Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2012, 07:29:48 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 21, 2012, 05:30:39 AM
Me: "OK. Everyone, put your gear on. Get with your battle buddy and check to make sure you both have water and food."

Battle Buddy???

Seriously??

battle buddy, wingman, whatever you use. To each his own, stop arguing over the small trash.

it is inappropriate.  We are not going in to battle.  Wingman would be better.

This "trash" is a symptom of a bigger problem.

Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
it is inappropriate.  We are not going in to battle.  Wingman would be better.

This "trash" is a symptom of a bigger problem.

Which problem is that?

We are a non combatant force, we are not in the Army, we do not train for battle, our field operations are humanitarian in nature, cadets think they are "Rangers", more time is spent trying to look and act "tactikewl" than actually becoming proficient in tasks and maintaining that proficiency, the list goes on.....

Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2012, 11:28:44 PM
We are a non combatant force, we are not in the Army, we do not train for battle, our field operations are humanitarian in nature, cadets think they are "Rangers", more time is spent trying to look and act "tactikewl" than actually becoming proficient in tasks and maintaining that proficiency, the list goes on.....

I agree that this is a common problem, but let's not generalize.  I've seen plenty of Senior Members trying to act the part of special operations forces in an ES setting.  We even had issues with one gentleman who wanted to deploy to Haiti and Japan to help with natural disasters there. 

Quote from: 68w10 on October 21, 2012, 11:45:02 PM

Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2012, 11:28:44 PM
We are a non combatant force, we are not in the Army, we do not train for battle, our field operations are humanitarian in nature, cadets think they are "Rangers", more time is spent trying to look and act "tactikewl" than actually becoming proficient in tasks and maintaining that proficiency, the list goes on.....

I agree that this is a common problem, but let's not generalize.  I've seen plenty of Senior Members trying to act the part of special operations forces in an ES setting.  We even had issues with one gentleman who wanted to deploy to Haiti and Japan to help with natural disasters there.

You just made my point.......

Quote from: cap235629 on October 22, 2012, 01:31:06 AM

Quote from: 68w10 on October 21, 2012, 11:45:02 PM

Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2012, 11:28:44 PM
We are a non combatant force, we are not in the Army, we do not train for battle, our field operations are humanitarian in nature, cadets think they are "Rangers", more time is spent trying to look and act "tactikewl" than actually becoming proficient in tasks and maintaining that proficiency, the list goes on.....

I agree that this is a common problem, but let's not generalize.  I've seen plenty of Senior Members trying to act the part of special operations forces in an ES setting.  We even had issues with one gentleman who wanted to deploy to Haiti and Japan to help with natural disasters there.

You just made my point.......

Right, because I agree with you.  What I take issue with is you generalizing that only Cadets have this issue.

What I take issue with is making a statement to start an argument, when nothing needs to be argued about. It is just a term. Are we fighter pilots? No, so the term wingman doesn't fit either... Maybe the term bestie should be used... Please don't try to the term bestie... It's just wrong... Flat out wrong.

Use a term that is common to your group, if it's battle buddy, fine, if it's wingman, fine, if it's bestie, then there are bigger issues at play.

Train your guys to think big picture, not it's all about looks. And don't use the term elite or ranger, and problem solved. The problem with people thinking in terms of ranger is hrms fault. Its name and tabs need changed.

Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
it is inappropriate.  We are not going in to battle.  Wingman would be better.

This "trash" is a symptom of a bigger problem.

This "trash" was a sanctioned term approved by people higher than you and I.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on October 22, 2012, 04:03:48 AM
Maybe the term bestie should be used... Please don't try to the term bestie... It's just wrong... Flat out wrong.

"Lieutenant! Where's your BFF?!" 

Hey guys, why don't we get back on topic (see title of thread).

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 22, 2012, 05:24:27 AM

Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
it is inappropriate.  We are not going in to battle.  Wingman would be better.

This "trash" is a symptom of a bigger problem.

This "trash" was a sanctioned term approved by people higher than you and I.

The Wing Commander has asked that it not be used. You might try to adapt to the way things are done in Arkansas. Incidentally I was speaking of CAP as a whole and did not intend to single you out.

Quote from: cap235629 on October 22, 2012, 05:11:14 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 22, 2012, 05:24:27 AM

Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
it is inappropriate.  We are not going in to battle.  Wingman would be better.

This "trash" is a symptom of a bigger problem.

This "trash" was a sanctioned term approved by people higher than you and I.

The Wing Commander has asked that it not be used. You might try to adapt to the way things are done in Arkansas.

The interesting thing about Arkansas wing, is a few of the wing level personnel use the term battle buddy. And I was given no hash when I used it at an Airshow with a lot of wing level persons.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on October 22, 2012, 06:10:00 PM

Quote from: cap235629 on October 22, 2012, 05:11:14 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 22, 2012, 05:24:27 AM

Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
it is inappropriate.  We are not going in to battle.  Wingman would be better.

This "trash" is a symptom of a bigger problem.

This "trash" was a sanctioned term approved by people higher than you and I.

Who cares if you said battle buddy or Wing Man. If you want to keep saying battle buddy then keep saying it until a regulation or instruction is published saying you cant. Too much nit picking in CAP and not focousing on the real missions. Just dont refer to one as a battle buddy if they are wearing the BBDU .
The Wing Commander has asked that it not be used. You might try to adapt to the way things are done in Arkansas.

The interesting thing about Arkansas wing, is a few of the wing level personnel use the term battle buddy. And I was given no hash when I used it at an Airshow with a lot of wing level persons.

Quote from: 68w10 on October 20, 2012, 03:01:53 PMThe gear inspection is a critical part of mission prep. 

What you described is not an equipment inspection.  At best is a checklist of the 10 most critical items.

And I think you still missed my emphasis - I've offered no comment about whether or not an equipment inspection is a good idea, but a "bag drag" is not a required task when you're trying to get out the door to do a mission.  You do it monthly or semi-annually and make sure that it's right.  You do it a week after any field exercise so that you can check that expendables get replaced.  You do it when it isn't go time.

If a team member, including myself, isn't responsible enough to keep their gear ready, then are they responsible enough to go on a mission? 

I'm a mission scanner - my MS and AP gear is mostly together and what isn't, I know where it is (my laptop for example).  I keep a checklist so I don't forget.  If I do miss something, I change my checklist so it isn't missed again - that's one of the reasons we train.

BTW - in the interest of the original topic of the thread, my preferred gear is just 20+ year old Alice gear.  It's inexpensive and it's easy to add to the web belt.  Light items can go in pockets, but as someone said higher up, you don't want to be carrying a lot in your pockets.  It's like flying gear, why would you want to spend a lot of money on something when a $5 worth of stuff from office max works just as effectively.

I don't have a picture of it, but it's very similar to one that was posted above.  Currently I have two canteens worn on the back corners with 4 ammo pouches in front of them.  I use a headlamp now that comes with green/red/white LEDs and carry two other white flashlights with me.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on October 22, 2012, 06:10:00 PM

Quote from: cap235629 on October 22, 2012, 05:11:14 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 22, 2012, 05:24:27 AM

Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
it is inappropriate.  We are not going in to battle.  Wingman would be better.

This "trash" is a symptom of a bigger problem.

This "trash" was a sanctioned term approved by people higher than you and I.

The Wing Commander has asked that it not be used. You might try to adapt to the way things are done in Arkansas.

The interesting thing about Arkansas wing, is a few of the wing level personnel use the term battle buddy. And I was given no hash when I used it at an Airshow with a lot of wing level persons.

The last thing I'll say about it. Whatever you want to call it, each and every member needs to have a partner to watch their back. That goes for seniors as well. I did not intend to start a (expletive deleted)-storm with my scenario. This just proves that regardless of where we're from, things are so different they're the same, regardless of the name. We all do the same missions, have the same guidelines, and whatever term you use, whether it be wanna-be, tak-ti-kewl, or functionally appropriate for said partners, great, fine, whatever. Our term "battle-buddy" was started at an encampment, and was used freely among cadets and seniors there and it spread to home units. Whether Wing approves or sanctions it, or if they just wink and let it slide, is not my concern. Until we hear otherwise from someone farther up the food chain that they find the term objectionable, in the form of an official memo, we're probably going to keep using it, whatever objections you may have regarding the term.

Back to your regularly scheduled topic.

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 22, 2012, 07:46:07 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on October 22, 2012, 06:10:00 PM

Quote from: cap235629 on October 22, 2012, 05:11:14 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 22, 2012, 05:24:27 AM

Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
it is inappropriate.  We are not going in to battle.  Wingman would be better.

This "trash" is a symptom of a bigger problem.

This "trash" was a sanctioned term approved by people higher than you and I.

The Wing Commander has asked that it not be used. You might try to adapt to the way things are done in Arkansas.

The interesting thing about Arkansas wing, is a few of the wing level personnel use the term battle buddy. And I was given no hash when I used it at an Airshow with a lot of wing level persons.

The last thing I'll say about it. Whatever you want to call it, each and every member needs to have a partner to watch their back. That goes for seniors as well. I did not intend to start a (expletive deleted)-storm with my scenario. This just proves that regardless of where we're from, things are so different they're the same, regardless of the name. We all do the same missions, have the same guidelines, and whatever term you use, whether it be wanna-be, tak-ti-kewl, or functionally appropriate for said partners, great, fine, whatever. Our term "battle-buddy" was started at an encampment, and was used freely among cadets and seniors there and it spread to home units. Whether Wing approves or sanctions it, or if they just wink and let it slide, is not my concern. Until we hear otherwise from someone farther up the food chain that they find the term objectionable, in the form of an official memo, we're probably going to keep using it, whatever objections you may have regarding the term.

FYI I have been in ARWG for just over half this century so far and have really no issues with adapting to the way things are done here. Just sayin'.

Back to your regularly scheduled topic.

Stupid buttons that look the same...geez. I need better glasses.

The true problem with CAP is that we argue over the stupidest things ever! Who cares what you call someone who assigned or voluntary with another person? Call them what you will and carry on.

Quote from: AngelWings on October 23, 2012, 12:23:09 AM
The true problem with CAP is that we argue over the dumbest things ever! Who cares what you call someone who assigned or voluntary with another person? Call them what you will and carry on.

FTFY

"dream" gear? I demand an antigravity generator for my pack.

Oh, you mean physically possible? well, what I have now, actually. high-end mountaineering pack and a small PALS vest for essentials.