One Sixth Warriors Forum banner

What are grunts wearing in Afghanistan?

37K views 186 replies 24 participants last post by  Toyscout 
#1 ·
What are grunts wearing in Afghanistan?

Disclaimer
NOT A NEW PRODUCT THREAD! Just the facts here please! If you want to discuss the pros and cons of a specific figure over another, how your brand is better than another brand or how you found a picture on google which is definitive proof that Rangers wear slippers please take it to the new product threads and argue among the fanboys. Ground rule, be polite. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Opinions supported by facts have more weight than, ”Well, I “think” it should be this way because it’s cool.”

Hi Guys;

Been inundated with questions about what grunts are wearing in Afghanistan both here and on chat. Decided I would share for those interested in doing research. I make it a point not to comment in new product threads because of the negativity that often follows when I share what I've learned. So to avoid being banned or suspended for defending myself I’m starting this thread for guys to get and share info. If you want to stir the pot please take it to the new product threads. If you come here to start crap and drama it’s obvious to the mods who’s starting what.

Everyone is welcome to share so the community has a source of info for accuracy for those interested in that. Encourage you to include your sources if you can so the reader can weigh the credibility of the info you are sharing.

Now to answer the most common questions.

What are grunts wearing in Afghanistan? (Grunts typically applies to CONVENTIONAL Infantry though I personally expand it to include those troops that make their living outside the wire in direct support of Infabtry units like combat engineers, medics, dog handlers etc.)

Multicam in an ACU cut is what is issued along with a couple of combat shirts. The current issue is four uniforms and two shirts or at least it was according to SGM (Ret) House of the Army’s Rapid Fielding Initiative office as of Sep ’11. Soldiers augment issue with personally purchased gear. It’s few and far between where conventional troops will drop $300 on a crye battle uniform.

MC helmet cover (just like the UCP version but in MC).

Plate carrier vs. IOTV?

Combat troops (those that typically leave the wire) are issued both as of sep’11 discussion I had with PEO Soldier reps. The plate carrier is much more popular according to my clients. Not everyone is infantry though or for one reason or another (shortages, chain of command, vehicle vs. foot patrol) you'll see the IOTV in use on occasion. Often it will be stripped to essentials (no throat or collar pads) and maybe just the groin pad which is a PAIN if you have to climb.

ACU vs. MC kit in Afghanistan? When for what? Confusing!

YES! Starting around Aug ’10 the Army started issuing OCP (Army acronym for MC) to conventional troops deploying to Afghanistan. If you were already there you were likely not to get a set. Venivicivici shared he didn’t get or see MC in OEF until he was relieved by the 101st. I had deploying troops to include the 48th BDE (Ga Nat’l Guard) in my shop that had been issued MC in Aug’10. Why the partial issue/confusion? Many just don’t realize how big the Army is at times. The decision to issue MC isn’t made in a vacuum. Decisions hadn’t been made on pouches, vests, manufacturers etc. When decisions were made quantities didn’t exist and so units were prioritized, some given partial issues, some got nothing etc. Bureaucracy at its best but in defense you have to centralize decisions for organizations as big as the Army. Like we saw when the Army switched to coffee stain kit and later UCP. Looks like It wasn’t until mid ’11 that there were enough MC and late ’11 until troops got issued both plate carriers and IOTVs. Before then the issue of plate carriers was haphazard and included four different types of plate carriers.

Ammo pouch observation.

Seems to be about a 50/50 mix between two mag ammo pouches and shingle/racks. Soldiers are issued both now. They weren’t always so you see a mix. Advantage to shingles is it’s easier to get in/out of vehicles/aircraft in shingles. Less profile. It also helps getting into the narrower doorways of Afghanistan. On the downside they suck up a lot of space on your vest. It’s a personal preference thing. Recent vets might have some more insight. I was told that the Rangers prefer the shingles for the reasons I describe so the thinking is sound and the conventional guys often mimic or learn the same lessons that the operators do.

If this thread/post has been a help please say so. It’s not worth my typing this up if folks don’t care. It also demonstrates that there is an interest in this kind of info as folks participate in the hobby. I encourage any OSW member to PM me but if the mods allow this thread to exist separate from the new product threads this may be a way to share info without the drama of whose brand is better or” I just want to be different or cool” which is FINE. There’s no need to feel threatened if your search for “artistic expression” isn’t exactly the same as most ground truth.

Additional input about weapons, sights (vvv shared some good info in chat last night about sights) is welcome especially if it's bsed on experience or discussions with those that have done it.

Regards,

Will
 
See less See more
#34 ·
@Punisher. Thanks! Good listings there.

I pulled a quick one and went to my favourite dealer monkey depot and whipped up a list of stuff that seems to be fairly correct (it probably isnt) for a army rifleman:

Canteen: Playhouse Camelback ACU Pattern
Hands: Soldier Story Mechanix Impact Pro Weapon Gripping Our Price:
Pouch: Crazy Dummy Dump Coyote
Pouch: Playhouse MLCS General Purpose - Coyote
Pouch: Soldier Story 3 Cell M4 Magazine - Tan
Pouch: Soldier Story Frag Grenade Coyote MOLLE (x2)
Vest: Soldier Story Eagle CIRAS Maritime - Tan
Helmet: BBi MICH 3 Color Desert Cover
Boots: Soldier Story US Modern Brown (Socket Type)
Uniform: Toys City Crye Combat AOR1 Camo
Ammo: Playhouse M4 30 Round Magazine (x6)
Grenade: Playhouse Baseball Frag (x2)
Knife: Dragon US KBAR Brown Sheath
Rifle: Toys City M4A1 Carbine
Sight: Soldier Story EO Tech Tan

How about it?
 
#36 · (Edited)
Warge - CCs right. The conventional guys don't have the leeway the spec ops guys do when it comes to vests. Private purchase is frowned upon (and EXPENSIVE!). Soldier's chain of command are responsible if a soldier is wounded/killed while wearing an unauthorized vest.

Army started transitioning to the IOTV late in '07. IOTV in UCP/OCP are really the only realistic options for a grunt for the last four years. Plate carrier for the last 2-3 years IF you can find one. The 1:6 industry has been slow to pick up on it but that's for another thread/section.

I'm going to "try" and suggest some EXISTING 1:6 solutions (I'm leary of opening the thread to a crapstorm). Let's not get into a discussion of who makes the best whatever, pretty please? That would be a great 1:6 discussion forum topic and you'll get tons of "help". Personally, I've found hqpham and Casual Collector as very helpful in IDing 1:6 solutions to me.

IOTV - HT, VHT, Wild Work (UCP), (SS did one. Avoid it PM me for reasons) VHT does an OCP IOTV

Plate carrier w/molle & cummberbund - Rare! WW (UCP), VHT(OCP)

There's some mixing and matching of colors but not that much and coyote isn't the dominant color of Army equipment though the types of pouches you selected are a practical solution. You forgot an IFAK. The most common is the size of a 100rnd saw pouch. Some have special markings like a red strap, cross or buckle. Some have nothing and others have the redcross done with a sharpie. A canteen pouch is a possible substitue. Troops use them all the time for misc stuff, nvg pouch or a replacement med kit pouch if the original was lost/unserviceable.
 
#39 ·
@casual, major.rod: Thanks for your input. You know, that is the kind of response I love.

The list wasn't really made with a purchase right now in mind, but more of a trial of how much actually is available at the click of a mouse button - even if the list is ok, I might pick up on it later.

Regarding the vest: I suspected the CIRAS to be some kind of SF item and I picked it more because it looked good. Yeah, shows how much I know.
 
#40 ·
Glad I could help.

There's very little available at the click of a mouse. I had to edit this post heavily because I started to get into 1:6 stuff.

Good luck though and it seems like things are changingLet it suffice to say it isn't out there. Try finding a MICH with a multicam helmet cover. :fit

Good luck though it looks like there's good things on the horizon. :clap
 
#41 ·
What do operators and grunts usually use for carting out captured items (i.e. webgear, ammo, IED-making materials, etc...)? Duffels, garbage bags, etc...?
MK-23 believes that SASR uses trash bags, but I was curious as to what sort of leeway I'd have depicting operators "carting out the goods."
Thanks!
 
#43 ·
edwick - Than you for posting and glad we can serve as a reference whether you use the info or not.

