Infantry accompanying load carriers

[Compost]

Tactical movement of military stores and supplies to support foot-mobile or already dismounted infantry units and sub-units is a vital activity. It excludes the actual transport of such infantry.
When terrain and conditions permit, cargo can be well protected and provided to infantry by accompanying vehicles that are preferably armoured and optionally cross-country and amphibious. But in dense vegetation, rugged terrain and urban labyrinths most vehicle types become remote. Similarly airdrop or actual supply from aircraft and VTOLs is only sometimes usable and timely.
A particular concern for tactical deployment is that many smaller self-propelled surface vehicles such as 6x6 and 4x4 ATVs are also too large and/or heavy to accompany infantry in all conditions and also onto expedient transport such as utility helicopters and GS vehicles. The fallbacks are 3-wheel ATVs and 2-wheel cross-country bikes. The lightest of these have empty weights of about 80kgand can carry a load of up to 150kg and optionally pull a trailer. At any speed above walking pace the overall load has to include the weight of a rider.
Animal transport such as camel, dog, horse, mule, oxen can carry only small loads relative to body weight: typically less than 33%. Animals can tow somewhat larger loads relative to body plus cart weight. But only dogs can be expediently transported together with infantry in the smaller types of vehicles, boats or aircraft. And several dogs are needed to carry a one-man load. Also, regardless of any natural forage, all load-carrying and draft animals introduce needs for additional food-types and veterinary support.
The inevitable result is that even when small ATVs are available, conditions often require that infantry move their immediate tactical supplies in personal packs augmented by own unit portering. Since Roman times it has been known that infantry used as mules become less alert. Modern infantry on operations are often loaded with about 50kg of own equipment and sub-unit stores. And the trend is upward with increasing use of body armour, communication/reporting and surveillance systems demanded as much for political as for tactical needs.
S.L.A. Marshall is sometimes criticised as a drummer but he accurately summarised the situation and costs then and now: “From faulty appreciation of the logistical limits of the human carrier come the loss of tactical opportunity and the wastage of good manpower”. [The Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation”, Marine Corps Association, Quantico, 1965, p47]
Various man-powered cargo carriers have been used to reduce the need for man-packing. Above the snow-line infantry routinely use small cargo sleds. Elsewhere some use has been made of man-propelled wheeled cargo carriers but these have not been widely adopted. The basic types are briefly 1-wheel barrow, 2-wheel in-tandem bike, 2-wheel side-by-side buggey, 3-wheel and 4-wheel carts.
One-wheel barrow used by old-time gold prospectors to push/pull gear and provisions long distances across rough country. On uneven ground a barrow is awkward to handle with a load as small as 75kg. Monowheel included on 210kg mount of 106mm M40 Rcl Rifle was problematic even for a short distance.
Two wheel in-tandem bike used to supply NVA and VC over long distance earthen and corduroy tracks. Designed for hard surface roads but modified with extended handlebars and seat tube, pedals and chain discarded. Weighed 10 to 15kg and carried up to about 90kg of cargo when pushed by one and probably often two small-statured men.
Buggey with two side-by-side wheels used as actual mount for Russian HMG. Golf buggey style two stub-axle layout tested by British Army in 1950/60s as carrier for infantry mortars, and wire cage buggey with low straight-through axle bar simultaneously tested as carrier for mortar bombs. Both types referred to as 1st Infantry Division trolleys. In 2001 the Singaporean Army ran a competition for an all-terrain personal 27kg load carrier (with side-by-side wheels ?): result not publicised. US Army has reportedly tested a bulky all-terrain all-purpose cart-sled (ATACS) derived from UT-2000 mountain stretcher system.
Three and four-wheel carts assessed as relatively cumbersome and not further discussed.
In my view both types of 2-wheel carrier have useful potential. Using modern materials and cross country wheels and tyres it is easy to see a 2-wheel in-tandem pack bicycle weighing approx 10kg and able to carry a load of up to about 75kg. Such a bike with wire panniers and straps would be somewhat heavier than the framed packs needed to load equivalent cargo onto say two human mules. However the push/puller could readily lay down and take up a cargo bike instead of having to more slowly undo or attach an extra 37kg backpack. Also despite times when both push/pullers had to work together to get a pack bicycle over/around an obstacle, there would be other times when the pack bicycle could be moved by one. Such a pack bicycle could negotiate narrow tracks and be attached to aids such as a flying fox or a cable pull up/down a slope . It could also be transported on the side or across the back of a GS or armoured vehicle, on a small boat or upright on a helicopter skid. It would increase the risk posed by anti-personnel mines.
A 2-wheel side-by-side buggey would have many of the same attributes. When appropriately loaded fore and aft it would require less effort to keep upright. If kept small it could fairly readily traverse narrow tracks, would be easy to move on a cable run but less so on a flying fox and could bulk awkwardly when transported on the side or back of a vehicle, or on a boat or helicopter. It would increase the risk posed by anti-personnel mines. With a basic configuration similar to that of a tripod it might (with wheels adjusted or detached) also be usable as a weapon mount.
That is enough to survey the topic. Infantry could benefit by having one or two types of small man-powered utility carriers to carry stores and some crew-served weapons. The main carrier is envisaged as a bicycle with two wheels in tandem. The second is a golf buggey style with two side-by-side wheels that might also function as a weapons mount. So several questions.
What types of man-powered cargo carriers been tested or used recently ? With what results ?
Why aren’t wheeled man-powered cargo carriers already in widespread military use ?
What characteristics are needed to make such carriers acceptable/useful ?
Scale of issue: one per platoon weapon team, one per infantry section ?
Would 50 to 75kg be a useful and readily manoeuvrable load size ?
2-wheels in-tandem and/or side-by-side or something else ?

