Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll
Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll - Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post
Quote:
Carrying heavy combat loads is taking a quiet but serious toll on troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, contributing to injuries that are sidelining them in growing numbers, according to senior military and defense officials.
Rising concern over the muscle and bone injuries -- as well as the hindrance caused by the cumbersome gear as troops maneuver in Afghanistan's mountains -- prompted Army and Marine Corps leaders and commanders to launch initiatives last month that will introduce lighter equipment for some U.S. troops.
As the military prepares to significantly increase the number of troops in Afghanistan -- including sending as many as 20,000 more Marines -- fielding a new, lighter vest and helmet is a top priority, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said recently. "We are going to have to lighten our load," he said, after inspecting possible designs during a visit to the Quantico Marine base...
"A hundred pounds of lightweight
S**t is still a hundred pounds" as the old saying goes.
Part of the problem is that we default to a technical solution for everything. As we miniaturize something and make it smaller and more compact and lighter we (or industry) comes up with something new that will enhance our missions that much more. Communications, computers, more weapons and ammunition and of course the emphasis on force protection (which is not a bad thing but we have to understand that protecting a soldier from a kinetic weapon requires sufficient mass). And as long as we have large rucksacks and load bearing equipment and vests on which we can attach and hang things we are always going to add something new that we think we will need or supposedly help us to better accomplish the mission or protect us. Like nature abhors a vacuum, if there is space on a soldier (or in his ruck) we will fill it!!
On The Endless Cycle of Armourising
Must feel that the process has now reached certain logical conclusions.
Wish to address armour on men & trucks.
(not tanks since I feel armour belongs on them...seperate issue)
The flak vest and gun shield have evolved into quite obtuse systems which constrict movement severely.
In the nature of adaptation the counter to Coalition vehicular plate overcastings has been the implementation of penetrating devices, commonly called EFPs , which essentially render all vehicle armor useless.
I expect that armour penetrating rounds could be improvised for sniper rifles, etc. that would place dismounts in the same over-dressed, unprotected state.
Change is continuous in all conflict.
A summary thus far, perhapos...
Bayonet Brant:
Quote:
"No commander wants to have to face the klieg lights of C-SPAN and try to explain to people (who are proud of the fact that they don't understand) what life's like when you're chasing targets up the side of a mountain with 150 pounds of lightweight gear nestled comfortably in your MOLLE ruck..."
Wilf:
Quote:
"Until your Army is an institution that accepts risk taking, and does not have a culture of risk mitigation, you are screwed."
Steve Blair:
Quote:
"This (aerial resupply) was tried by some units in Vietnam,"
It does require a fair amount of aviation support but the key is decentralization. The 1st Bde of the 101st in 65-67 was able to do it regularly in all three northern Corps areas; the 101st Div over organized it and it did not work. It also works best if you resupply platoons (best) or companies (achievable) and not battalions (almost impossible); It's totally do-able today(but see Wilf's comment).
Meinertzhagen:
Quote:
This is very much how we conducted operations on my last rotation to Northeast Afghanistan.
As did 1/82 on OEF6. To include vehicle borne patrols as well as Platoons/Companies on foot.
Bottom line is that Commanders today can reduce the weight carried -- but at a cost of reducing the protection and lethality of their troops. That should be a tactical decision allowed to Company commanders. Period.
Bayonet Brant's comment is true now -- but only because DoD has allowed that to happen; the media is terribly ignorant about the military and Congress has not been educated by DoD. Realistically, I see little chance for change, unfortunately. Though there is one thing that might be considered; if we go to war in another sub tropical jungle, there will be either no armor -- or a whole lot of heat casualties...
There is a thread discussing this already
I haven't the time to look/link it.
As for those who feel 85 lbs is an acceptable combat load, I applaud you and say your nuts.
Been both places, can attest that the MOLLE I absolutely will not carry 150 lbs, the frame will break about 30% of the time with just 80 lbs in it.
Old women can't climb the Hindu Kush, I know, I watch the young women fail to do with just an IBA, forget the ruck.
We are over what every study has shown to be the ideal fighting load (about 35-45 lbs) by exactly the weight of the IBA. My last fighting load was 73 lbs. Don't tell me to leave the snivel at home, I have evaced soldiers for hypothermia and burned my C4 to keep others alive. We had no snivel, unless one bivy sack per two men counts, and my emergency approach march load was weighed at 143 when I came back! Extra? Water, batteries, 1 UBL, C4. I drank a quart a day for 11 days and ate a 2 power bars and an MRE every day. I lost over 25 lbs (from 143 lb).
How do I know these weights? Because they had a study group weighing us and all our gear at departure and return. Because the study (in 2003) said we were carrying too much. Because they have only added more to our mandatory kit, and I take a deep and abiding interest in its weight.
10 lbs for every size larger in the IBA. I now wear a small, not a medium. Those of you with a large IBA are carrying 20 lbs more armor than I do. Weight has changed our tactics. We used to walk those mountains, now we drive the valleys.
Those of you who are commanders and have decided that an 80 lbs fighting load is acceptable are part of the problem, plain and simple. It is not. Try some simple tests. Conduct a combat assault course or any O course in full kit (with ammo). Your unit will not meet your expectations. My platoon had a PT average in the 280s and were studs, plain and simple. We did the A course regularly. Full kit broke it off. After we had done 6 months walking in Astan. The loads are simply too much. Since the Hoplites, we have found that the army standard 35-45 lbs is the most weight one can carry and still fight effectively for a long period.
Dense? Training is not sexy? Training
tends to benefit only a few congressional districts while hardware with multiple sub contractors benefit many. Good trainers are hard to find. Hard to do it well. Too much early attrition to invest too much in it. High 'no-Go' rates don't make the School / TC look good. Lot of reasons -- none good in my opinion but there sure are a bunch of excuses....
Be careful with those lungs; 'bout ruined mine screaming it. ;)
Hang tight, I'm buying Lottery tickets. :D
Just don't drink and drive...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RTK
So I see after a week and a half off the net that I haven't missed much. :D
Hey -- we're consistent. ;)
Hard not to be when confronted with such a massive long standing error. :wry: