now Airlite SPC.  Inevitably, some of the features of these new designs will become industry standards, while others will fade into obscurity.  But what about the things that we already know work?

It seems to me that there are certain improvements that could be immediately made to the plate carrier as it currently stands, improvements already proven in other designs.  The bulk of the designs on the market are approaching a decade in age now--the 6094 and its many derivatives date back to 2009, the JPC to 2011.  Even the 2.0, one of the most modern carriers on the market, just takes a 2011 carrier and adds AVS features.  I understand that the demand is not as high as it once was, but that isn't an excuse for the industry to rest on its laurels and ignore the lessons of yesteryear until another conflict pops up.  The experimentation with new ideas is great and will doubtless lead to new breakthroughs, but there are things we can change right now to make the run-of-the-mill plate carrier better than it is today.

Here are a few things I'd like to see become standard:
-Intelligent use of materials.  There's no reason for the back of a plate bag to be 500d cordura, for example, as it won't receive much wear.  The use of high-strength laminates in applications where their strength is unneeded is another example.  Anywhere that doesn't experience a bunch of wear should be experimenting with stuff like 330d, pack cloth, stretch, and mesh.
-Fewer layers.  It isn't just plates that make things thick.  Without proper care, you can end up with an 8-layer sandwich of velcro and cordura between you and the ground.  Reduce layers of fabric whenever possible.
-Unobstructed shoulder pockets.  15 years of guys bitching about buckles and fabric in their shoulders and this is still a thing?  Do it like the JPC, with super-thin straps, or like the 6094, where the angle is such that the stock only sits on your shoulder, and not on the vest.
-Dedicated sizes.  If we're trying to reduce bulk, there's no reason to have a small plate floating around in a medium carrier, or a medium SAPI in a "10x12 shooter cut" plate bag.  S/M/L SAPI cut with room for plates of varying thicknesses.
-Integrated admin pouches.  They make life so much easier and prevent your mags from getting obstructed by the outward bulge of an pals-mounted admin.
-Integrated capabilities for cable management.  Personally, I like the velcro loops and slanted webbing loops of the 6094.  They make managing hydro and comms a breeze.  Some of the newer carriers forgo them to save on bulk, which is cool, but when you need that extra shit it's nice to be able to have it organized and out of the way.
-No kangaroo pockets.  If you don't end up using them they just add more bulk.  I like the way the AVS and 2.0 handle this problem.
-No metal.  There's little reason to still be using metal tri-glides, button snaps, and metal grommets when there are better alternatives and they add no value, only additional weight and points of failure.  A slight aside, but no reason for pouches with natick straps or malice clips now, either.
-Ventilation.  This is a big one.  I'd like to see plate carriers come with 3d spacer mesh on the inside of the plate bags, with channels to aid in airflow--think like the back of a backpack.  The way the Russians have been dealing with some of the problems with these is by making them removable, allowing for panels of varying thicknesses, as well as washing or replacement.  Ventilation panels reduce body heat and sweating (and thereby water intake), aid in comfort, and protect from back face deformation.
-Standard cummerbund pass-through.  The Crye system is a pain in the ass, doesn't save bulk where it matters, makes adding pouches on the back needlessly difficult, and is slow to change out.  Having a standard pass-through would have prevented the creation of an entire genre of products designed to offer alternatives to the three-band, as existing solutions could have been dropped in with ease.  Also makes modifying the load easier (adding support for side armor and grenades, or slimming down to an elastic).

I think a modified JPC 2.0 (qore icevents, m4 triple front flap, kydex insert, different cbund if you want) gets us as close to an ideal setup as is currently possible, but it's a costly and labor-intensive approach.  Mayflower could release a newgen APC with all of these features tomorrow and it would completely change the game.  I get that the targeted user base is different than it was five or ten years ago, but it's still troubling to see rigs being peddled that don't even have webbing for a hydro bladder on the back, or encourage users to put admin stuff and pistol mags between themselves and the ground.  There's still room for improvement in the realm of the military plate carrier.