[jcustis]

A better load carrier will simply result in greater loads...that we don't need in the first place.

Now, take my combat load and cut it to half its weight from lighter materials and then we're talking! :D

[Ken White]

A better load carrier will simply result in greater loads...that we don't need in the first place.We are spoiled and most of those "solutions" don't quite do the job...

Though my guess would be some form of transport will prevail and training will not be improved. :( :mad:

[Fuchs]

The German infantry used one horse-drawn cart (a small one) per infantry platoon in WW2. There was no need to move it into combat itself, but it was a company-level asset and therefore brought quite close to the action.
This kind of load carrying arrangement (=non-combat loads on trucks/APCs) looks still optimal to me unless we're talking about long-range patrols.

For long range patrols over (mostly) wheel-compatible terrain I would have a look at working dogs. They can help as scout dogs (much superior senses), bolster morale, help security at night and at the same time pull a small cart. The latter is possible for soldiers as well, of course. We just don't like to do the job of working animals.
A cart no heavier than what can be lifted over a wall by four men would likely be useful, especially for troops that carry especially heavy single loads (AT and mortar teams, for example).

[Tom Odom]

M-gators were a common sight at the JRTC prior to 9-11 and even afterward until we made the formal switch to MREs for Iraq and secondarily for Afghanistan. The M-gator served the same purpose as the WWII Jeep and trailer and they work quite well.

Tom

[Rifleman]

A cart no heavier than what can be lifted over a wall by four men would likely be useful, especially for troops that carry especially heavy single loads (AT and mortar teams, for example).

The 1st Ranger Battalion found that useful in the Italian campaign.

http://www.theliberator.be/HandCartImages/WartimeHandcarts/1RNGRAluCart.jpg

As did other units: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.theliberator.be/HandCartImages/WartimeHandcarts/1RNGRAluCart.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theliberator.be/handcart.htm&usg=__WfQoyZ_fTdGMoXTKwWv9_wRout4=&h=524&w=820&sz=38&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=RadPInaYauoX9M:&tbnh=92&tbnw=144&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddarby%2527s%2Brangers%2Bmortar%2Bcart %26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1G1GGLQ_ENUS347%26sa%3DN%26um%3 D1

[tankersteve]

Just need a way for a narrow bicycle-style tire to be quickly replaced with a balloon-style tire when dealing with sand/muck. Make it out of lightweight aluminum, make it able to be disassembled for air assault or manpack, and again, keep it light.

