BAR has got this well covered, but let me deviate and tell you all about skis.
In 2004, there I was, North of Inuvik NWT, on my first of two DND sponsored trips above the Arctic Circle. (Gentlemen it may be time to put your helmets on) Among our duties of practicing being cold and ensuring the Russians weren't quietly invading North America we were selected to test new cross country skis for the Army.
We already had skis in the system, they dated back to the 1950's or so, in fact BAR and I probably shared a set over different years despite being years apart in service. They were old hardwood types, with a very rudimentary binding system, known for it's loud slapping noise (a fine tactical advantage) earning them the name: "Bangy Boards". If you've never done skis these were hugely maintenance intensive to have work, stripping and resealing with pine tar, then proper coatings of glide wax, followed by proper application of kicker wax (which had to be temperature matched tot he snow) for actual traction. They were a nuisance to maintain, and the bindings, which were meant to strap to the mukluk boot, were not very good, but in all they did work.
For testing we were given two different bindings one was a modern plastic take on the bangy binding in a powder blue called a Berwyn, the second was a high speed exo-skeletion design, offered great ankle support, super quick detach, and you could snap them free and fight in them.
The exo design got almost unanimous positive reviews, however the Trials officers favoured the Berwyn binding and tried to influence our reviews, in the end they basically said the Berwyn is what will be selected anyway.
We also tested 3 options of skis, bangy boards with the bindings above, a set of modern waxless cruiser skis, and a civilian off the shelf Rossignol Backcountry ski, also waxless.
The bangy boards were held as a control, the cruisers were an improvement, made of fibreglass, lighter, and better spring gave a much more efficient kick and glide, but were narrower and lacked floatation and stability with a rucks and fighting order.
The Backcountry skis were really the way to go, not quite as fast in open tundra, but wide, and stable in rough or soft snow, the heavier machine gunners and weapons crew could traverse soft drifts with ease. They were also more compact, easier to store, carry, and fight with.
We all gave our reviews of the equipment, and 3 years later when I made my 2nd expedition above the circle, we had...
Bangy boards with the 1950's bindings.
As far as I know, when I retired in 2013, we still had not rolled out a new ski, some recent photos seem to show a wild mix of civilian off the shelf, and possibly the cruisers with a Berwyn binding.
The moral is, listening to the troops and providing equipment in a timely fashion is not an army's strong suit. Our procurement process is a carefully crafted bureaucracy, that is a common model across most armies worldwide.
Or take the "New" rucksack, the 1982 pattern (fighting order) webbing was due for replacement, and I had seen new CADPAT rucksacks being trialed in Gagetown when I was a cadet in the late 1990's, flash forward to end of my service career and the troops are finally getting issued a replacement for the '82 in 2012. By all accounts it's basically an oversized dufflebag in Cadpat, and carries like one too. I figured we should have just bought a Bergin, like the Brits and got on with it. Part of the reason why I transferred from a dismounted Infantry battalion to a mechanized battalion, why carry your kit, when your kit can carry you? Our gear wasn't getting any better, or lighter.Information
![]()
Warning: This is a relatively older thread
This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.