In what areas do you think current plate carriers are lacking?  If some company was to announce a new plate carrier tomorrow, what would it have to do differently to incentivize you to switch?  Lightfighter is a gold mine of experience--I'd like to hear your thoughts.

dumbass airsofter

Original Post

For what I do, dismounted infantry stuff, my goal is lighter and slicker. I want a new carrier that is unobtrusive, fits with the ruck, carries the new issue USMC lightweight plates. It needs to have no bulk in the shoulder region and there should be a few fittings on it to allow for the attachment of swift-clip placards and chest rigs for limited mounted use/ urban combat. it should have the ability to be used with a simple elastic cummerbund strap system or a full cummerbund system that supports side SAPI inserts (hopefully they never make us wear those things again). Primary load carriage should be by belt kit and this should be able to layer easily over the armor carrier. If it happened to be easily pack able that would be awesome as well, then perhaps in some environments the default solution would not be to wear it at all times simply due to space and load considerations.  I think a Crye JPC is pretty close, and perhaps the Crye Airlite gets as close as possible on the market right now.

Other than my USMC issue plate carrier, I have a JPC 1.0 and a Velocity systems Scarab, both work well for the stuff I do on the civilian side, both obviously are more than capable of being pressed into the dismounted infantry role, but the way they are designed and I have them set up is more for a Assaulter/ Entry role and not for a sustained Infantry fight. After experimenting with a lot of gear out there I have concluded that for what I do the separate belt kit is the way to go for 90 percent of the stuff I'm tasked with in most of the environments we go to (all of them anymore) .  A clip in chest rig from Velocity Systems covers the mounted/ urban scenarios (even though I can make the belt kit work in vics and buildings)  and takes up zero room in the main pack when emptied out and rolled up. 

 

"If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism."         - Thomas Sowell

"A Republic, if you can keep it" - Ben Franklin

 

LOCATION: ....

JOINED:  Feb 2012

     

Yeah been thinking about this myself.  I am also of the opinion of having a slick PC, that is scalable to a certain extent, but agree that the belt line is where I want the majority of my kit.   A micro chest rig for use in conjunction with, and maybe a small back bag.  

Need more info on size/shape of new USMC plates.   

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine where a person claims all the benefits of the body politic, without any of the responsibilities, and then claims a halo for their dishonesty." Heinlein

I think if someone were to take a step back and build a carrier that is goal orientated and not feature orientated then you would see a superior product. I feel that too many companies throw a bunch of features on gear (packs, carriers, belts, etc) with out focusing on what the carrier should accomplish and then allowing the features to follow.It really seems that companies will see a competitors product, copy it, then throw on a feature or enhancement and call it good. What really needs to happen is a complete reboot of carrier design incorporating current materials and the vast experience gained over the last decade. 

If I were to acquire a company and be able to build a product it would be built around the following design concepts:

1. Comfort - This includes materials, fit, and venting for all the reasons stated above and more importantly the individuals comfort. It doesn't take very long wearing ill fitting/uncomfortable equipment to realize it can significantly distract you from your mission. Obviously wearing armor is inherently uncomfortable but if you add to that discomfort through design then you are working backwards. Don't look at comfort as a crutch, rather view it as an enhancement. Bottom line if its not comfortable guys are not going to to wear it and if they do wear it to what level is it going to impact their mission performance?

2. Simplistic Design - The product should be simple and not just because LEOs and Soldiers are dumb. Jesus, I cant tell you how many times I've had to show guys how to run MOLLE or how to adjust their armor.  Things that are obvious to us are less than so to most others. The more "features" something has, the more guys screw it up.  Anyway, The actual reason simplistic design should be a cornerstone  is that it inherently leads to a streamlined product which reduces material and weight, thus increasing comfort.

3. Scalability - I cant speak for the military side of the house, but for law enforcement the ability to scale up and down as needed is important. I want to be able to go from soft armor to plates with minimal effort, but I also want the option of running plates in a stand alone capacity. The best option is wearing a combination of soft and hard armor but I do not feel that is very practical. Having the ability to scale up and down with minimum effort is essential. 

4. Modularity - Different than scalability but very much similar in concept. Instead of allowing the selection of the level/type of protection this centers around the placement of mission essential equipment. While it could be argued that this is a feature, I would contest that it is a design concept. If you build the carrier with modularity as a design concept then that is integral and not an after thought. Again, mission/task at hand should drive equipment selection and I think that companies like Spiritus are on the right track.  

