Army Tactical Assault Panel Setup - I planned to dive deep into the history of US military cargo with articles called "On the Road to ALICE" and "Out of ALICE" afterwards. I didn't prioritize it because...well, it was history and it wasn't going to come back. Naturally, the previous installments of this series in the MOLLE era will focus on the Fighting Load Carrier (FLC) or "Flic" and the Tactical Assault Panel (TAP). However, I put today's chapter on the Airborne TAP (ABN-TAP) first because it is appropriate for a weapon that is on the verge of entering the range and being carried by some soldiers today and perhaps more in the future. . In other words, I'm doing it in the style of Star Wars or Pulp Fiction - it's not right. I know most people now have more important things to worry about than tech gear, but I hope this will - at the very least - be a welcome distraction for some.
I'm going to assume that longtime SSD readers have a passing experience with FLC and TAP. If not, a quick search on this site or on the web can quickly bring someone up. When I first started taking notes on the SSD shifter, someone asked my thoughts on the FLC. I had no idea at the time. I have seen it in Iraq and Afghanistan, but have never been issued web gear or MOLLE I or II webbing. I have since received a few samples and experimented with them at home. Therefore, I agree that my observations and opinions are based on practical experience with the kit. Those of you who have more time "in the temper" with these things should feel free to correct me or clarify based on your experience.
Army Tactical Assault Panel Setup
There are many challenges with developing military payload "systems". The biggest is that payload is a basic dollar item in the DoD budget and will never be attractive or important. As a result, the Service involved generally makes little effort to define more than a vague concept of what they want, since on a large scale a cargo carrier is rarely considered a mission. Although the slides are filled with the usual gibberish and talk like "will support full dynamic features" is a false guideline. While I wasn't in the room, I suspect that at ABN-TAP the conversation was something like, “Hey, TAP is hard for paratroopers to jump. Well, Alice's web gear was easy to catch... so let's put together the DNA and see if we can find a racehorse or a camel. I call the result a camel - it will get you there, but it's not the best way to ride. It certainly seems like there was a lot of focus on adding one trick to the new system to make it more user friendly. Is that really all ABN-TAP has to do for soldiers? Of course, older systems made parachute cable communication much easier. However, shouldn't we be more focused on ABN-TAP performance during most of the time the parachutist is not wearing a parachute?
Kombat Tactical Assault Pack 90 Litre
And, inevitably, we often seem to choose fast and cheap over good. At some point, the senior leader gets frustrated because one or more parts of the "system" are stuck in the process and everything is taking too long. He decides to go with it "as is". With the rationale that some changes will be included in versions A1 and A2. I think we are there with ABN-TAP. It's not a bad decision. Just as soldiers must eventually leave the schoolhouse and go into real units to complete their education, weapons advancements reach a point of diminishing returns if they are not sent to the military for extensive testing and criticism. Unfortunately, it's also an obvious failure in the development process. When the items are installed, the responsible team disbands - leaving no point of contact or continuity of responsibility in charge of further product improvements. It was true for ALICE and it is still true today.
After all, units won't waste time writing and submitting those hypothetical transfer tests if they aren't formally mandated to do so. Also, soldiers are not encouraged to contribute and are not given any formal means of plugging their individual reports into the system. MOLLE I was slightly upgraded by the Army to MOLLE II because soldier complaints became public after the first operations in Afghanistan in 2001-2002. As we know, those negative reports contributed to the USMC abandoning the MOLLE backpack altogether. The result is that many soldiers - with good justification - simply accept the fact that some of their equipment stinks and that the chain of command doesn't care. Obviously, it would have been better if he hadn't. Soldiers need to be confident in their weapons - from personal rifles to parachutes and tanks. They want more confidence in their leaders.
Putting aside the need for an aerial transformer, what should a combat payload system be able to do? First, it must enhance—not impair—a soldier's ability to fire, move, and communicate effectively as part of a team. In particular, it must be able to effectively integrate with the rollout of IOTV or plate carriers. Must safely carry combat load items such as magazines, bombs, IFAK etc. in a way to make those things more accessible to soldiers under the stress of battle. With that in mind, the system must allow for both the distribution and balance of that weight to be comfortable enough to be carried—with or without combat gear as the mission may dictate—for days at a time. Finally, it helps keep the system simple and uncomplicated by allowing Soldiers to coordinate, adjust and field adjust the system quickly and as often as needed. Does ABN-TAP meet those criteria? No, it fails in many areas.
Let's look at the three samples I have of ABN-TAP (shown above). The first (bottom left) I believe is the original prototype. It is unmarked and I expect this to be home made in Natick. SSD reported the previous news on ABN-TAP. It is noted that the discharge method of the two front panels is the same as that of the First Spear JOKER chest strap. It really is the same - exactly the same. However, First Spear confirmed to me that while they provide their technology as tubes to Natick, they were not involved in making these ABN-TAP prototypes. The second version (top center) is marked as made by SECRI. Based on the images released by the Army, this is the version I believe was offered for testing at Fort Bragg. The third (bottom right), the full multi-camera version, is also unmarked. I suspect this is close to the "finished" version that will be widely released to Army units.
Military Issue Tactical Assault Panel (tap) System, Coyote
ABN-TAP, as shown, has good points. Obviously, the wide, invisible yoke of the M1956, such as the H belt, will be more comfortable - and undoubtedly more stable under load - for long periods of wear than the Y-belt on the ALICE's small Y-belt with TAP. As a side note, I don't believe fully insulated yokes are suitable for long term wear. With the full load of combat, a little padding goes a long way in providing the necessary shoulder comfort. The ABN-TAP yoke has webbing straps on the back to allow direct mounting of a hydration pack or MAP. A useful feature is missing from FLC and TAP. It is also true that the JOKER drop system works as designed and will streamline the parachute deployment process. Also, the use of the First barrel of a spear helps in quick delivery and withdrawal. So much for the good stuff.
One of the most unusual aspects of this program is that it is clearly not intended to directly replace TAP. To call TAP as if it is in the same category as its predecessor is a misnomer. The ABN-TAP is a chest strap and is not intended to function as a TAP. Best of all, because it has to be worn over gear, it's the FLC area. However, while both "slide" without a built-in magazine or other bulky gear pockets, the ABN-TAP has much less room for PALs than the FLC. Accordingly, ABN-TAP provides less than half the possible "real estate" load compared to the current TAP with built-in internal memory. It's a bad trade. Above all,
Tactical assault panel, army tactical assault panel, tactical assault panel system, us army tactical assault panel, tactical assault panel 0689, molle tactical assault panel, tactical assault panel review, tactical assault panel 6329, iotv tactical assault panel, ocp tactical assault panel, acu tactical assault panel, tactical assault panel 8924
