Canadian 1982 Pattern Webbing - Part I

First part in a series looking at the Canadian 1982 Pattern Webbing.
Patreon - / riflemanmoore
Paypal - www.paypal.me/riflemanmoore
Facebook - / riflemanmoore
Instagram - / riflemanmoore
Twitter - / rifleman_moore
Email - [e-mail]

[@lib556]

Simon, I'll add my comments as an expert in this kit (as I normally do). I am intimately familiar with 82 pat webbing having worn it in the infantry between 1985 and 2005 when it was replaced by the LBV. Using the manual as a guide you are spot on. However, in the infantry, we never looked at the manual. Each battalion had an established SOP for precise wear and this deviated significantly from the manual. 1. I first saw 82 pat webbing at the Infantry School in the summer of 1984. It was being worn by a Vandoo Capt as part of trials. I wouldn't get my own set until I arrived at my first posting at a battalion in summer of 85. It was generally issued at that time. 2. We kept our 64 pat gas mask carriers and used them for a few years until the new, nylon ones were issued. Despite what the book shows, we never were without the gas mask. It was worn using its separate strap - donned first with the webbing worn over top of it. In a battalion we never attached the carrier to the belt although many other branches did. 3. Although issued the e tool, we never carried it as shown in the manual. Actually, we never carried it period. We had full-size digging tools in our APCs and that's what we used. When operating as light inf, we didn't typically dig. 4. Immediately from the outset we wore the small/butt pack in the rear position. The utility pouch was attached by the bayonet as you indicated. We rarely ever moved items around despite the modularity. A couple of style points specific to my bn/regt: 1. The loose straps on either side of the belt buckle should be fed back towards the gut so they are neatly tucked away. The adjustment straps on the yoke would also be fed back toward the chest/shoulders. the running end would then be wound tight and tucked under the strap at the buckle. Again, have to keep the sergeant majors happy. On the shirt you feed the middle draw string back into the button hole and tie it before securing the button. This keeps the knot hidden behind the shirt. The bottom drawstring is tied making the biggest loops possible. The loops are brought round under the bottom of the shirt and looped over the button before securing the bottom button. Or, as I eventually did, cut the bottom strings back as they were pretty useless. Tidy tidy. Personal memories of my first 2 years in 82 pat webbing: 1. Since we were now issued with kit that could hold more stuff, the bn brain trust decided we needed to.... carry way more stuff... at all times. In the butt pack we were instructed to carry 48 hrs of emergency rations at all times. There's no way to do that so we had to strip down 6 meals to just the main meal envelope and jam them in the pouch. 6 boil in the bag entrees lined up one next to the other in a heavy block of food and plasti-foil. 2 pairs spare socks in plastic. Cam paint. Gloves. Combat hat. Sometimes the combat sweater. 2 field dressings... etc. Topping the whole thing off was the issue groundsheet rolled to be exactly between 10 and 11 inches in length. This was secured to the top of the butt pack a la WW2 gas cape style. The roll would get measured during inspections if it looked suspect. 2. We did get away with some mods. Early on, I replaced the buckles on the butt pack with Fastex buckles attached with black zip fasteners. This way I could access my butt pack without undoing the tedious straps and removing the dopy groundsheet.

[@RiflemanMoore]

Superb information as usual, thank you for sharing!

[@allanlarrett6015]

In Somalia in the early 90s I wore this set up: Two mag pouches, Butt Pack (rain gear, extra socks, rations, shell dressings), mess tin pouch (Map, Compass, note book, markers pencils and pens but also two grenades) KFS holder, Bayonet, TWO canteens and carriers, and pistol holster. Even on training we never used the shovel carrier: if you need a shovel you carry a backpack and we all preferred a real shovel (from your vehicle) over the tri-fold. Plastic clips break easily so I never reconfigured my webbing. Used it with the C1 and C7. It worked well and I like it better than the Tac Vest issued now.

[@GallifreyanGunner]

Fantastic video. I have an almost complete set of 82 pattern kit, myself - minus the holster and NBC bag. Just a tip about the combat shirt: the waist and bottom drawstrings were usually tied to hide the bow inside the shirt. With the button left undone, pass the left side of the string through the button hole and tie the two halves together so the knot is in the middle. Take the two loops of the bow, line them up and do up the button through the loops. If the loops are too big, twist them on your finger to make the loop smaller. Pass the button through the loops and do it up. If done right, you shouldn't see the bow. It prevents snags and looks neater.