5. User Serviceability - I feel that this is super underrated. I should be able to replace every single component of my gear if something is broken or worn. Very similar to modularity but more focused on the components of the carrier its self instead of the things you attach to the carrier. It does cross over into modularity for example Cummerbunds were mentioned in the OP (and I agree that this is one area that the industry needs to standardize). Just like with placards I like to run different cummerbunds depending on mission and that includes different styles on my strong side vs my support side. The difference between placards and cummerbunds being one is part of the carrier and one is an addition.

6. Accessibility - This concept should be considered primarily for the back  plate bag. At this point plate carriers should all have some way to attach a hydration bladder or small assault pack. The two big things here though are that the pack needs to be easily accessible  by the individual (not everyone is on a team) and it needs to able to quickly be attached and detached (getting in and out of vehicles/aircraft quickly accessing the pack for equipment recovery or stowage ). There have been several attempts but no one has really nailed it. I like the zip ons but good luck getting to it yourself with out taking your entire carrier off. Arbor Arms has their Tradesman Pack and the concept is similar to an idea I had played with around 2011/2012. Its definitely a step in the right direction

There are lots of good products out there but it just sucks that no one has taken the good from each one and built a solid carrier. If there were a way to take the design ideas from Crye, VS, Perroz, Spiritus, Ferro, First Spear and Tyr  (plus a few that I'm forgetting) put them into a blender I think you'd have the perfect plate carrier. 

Its kind of like the handgun market, I've never understood why Glock doesnt look at what the popular mods are and then build a production model based off those "enhancements". (I know Zev did something similar but even though thats the same its different). Back to carriers, If companies took a look at what the gear hackers and companies like Axl  are doing to enhance their products then applied it to production I think you would see some serious innovation. 

 

 

 

 

So plate carrier designs haven’t went stagnant, there is near continual development, most of it being very specialized, with a heavy focus on SOF and LE. This is because with the war winding down the most of the fighting is being done by SOF. You also has GP forces going back into a Garrison mindset and upper leadership forgetting the lessons of the past almost 2 decades and putting out memos that soldiers will only wear the issued armor set up exactly the same. PEO Soldier has no interest in procuring good efficient equipment but rather “developing” equipment themselves to gain promotion points, it’s a giant circle jerk with no institutional history. Dudes that aren’t gear guys get stuck there and after a two year stint leave, and a new crew that aren’t gear guys get there and have to “develop” something new so they can have cool NCOER bullets. This creates a revolving door of stupid.  Then you have the occasional time that PEO will ask for soldiers to test stuff and provide feedback and units will send there idiots out and they will just say cool because they got to play with something they have never seen before rather then judging the product on its merits. My unit just got this opportunity with the new LPVOs that are replacing the ACOG. Army asked for two soldiers E5 or lower to test out the new optics that are competing, I was in the office when they called up two of our dudes, one can’t make a coherent sentence the other can’t hit the broad side of a barn at 50m with a 240. Yea

These issues has led the industry to basically say, there’s no value in developing equipment for Joe Infantry, he’s not gonna be allowed to use it and PEO doesn’t care about making improvements, every time they call us in for advice they kick us to the curb and say they can do it better. Meanwhile SOF is asking for advancements, has money, and treats there guys like adults.

You can’t blame a company for going where the money is, they aren’t gonna exist if they can’t bring in income.

Your question shouldn't be addressed solely in the framework of a plate carrier, it really is a much broader topic than that. 

" Following the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, we've seen a dramatic reduction in the size of the tactical gear market, as well as the number of new and innovative designs being brought to market."

There isn't necessarily a correlation here; at face value "drawdown" does seem to be a convenient explanation for why innovation seems to have slowed, but i'm not convinced that is accurate.
Despite the peak OIF/OEF deployment levels having long faded, plenty of folks at the pointy end of the spear are still deploying at a relentless pace. What we're seeing in the industry is incremental changes, probably because SOF mission sets are only incrementally evolving. 

Mission drives innovation: substantial changes in mission sets bring about capability gaps. I suspect what we're seeing is that since mission sets haven't evolved considerably in the last decade, industry has refined existing models rather than entirely reinvent the wheel.

