Asnes USGI skis/bindings/boots

[bgregoire]

I'm not in the loop, but it looks like a company named Serket USA partnered with Icelantic to provide skis and has come up with a 'universal' binding to supply the USMC.

Nice find Rongon... Absolutely beautiful military Iceland skis...
Price is a bit steep at 800$ for 7.5lbs planks though... I guess it's a good deal for taxpayers...

They will never catch up to me with those!

[fgd135]

Those Intrepid Scout Military Skis appear to be Icelantic Nomads with a white top sheet and a bit more camber underfoot. If so, those are pretty nice BC skis--I ski on the Pioneer 96 with Voile Switchback X2's--for lifts and steeper bc skiing, with plastic tele boots... Don't know if it's exactly the same, however, I'll walk over to Icelantic's HQ in the next couple of days and ask.
Awfully wide ski to try and edge with mickey mouse or bunny boots, but maybe the combination of the very short skis and plate bindings will add some lateral support. Those bindings appear to be a slight re-design of older plate AT bindings, with snowboard cuffs added. That's certainly OK if they work.
I see that you, too, can buy a pair from one commercial reseller(?) for only $825US a pair, and only $850US for the bindings.

[randoskier]

Hello,
This is also my first post. I do, however have some background with this equipment, as I worked for Paul Ramer at Alpine Research when we were producing ski equipment for the military, including those cable bindings, ending in about 1997.

The Marine Corps and the Army were big customers--iirc, the last order (of several) we completed for the cable bindings Coleman's is selling was in the neighborhood of 5000 pair. Other contracts included thousands of pairs of fixed length military XC poles and also heavy duty twist-adjustable avalanche-probe ski poles, and strap-on nylon plush climbing skins. We also built adjustable poles with self arrest grips for special warfare units.

K2 designed a custom backcountry ski for us, which we bid against the Asnes MT65--this is the Asnes name of the surplus skis Coleman's sells--of course the Asnes ski won the bid--we were told afterwards that the USMC absolutely insisted on the Asnes, as that was the ski the Norwegians were using. Fwiw, the K2 ski had a good nordic flex, more sidecut than the MT68, also wood core, was wider, better turning, and lighter, too-- similar to the eventual Asnes NATO Combat.

We tried to talk the services into a more modern alpine touring binding, but the Army insisted they wanted a copy of the old Silveretta 125A--essentially an older-style alpine touring binding that uses a cable--so that's what we made for them--the Ramer surplus cable binding is just our copy of the Silveretta, made in Denver and Boulder, not Germany.
This binding isn't junk! I've personally skied many many miles with them--but it's not a nordic binding for free heel touring--it's purpose is to accommodate military bunny boots and common welted leather boots to allow reasonable over -the-snow travel. They work quite well for that, and I might also say, they work quite well with plastic climbing boots to access ice climbs, esp. when installed on pair of very short wide alpine skis, which is much better alternative travel than snowshoes. The Silveretta was the tour-de-force for use on McKinley climbs since it works well slogging up snowfields with plastic and leather double climbing boots. They are releasable, as a forward fall will open the cable lever and relieve tension on the foot, if the cable lever hook is properly adjusted.
That being said, they're clumsy to use, as they don't allow a normal stride, just a ~shuffle~, and also can have issues with broken cables from time to time. I'd not use them for casual XC skiing.

Those surplus Asnes MT65 skis are predrilled for another binding--the NATO 120. It also works with bunny boots, Sorels, insulated boots, etc., and is a true nordic cable binding, albeit not so great for edge control.

My recommendations, based on what you say about your skill level and esp. your weight:
1) The 210 Asnes ski is good if you're doing easy to moderate XC trails and if you're willing to learn to use XC wax. Or use short skins as an alternative. Alternately find a shorter, wider, waxless XC ski, maybe 200 cm.
2) I would really consider spending the money on a well made heavy duty XC boot--my recommendation is, like the others, to try the Alico ski-march boot, with the warning it may not be supportive enough; a better but more expensive choice would be a pair of plastic Scott Excursions or similar backcountry telemark boot, I know, heresy here on my first post to recommend ~plastic~, but worth a consideration in this case.
3) I am partial to the Rottefella Telemark 3-pin, but the Voile 3-pin, or Voile 3-pin cable is a very good choice too.
If you can find a pair, the Rottefella NATO 98 binding is also an excellent lightwt. XC touring binding, which is simply the military version of the original Rottefella Riva cable binding. It works only with 75mm boots.