Some of my Canadian friends have told me of pulling sledges while wearing snowshoes, with 2 Soldiers pulling the sledge with over-the-shoulder traces, while a third pushes and steers.

Tankersteve

[OfTheTroops]

The greatest problem with the combat load today is the body armor. When you start with 45 lbs burden it is a quick trip to 30% or 50% of the porter's weight. Soldiers are not meant to be pack animals and when used as such are less effective at soldiering. The best part of training is realizing what looks good on paper doesnt work in reality. Two things are important here, 1)you can not train the average Soldier to be a SuperSoldier no more than you can train an attack dog to be an attack mule and 2) the carts or jeeps or iBattles are not likely to solve this. Likely just adding to the stuff Joe can break or lose. I have often joked with my battle's that "They" weigh you down so "They" know you can't run away. You always need about twice as many troops to do what half could do in better circumstances.

[OfTheTroops]

How does one ride a bicycle in full battle rattle? Very carefully i would presume.

[Firn]

As I said before a (silent) mule or packhorse would be a good thing to have for territory in Afghanistan. It served my grandgrandfathers, grandfathers, father well but didn't make to me.

I personally have pulled things up mountains on skies and snowshoes. Up to a certain degree of terrain, slope and weight skies are better. If I think about pulling that .... heavy part of a mountain howitzer on a 3000m + mountain to please a general hovering over with a helicpoter I still can feel the pain. :rolleyes:

Firn

[reed11b]

Some of my Canadian friends have told me of pulling sledges while wearing snowshoes, with 2 Soldiers pulling the sledge with over-the-shoulder traces, while a third pushes and steers.

Tankersteve

Not just Canadians. At Ft. Richardson we had/have akio sleds as well. We cursed them from the bottoms of our airborne hearts btw.
Reed

[IntelTrooper]

How does one ride a bicycle in full battle rattle? Very carefully i would presume.
It's not too bad. Mainly have to use a shorter sling for the rifle.

[RJ]

Mountain Bikes are geared to achieve new heights!

In the 20's through the 70's bikes were used to transport weapons and supplies in several wars and insurrections. And probably still do. With the popularity of off road mountain bikes, have some bright eyed troopers of the Ranger Regt. or the Airborne community brought this two wheeled mule forward for testing?

The tires are a little skinny for beach assualts, but once off the sandy part perhaps the Marine Corps might consider them for machine gun section and 81mm mortar movers.

A clever grunt who needs to move baseplate and tube with a dozen or more rounds on one bike frame and the A/Gunner with 50 more rounds on another might be able to stay closer to the sound of guns.

I have relatives who used to wax poetic about the Flying Columns ability to move men and materials around Ireland by the dark of night.

[Rifleman]

Not just Canadians. At Ft. Richardson we had/have akio sleds as well. We cursed them from the bottoms of our airborne hearts btw.
Reed

I've pulled them at Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin and in the Italian Alps. I didn't like it any more than you.

[Firn]

I've pulled them at Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin and in the Italian Alps. I didn't like it any more than you.

Where in the Italian Alps?

What about a bike cart like that one (http://urbanvelo.org/community-bike-cart-design/)? Best if detachable for easy handpulling.


Firn

[William F. Owen]

Mules and Llamas, and that's about it. Infantry walk. Men don't have wheels, so I can't see the point of limiting them to things with wheels. If you are on roads with carts, why not use vehicles??

Try walking around the Southern Lebanon with something with wheels. 30-40cm step and trench obstacles, plus 40 degree slopes are routine.

