Weight of back packed gear study

Someone, I cannot recall i.d. or story title to relook up, had a series started within past two weeks dealing with the weight of a solider's back pack carried gear in today's modern settings vs. in past wars.

Assuming this recollection is broadly in the ball park, my late Dad was in WW I (enlisted age 14, mustered out at age 16) as a Corporal of Infantry, old 31st Dixie Division. He told me his back pack and self carried kit weighed around 90 pounds, which included a pup tent or shelter.

Hope this helps whoever is collecting such data.

George, this might have been me, doing some research on modern carried loads.

Thanks for the info.

Read his book: The Soldier's Load and Mobility of a Nation

This is an important but often overlooked area of research.

We used to have or maybe we still do one of the originators of Gerado.com who did reviews and posted info on this subject. I think the website is defunct..not sure. Somebody check the members list he had that in his bio if I remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by max161

Read his book: The Soldier's Load and Mobility of a Nation

This is an important but often overlooked area of research.

---

Actually it's more of a "forgotten, then reinvented" area of research. Since a group of Prussian medical students studied the combat load of infantry in the early 1870s it's come up, been forgotten, come up again, been forgotten again....you get the idea. You see mention of it as far back as the Civil War in American military writing, and the Frontier Army actually spent some time coming up with (and circulating via the few print outlets they had...I think ANJ had a few letters on the subject) a good combat/campaign load. Good to see it's coming up again...maybe this time it won't be forgotten right away.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Actually it's more of a "forgotten, then reinvented" area of research. Since a group of Prussian medical students studied the combat load of infantry in the early 1870s it's come up, been forgotten, come up again, been forgotten again....you get the idea.

---

I have never found "A Soldier's Load" useful reading. It's a very variable work.

What was done by the Germans in the 1870's should be the bench mark for all load carrying tests, yet I know of no attempt to repeat it. The closest I have evidence of is a 2002 Australian Army test. All load carrying should be based on testing, but almost none is.

The US Army has only ever conducted two complete audits of loads carried in Combat since 1942, and the UK has never done it, in terms of published results or data that has usefully informed progress in the area.

It's interesting about the weight issue, especially in our present conflicts. Most of the concern in the past has been about the 'survival' gear - food, clothing, shoes, soap, tents, etc., that the soldier had to haul around on a daily basis to keep himself alive and healthy. When the time for fighting came, most of that load was shed and he carried only ammunition.

Now it seems to be the opposite. We just don't have that many soldiers who move primarily by foot over great distances any longer. Now, 'survival' gear is mostly stowed somewhere, while 'fighting' gear is the burden that saps strength and mobility. Body armor, night vision devices, squad communications gear, batteries, etc., plus ammunition have increased the load for the grunt even when he is 'stripped' for action.

Our relative mobility in Afghanistan- both us vs. the enemy and operational vs. tactical - was one of the reasons why we had so little success in pursuit, tracking, or maintaining contact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eden

@ Now it seems to be the opposite. We just don't have that many soldiers who move primarily by foot over great distances any longer.

@ Now, 'survival' gear is mostly stowed somewhere, while 'fighting' gear is the burden that saps strength and mobility. Body armor, night vision devices, squad communications gear, batteries, etc., plus ammunition have increased the load for the grunt even when he is 'stripped' for action.

@ Our relative mobility in Afghanistan- both us vs. the enemy and operational vs. tactical - was one of the reasons why we had so little success in pursuit, tracking, or maintaining contact.

---

All true and none of this is as a product of absolute conditions or needs. Its how modern armies "choose" to behave. Soldiers are only overloaded when commanders make bad decisions, and use bad judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

All true and none of this is as a product of absolute conditions or needs. Its how modern armies "choose" to behave. Soldiers are only overloaded when commanders make bad decisions, and use bad judgement.

---

wanted to shed vests and other impedimtia for just the reasons Eden cites. Permission denied.

Whose fault is that...

(My take is it's the units for asking; 'it is better to not ask and receive censure than ask...' But that's the modern yankee Army... ;) )

I know Cavguy talked about the political factor - the investigations into KIAs and the thus the imperative for more and more body armor - and in 28 Articles Kilcullen says we must "ruthlessly" lighten the soldier's load, but realistically what are we talking about here? Cut the armor and ammo to a minimum and you still have helmet, a vest/plates at least, weapon, considerable ammo load, water, radios, batteries, medical-supplies/first aid kits, etc., making soldiers still far more burdened than the opposition. Since there's no way to lighten troops enough to have equal tactical mobility on foot, what's the best that can be achieved?