TOTALLY support your right to bash "because it looks cooler". Besides it being YOUR money, figure, time etc. it's not uncommon for servicemembers to request a certain "cool factor".

I also appreciate you not arguing with folks that have done it or are getting the info first hand which was my biggest concern when I started this thread.

CC - Trash bags and sandbags are very common. A lot depends on the mission and what's available. Troops often don't have the time, space or money to bring ready made bags on a mission. Not to mention Guys don't want to carry the extra weight/bulk.

The advantage to trash bags is they're cheap/available. Sandbags even more so and serve a secondary purpose (back in the day soldiers carried sandbags inside or between the ruck and frame for building defensive positions). Multiple bags also allows one to segregate items based on the EPW and write details with a marker or sharpie. Delicate items might be placed in an assault pack. Its pretty safe to speculate a modern style duffle bag (handles & zipper for oversized items) on elaborate hits like the Bin Laden strike but even on that one the sheer quantity of stuff might have required garbage bags.

It also wouldn't be beyond belief for troops to pile the stuff (maybe not the explosives) in an available box if they were exfilling by vehicle 'aircraft. Ref explosives, we doctrinely prefer to blow it in place after documenting it and maybe bring samples back for intel/media purposes. Make sense to blow so you don't have to lug it, the enemy has no chance of getting it back and . You can never really trust enemy explosives because of the questionable quality and the lack of knowledge about it (how was it maintained, age etc.).
 
#46 ·
@Buck: Thanks for an interesting insight!

Actually, the more I learn about the modern US military, the more confident I become that whatever a bash together in 1/U6, it will be 'correct' - perhaps not regarding the equipment charts, but well the real stuff the soldiers and marines equip themselves with - as long as its tan or brownish, it's ok seems to be the short and sweet of it.

That even seems to go for the uniform - sure, the patterns and cuts change (almost every week I sometimes get the impression of) but there is always people who will wear the older stuff, or the stuff you are not supposed to wear because its actually from another branch, or... Am I right?

I haven't studied in detail every little photo of every soldier or marine in Afghanistan, but I bet people are doing this on a regular basis. And the US forces are not even the worse offenders - just look at the Russians in Chechnya - or the Chechnyans themselves, sporting Russian M43 uniforms in some cases...

A related question: shouldn't the US armed forces provide its troops with just everything needed? I got the impression something was kind of wrong(ish) the first time I watched Generation Kill, and that has kind of continued with the stories from you people... Armed forces not providing enough batteries for the troops' NVGs? Someone went home early from work, me thinks.
 
#48 ·
Actually, the more I learn about the modern US military, the more confident I become that whatever a bash together in 1/U6, it will be 'correct' - perhaps not regarding the equipment charts, but well the real stuff the soldiers and marines equip themselves with - as long as its tan or brownish, it's ok seems to be the short and sweet of it.
While it's true that the American Fighting Man will augment his gear as much as his wallet and First Sergeant will allow, please don't use that fact as carte blanche to just throw together whatever you think looks cool (and to be clear, I totally agree with Will's quote below) and call it accurate. Do your research and put in the effort to ensure that what you produce does justice to the subject. I applaud you asking questions and getting the ground truth from guys who've "been there" and I look forward to your bashes!

TOTALLY support your right to bash "because it looks cooler". Besides it being YOUR money, figure, time etc. it's not uncommon for servicemembers to request a certain "cool factor".
 
#47 ·
Warge - Funding and the realities of manufacturing and supply impact acquisition. As much as folks and the media don't like to hear it, you do fight with the Army you have and not the one you want. In WWII the Marines didn't have M1 Garands until late '42 and it took a year to put Garands in all their hands. Meantime Soldiers and Marines trained with Springfield '03s stateside until '44. It just takes time to manufacture equipment.

The great body armor shortage is another example of a manufactured controversy by the media. It wasn't the services fault. They did not expect nor were they funded to equip everyone with body armor and even if they were it takes time to manufacture over a million sets.

The guys working on the acquisition side are doing the best job they can. They often get blamed for shortages that aren't their fault and the US does a better job than any nation in equipping our troops (quantity, quality, food etc.). It's always a question of limited resources (mostly money) and competing priorities. From a personal perspective I can tell you we always augmented our equipment and if you go back to the roman legions you'll find the same.
 