Hope this is informational, if not too verbose,
Cheers!

Interesting history, thanks for that.

Skiing on bunny boots is an incredibly stupid idea. I was a USAF SP in the Strategic Air Command and spent two years of my time at a Northern-Tier SAC base doing nuclear weapons security, outside on the flight-line and alert-pad- midnight to seven shifts. In winter we wore either canvas Mukluks with pile liners if it was "warm" or bunny-boots if it was cold. They work for that though they of course do not breathe but running or skiing hahahaha. SAC's motto was "Peace is Our Profession"...we used to joke "killing's just a hobby"

The marines were still "skiing" on these boots as late as 2016 in Norway. My buddy who was a colonel in the Army told me in Alaska he got issued bunny boots and a pair of "white missiles" which is what they called the skis because nobody had any idea how to turn them.

They announced that they had agreed to buy those Combat Nato skis in 2017, but I am not sure that deal went through in the end, I read another article after that said that deal was on hold as an American company had suggested an AT binding and an AT ski and got some traction. Not sure what they decided in the end.

What the American Marines really need is SKI LESSONS they ski like shit (lots of Youtube). Not for want of trying but you are not going to take a group of non-skiing military members send them up to Finnmark, Sitermoen or the Haltdal two weeks and come back with ski troops. Then the next year they are stationed in Okinawa under the palm trees.

The British Royal Marines ski pretty well.

Why doesn't the US military have a dedicated ski-infantry unit like they had in ww2? The Arctic is real flash point now and rapidly militarizing. Thank godt that the Norwegian "White Death" troops are on our side! They can ski!

[randoskier]

Bye bye Combat NATO ski, hello schlock... not a bright decision

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... ki-system/

They should have listened to the Norwegian Army and bought the Asnes skis. Skiing on Bunny Boots (rubbery bulky vapor barrier boots with almost no ankle support) is simply ridiculous.

The need to make the 10th Mountain Division a mountain division again, or have a dedicated Arctic unit from the Army or Marines. This is a total waste of $9 million.

When will they ever learn.....

[fgd135]

Bye bye Combat NATO ski, hello schlock... not a bright decision

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... ki-system/

They should have listened to the Norwegian Army and bought the Asnes skis. Skiing on Bunny Boots (rubbery bulky vapor barrier boots with almost no ankle support) is simply ridiculous.

The need to make the 10th Mountain Division a mountain division again, or have a dedicated Arctic unit from the Army or Marines. This is a total waste of $9 million.

When will they ever learn.....

A previous post in this thread specifically discussed those skis and bindings, even to costs. I actually think it's not bad gear for its intended use, sliding around in arctic conditions on mindless flat and rolling terrain vs. walking on snowshoes...

And don't worry, those skis and boot systems are considered "supplies" and not "equipment" and will be replaced in a year or three with something else after the services find out it's not ideal. And Ebay or Colemans will sell em for $39.95.
Reading back on a another document about the Asnes MT65 and ski march boot acquisitions back in the 1990's, the MOMS was directly influenced by the positive response to the Norwegian ski training and experience with USMC as part of the NATO commitment. Apparently the gear was not retained for very long and I'm not sure there was ever a large purchase of the boots; instead the USMC continued to use bunny boots with the NATO 120 bindings, clearly seen in any photos from the MWTC. Poor boot choices, probably excessive injuries and training down time because of that decision.
Special warfare units continue to use AT gear and good boots, but in general the Army and possibly the USMC regard XC skiing simply as a way to move units faster on snow from point A to B than with snowshoes, but in on rolling and relatively flat terrain (arctic) , rather than as technical mountain skiers in tactical situations aka French mountain troops.

[randoskier]

Bye bye Combat NATO ski, hello schlock... not a bright decision

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... ki-system/

They should have listened to the Norwegian Army and bought the Asnes skis. Skiing on Bunny Boots (rubbery bulky vapor barrier boots with almost no ankle support) is simply ridiculous.

The need to make the 10th Mountain Division a mountain division again, or have a dedicated Arctic unit from the Army or Marines. This is a total waste of $9 million.

When will they ever learn.....

A previous post in this thread specifically discussed those skis and bindings, even to costs. I actually think it's not bad gear for its intended use, sliding around in arctic conditions on mindless flat and rolling terrain vs. walking on snowshoes...