[@RiflemanMoore]

Thanks very much for the tip on the draw cord, I've already filmed part II but will use the described method when filming the future parts in this series!

[@stuartmacdonald4762]

That photo is of me in Battle School in Petawawa.

[@kenc9236]

I was in the Canadian Army in the 80's and know this kit all too well. Thanks for sharing RM.

[@user-mu6sr6ve4d]

Great video. (I am a 64P generation). Added to the problem of cotton based webbing getting wet, it also froze! And I remember we called our water bottles "water bottles", the canteen was where we went to eat.

[@a51541476]

Rfn Moore: Well done! I too remember soldiering up and down the Mattawa Plains at CFB Petawawa, using this kit. I was issued the 1982 pattern webbing in 1986, and used it extensively in 1987 when I did Basic Officer Training. 13 weeks of hell, fun and joy at the RCR Battle School. I look forward to watching part 2 of this video series. The 1982 Pattern Webbing was a considerable improvement on the 1964 pattern that I received when I joined up. Regards, D.A. Stolovitch, CD Captain 2 Military Police Regiment / Canadian Forces Military Police (Retired)

[@adlerarmory8382]

My 1984 Iltis came out of Pet, I tagged it up for 3RCR.

[@markcross1437]

That has brought back memories of CFB Petawawa and the Mattawa Plains back in 1988! thank you!

[@Pocgamer]

This was still standard issue when I joined in 1999, and I can honestly say I never saw anyone roll out with that layout. Two magazine pouches, one utility pouch, a canteen pouch, KFS holder, bayonet frog, and buttpack were the norm. Gaskmask carriers might be carried on the webbing, or worn slung under it.

[@joeydepalmer4457]

Thats the standard manual layout. for us it was, ammo pouch (started c1 ended up c7) spare pouch (customized c7 pouch) canteen pouch (canteen, canteen cup, and canteen cup stand), bayonet (scabbard and frog), but pack, KFS set (no C5 which was on the lanyard), canteen pouch (thermos), compass pouch (or spare ammo pouch) and again ammo pouch. field dress taped to front strap and NCB bag (extra food, brown eggs and what nots).

[@davidleonard1813]

Interesting. We had cotton webbing in that era in Australia. Mag pouch held 4 mags. But only one type. It served for the SLR 20s and L2A2 30rd mags.

[@Wardog-rf1tx]

When I was in the Canadian TA (Calgary Highlanders) in 1983 to 84, we were issued the 64 webbing hated it right away as it utilized early Velcro to attach the pouches to the belt. When it rain the Velcro was so shoddy that it separated and your pouches fell off lol, when I rejoined the CF IN 1989-2009 I was issued the 82 pattern wasn’t to bad, the belt was a nightmare along with the pouch mounting system. Thank God for the British Army PLCE OD green which I wore instead of the 82. I used a 58 pattern belt with seatbelt style straps attached to the ends of the 58 belt with the fasted buckle similar to the 82 belt buckle system. Yes I did get in trouble but my webbing is my friend etc.💂‍♂️🪖⛑️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇨🇦

[@stevethomas5849]

Simon once again very interesting, thank you.

[@Wardog-rf1tx]

Could have done with an intro to the 82 when I joined in 1983. Thanks for explaining it to me.💂‍♂️🪖⛑️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇨🇦

[@brucegraham4332]

I don't think I saw anybody actually wear "fighting order", we all wore "battle order," although universally it was referred to as FFO, Full Fighting Order, that is with the butt pack. Even with the ruck, we wore the butt pack. It was too difficult and awkward to remove, and people would pull the grommets off the belt. We did try the e-tool carrier for one ex. After putting many troops in hospital because the shovel would ride forward and hit them at the base of the skull when going prone, we ditched it. The original green e-tool was cheap and didn't last anyway. We were also forced to "French roll" our straps for inspection, rederering them useless for quick adjustments. As the years progressed, we made many individual changes to WE82, with some actually being adopted, like fastex on the butt pack.

