Canadian Special Operations Regiment (CSOR)

RedcapCrusader

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
mariomike said:
ok. I get it. The bus is getting blown up, burned up, shot up, etc....
I never asked why no c-collar. I just found their lifting technique a little bit different than anything I had ever seen on the job. And that includes our Tactical, Heavy Rescue, Marine, CBRNE, PSU, ERU, ESU, MPU, etc. Paramedics.
I understand "CANSOF's TTPs are secret", so I won't ask why.  :)

While much of your lengthy and distinguished career is with a civilian service, you often forget that it time of war, many "Industry Standard" become secondary to simply getting people out of harms way.
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
53
Points
530
Blackadder1916 said:
If putting the casualty's legs on the rescuer's shoulders is a new protocol, so be it, but I don't see how that is an improvement over the legacy two-man fore and aft carry.
Less fatiguing on the arms when you have a lot of casualties to move (or have a great distance to move, or still have a requirement for effective upper body strength once the 'move body phase' is complete, etc.... )
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
95
Points
630
Journeyman said:
Less fatiguing on the arms when you have a lot of casualties to move (or have a great distance to move, or still have a requirement for effective upper body strength once the 'move body phase' is complete, etc.... )
Hands would be free to engage threats as well, and on the shoulders might keep the patient more level coming down the steep bus stairs. Lots of reasons to do it.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
56
Points
630
kkwd said:

:goodpost:

Milpoints inbound.

The top pic shows empty stretchers set up and in position at the door of the bus. Stretchers are ready and waiting to receive casualties as rescuers step off the stairs and out the door.*
At least one of those stretchers has already received a casualty, and is being taken away by rescuers.

* Fortunately, in spite of the "mock bus explosion" ( as it says in the caption ), the door is still operational.

The bottom pic posted by kkwd shows rescuers, with no stretcher available.

With no stretcher available,  legs over shoulders patient transport would be a viable alternative.
 

Attachments

  • carry.jpg
    carry.jpg
    94.8 KB · Views: 3,640
  • carry1.jpg
    carry1.jpg
    118.5 KB · Views: 538

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
380
Points
880
This is how we learned to do casualty carries... at about 1.47. Of course if the cas has CSpine issues they're doomed with this technique.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kjXUQoW1HQ


Try not to throw up on the instructors' boots though, it's not cricket.


 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
5
Points
180
After watching the show and seeing the screen shots. Everyone is wearing a different uniform then arid cadpat.  Why the change? 
 

RedcapCrusader

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Spencer100 said:
After watching the show and seeing the screen shots. Everyone is wearing a different uniform then arid cadpat.  Why the change?

CSOR has been using Multicam for many years, even when everyone else was using Arid CADPAT. It also brings them closer in line to other Special Operations Forces of our allies.

Multicam is much more effective multi-environment camouflage.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
380
Points
880
LunchMeat said:
CSOR has been using Multicam for many years, even when everyone else was using Arid CADPAT. It also brings them closer in line to other Special Operations Forces of our allies.

Multicam is much more effective multi-environment camouflage.

Which is why we have Cadpat, right? ;)
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
95
Points
630
daftandbarmy said:
Which is why we have Cadpat, right? ;)

Carrying multiple types of uniform doesn't really sound light or cost effective, especially since the CA can barely kit out its own soldiers with CADPAT (TW) uniforms that aren't falling apart or made like a moo-moo.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
251
Points
830
daftandbarmy said:
Which is why we have Cadpat, right? ;)

Tests of patterns have been largely inconclusive; as with many things military, the subjective opinion of the senior person present is taken as "proof".

If you'd care to look at a large number of designs, there's always https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_clothing_camouflage_patterns
 

RedcapCrusader

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
daftandbarmy said:
Which is why we have Cadpat, right? ;)

CADPAT is all political and has nothing to do with being effective. TW is great for some Canadian environments, and AR is great for others. Having witnessed Multicam at work first hand in Canada, I don't understand why we haven't adopted it service wide other than money and Canada's undying need to be "unique" rather than actually supply us with effective uniforms, equipment, vehicles, etc. 

Same reason US had UCP for so long and after only a few years in both Iraq and A'stan, adopted Multicam as it is much, much more effective in a wide variety of environments.

PuckChaser said:
Carrying multiple types of uniform doesn't really sound light or cost effective, especially since the CA can barely kit out its own soldiers with CADPAT (TW) uniforms that aren't falling apart or made like a moo-moo.

Also, this.  :salute:

 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
75
Points
530
LunchMeat said:
CADPAT is all political and has nothing to do with being effective.

CADPAT when it came out was a revolutionary design.  DRDC studies showed that with CADPAT compared to the old olive greens, and with the at the time US army camo, showed a 20-30% reduction in the distance that an observer needed to be before they sighted the wearer.  The IR signature reduction was something that no one had at the time either.

The US Marine Corps signed up with their own version fairly quickly.

If it has been surpassed by new camouflage models (mainly ones that don't contain any black in them) then that's fine.  But you can't say the CADPAT was all political and not effective.
 

RedcapCrusader

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Underway said:
CADPAT when it came out was a revolutionary design.  DRDC studies showed that with CADPAT compared to the old olive greens, and with the at the time US army camo, showed a 20-30% reduction in the distance that an observer needed to be before they sighted the wearer.  The IR signature reduction was something that no one had at the time either.

The US Marine Corps signed up with their own version fairly quickly.

If it has been surpassed by new camouflage models (mainly ones that don't contain any black in them) then that's fine.  But you can't say the CADPAT was all political and not effective.

I understand that in it's inception it was revolutionary, but now that it has been nearly 2 decades since it's been in service.

Now, it's not so effective for the types of situations we and our allies are getting into. When you need quick adaptability from woodland, grassland, desert, to urban; our two very exclusive uniform patterns are not up to par.

CADPAT TW is great for spring time, in the mountains and foothills, in Canadian environment and garrison. CADPAT AR is great for strict desert, sand, and very light brown/tan environments.

But it doesn't cover the in betweens and diverse biomes. Multicam and it's derivatives do much better, and for our safety and effectiveness, to ignore the fact is purely political. Keeping jobs in the hometown of some former DND bureaucrat/Ret'd general.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
118
Points
680
LunchMeat said:
But it doesn't cover the in betweens and diverse biomes. Multicam and it's derivatives do much better, and for our safety and effectiveness, to ignore the fact is purely political. Keeping jobs in the hometown of some former DND bureaucrat/Ret'd general.

Short of some constantly-changing chameleon suit, no one pattern can provide the best cover for everything - Multicam wouldn't work that well in the snow, for example.  So, what you're really suggesting is to have 5 patterns (CADPAT TW for the spring/fall, AR for desert, MC for the "in betweens", potentially a winter pattern for snow and an urban pattern), not to replace all with MC. 
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
53
Points
530
LunchMeat said:
Multicam and it's derivatives do much better, and for our safety and effectiveness, to ignore the fact is purely political. Keeping jobs in the hometown of some former DND bureaucrat/Ret'd general.

I'm curious - which hometown, and which Ret'd General?
 

RedcapCrusader

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PPCLI Guy said:
I'm curious - which hometown, and which Ret'd General?

No idea, possibly none,  hence why I said "some".

Could be said about our boot fiasco and other piss-poor procurement.
 
Top