Regards,

Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

(My take is it's the units for asking; 'it is better to not ask and receive censure than ask...' But that's the modern yankee Army... ;) )

---

Until the first guy gets shot and the whole chain of command loses their career in the ensuing 15-6 and is the subject of a negligent homicide investigation for failing to obey a general order.

Initiative has its place, but not here IMO.

I was made to write and sign a "memo of compliance" stating that my guys would wear full kit (body armor/helmet) whenever we were "outside the wire" or suffer the consequences... which at the time meant the detachments removal from the battlefield at the very least. This came straight from an SF Battalion Commander. I was never able to find out if that dictate came to him from the CJSOTF or higher.
So, I wrote the memo, signed my name and proceeded to perjure myself to varying degrees for the rest of the deployment; depending on the nature of the misison. I imagine I would have wound up in jail or some other form of UCMJ had one of my guys gotten killed without his helmet or body armor on.

Funny, I just saw a report where a 7th Grp team sergeant got the DSC for some absolutley heroic deed in Afghanistan, conducted entirely without body armor. god love him. I don't suppose his team commander had to sign a compliance memo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattC86

...Since there's no way to lighten troops enough to have equal tactical mobility on foot, what's the best that can be achieved?

---

Every thing you mention is a choice (understanding that the vest/plate and helmet are a part of the armor ensemble); a 'command decision.' Those choices can be pared considerably. There IS a way to lighten to have equal tactical mobility on foot but it entails risk -- and we are, as your link on the other thread points out -- a risk averse society.

Marines in Korea were making three and four day patrols behind Chinese lines with small arms, a very light ammo load and two quarts of water plus one ration a day -- no armor, no helmet. Both the Army and the Marines in Viet Nam were frequently going out just as light in good units; other units burdened people with more junk. Most Army units had armored vests in Viet Nam but rarely or never wore them except for the supply convoys.

Today, that's not acceptable though some of the DA and OGA guys get away with it. Viewpoint dependent, it may or may not be the correct choice -- but it is still a choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by max161

Read his book: The Soldier's Load and Mobility of a Nation

This is an important but often overlooked area of research.

---

This was required reading at TBS. Then the next time we went to the field we were loaded down with 60lbs of (mostly) useless crap. Oh the irony.

Wilf, you may know where this study is. The original Israeli Web Gear "Efhod" was designed in the US. The US rejected it of course and Israel picked up on it and improved it. The point of the study showed a Soldier can carry more weight from his waist down than from the shoulders up. Know where it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Wilf, you may know where this study is. The original Israeli Web Gear "Efhod" was designed in the US. The US rejected it of course and Israel picked up on it and improved it. The point of the study showed a Soldier can carry more weight from his waist down than from the shoulders up. Know where it is?

---

Sadly not, but I'll ask my wife. She may know (long story).

"Ephod" -from the Bibical attire of the Tsanhedrin- is actually super chest webbing. Modern US webbing is starting to mimic it - and there is now a Molle "M-10/11" harness out there.

Have you seen the book Battle Rattle? It has allot of input from the original Gear Guru, Eric Graves a former SOF logistician and Steve Hilliard a former grunt now at ATS tactical gear. We have discussed this over at Lightfighter.net for YEARS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abu Buckwheat

Have you seen the book Battle Rattle? It has allot of input from the original Gear Guru, Eric Graves a former SOF logistician and Steve Hilliard a former grunt now at ATS tactical gear. We have discussed this over at Lightfighter.net for YEARS!

---

Not seen, but will now! Cheers.

Does anybody know Sam Katz who writes books for the Osprey- Men at War series. There is picture in the back of one his books that looks identical to the original Ephod. The picture is from 1958!!!! the US soldier in the picture is also wearing a new helmet that looks alot like some of the first ballistic material helmets. I used to have the book but somebody borrowed it and I never got it back. I came to know about all this while doing research on General Gavin. Would love to see the picture again because it has a publication reference that may lead to the load carrying study that was done.

Thanks for the plug on the book Malcolm. The warriors load has been a major concern of mine for many years. Whether or not you are a fan of SLAM's the book, "The Soldier's Load..." is a good start.

Numerous load studies have been conducted and the powers that be pay lip service to them. Then they make everyone wear full PPE, regardless of the environment.