[Fuchs]

The simple reason for wheels is
a)stuff needs to move
PLUS
b) a wheel carries weight. The mechanic system itself supports the weight, you do not need to put any energy into the system to support the weight (as on legs, no matter whether biological or technical).

This greater energy efficiency is a huge advantage over legs, and the reason why we move faster on bikes than on legs, for example: We spend our power on forward movement and almost nothing on supporting our own weight (only on the spine).


That's why I make the compromise at something on wheels that's either meant for roads or meant to be crew-portable over obstacles (even walls).

There's no universal solution anyway. You don't want to use mules in jungles where you need to create a path with a machete, for example.

[William F. Owen]

I know wheels have many mechanical advantages. The problem is that wheels are the thin edge of wedge. They enable stupidity.

Allowing infantry to carry more weight, by allowing wheels, means that they will be get even more overloaded. Man-packing is a simple and coherent method of forcing the argument back to basics, as is Mules or Llamas, or even well trained Hamsters.

We want to try and avoid making doing stupid things possible, because history shows that Infantry Officers always overload their men - almost always because of stupidity, and a failure to ask the right question in the right context.

I also submit that a well trained and well lead army does not have load carrying problem because it has already exercised the judgement necessary to avoid it.

[OfTheTroops]

http://www.militarybikes.com/paratroopervid.html

http://www.bikesatwork.com/

just in case you thought no one made such non-sense.


And no need to worry about overloading or wheels! we shall devise an overly complex machine to assist you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0X1vyWU6bw

[Rifleman]

Where in the Italian Alps?


I don't remember the name of the nearest village (I'm suffering from a bad case of middle age) but I think it was considered part of the Tyrol. It might have been one of those areas that was sometimes Italy and sometimes Austria pre-WWII. I remember hearing people mention Folgoria. That's not where we were but I think Folgoria must have been in the same area.

Anyway, the Airborne Battalion Combat Team went there from Vicenza to conduct winter training every year.

[Firn]

I don't remember the name of the nearest village (I'm suffering from a bad case of middle age) but I think it was considered part of the Tyrol. It might have been one of those areas that was sometimes Italy and sometimes Austria pre-WWII. I remember hearing people mention Folgoria. That's not where we were but I think Folgoria must have been in the same area.

Anyway, the Airborne Battalion Combat Team went there from Vicenza to conduct winter training every year.

I guess you trained with the Folgore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folgore_Parachute_Brigade). There are quite some places where you could have been, as IIRC the Folgore trained in quite some areas in Southtyrol. Many of them have been purchased over the years by the province.

This list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communes_of_the_province_of_Bolzano-Bozen) contains all the village names of the province. If you want you can revive memories. Could be Innichen, Toblach or others.

Anyway you seem truly have enjoyed your stay. Personally I think the Akio is an excellent way to transport stuff in snowy winters even if I sometimes wondered why they could not have made some single parts of the obice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_Mod_56) smaller. Wikipedia informs us that being a pack howitzer it is designed to be broken down into 12 parts, each of which can be easily transported. Easily transported perhaps by a truck, a MTC (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresia_F18_4x4) or a helicopter, but not by some poor guys with only Akios up the Marmolada. :rolleyes:

While the MTC was and is a good idea mules could be faster in quite some areas and go where no wheeled thing could. At least as mountain infantry you need both. It would be of course ideal to pull the vehicles as close up to the units as possible. The MTC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrX_ciZGIRo&NR=1)(motocarello/motorcart) can extend the reach of the wheeled transport. Especially with an additional cart he can pull quite some weight. Perhaps one could add remote control to something like it.


Firn

[Compost]

How does one ride a bicycle in full battle rattle? Very carefully i would presume.

A “pack bicycle” is best ridden side-saddle and downhill.

My use of the term was intended to mean a pack carrying bicycle that is manually pushed or pulled, as opposed to a pedal bicycle that can be dismantled and packed. Pack bicycles used by the NVA/VC had the chain, gears, pedals and seat removed. The seat tube was extended for use as a push post. For control the handle bars were lengthened and any handbrake may have been retained.


