Protective eyewear

#1
On page 34 of December's Soldier magazine, a boffin from Porton Down stresses the need to use protective equipment as issued and points out that the issued 'sunglasses' offered ballistic protection and had to be worn. In the same issue (P 65) Lt Col Strickland CO of 1 RGR Battlegroup respoded to a letter from Cpl Woodward trying feebly to justify his decision not to allow his troops to wear this important kit on patrols. When will we learn? These bloody glasses ARE uniform. They are issued as part of our uniform for the very purpose of giving eye protection on patrols. The Americans issue all troops with protective eyewear and they are worn on training. What's more important ~ the safety of our soldier's eyes or looking 'pukka' on patrol? It's a bloody patrol for God's sake ~ not a parade.

The eye injury statistics are there. Eye protection is vital! That's why MoD spends so much money on the kit! COs remember ~ YOU have a duty of care.

Anyone else out there had this problem?
 
#3
Playing devils advocate. I believe the RGR BG lads could wear the issue "sunglasses" just not with the dark lenses.

Correct. Dark lenses were banned. Clear were not. Like Mk 7 Hemet and Osprey, protective eyewear is a mandatory FP measure. COs tend to be up to speed on Brigade FP measures. It kind of goes with the job.
 
#5
Lt Col Strickland ran a really tight ship at PB2, too tight in some instances IMO; uniform being one of them. The other PB's in his AO had an unofficial Op called Op LONG wherefore they would wear shorts, sandals and T-Shirts whilst operating in the Ops Room, eating, going about general PB life; when the CO made his rounds Op LONG was called and they reverted back to trousers, boots, shirts, etc etc, and back again when he drove out of camp. This appeared to be the case with the sunglasses issue from what I saw. The OC's seemed to have a common approach to his **** retentive uniformisms.

His response is lacking in justification to be honest, quoting a Field Marshal as his raison d'etre.
 
#6
Because apparently they scare the locals and make ground sign harder to see. Although the writer remarks that all the RESTs seem to manage.

Well what did Cpl Woodward expect when writing into Soldier if not to get fucked off at the high port with quotes from Slim by some supercilious colonel? He's hardly going to admit that the policy's shite, even if it is.
 
#8
It's the same every tour - Get that shirt tucked in, get rid of that and put your beret on, why are you wearing those sunglasses, etc, etc. Then a visit from a senior ranking officer from Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency (Or whatever it's now called) is announced; Break out the jungle hats, get shirts untucked, sunglasses on in the sun - visit goes well, happy officer sees kit being used as it should and buggers off back to blighty. As soon as his cab leaves; "Get that shirt tucked in, get rid of that and put your beret on, why are you wearing those sunglasses", etc, etc.
 
#9
To be honest and in defence of the senior officer he's correct, sunglasses are banned however your issue safety glasses aren't.

It would be interesting to see who says the brown filter reduces the vision enough to stop ground sign as they aren't really that dark, not exactly oakley polarised standards.

With regards to the uniform sounds more like local commander misinterpreting COCs orders, for example in PB you would be in short, flip flops with body armour weapon and helmet to hand, but going on stag/patrol you need your full IPE, reduction of flash burns etc, same with top cover rolling the sleeves down.
 
#10
Why would MoD spend additional money on multi-lens sets of glasses and goggles if the sun prtection lenses weren't to be used?
'coas thats how they come off the production line. 1 set of frames with three lenses. i suppose the MOD could ask the manufacturer to alter their packaging or just leave that lens out but that would end up costing more....
 
#16
Not wishing to make too fine a point about it but COMISAF said no tinted lenses to be worn... it is all about eye contact with the locals.
 
#17
Not wishing to make too fine a point about it but COMISAF said no tinted lenses to be worn... it is all about eye contact with the locals.
In which case the ban would be dark glasses on patrol, but the ban included wearing them in PBs as well according to the letter.
 
#18
Not wishing to make too fine a point about it but COMISAF said no tinted lenses to be worn... it is all about eye contact with the locals.
See Brigadier Wilkes' response in February's Soldier Magazine. He makes it quite clear that the issue sunglasses ARE to be worn. Yellow (to be replaced by vermillion) lenses are provided for use when reading roadsigns is a problem. It's all about UV as well as fragmentation protection. The new Revision Bullet Ant goggles and Sawfly glasses will be on issue shortly
 
#19
Lt Col Strickland was a ******* pain in the arse
seconded.

and his poor little gurkha radio operator must've wanted to strangle the c*nt after getting pulled around the battlefield by his handset!

everybody wore the dark lenses, even when strickland was about ( i certainly did). i couldnt give a **** what he had to say about it, he wasn't the one looking for ied's or engaging the enemy. the locals don't give two shits either. does nobody ask the lads on the ground what actually goes down when face to face with LNs? i doubt it.