METT-T should drive the load more than anything else and the warrior should have an appropriate toolbox of equipment to accomplish the mission.

As of late I have been writing in my blog ( www.soldiersystems.net ) about the Ultra Light Weight equipment movement for some at the pointest end of the spear. I have been calling it the "330 revolution" because it is the weight of the fabric. Standard issue items are 1000D cordura. The trade off is performance. The 330D and 500D stuff won't last as long, but the units that will use them have higher budgets. They also have the budget to purchase MCOTS items such as sleep systems tuned to the environment and armor that does not restrict mobility as much as the armor used by general purpose forces. Fortunately, most everything that SOF uses will eventually find its way in the hands of the American Infantryman. It is but a matter of time.

SOF can go lightweight for many missions. When you go out hard and fast -- and come back fast you can use the lightweight stuff; it'll tear up but you can replace it easily back at base. With your American Infantryman; he's out fro weeks at a time -- if it tears, he's out of luck. Yes, in an Afghanistan or Iraq like situation, it can be easily replaced. Every war is not like these two and every replacement pack or harness displaces food and ammo...

Good examples are the Mk 46 and Mk 48 Machine guns; great for SOF -- bad juju for the Infantry; they aren't tough enough; lack of durability kills...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GS

As of late I have been writing in my blog ( www.soldiersystems.net ) about the Ultra Light Weight equipment movement for some at the pointest end of the spear. I have been calling it the "330 revolution" because it is the weight of the fabric. Standard issue items are 1000D cordura. The trade off is performance. The 330D and 500D stuff won't last as long, but the units that will use them have higher budgets.

---

I tend to agree with Ken. However I have a UK issue DPM Goretex Jacket that I is extremely light, and the 330 would seem to be the way forward with some Cordura items, like Jacket pads. What's the Martindale number on 330? wonder?

Given the freedom to make the required judgements and run risk, I don't see load carrying as a big problem. It's the leadership and CoC that is the problem. - and again lack of testing and written doctrine. Actually some of the best info is in one of the old FM-7's. I try and look out which one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Wilf, you may know where this study is. The original Israeli Web Gear "Efhod" was designed in the US. The US rejected it of course and Israel picked up on it and improved it. The point of the study showed a Soldier can carry more weight from his waist down than from the shoulders up. Know where it is?

---

There's no real need for a study about it in my opinion.

The reason for the effect is that weight at waist does not put additional demand on torso muscles. This in turn reduces the oxygen consumption of the torso muscles, which frees oxygen for leg muscles, which increases endurance and/or possible average speed.

The effect on mobility depends on several variables and will not be visible in empirical studies. It depends on leg muscle fitness, torso muscle fitness, lung performance, food (is the body burning fat or carbohydrates? = different oxygen consumption/energy) and psychical factors.

A similar concept speaks against heavy boots. The forward-brake-backward-brake-forward movement causes a huge energy consumption. The less weight at the end of the legs the better. That's why Kenyans are great marathon runners - very thin lower legs.
To save one pound in the boots is much more relieving than to save one pound at the waist.

That's all the more reason for a study. The typical effects of weight and marching may not be empirical, but ability to run a simulated battle or obstacle course should be pretty clearly affected if the study breaks down into broad enough weight classes.

You might start with three broad weight classes (light, medium and heavy) and then distribute those between carried on the back vs at the waist. That gives you six groups, plus you can use a group with "standard" equipment for a control. Have each group run your obstacle course or whatever and time them. Then put them through force marches of increasing length and have them run the course at the end. Differences in timing should become obvious if carried weight is an issue (it is). But differences in how the load is carried also come out.

As far as individual fitness, because you have course times before and after the weight gets carried you can compare the reduction in performance as a relative, rather than an absolute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

There's no real need for a study about it in my opinion.

The reason for the effect is that weight at waist does not put additional demand on torso muscles. This in turn reduces the oxygen consumption of the torso muscles, which frees oxygen for leg muscles, which increases endurance and/or possible average speed.

The effect on mobility depends on several variables and will not be visible in empirical studies. It depends on leg muscle fitness, torso muscle fitness, lung performance, food (is the body burning fat or carbohydrates? = different oxygen consumption/energy) and psychical factors.