I know wheels have many mechanical advantages. The problem is that wheels are the thin edge of wedge. They enable stupidity.

Allowing infantry to carry more weight, by allowing wheels, means that they will be get even more overloaded. Man-packing is a simple and coherent method of forcing the argument back to basics, as is Mules or Llamas, or even well trained Hamsters.

We want to try and avoid making doing stupid things possible, because history shows that Infantry Officers always overload their men - almost always because of stupidity, and a failure to ask the right question in the right context.

I also submit that a well trained and well lead army does not have load carrying problem because it has already exercised the judgement necessary to avoid it.

Every infantry unit has load carrying problems. When self-propelled vehicles are not available/usable, a load carrying task is usually tackled by assigning infantry as porters: often using more than is operationally advisable and thus creating a problem. For example, three 81mm mortars and 300 bombs can be relocated across country by assigning 30 infantry to carry bombs alongside about 18 men in the mortar teams.

Alternatively - if unit equipment included pack bicycles - the mortars and bombs could be relocated by 10 infantry push/pulling bicycles together with the mortar teams. The 20 unburdened infantry could then provide local security or be committed to other tasks. Hence fewer or less severe problems.

[Pete]

During the First World War the Germans had a type of harness to help the crews of machine guns carry the guns cross-country. These harnesses are said to have been the origin of the trench myth of "dead Germans found chained to their machine guns." I have a U.S. Navy landing force manual from the 1920s that has a diagram of a harness for use by sailors or Marines for pulling small field pieces on land.

[tankersteve]

The pic of the Rangers carrying mortars on a 2 wheeled cart is great and the use is appropriate. I don't want to give anything to the rifleman - he has to carry his own equipment. More loadcarrying ability means more load. But what about the supporting elements?

As the picture demonstrated, a single mortar team could move the mortar, baseplate, bipod, and several rounds, expending less energy and with more ammunition (I think), than if they were to hump it on their back. While the same load could be spread around to the rifle platoons, if 3 men could move the same amount, that leaves the riflemen unencumbered. That is the key, IMHO - keep the riflemen light, by enabling the mortars (and machine gun or automatic grenade launcher teams, if separate from the rifle platoon) to move their own loads.

A basic cart, pulled by two and pushed/guided by a third seems effective. But you would need wide wheels for rough terrain/sand, skinny tires for hardpack or rock, and skis for snow. Maybe one set of tires could do both, I don't know.

I don't know if we will make substantial weight reductions in the weight of the soldier anytime soon. Body armor has really driven this to a new level of concern. However, if we can create a lower likelihood of adding more gear to him, that helps. The gator sounds great, but it creates its own logistical tail. Perhaps at the battalion level for 81s.

One question - we don't use 'light' infantry in nice, flat terrain much anymore. In this territory, we use mech or motorized infantry, unlike WWII where almost everyone was just plain 'leg' infantry. Even light infantry in flat or urban terrain is probably going to use/acquire vehicles required for longer movements. The light guys will probably find themselves in really bad terrain, where only the mule is likely to be of much use. So perhaps this is all just OBE - only the flesh and blood mule is practical now, due to the likely terrain?

Tankersteve

[Kiwigrunt]

One question - we don't use 'light' infantry in nice, flat terrain much anymore. In this territory, we use mech or motorized infantry, unlike WWII where almost everyone was just plain 'leg' infantry. Even light infantry in flat or urban terrain is probably going to use/acquire vehicles required for longer movements. The light guys will probably find themselves in really bad terrain, where only the mule is likely to be of much use. So perhaps this is all just OBE - only the flesh and blood mule is practical now, due to the likely terrain?