SOF DA-centric operations (which is what much of modern gear is based around) still continue forward in similar fashion. Low-vis/signature reduction kit has always been around, and I think manufacturers were slower to market this to meet civilian and LE customers than much of the warfighter derived kit.

A major shift to snow weather or jungle settings might trigger some remarkable innovation; I'd wager that conflict on the Korean Peninsula would prompt some of this but I'd rather not find out. We have seen some innovation with jungle specific stuff, but since there isn't a large force requirement that tends to stay in the niche realm (or a manufacturer's proof of concept widget gets shelved).

There is one other thing that drives innovation: doctrine. Major change in the employment or sustainment of a force should also prompt a review of the kit. When is the last time we saw a service member's basic load of 7 magazines change? 

----------------------------
"Human endeavour is only to be judged by the spirit in which it is attempted." Eric Shipton - 1938

I'd also like to offer that most of the things you've suggested as 'next generation' really aren't. Its still the same widget, you're just refining it more. Integrated admin pockets, kangaroo pockets, fewer layers etc are still incremental changes in existing products. Those are also mostly based around convenience, not because of necessity. I look at 'generations' as the shifts from PASGT vest, to Interceptor Body Armor.. or where we've come with helmets: PASGT to MICH to OPS Core. 

----------------------------
"Human endeavour is only to be judged by the spirit in which it is attempted." Eric Shipton - 1938

Right now there's a bunch of testing for a new armour or plate carriage system going in the Canadian Forces to replace the current frag vest; it's also tied into to tests looking at how we're going to approach load carriage systems. Currently we do an independent armour and load carriage system which is uh, well... very dated and not well received by anyone that has to use it (if they even have the complete system due to shortages in the supply). Unfortunately, projected delivery period is quite far from now and there are some concerns already that we may yet again get something way off from what end-users really need / want like what occurred with the current tac-vest and frag-vest. 

So I would say that it is equally problematic that the market is also driven by how risk adverse we are  in the employment of general purpose forces, as how much the market is driven by the needs of special forces and specialist end users. We would debate this for quite some time in our mess, over the kind of kit we have compared to what we've seen with our American, British, French, or Australian (who have had the most gucci kit I've ever seen) peers.

Another point on why you aren’t seeing amazing brand new revolutionary plate carriers come out but instead incremental changes and updates to existing designs, it’s as simple as “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. 

let’s take the JPC for instance. Crye literally hit a design gold mine when they came out with this. It does exactly what guys are needing out of a plate carrier and does it well, minimal weight, minimal bulk, super low profile shoulder straps, as good of ventilation as you can ask for in a plate carrier and able to scale up and down fairly well. This platform just works so why am I going to try and be revolutionary and create something new when I can update the base design of a amazing and proven platform with features that are needed/ wanted by end users? Crye took that train of thought and thus you got the JPC 2.0, a further requirement for weight savings and amphibious use as well as taking some well received features from another successful carrier and Crye came out with the SPC. They found a solid design that works and have steadily pushed it to its limits thus ending up with a super solid plate carrier rather then taking a gamble and producing something new for the sake of being “revolutionary”. There’s not much more I can ask of a SPC or JPC 2.0 out of the box than  what Crye is offering except maybe FS tubes from the factory.

Believe me if I ever get Caleb Crye and the head dude at FS in the same room with a couple chairs, zip ties, a car battery and some jumper cables it will happen whether they want it to or not.

runningwolf posted:

Another point on why you aren’t seeing amazing brand new revolutionary plate carriers come out but instead incremental changes and updates to existing designs, it’s as simple as “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. 

let’s take the JPC for instance. Crye literally hit a design gold mine when they came out with this. It does exactly what guys are needing out of a plate carrier and does it well, minimal weight, minimal bulk, super low profile shoulder straps, as good of ventilation as you can ask for in a plate carrier and able to scale up and down fairly well. This platform just works so why am I going to try and be revolutionary and create something new when I can update the base design of a amazing and proven platform with features that are needed/ wanted by end users? Crye took that train of thought and thus you got the JPC 2.0, a further requirement for weight savings and amphibious use as well as taking some well received features from another successful carrier and Crye came out with the SPC. They found a solid design that works and have steadily pushed it to its limits thus ending up with a super solid plate carrier rather then taking a gamble and producing something new for the sake of being “revolutionary”. There’s not much more I can ask of a SPC or JPC 2.0 out of the box than  what Crye is offering except maybe FS tubes from the factory.