A similar concept speaks against heavy boots. The forward-brake-backward-brake-forward movement causes a huge energy consumption. The less weight at the end of the legs the better. That's why Kenyans are great marathon runners - very thin lower legs.
To save one pound in the boots is much more relieving than to save one pound at the waist.

---

My best friend in High School was named Billy Fuchs....that ain't you by chance? Disagree about evidence not being visible. Research the long term effects of vertical compression of the spinal column and you will find how critical this is. That is why most large civilian rucksacks have a waist belt, it transfers the load to the lower body and has a less damaging effect on the upper body.

Well, I meant that no empirical evidence is necessary because anatomy itself already shows that wait is better than back.
Supporting evidence is credible, of course - but conflicting evidence (if it existed at all) would only suggest further studies because such a strong factor favours waist.
Just my 2 cents, as always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones_RE

That's all the more reason for a study.

---

equipment reliability, survivability, longevity and replacement cube and weight factors on monthly logistic throughput in that study?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Disagree about evidence not being visible. Research the long term effects of vertical compression of the spinal column and you will find how critical this is. That is why most large civilian rucksacks have a waist belt, it transfers the load to the lower body and has a less damaging effect on the upper body.

---

Any number of us former and current Infantrymen (and a few others...) can personally testify to the real-life effects on the back and knees (amongst other areas - I loved the part when your arms started going numb:rolleyes:) that load-bearing produces. Especially when you're practically doubled over carrying 120-130 pounds on your back. No wonder that I knew guys who were in their mid-twenties that had already had as many as three knee surgeries already. And I still have a big scar on my lower back from where the (cheap) Army-issue frame would cut through my uniform and into my flesh. You were really lucky if you could get a hold of one of the old Airborne tubular frames.

The SAS were onto something good in the old days when they preferred to carry as much kit as they could on the '58 pattern web belts; still even (especially) they couldn't avoid heavy Bergens.

Some of the effects of heavy-load bearing would be mitigated by spending money on really good boots, not the cheap ones that are standard issue. Armies are quite happy with pursuing programs like Land Warrior that cost billions of dollars, but they won't pony up the money to buy the troops truly good booots that are genuinely waterproof, reasonably light, provide solid arch and ankle support without killing the calves too badly, and absorb shock well, helping to save the back and knees. Like here and here. Note that the first one is no longer in production.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfolk

The SAS were onto something good in the old days when they preferred to carry as much kit as they could on the '58 pattern web belts; still even (especially) they couldn't avoid heavy Bergens.
:(

---

Yep they were Norfolk, and like you say the heavy Bergens ruined it. With Land Warrior talking about the soldier as a system you would think they would look at a soldier as Human System first and find out how his skeletal and muscle infrastructure can or cannot support all that stuff:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfolk

Some of the effects of heavy-load bearing would be mitigated by spending money on really good boots, not the cheap ones that are standard issue. Armies are quite happy with pursuing programs like Land Warrior that cost billions of dollars, but they won't pony up the money to buy the troops truly good booots that are genuinely waterproof, reasonably light, provide solid arch and ankle support without killing the calves too badly, and absorb shock well, helping to save the back and knees. Like here and here. Note that the first one is no longer in production.:(

---

I would go a step farther and suggest that it be standard for a podiatrist to make orthotics for every soldier (everyone needs different amounts of support at different points) and put the proper amount of lift in each boot. Lift is often neglected. People assume they are symmetrical while in reality they are very uneven. Even an 1/8th of an inch difference in leg length can ruin your hip over time. If you actually slow down your walk(when legs are uneven, which is always) you can see that you are actually moving your legs in little ovals. Evening this out will save your hips and knees. This type of stuff will save a lot of pain, time and money in the long run. It will only save pain in the short run.


Adam L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

With Land Warrior talking about the soldier as a system you would think they would look at a soldier as Human System first and find out how his skeletal and muscle infrastructure can or cannot support all that stuff:eek:

---

I think they were counting on an advancement in moon shoe technology.
http://www.powerizerz.com/gallery.html
AdamL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam L

I would go a step farther and suggest that it be standard for a podiatrist to make orthotics for every soldier (everyone needs different amounts of support at different points) and put the proper amount of lift in each boot. Lift is often neglected. People assume they are symmetrical while in reality they are very uneven. Even an 1/8th of an inch difference in leg length can ruin your hip over time. If you actually slow down your walk(when legs are uneven, which is always) you can see that you are actually moving your legs in little ovals. Evening this out will save your hips and knees. This type of stuff will save a lot of pain, time and money in the long run. It will only save pain in the short run.