Tankersteve

I think you’ve raised some good points there. Just compare 2 Para in Arnhem and 2 Para in the Falklands. In Arnhem they could have (and did) made good use of any vehicle, including wheelbarrows. Not so in the Falklands.
What ever type of cart or bike or whatever would be introduced as standard will sooner or later find itself in terrain for which it is not suited. In this situation (where these vehicles are left behind) the additional weight that the introduction of these vehicles will have allowed to become standard, will have to be man-handled…because the goodies can’t possibly be left behind. And I do think that introducing these vehicles will increase the standard loads because they will IMO be seen more as an extension to the human body than as a true vehicle. Don’t think we can compare ‘us’ using these gizmo’s with the VC in NAM using bikes. Different context, different attitude and philosophy, different situation, different motivation underpinning it (absolute necessity on a long supply route as opposed to just wanting to carry more on patrols). And I don’t think it likely that we will ever (never say never?) again operate like the Chindits or Merrills Marauders.
Differentiate perhaps between strategic/operational use and tactical use.

Note, I'm talking mainly about man-handled/powered vehicles.

So back to Wilf’s:


Allowing infantry to carry more weight, by allowing wheels, means that they will be get even more overloaded. Man-packing is a simple and coherent method of forcing the argument back to basics, as is Mules or Llamas, or even well trained Hamsters.

We want to try and avoid making doing stupid things possible, because history shows that Infantry Officers always overload their men - almost always because of stupidity, and a failure to ask the right question in the right context.

I also submit that a well trained and well lead army does not have load carrying problem because it has already exercised the judgement necessary to avoid it.

I do think that the last statement is a bit simplistic though. Think again about the Falklands for instance. They did not plan to loose most of their helicopters. Murphy will always bring along the #### happens factor. We will always have load carrying issues, the trick is to minimise it. Do we do that by adding transport or by reducing weight? Bit of both I think.

So, as much I do like the idea of load carrying aids like bikes or the 'trailer up your a..' below, I think that introducing them as a standard may do more damage than good, as Wilf suggests. Not sure about task specific issue…..

[Kiwigrunt]

A “pack bicycle” is best ridden side-saddle and downhill.


Not sure what other countries are like but in New Zealand we don't have downhill, only uphill. :p:(

[reed11b]

ISo, as much I do like the idea of load carrying aids like bikes or the 'trailer up your a..' below, I think that introducing them as a standard may do more damage than good, as Wilf suggests. Not sure about task specific issue…..

:eek:hehehe, That is a "Sparky" website pic..:eek:

I say porters baby, just like them good ol' days. Ken remembers, I am sure of it.:D
Reed

[infntryldr]

Yeah I remember a back in the early 90's our heavy machine gun platoon would use some kind of wheel barrel/ricksha looking thing to pull M2 and Mk19's on humps. Only saw them a few times, and not being a heavy weapons guy not sure if it was something someone was experimenting with in our unit, or a legitimate device. Kinda reminded me of those old WW2 videos of Russians pushing there MG's on ski platforms, but it had wheels instead.

[kaur]

Wilf (British camo is present), what for are those motorcycles (without suspension)?

http://i.imagehost.org/t/0868/tsikkel.jpg (http://i.imagehost.org/view/0868/tsikkel)

[Army5339]

Hate the idea of having my Soldiers drag a cart around, when they already carry too much. Anywhere the cart can go for the most part, a vehicle can go, and you can mount the weapons to the vehicle.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf (British camo is present), what for are those motorcycles (without suspension)?

http://i.imagehost.org/t/0868/tsikkel.jpg (http://i.imagehost.org/view/0868/tsikkel)

Not a clue! - though from what I read and hear almost every UK Platoon deployed on Operations seems to get some sort of quad-bike and trailer for general load carrying and admin tasks.

[Fuchs]

It's a Jordanian motorcycle.

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr010307_1_n.shtml

[Fuchs]

I can provide a scan of a brochure for that motorcycle (I met the company on an exhibition) if someone is interested.


three gears, max. 74 km/h, 94.3 kg, 172 cc / 6.6 bhp engine,
3.5 PSI, 381 mm ground clearance, "wheels: 12" or 15" aluminium drums"
and if I remember correctly one or two tyres can be filled with liquid (drinking water or fuel).