Believe me if I ever get Caleb Crye and the head dude at FS in the same room with a couple chairs, zip ties, a car battery and some jumper cables it will happen whether they want it to or not.

AXL Advanced has been doing some awesome modifications to CRYE carriers.

I think a love child between Crye, FirstSpear and Spiritus Systems would be amazing. 

From purely a CONUS/homeowner's persepctive where rifles and HANDGUNS are a real threat, I'd like to see a scalable plate carrier that integrates with IIIA armor while reducing bulk.  Just wearing a plate carrier may be necessary for climbing 10,000+ mountains in Afghanistan, but if the next war is another urban endeavor, I'd like to see more coverage. Nothing worse then having a sexy Crye plate carrier with 2K worth of plates, and end up having a 13 year old with a "Friday night special" shoot you through the side.

If manufacturers could lower the "tutrtle" look, and still provide equal coverage....that would be the next step in material and design IMHO.

 

Running a concealed IIIA vest with III+ ICW plates for LE, I agree.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So low speed, i'm in Park.

"I could stand to hear a little more.." Jayne

Training is brief. Death is forever. PAY ATTENTION.

Joined: 6/14/03 1:02 PM

domestique posted:
runningwolf posted:

Another point on why you aren’t seeing amazing brand new revolutionary plate carriers come out but instead incremental changes and updates to existing designs, it’s as simple as “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. 

let’s take the JPC for instance. Crye literally hit a design gold mine when they came out with this. It does exactly what guys are needing out of a plate carrier and does it well, minimal weight, minimal bulk, super low profile shoulder straps, as good of ventilation as you can ask for in a plate carrier and able to scale up and down fairly well. This platform just works so why am I going to try and be revolutionary and create something new when I can update the base design of a amazing and proven platform with features that are needed/ wanted by end users? Crye took that train of thought and thus you got the JPC 2.0, a further requirement for weight savings and amphibious use as well as taking some well received features from another successful carrier and Crye came out with the SPC. They found a solid design that works and have steadily pushed it to its limits thus ending up with a super solid plate carrier rather then taking a gamble and producing something new for the sake of being “revolutionary”. There’s not much more I can ask of a SPC or JPC 2.0 out of the box than  what Crye is offering except maybe FS tubes from the factory.

Believe me if I ever get Caleb Crye and the head dude at FS in the same room with a couple chairs, zip ties, a car battery and some jumper cables it will happen whether they want it to or not.

AXL Advanced has been doing some awesome modifications to CRYE carriers.

I think a love child between Crye, FirstSpear and Spiritus Systems would be amazing. 

From purely a CONUS/homeowner's persepctive where rifles and HANDGUNS are a real threat, I'd like to see a scalable plate carrier that integrates with IIIA armor while reducing bulk.  Just wearing a plate carrier may be necessary for climbing 10,000+ mountains in Afghanistan, but if the next war is another urban endeavor, I'd like to see more coverage. Nothing worse then having a sexy Crye plate carrier with 2K worth of plates, and end up having a 13 year old with a "Friday night special" shoot you through the side.

If manufacturers could lower the "tutrtle" look, and still provide equal coverage....that would be the next step in material and design IMHO.

 

This is the boat I'm in.  I have pretty much free reign in what vest I wear.  I started with a Bothell soft armor carrier but it is just too big and bulky.  I currently run a First Spear Strandhogg but I think I could use a little more coverage of soft armor for CONUS LEO.  I'd like to see a cut of armor somewhere between concealable and external BALCS style that is not restrictive or too bulky and I can run a 10x12 low profile plate front or front and back.  

To be honest, my back is getting tired of the rear plate sitting in a car for hours a day.

I spent most of my time wearing armor while in the Army, sitting in a HMMWV with a hand mike pressed to my ear.

From my perspective weight matter, but width matters more.

If you could go back in time and give me a plate carrier with no MOLLE and a thin metal plate it would have saved me a small fortune in chiropractic appointments.

