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.