What’s your position on issue versus personally procured equipment?

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:42:16 -0500

Upon assuming my new role I find that I am the keeper of standards and uniformity. But the truth of the matter is that in the field, I’m not so rigid about uniformity especially when it comes to equipment. As long as a Soldier can accomplish the mission and their gear isn’t purple, I do not care if it is issue, or something they bought. What are your thought, comments and insights?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2018 9:09 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 21:09:17 -0500

I believe that uniformity is important as well. I do think that a soldier should have the issued equipment but it should be up to the soldier on how to put together there kit. I have been in units that tried to have everyone the same and it does not work well. I also don't see a problem with having personal gear that works better.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Feb 25 at 2018 10:32 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:32:50 -0500

CSM Private RallyPoint Member - 1SG, it's been my experience no combat ready unit ever passed an inspection. Like you, I didn't really care what gear my troops used as long as the basics were adhered to (ie: black, subdued, and/or military appearance, etc). The reality is there are products commercially available more effective than what Uncle Sam issues. I'd say this falls into a "pick your battles" category. Maybe the right thing is to conveniently overlook certain anomalies.

Ensuring service members have the appropriate issued gear is appropriate for accountability. Allowing the flexibility of building their kits for personal convenience (within reason) is sometimes necessary to maximize effectiveness.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2018 10:48 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:48:29 -0500

We would buy optional boots IE Matterhorn's or Graf Boots for the cold weather, when the Gortex jacket first appeared it was also a non issue in the field item, and other things like a Graf Jacket that was ok to were in Germany but not stateside. and so on.... But we did have to have our issued items with us. If something will keep you warmer, or add comfort in the field so be it (shorts and t shirts excluded) so be it . You can try and toe the line in the field but soldiers will find a way IE had a battery Commander that insisted we were Issue boots only in the field, so we started wearing out green rubber boots in the field on those cold and wet days. we wore our sneakers in the boots, from outside appearances we were following orders. I think id rather know what my soldiers are wearing or doing, so if they do something that may not be smart you can correct for their health and welfare. you cant correct what you don't know.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Feb 26 at 2018 11:29 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:29:03 -0500

Ditto- we all most always modified our gear for the field- Metal snaps replaced by 550 cord,pistol belts closed with same to get lower to the ground.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2018 7:09 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:09:19 -0500

I think it depends on the reasons and the mission. I know that when downrange, with a small-ish group of mostly NCOs, SNCOs and officers, all of us had "personal" equipment. Some guys were coming from units and rates where they had their own issue...and others adapted their IBAs, IFAKs, LBE, etc. based on personal preference as time went on. We were in DCUs, so nothing "matched" the ACU bits anyway...so that wasn't much of a concern for us. The "Geard-do" thing was the butt of many jokes...and largely avoided (or abandoned after the first razzing). There's also some great aftermarket stuff that's lighter, warmer, "better"...common sense becomes a virtue if it makes things run smoother. I would assume that for larger units, with more junior personnel, particularly in a training or garrison environment...common sense has to be supplanted by uniformity, just to get everyone at the same minimum standard. The NCOs and SNCOs rightly "own" this topic...but my humble opinion is that in the field, if it works more efficiently, and doesn't compromise readiness, or the intended protection of "uniform" gear...I'd say good to go.

Response by Cpl Sean Willadsen made Feb 26 at 2018 8:50 PM

Cpl Sean Willadsen — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:50:37 -0500

If they own the gear, they will maintain it and most likely look a little sharper.

Response by SSG Dale London made Feb 27 at 2018 8:37 PM

SSG Dale London — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 20:37:47 -0500

Two major points of concern here: Mission effectiveness; that is, is the issued gear up to the task? and unit cohesion, readiness and discipline.
With regard to the first point, if you are deploying with experienced troops who know their gear and are well versed in operations - who cares if they all wear the same t-shirts or if they have a gerber tucked into their boot? On the other hand, if your unit has a significant number of young soldiers, uniformity of gear will make equipment much easier to track and manage, and standards will be easier to maintain. If everybody is doing the same thing with the same gear it actually helps the newbies cope better with the frenetic environment.
If you are not deploying everybody ought to be on the same sheet regardless. All the A-bags should be packed the same way. Same goes for the B-bags, etc. The training environment needs to be tightly controlled and that means no rogues. You do NOT want surprises in the field during an ARTEP. It's the soldier's privilege to be surprised, not yours. You need to know that everybody in your unit has the proper gear and that it is serviceable so that training will be on an even playing field. Every unnecessary variable is an additional potential point of failure.