Boots and saddles

The ADF's combat clothing and footwear has been much in the news recently - a veteran correspondent who has visited ADF units in Iraq and Afghanistan offers his views.
It is a truth near universally acknowledged that no matter what kit is issued to the soldiery, they will always think it is crap and that the other guys, whether coalition allies or enemy, have something better.

Probably Roman legionaries were helping themselves to bits of armour looted from the bodies of their slain foes. During World War Two German soldiers on the Eastern front believed themselves outgunned by Soviets armed with PPSh 41 sub-machine guns, with their 71-round drum magazine. Further west, British soldiers considered the German MP 38/40 far superior to their issue Stens and armed themselves with captured examples where they could.

In Vietnam there was a widespread belief, particularly among US forces, that the AK47 was far better than their own M16s - which it undoubtedly was when the M16 was first issued in the mid-1960s before all the bugs were sorted.

It's not just small arms. Over the years troops have helped themselves to other people's clothing, webbing, foodstuffs, protective gear and much else in the belief that it's superior to the sorry items issued by their own quartermaster system - which was inevitably compelled to accept the lowest cost tender for shoddily manufactured goods turned out in third world sweatshops by low skilled piece workers.

This phenomenon has hardly disappeared. One manifestation is the abundance of retail outlets for aftermarket kit, particularly webbing, packs, boots and basic field equipment. This isn't the Wedgetail end of the military market but it is substantial and has boomed over the last decade in conjunction with the rise in Australia's foreign military commitments. With the Iraq conflict, it has boomed even further as security personnel, aid workers, NGOs, journalists and others not reliant on the military supply system have had to equip themselves for a hostile environment.

Most everything, with the exception of firearms, is available in Australia. That includes body armour, although it's almost as tightly controlled as semi-automatic weaponry, thanks to the well known case of criminal misuse by Ned Kelly. The same outlets which supply the Australian Defence Force with personal protective equipment will also sell to appropriate civilians, usually on the basis that it's exported forthwith. Just don't try to bring the stuff back into the country without the correct paperwork.

This military market is also thriving in the US and UK.

A colleague close to the Australian side of this military equipment market describes it as "the Gucci syndrome" where soldiers convince themselves and each other that their personal comfort, status and even survival depends on acquiring a particular bit of new gear.

The ADF even occasionally sources directly from civilian suppliers. The SASR reportedly acquired high quality cold weather gear from a well-known outdoor and camping equipment retailer as a matter of urgency ahead of the first Afghanistan deployment.

Your correspondent was minded to canvas this particular issue by a frontpage story in The Weekend Australian [11 February, 2006 - Ed.] which cited documents acquired under Freedom of Information legislation detailing a catalog of ADF equipment shortcomings, which it said endangered the lives of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some of this was curious. One gripe was that the safety of SAS members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan was compromised because the colour of their body armour did not match their grey wetsuits for underwater operations. Your correspondent stands to be put straight on this but he's not aware the SAS undertook any maritime ops in Iraq (Navy clearance divers definitely did) or in landlocked Afghanistan.

Complaints about glowing combat jackets (presumably when viewed through a thermal imager), dodgy body armour and ill-fitting female apparel seem more legitimate and warrant action.

A couple of observations here - one is that body armour has a finite life even when not used. It's recommended that the ceramic plates be eventually replaced to assure maximum protection. There's no question that the gear works as advertised. Apparently troops in Baghdad show off plates they have shot themselves under controlled conditions to inspire confidence in new arrivals that their gear will do what it's supposed to.

Another issue from Iraq relates to protective eyewear. One story relates to the car bomb attack on Australian ASLAVs last year where the exposed commander escaped serious harm thanks to his issue protective kit plus personally procured ballistic goggles. These aren't just ski goggles but properly designed items designed to protect important sensors. Presumably, one would hope, this sort of gear is now on general issue.

The ADF has long had a problem with boots, as have many other defence forces. (Editor's note: As recently as the 1982 Falklands Conflict British paratroopers were exchange their notoriously leaky DMS boots for the far superior footwear issued to the Argentine soldiers they killed or captured.)

Old soldiers swear they have never owned footwear as comfortable as their Vietnam era GP boots but your correspondent's experience was that they produced blisters on top of blisters. Some years back the ADF spent a lot of money on using laser technology to research foot shape and the current generation green/tan boot is apparently a product of this deep thought. Yet soldiers still go out and spend serious money on top quality US-made Danner and Rocky footwear.

With more and more women soldiers undertaking active service, there appears to be an emerging realisation that some kit needs to be re-designed for the female form. This is especially so for protective equipment which must be worn correctly for maximum protection. There appear to be serious OH & S implications should a female soldier be killed or injured because she wasn't wearing her body armour because it was too uncomfortable.

The ADF now runs a system where it encourages soldiers to inform the proper authorities about gear shortcomings so improvements can be implemented, where appropriate. The ADF obviously isn't going to re-issue SLRs because some soldiers believe their ability to reach out and touch bad guys is compromised by current-issue Steyrs and M4s.

Further, the ADF has demonstrated a gratifying ability to move quickly and at substantial cost when there's a need - such as to acquire Javelin missiles and Mk19 grenade launchers for the first SASR deployment to Afghanistan and to equip ASLAVs with BAR armour and spall curtains in advance of the Al-Muthanna deployment. This system is probably far from perfect and soldiers will always grumble.

But one sentiment from Iraq, expressed by both troops and officers, was that on the whole they weren't badly off, particularly in comparison with the supposedly well-equipped US forces, many of whom in the early days of the insurgency were still wearing Vietnam-standard body armour and driving around in thin-skinned Hummvees and discovering their shortcoming the hard way.

By A Special Correspondent, Canberra