It's pretty much a LRRP tool in my opinion. Normal 4wd ATVs should be better for towing.

[Ken White]

LINK (http://www.rokon.com/). Not on this site but I seem to recall they have a diesel variant, originally made to compete with Kawasaki LINK (http://www.fasterandfaster.net/2008/02/kawasaki-klr650-based-diesel.html). There are probably a few Rokons in US service for special purposes. The Kawasaki has broader applicability.

[Infanteer]

Some of my Canadian friends have told me of pulling sledges while wearing snowshoes, with 2 Soldiers pulling the sledge with over-the-shoulder traces, while a third pushes and steers.



Not just Canadians. At Ft. Richardson we had/have akio sleds as well. We cursed them from the bottoms of our airborne hearts btw.
Reed

Good old winter warfare and the tobaggan groups. Although they enable us to live and operate in cold environments (been out in -30 C to - 40 with them), I often wonder what sort of tactical or operational effect we'd hope to achieve with them, although the unique TTPs make the training worthwhile (almost everyone takes winter warfare training to some extent up here).

I've never worked with the Canadian Rangers in the Arctic, but I understand they use snowmobiles/dog teams. Snow and cold sllloooowwws operations right down - you spend 80% of your effort and energy fighting the climate. Foot mobility is severely hampered, although snowshoes help and a BV 206 is a godsend.

I've often figured that if we had to fight in this sort of environment, we could just set up, piquet the bad guys (whatever they were doing in such a barren environment), and let mother nature do the rest.

[Infanteer]

A better load carrier will simply result in greater loads...that we don't need in the first place.

Now, take my combat load and cut it to half its weight from lighter materials and then we're talking! :D


The greatest problem with the combat load today is the body armor. When you start with 45 lbs burden it is a quick trip to 30% or 50% of the porter's weight. Soldiers are not meant to be pack animals and when used as such are less effective at soldiering. The best part of training is realizing what looks good on paper doesnt work in reality. Two things are important here, 1)you can not train the average Soldier to be a SuperSoldier no more than you can train an attack dog to be an attack mule and 2) the carts or jeeps or iBattles are not likely to solve this. Likely just adding to the stuff Joe can break or lose. I have often joked with my battle's that "They" weigh you down so "They" know you can't run away. You always need about twice as many troops to do what half could do in better circumstances.


I know wheels have many mechanical advantages. The problem is that wheels are the thin edge of wedge. They enable stupidity.

Allowing infantry to carry more weight, by allowing wheels, means that they will be get even more overloaded. Man-packing is a simple and coherent method of forcing the argument back to basics, as is Mules or Llamas, or even well trained Hamsters.

We want to try and avoid making doing stupid things possible, because history shows that Infantry Officers always overload their men - almost always because of stupidity, and a failure to ask the right question in the right context.

I also submit that a well trained and well lead army does not have load carrying problem because it has already exercised the judgement necessary to avoid it.

These statements really hit the mark. We don't need ways to carry more #### - we have too much #### and it is an essential command responsibility to make sure soldiers aren't carrying too much.

Although S.L.A. Marshall gets rightfully blasted for shoddy research, the ideas in his Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation are, IMO, correct. There's been a few good articles in the Marine Corps Gazette that also concern themselves with the load carried by soldiers in both the approach and the battle. The way I see it, vehicles have a GVWR. Soldiers need a GSWR that commanders need to adhere to as a matter of force sustainment.

Problem is, even when you cut your load down to the bare essentials (required or directed from above) you still end up with burdened soldiers. I cut my load in Afghanistan down to the bare essentials - ammo, water, a bit of food, batteries, comms gear and STANO. I still feel the weight load.