Adam L

---

I actually had that done while I was in the 82nd. It helped big time when you spent hours on guard duty walking on hard concrete.:)

Loved reading in high school about Merrills Maurauders in the CBI theater of WWII. Especially the parts about the mules(didn't want to like the mules having their vocal cords cut) humping through the jungle.
1968 I got to Vietnam as a USMC grunt with H 2/3 and found out I was the mule. (didn't want to like the part about them cutting my vocal cords, ha). There was almost no place in northern I Corps that we couldn't have used mules. We averaged 80 pounds and later in 1988 at a reunion we figured up a rough estimate that at bad times we carried 120 pounds. "They" routinely resupplied us with a limit of two C rat meals a day because "they" didn't have the birds to load out more to us. My first big op, early Oct., 68 "they" resupplied us with one canteen per man. Guess what, the work detail that loaded the sling loads for us computed one quart per man and did not supervise the idiots in the rear who filled the five gal. jerry cans. Each can was only filled up about 3/4.
Got to the Combined Action Program in April 69 and we didn't hump so far but we did hump heavy. In 69 the CAP's went to the mobile concept, no more forts. Some times I carried the Prick 25 radio and an M60 MG. Thank god we didn't have to ever fight carrying like that. Ran ambush's at night with one canteen and 10-15 twenty round mags, no flak jackets. We never moved more than two clicks in CAP. Anyway my point being, there are ways to get it done.
Anyway, we did run out of food during the monsoon down to seven meals for ten days. Never did run out of ammo.

Boils down to leadership and discipline. Do the basics correctly, supervise, and inspect. Load to the mission, don't let the individuals carry 25 mags, and six canteens, unless you plan for it to get that bad. Leaders may have to be cruel.
And get some mules where appropriate, but don't tell them you are going to cut their vocal cords.
Semper Fidelis,
Tipy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tipy

Boils down to leadership and discipline. Do the basics correctly, supervise, and inspect. Load to the mission, don't let the individuals carry 25 mags, and six canteens, unless you plan for it to get that bad. Leaders may have to be cruel.

---

Fascinating account, and noteable in many ways.

...but history, operational analysis and my own experience all tell us that the leaders are the problem.

The problems are mostly emotional in that leaders don't want to be seen to compromise operational capability by lightening loads and don't want to admit that there men cannot "hump more, than some slack jawed faggot," or any other member of the gay community afflicted with some type of mandible alignment defect.

The UK looked at setting a finite load limit. You X kg to play with, and you juggled requirements within this. This never happened as, what testing that was done, indicated that soldiers thought it was cool to be "old school" and ignore the new silly weight limit. The culture mitigated against carrying a light and effective load, and the culture was almost certainly a product of poor leadership in terms of education and guidance.

I took part in a study of this sort in 2003. I can attest that it was very thorough indeed, though even a cursory glance at the study reveals that.

I have a PDF of it, if anyone is interested.

Find it here on AKO.
https://www.us.army.mil/suite/doc/8278839 | Author: andrew.k.childress | Format: pdf | Date Last Modified: 2007/07/27

In answer to the question, in almost every case, we are over our max weight by 35 lbs. Ironically, the IBA/OTV weighs just about that much.

Icidentally, the largest percentage of patients in military hospitals are there for back pain, I am told.

http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/news/iraq.htm

yep that is the study my office and the Natick rep started from here at JRTC

My NCO was one of the collectors


Tom

Tom, is it secret? I don't have that AKO thingy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapperfitz82

I took part in a study of this sort in 2003. I can attest that it was very thorough indeed, though even a cursory glance at the study reveals that.

---

Is this the Task Force Devil effort done with the CTF 82 and one other CTF?

I talked to their guys in London, a while back. It is an accurate record of what is carried on operations, but as one their guys pointed out, that raises a lot of questions, few answers. I assume the question and answers bit was done by someone else.

However, while the US seems to be dealing with their personal Loads, the UK is getting increasingly crippled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Tom, is it secret? I don't have that AKO thingy.

---

No but it is a CALL document. Send me an email.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by sapperfitz82
I took part in a study of this sort in 2003. I can attest that it was very thorough indeed, though even a cursory glance at the study reveals that.

Is this the Task Force Devil effort done with the CTF 82 and one other CTF?

---

Yep that is the one.

Tom it is on the way,Thanks.