Post Car, do you have soft armor in your cummerbund? I do, and in my current Strandhogg with the overlap CB it gives me damn near the same coverage as my issued soft armor. And yea, long days sitting in a Suburban on the rear plate can get extremely uncomfortable. 

Joined: 13AUG2010        

Location: Southern Arizona 

XTCBX posted:

Post Car, do you have soft armor in your cummerbund? I do, and in my current Strandhogg with the overlap CB it gives me damn near the same coverage as my issued soft armor. And yea, long days sitting in a Suburban on the rear plate can get extremely uncomfortable. 

I sure do.  The side protection is close to my issued concealable armor.  I'm a weird in between size.  Large SAPIs are too tall and I personally thing 10x12's are too short.  I wouldn't min soft armor from just above my navel to just below my sternal notch and the hard armor covering the critical areas.  I may play around with my plates over my concealable vest next day I'm off.  The newer Bothell carriers seem a little slimmer.

Good thoughts all, thanks for your contributions.

Funny that you mention the scalable plate carrier with soft armor filling the gaps--the Russians have been experimenting with a similar system.  It looks like a good compromise with decent frag protection while avoiding the "turtle suit" effect.  Think a yoke and collar, groin flap, and side armor that can be retrofitted to existing carriers, such that you can scale from a slick PC with front and back plates to nearly a full-featured armor carrier.  Only problem I see is that it violates the simplicity principle, a lot more of a pain in the ass than just putting a plate carrier with ICW plates on top of a soft vest.  But now we have thickness again.

Anyway, you can see this idea in execution here.  Turn on auto-translated captions.  Seems like it'd be a better approach to the "Modular Scalable Vest" concept the Army is trying to implement.

Full combat load on a plate carrier is pretty doable these days imo.  With the new thin III+ plates like the Tencate 2000s, 6 mags front (or 3 with the rest elsewhere)+2l back isn't that bulky or heavy.  Since armor isn't going away any time soon, especially in US forces, I still think that the medium/fighting load plate carrier has merit.  Long-term I like the idea of a a belt-based system where a load-bearing belt takes the load of the ruck and armor via a spine (like Virtus or even MOLLE 1) but it still has a ways to go.  I'm so used to the speed and tightness of a carrier-centric fighting load with a super light beltline that a switch to a Brit-style belt kit is hard to imagine.  Maybe if implemented while still retaining some of the more modern developments of the past few decades you could get the best of both worlds, idk.  As it stands that's a much better solution in the load-bearing belt department than the spine stuff.

I've also noted that the northern forces of the world all pay a great deal more attention to airflow in the design of their body armor than do Americans.  For example, all of the Russian armor carriers dating back to even the 6b3 have inner pads for airflow.  You can see a more modern implementation of these "climatic amortization pads" or KAPs, in the video linked above.  Even their most modern helmets, like the 6b47, have suspension liners, rather than pads.  The Norwegians are similar--the new NFM helmet has a suspension liner, their current Revision one has a kinda wonky one too, and their BEAR vest has spacer mesh on the inside.  Makes me wonder if they know something that we don't...

dumbass airsofter

That you don't want to sweat when it's sub-zero temperatures if you can help it?  Running and gunning, you're going to sweat, especially when wearing a bunch of heavy shit.  But, eventually you have to stop moving and that's when you get in trouble.  Having airflow will help mitigate SOME of that, good hyenine does the rest (removing the wet stuff and putting on dry stuff).  

I also know that pads, in COLD climates, tend to freeze and get hard (in my experience, a LONG time ago).  Pads are awesome, until you go to put your k-pot on, at 0300 in the morning, for a jump; and the pads are frozen and you can't even get the damn thing to fit correctly until you get them thawed out.  

Very few units in the Army take cold weather operations very seriously....Alaska, Drum and 10th SFG (A).  It's one thing to be uncomfortable riding in the back of a LMTV at 0'dark 30, it's another thing to live and do operations, out in feet of snow for over a week, during Winter Environmental Traing (WET).   


If it's a Pain in the Ass....you're doing it WRONG

I don't make policy, only suggestions, take them as such.

 

Joined: 8/5/05    Location: 20 miles west of Gettysburg, PA

 

 

Add Reply

Post
Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2019
×
×
×
×
×