STANO, especially MNVGs, are getting good and light. Comms gear as well, with the MBITR and the PRR being pretty handy, reliable, and lightweight comms systems. The biggest problem is ammo and personal protective equipment (PPE). Just wearing the armour gets uncomfortable after a while. If we approached this from an engineering perspective, getting our ammuntion (ball, link, frags, etc) and body armour reduced in weight by 25-50%, we'd be rolling. From a command perspective, tactical commanders (Coy level and below) need to consider carefully how they structure their TTPs (do you really need 10 mags or will 5 do?).

[Fuchs]

Then again there are very useful things that are not part of a basic scout or infantry squad inventory yet.

Examples:
- mine search needles (just in case you're stuck and can't wait for engineers. Knifes are inferior for the purpose).
- slim periscopes
- LMG tripod with periscope kit
- rifle attachments for easy cracking of windows (a few gram on a modified flash hider do the trick)


There are more things that deserve to be considered, such as
- helmet-mounted foldable cheek armour (not for scouts)
- water purify equipment (advanced filters, not pills)
- Reflex-style suppressors (for maximum flash hiding)
- parascope UCS for carbines
- cheek rest for (>1.5x scope) rifles


By the way; scout squads and infantry platoons have often good use for a military dog. Some dog breeds were even used for towing loads (even in WW1), and they certainly could carry a few kg once they're trained to do it (vests of all kinds irritate dogs until they get used to them).
(Dogs are also good for morale, not just for scouting/guarding, explosives detection and tracking.)

[Infanteer]

All of that could come in handy, but soldiers would be more effective with less weight and good TTPs. Some of that stuff is more suited to an approach or marching order - to be left in a patrol hide or vehicle.

Cheek piece - no thank you. I'm not a Legionaire and I don't need a face shield until my Power Armour is issued.

[Compost]

Extract from recent Janes’s Land Forces News Brief


US Army evaluates load-carrying exoskeleton
This is a revised version of a story first published on 22 January. A US Army science and technology group is set to begin testing a hydraulic-powered exoskeleton designed to help soldiers carry up to 200 lb (91 kg) of equipment. Lockheed Martin's HULC system is scheduled to begin evaluations with the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center on 25 January, according to Keith Maxwell, the company's new initiatives lead and a senior business development analyst. [See also Janes’s Defence Weekly - 29 January 2010]

Which would be the more commonly usable: a pack bike, 2 wheel ATV, or hydraulic exoskeleton ?

Where to next ?

Perhaps a high energy exoskeleton that enables infantry to jump large obstacles in a single bound.

[Firn]

Then again there are very useful things that are not part of a basic scout or infantry squad inventory yet.

Examples:
- mine search needles (just in case you're stuck and can't wait for engineers. Knifes are inferior for the purpose).
- slim periscopes
- LMG tripod with periscope kit
- rifle attachments for easy cracking of windows (a few gram on a modified flash hider do the trick)


There are more things that deserve to be considered, such as
- helmet-mounted foldable cheek armour (not for scouts)
- water purify equipment (advanced filters, not pills)
- Reflex-style suppressors (for maximum flash hiding)
- parascope UCS for carbines
- cheek rest for (>1.5x scope) rifles


By the way; scout squads and infantry platoons have often good use for a military dog. Some dog breeds were even used for towing loads (even in WW1), and they certainly could carry a few kg once they're trained to do it (vests of all kinds irritate dogs until they get used to them).
(Dogs are also good for morale, not just for scouting/guarding, explosives detection and tracking.)

I agree that most items on this list would be useful to very useful depending on the circumstances. Light and compact binoculars can be very useful and are often not issued to squads, at least not in sufficient numbers. The more comfortable you are at observing, the greater tends to be your performance.

As a hunter and as friend of a good mountain rescue worker, who has to do a lot with rescue dogs, I have become aware just how well the capabilities dog can dovetail into ours. There is such many potential uses for a well trained dogs, that I ask myself if the high training costs are sufficient to stop a greater effort in this direction.


As Infanteer remarked less can still be more. However it should not be difficult for most units to have such items not too far away.


Firn