#52 ·
Warge - don't worry, you'll pick it up fast. Wait until you hear about strong side, weak side.
What I've learned is that grunts have fairly specific sets of equipment depending on the branch they're in (ie Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force) and WHEN they are. An Army grunt stationed in Afghanistan in 2001 would have a WILDLY different kit from an Army grunt stationed in Afghanistan in 2010. The camo changes that you mentioned aren't necessarily as common as you think and they've happened for a reason.
Let's take Afghanistan - the original uniforms used by Army grunts were 3-desert BDU's, which were the standard since the '90's. When the Army decided to go to a new universal camo pattern, the soldiers transitioned in UCP (a pattern you might think of ACU) on an ACU-cut uniform. However, UCP proved to be an inadequate camo scheme in Afghanistan, so the Army transitioned again to a new uniform - OCP (OCP = multicam) on an ACU-cut uniform. That's three transitions in ten years - which IS a lot in Army terms. Add in that some SF units like to wear woodland BDU's because that's what the ANA wears and you've got even more of a mix.
Regarding vests - I'd say go with what Will and Scott say. "Grunt" vests are pretty much mandated to be one of a certain selection of choices. SF gets away with using unique kit because of their status, but grunts don't have that luxury. There is a solution to getting around this - one I have employed before. If the kit I've got doesn't match the soldier I want to make, I change the soldier I want to make.
As an example - I was trying to build an Army MP set in 2009 who would be based at Bagram AFB in Afghanistan. Talking with Scott and Will, I came to realize that my kit was - well - inaccurate for the kind of guy I wanted to build. His vest set was suited more for combat patrols and he was geared up like a soldier. Moreover, his vest was being transitioned out in 2009 and being replaced by the Army plate carrier, which would've been more accurate. So, I changed the guy's focus (outside the wire MP) and changed the date on the bash to make him more accurate. If the guy you're building isn't a grunt, just make him into something else, eh? And don't worry about it! Have fun! 'cause that's the big thing :)
 
#54 ·
Since I'm in the 1/6 hobby - I'm having a blast every day. :)

OT: Part of the fun I think is to actually find and make just that exact figure I want. Admittedly I only have two US modern servicemen (modified Soldier Story Helmand Province figures), and the rest is mostly civilian or WW2, but the priniple is the same - if I want to make say a German soldier in the Italian campaign, I wouldn't end up with a German on the eastern front and call it a day, but that's me, and I strongly suspect building modern US servicemen are a lot harder, especially when it comes to both uniforms and those "#¤%& vests. /OT

Speaking of uniforms, what types would a US marine or soldier wear in Afghanistan at a certain time and more importantly (for us bashers), are those uniforms available in 1/6?

Operation Enduring Freedom was launched in 2001, and US troops are still in Afghanistan, 11 years later. With three changes in uniforms (for the army, and god knows how many for the marines) what would be appropriate for the different years?

Hard questions? :)
 
#55 · (Edited)
Conventional grunt uniforms OEF

'01 - late '05: DCUs (generally available)
LATE '05/'06 - late '10: ACU (combat shirts were introduced around '08 I think*) (generally avail)
Late '10 - today: OCP (ACU cut uniforms in multicam NOT crye style uniforms) (relatively rare SS one figure, barracks sergeant limited production, VHT one figure)

*could be off a year
 
#58 ·
Warge,

Yeah I guess in a lot senses there is no right or wrong, but my work always ends up looking way to heavy laden with gear lol. And that's based on research and what I think right looks like....no where near what CC, MAJ Rod ET al....works look like.

I Agree with major rod, a lot of the crap you'll here about guys going down range without what they need is grossly distorted. Generally you leave terra firma USA with about a 90% solution because there is only so many ships,planes to cary everything, the rest is there waiting for you for the unit you replace or through other sources.....I mean if you look at numbers roughly we've sustained a much lower casualty rate in comparision to Vietnam, WW Ii ans the civil war...you tell me we don't have the gear we need to do our jobs. Cmon, really?!!

Plate carriers: we had commanders in remote areas eschew plate carriers in favor of IOTV because of the additional protection that IOTV gives against snipers or a well placed DSHKA or PKM round. Food for thought.
 