And don't worry, those skis and boot systems are considered "supplies" and not "equipment" and will be replaced in a year or three with something else after the services find out it's not ideal. And Ebay or Colemans will sell em for $39.95.
Reading back on a another document about the Asnes MT65 and ski march boot acquisitions back in the 1990's, the MOMS was directly influenced by the positive response to the Norwegian ski training and experience with USMC as part of the NATO commitment. Apparently the gear was not retained for very long and I'm not sure there was ever a large purchase of the boots; instead the USMC continued to use bunny boots with the NATO 120 bindings, clearly seen in any photos from the MWTC. Poor boot choices, probably excessive injuries and training down time because of that decision.
Special warfare units continue to use AT gear and good boots, but in general the Army and possibly the USMC regard XC skiing simply as a way to move units faster on snow from point A to B than with snowshoes, but in on rolling and relatively flat terrain (arctic) , rather than as technical mountain skiers in tactical situations aka French mountain troops.

Sorry I did not see the previous post.

You have a peculiar sense of Arctic geography, Norway which is where the principal deployments are using these skis (and the principal threat + a land border with Russia) is anything but flat (with the exception of Finnmark), Have a look with Google Earth at the Norwegian Arctic and its mountains; the Lyngen Alps, the Narvik Mountains, and the Saltfjellet, etc.. The principal NATO training areas like Setermoen, Bardufoss, Haltdalen, etc. are not flat at all. In Norway the mountains rise right out of the sea not off a 5,500 meter high plain, they are real mountains. The US Marine rotation is based in Vaernes in Trondelag, Trondelag is mountainous, the whole country is.

Troops need to be able to fire and maneuver in this terrain. The US troops are somewhat of an embarrassment, The British troops can even become UIAGM Mountain Guides while serving, they run a telemark, AT Ski Training camp every winter at an Austrian resort- I have a buddy, a Slovenian UIAGM Guide, who is one of their teachers. They are well equipped and well trained, we are not.

The base my wife works on here (173rd Airborne, the rapid-reaction force) sends soldiers up to Norway and also non-NATO Sweden to train in winter now- they are blown away by the capabilities of the locals.

The Finnish-Russian war (aka The Winter War) demonstrated clearly that well trained ski troops can defeat a much larger force of lesser trained soldiers. The USSR sent more than one million Soviet soldiers into Finland and were repelled by a much smaller Finnish force.

It is a real shame that the Tenth Mountain is now simply a light infantry division, they only keep the name for historical reasons. That unit was made up of people who could already ski, largely fist generation European immigrants (even some from Germany). They were very effective though they saw little action. they need a unit that trains all winter, every winter, and in winter conditions.

Bold statements from the Marine Commandant are not enough, they need to ski the ski. (with better skis).

First pic is the Lyngen Alps, second is crossing the Arctic Circle just south of Bodø (which btw was where Gary Powers was supposed to land)

[fgd135]

You have valid and good points, but, oh man, I'm not here to argue geography with you, just to state my experiences with sales of ski equipment to US forces and conversations with same regarding that equipment and the mission that was percieved for that gear, right or wrong. I think there is still that perception in the US armed forces, that if trained at all, the majority of troops will have only basic experience and training in OTS transportation. Snowshoes vs. sliding short skis for basic road transportation is what we're talking about, not some kind of wierd non ski thread about arctic and alpine battlefield strategy and tactics; if so, maybe it should be moved over to some other kind of a talk board...

[Krummholz]

From looking at the pictures on their website and reading the description of the scout - it seems oddly familiar…..

If they had bought the Hoks they could have gotten integrated skins.

[randoskier]

You have valid and good points, but, oh man, I'm not here to argue geography with you, just to state my experiences with sales of ski equipment to US forces and conversations with same regarding that equipment and the mission that was percieved for that gear, right or wrong. I think there is still that perception in the US armed forces, that if trained at all, the majority of troops will have only basic experience and training in OTS transportation. Snowshoes vs. sliding short skis for basic road transportation is what we're talking about, not some kind of wierd non ski thread about arctic and alpine battlefield strategy and tactics; if so, maybe it should be moved over to some other kind of a talk board...

Arctic geography is not debatable, it is science, the topography is fact. Military skiing is also skiing. This thread is about military skis. The procurement weenies are not the ones skiing on this gear and yes that feeds a healthy military surplus business of lightly used winter equipment that was not suitable for its original purpose/mission.