[@matthewsmith9624]

I'm a Canadian Army veteran from 1991 to 1998 and I never was issued the E-tool nor did I see any other soldiers issued one!!

[@jwrobinson2626]

Excellent part 1 mate. Looking forward to your next episodes.

[@adlerarmory8382]

I have a complete set of 82 Pattern Webbing with the C7 mag pouches with ALICE style grenade hangers; Mess Tin/C6 200rd Pouch, Butt Pack, Knife/Fork/Spoon set, and the elongated E Tool Carrier. 10.5E MkIII and MKIV Boots. And a C2 Manta rubberized Jump Ruck. I'm seeking 44 Pattern Kit.

[@henrymann8122]

Brilliant presentation, mate! Thanks!

[@RiflemanMoore]

Thank you!

[@blacksmith67]

Belonged to a reserve infantry regiment 1984-87, and wore 1952 pattern with a few bits of 1964 pattern. I saw a set of this webbing sent to the unit and was seriously unimpressed. It seemed very flimsy. It never occurred to me that the water weight would be saved. Given that we carried the FNC1 and wore an American steel helmet, I don’t think that anyone had ever been concerned with the weight we carried. About the only thing I liked was the olive drab combat uniform and the combat boots. Even these were deficient, the clothing would fade and get worn patches around the knees and elbows and the boots were apparently bad for the feet.

[@joeydepalmer4457]

The only bad thing I remember about the combats where 1 color for the pants and another for the shirts. pants usually a brownish green and the tops a faded green,

[@dialyt1309]

I have some of the mag pouches in my storage building, the cotton fasteners rotted but the nylon parts are still good. wonder why they chose cotton for the fasteners.

[@bill8784]

Got the shirt in 1979. Wish I had kept it.

[@joeydepalmer4457]

I am still looking for an extra small extra short combat coat and shirts from back than at some point.

[@andrewcharles459]

In 82 I was transitioning from the Army Cadets to the Militia and I'm pretty sure all our web gear was still 58 pattern. Maybe Reg Force was getting nylon kit, but I never saw it.

[@TheLoachman]

1951 Pattern. 1958 Pattern was British - and superior.

[@andrewcharles459]

@@TheLoachman Thank you. I may have Alzheimer's, but at least I don't have Alzheimer's... 🙂

[@joeydepalmer4457]

Hey try having schizophrenic like I do and so do I. @@andrewcharles459

[@davidbrennan660]

I wonder if the designer(s) ever used this Equipment set?......it has features that smack of “the good idea fairy”.

[@TheLoachman]

I doubt that any of the designers ever used anything in the field. That has been a consistent failure of CF personal equipment design and procurement for decades. The current Tac Vest, which has been around for almost two decades now, is a partial exception as, if I remember correctly, there was at least one Infantry Major involved throughout. It still sucks, mainly because of its complete lack of modularity. I heard many stories of said major becoming very defensive during visits to units and being faced with complaints - "you're not using it right" and "nobody needs to carry more than four mags" (while guys were carrying up to fifteen in Afghanistan). Commercial kit manufacturers made a lot of money during those years, and were very responsive to feedback from customers.

[@pacificprospector]

Right!? LOL. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this.

[@althepal6818]

One interesting point was the change from the rucksack to the new bacpack. Did I hated that new ones has it would not stand by itself when laid down...

[@TheLoachman]

Neither, in issued form, were good, but the C2 rucksack frame with aftermarket shoulder straps, waist belt, and back pad certainly could be. I was very happy with mine, and whatever the commercial goodies cost me around sixteen years ago was money well spent. The 82 Pattern rucksack was, however, completely unsalvageable. It was a slightly modified version of the 1977 trial webbing project, mentioned in my first comment.

[@althepal6818]

@@TheLoachman What I enjoyed of the C2 which the 82 pattern lacked, was easy access to your things. Outside the tent, well lined-up and the FN leaning on it. Major problem was those plastic buckles that would not hold very good and we had to tape (gun tape!) the different straps.

[@blacksmith67]

@@althepal6818While in the Reserves I only used ‘52/‘64 webbing. We would coil all strap ends into tight rolls tucked back into the buckle and then secure them with strips of gun tape torn in half lengthwise. Once you had your webbing set up you pretty much left it alone.