#59 ·
Late 2010 is when OEF went OCP. I think the BCT from 1/34BCT and everyone else after them in DEC 2010 on showed up in OCP. aside from contractors and SOF guys that had some of the OCP ine early 10. My IBCT and most of the 101 still was sporting ACUs at that point.

DCUs went out in Jan 05. The 48th IBCT was the first OIF unit to get them.I rember them rolling in to the little pile of dirt Iwas guarding in Kuwait in March 05....they looked ODD lol.
 
#63 ·
Just a quick request for a clarification:

DCUs went out in Jan 05. The 48th IBCT was the first OIF unit to get them.I rember them rolling in to the little pile of dirt Iwas guarding in Kuwait in March 05....they looked ODD lol.
By "out" you mean the DCUs went out of service (as opposed to "out in the field"), and "them" is referring to the new ACU/UCP uniforms, right? That lines up with the other rough timelines mentioned, but I just wanted to be sure.
 
#60 ·
I have found this graphic very informative when discussing the cost to equip a soldier and how it has gone up over time. Multiply those numbers by a million troops and you're talking some real money...



It also implies some of the issues we've discussed in getting the equipment to the soldier. Bottom line is we're talking a lot of money, a lot of troops and often very far away.
 
#61 ·
Plate carriers: we had commanders in remote areas eschew plate carriers in favor of IOTV because of the additional protection that IOTV gives against snipers or a well placed DSHKA or PKM round. Food for thought.[/QUOTE said:
I may have to argue that no additional personal armor system is going to protect you against a well placed DSHKA rd. Might be the fluke out there, but as a current :bravo I'm going to have to contest it.

As far as the IOTV being mandated eschew the plate carrier for the added protection being a command decision which IMHO screws that line infantryman doing all the dismount patrols, and once again takes the on the ground decision making out of the hands of those actually conducting operations. As a prior 11B SQD LDR and PSG we would constantly battle BN about us wanting to wear the IBA in the armored vehicles to protect against spalling, but be able to don Plate Carriers when dismounted to actually be able to move somewhat quickly against the enemy in chase, and protect our backs when it came to jumping all those canals. A fight I might add lost, and the Fobbits reigned supreme.
 
#62 ·
Piggybacking on Punishers comments...

SAPI plates don't stop .50 cal rounds let alone the .51 cal round of the DSHK. Don't want to go into what the capabilities of plates are or the different versions (SAPI, ESAPI and XSAPI). There's info out there open source for folks interested. I think it's good enough to know that the plates will stop a couple of rifle rounds.

In conventional units the level of body armor is typically a BDE level decision. Some units have taken that higher to division during desert storm. IMO that's two levels too high. Company Cdrs and their 1SGT should be making that decision. They know the situation and the judgement of their subordinate leaders.

Not sure at what level special ops units decide but keep in mind those organizations are comparatively rank heavy, mature and they (and their families) understand they are in a dangerous profession. A 12 man SF A tm has ZERO Specialists and Pvts. They are ALL NCOs, experienced soldiers and rarely does a team have a junior sergeant on it (Punisher feel free to chime in). Comparatively, a nine man infantry squad has three NCOs (two being very jumior sergeants) and six enlisted soldiers from pvt to specialist.

P 2-2 Wasn't there (obviously) but I'd bet you lunch BN had their hands tied (not that they fought the decision much then again it seems to be SOP that BDE CDRs are deciding what individual soldiers carry, a symptom of the CYA and litigous environment even the Army has to operate under.

Remember all the whining about troops without body armor or uparmored HMMWVs? Politicans turn around and pass the buck. Officers feel like they are being left out to dry (they are) and are reacting poorly. Sad but true up and down the line but responsibility always starts at the top.
 
#65 ·
edwick, check with Buck but I think he meant '06. I was at Benning when the 48th got issued ACUs. It was late '05. https://peosoldier.army.mil/faqs/acu.asp (6th ques down)

They started issuing ACUs in Feb '05 and tier one units were first in line along with the Rangers. Guys were wearing DCUs even into early "06. Troops were only issued four sets. There weren't many replacements and between laundry and wear and tear guys had to default to the occasional DCU. There was a lot of mix & match pouches because of shortages.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top