Weight of back packed gear study

[George L. Singleton]

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.

[William F. Owen]

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

Thanks for the info.

[max161]

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

This is an important but often overlooked area of research.

[slapout9]

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.

[Steve Blair]

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.

[William F. Owen]

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.

[Eden]

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.

[stanleywinthrop]

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.

[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?

[William F. Owen]

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.

[Fuchs]

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.