[@althepal6818]

@@blacksmith67 Yes, experienced that period too. Peace time army has tideness requirement that are almost mental sickness. Not very practical to roll all your strapping...

[@blacksmith67]

@@althepal6818 Yeah, as I was leaving, the new RSM indirectly said that combats and combat boots were to be ironed and spit polished. "Regulations notwithstanding... If it's cloth, iron it! If it's leather, polish it!"

[@simongrushka983]

i'm dissapointed a bit that the canadian bdu does not have canadian buttons

[@TheLoachman]

??? The combat shirt does indeed have Canadian buttons. The uniform is called "Combat Clothing". "BDU" is an American term for an American uniform.

[@KebeQ]

It does...

[@RiflemanMoore]

It does have Canadian buttons.

[@simongrushka983]

my bad, guys. i must have seen it wrongly.

[@TheLoachman]

I was greatly disappointed when this appeared. It is, like its predecessors and successor, a very poor design. The belt is that wide because the 1977 trial webbing (rightfully rejected for many reasons - it was even worse) had to accommodate a third row of grommets that ran up the middle and had the same vertical and horizontal spacing. Pouches were attached with two types of separate two-part plastic clips that could be arranged horizontally or vertically. They either came undone and disappeared or broke very easily, so that those upon whom the trial webbing was inflicted had to thread bootlaces through the holes in the pouches and belt and tie them on. The 1982 Pattern attachment clippy things are an improvement over those, and negated the requirement for the middle row of grommets - but the trial belt width was retained for no useful reason. The trial belt buckle was a flimsy, complicated metal buckle that was sewn to the main belt on one side and adjustable only from the other side. The Fastex-type buckle on the 82 Pattern belt is vastly superior to that, although the plastic used was strangely softer than the original commercial Fastex buckles. Wearing the belt around the hips, as was common, was silly. The manual stated that it was to be worn to carry the load ON the hips. Whoever drew the illustrations misinterpreted that and drew it being worn AROUND the hips instead. That put the full load on the shoulders and allowed everything to shift around the hips and cover the lower pockets of the combat shirt and jacket, rendering them useless. It also looked goofy. The shoulder padding was one of the worst features. Soft padding does not spread loads effectively, and mainly only adds bulk. Bulk retains heat, and, in the case of the 82 Pattern padding, water. The rucksack shoulder padding is much the same. Combined thickness of webbing and rucksack padding was just ridiculous. A wide, stiff, lightly-padded arrangement for both webbing and rucksack would have been vastly superior. The water bottle carrier lid did not overlap the carrier enough. I don't recall ever seeing anybody wear a mess tin pouch in the middle back of the belt. The butt pack was normally worn in that position. Putting it into the butt pack makes no sense. The butt pack was one of the few good features. I acquired several, as they could be carried independently with the optional sling. Much fuss was made about all of the "human engineering" during the design phase of the 1977 trial webbing, but there was no benefit from any of that. It would have been much better to have collected various sets of webbing from other countries and run comparisons - which is what I did during one of my Infantry Officer courses, using my own collection. That was one of the problems with the 1982 Pattern trials. Nobody had anything to compare it to, other than the 1964 Pattern webbing. The other was the prospect of an excessive wait for any corrections if any complaints were made - it took five years to redesign the 1977 trial webbing. There was great incentive to accept it as it was or have nothing to replace 1964 Pattern for another half of a decade. Of note, the 1977 webbing trial was supposed to be conducted simultaneously with a trial of camouflaged combat clothing, which was made with British tropical DPM fabric. In anticipation of magazine pouches, the chest pockets were flat. The uniform was delayed a year. The trial webbing was rejected in 1978, and guys on the Phase III Infantry Officer Course in Gagetown did the clothing trial in the summer of 1979. I don't remember where they put their mags. I promised you, some time ago, photographs of the 1977 trial webbing. I really should take some. I need to have my DSLR camera fixed first, though.

[@brucegraham4332]

I have some pics of the trial equipment at the time, as well as components of the set as well.

[@joeydepalmer4457]

would love to see them@@brucegraham4332