In the January 28, 2013 edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology on page DT4 it states "It is not uncommon in Afghanistan to have a section/squad leader carrying 100 kg (220 lb.) including body armor, helmet and weapon." This statement refers to the British Army.
I hope the reporters made a mistake and are referring to 100 lbs, not 100 kg. If they are actually referring to 100 kg, western armies will never win another war. Never. The Brits can't be that far out of the mainstream and any military organization that would put that burden on a man has no clue at all what it is about.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
I am afraid even 100 lbs makes the same conclusion...Originally Posted by carl
optimistic?
There are a few things to be optimistic about in terms of weight savings. The first is a slew of somewhat new materials such as Blue Force Gear's Helium Whisper, which is significantly lighter, stronger, and more abrasion resistant than standard 1000 weight cordua nylon. With Helium Whisper and similar materials, we are starting to see some plate carriers, chest rigs, pouches, etc with huge weight savings and much slimmer profiles over standard counterparts. It is understood that the vast majority of conventional units won't be rocking the latest breed of plate carriers anytime soon, but it is at least a positive indication of things to come. In the meantime, many conventional units are ok with their men shaving a few pounds with better pouches and web gear.
The second aspect to be somewhat optimistic about is ammo weight. More SOF units have become comfortable with a 4-magazine loadout for their m4's, mk18s, etc. The readably accessible AAR, "The Eagle Went Over the Mountain" has a good reference to this. Better training, better optics, more accurate ammo, and increasingly accurate weapons have led to more accurate target engagement. However, it will be interesting to see how, or even if, this plays out in conventional units in the future. Less training = more rounds spent, and more ammo required. Furthermore, with the USMC and the m27 IAR, many infantry squads are finding themselves carrying more magazines than ever in order to spread-load the weight/bulk.
Finally, improving load carriage techniques have begun to not necessarily lower the weight, but to improve mobility and performance. Wearing a plate carrier or full armor vest with double m4 pouches all in front makes shooting in the prone an art-form, not a comfort zone. All the weight on the shoulders sucks. The first generation of the USMC MTV's that came out were heavy as hell, but were supposed to transfer weight onto the hips more. Me and my men didn't notice much of that, but we did notice our hips being worn raw by the placement of the side SAPIs. That actually became a planning consideration for me as I alternated mounted and dismounted patrols for the squads of my platoon. In a "back to the future" move, you see more guys now slimming down what they put on the front of their vests, and putting more ammo and kit on padded warbelts. The new generation of packs such as the USMC Pack are finally designed from the ground up to integrate with armor. When significant weight savings are impractical, improved load carriage is everything.
50 grams of cloth saved will lead to 50 grams of additional batteries carried.
The weight issue is a demonstration of leadership failure, not an issue with excessive heaviness of equipment. The enemy doesn't have technology for lighter equipment, and all is relative in warfare.
Ergo the American idiom, “100 pounds of the lightest weight gear.”
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
Go slow to be safe and fail
I suspect this short comment, with video clip, is not new. A joint ANA-US Army action April 2013:http://www.offiziere.ch/?p=11922
Time and again this happens: the Afghans outpace the Americans and the Americans must reel them back in. The pace of the raid slows even further when the combined patrol rounds up several Afghan villagers and must enroll them in a biometric database using wireless devices that take 20 minutes to boot up.
(Ends)"I hate minehounds,” Mullins growls, unfairly blaming technology — rather than the U.S. Army’s own unwieldy tactics compared to the Afghans — for his platoon’s failure to capture Mohammad.
davidbfpo
Project Payne identified the load of a Section Commander (what we call the Squad Leader) on Junior Breacon, the tactics course for promotion to full Corporal in the Infantry, without any specialist equipment and on a patrol not planned to last more than 12 hours, with no wet kit or warm kit, torches or cooking equipment as 32kgs, or 70.5lbs. The GPMG gunner was carrying 46Kgs, or 101lbs.
Interesting how there seems to be no major breakthrough in this regard. I guess this leads to the need to change the role of the infantry fundamentally.
If these basic weights are really essential equipment then it is not possible to carry out fire-and-movement (or as it was called in my day skirmishing).
That statement made let me relate some experience going back to Rhodesia 1976.
I was preparing my patrol of two 4-man sticks (total of 8 men) for a 8-day patrol task into Mozambique. We would be flown in and dropped off by Arospatiale Alouette III helicopters (which at that stage was all we had). I was instructed to send one of my gunners over to the airforce (all aircraft were airforce) to be weighed. Weighed separately, his gun, the FN MAG (M240 in yank speak), his webbing and pack/bergen/ruck came in at 108lbs (or 49kg in the new language).
Now the drill was that only non fighting equipment - water, rations, spare batteries, sleeping bag etc were carried in the bergen (a pack with a frame). All ammo, grenades, a little water, compass, binos, maps etc (as applicable for individual role) were carried in the belt webbing. Action on making contact was to drop the begen and fight wearing only the belt webbing. There was... is... no way a soldier can fight with the kind of loads carried today (in places like Afghanistan). Dropping your pack brings the soldiers weight down to around or below 50lbs (23kgs) (bearing in mind the prescribed US fighting load is 48lbs / 22kg).
I guess we come back to the issue of body armour. Without getting sidetracked in an argument over the weight of body armour lets take 30lbs / 14kgs as the basis for this discussion.
From the weights provided if the weight of body armour (which I assume is included in the 70.5lbs / 32kg) is removed then it does bring the fighting load down to within the prescribed US fighting load (except for the GPMG gunner who will still be over the limit by far).
However, if body armour is not included then the Brits have a real problem.
To finish my story the individual weight - as mentioned - led to a reduction from 4 to 3 men in the helicopter load for such patrols thereafter.
JMA
Osprey with the small plate front and rear weighs about 7Kg
Hi David,
Did your original figures include the 7kg for the Osprey? Also meaning do they train with that additional load?
Also what would be considered 'specialist equipment' and how would this affect individual loads across the section/platoon?
JMA, Yes, those figures include Ospery.
My trip on Herrick 15 started training in January, about 5 months before mobilisation(I'm a reservist) with just ECBA, which is lighter but doesn't have the facility to attach pouches to it. We only got Osprey in time for the last major exercise before deployment but that was without the large plates.
Specialist equipment can be anything from assault ladders, cutters, ECM, Vallon and all the stuff that goes with marking, cameras and crap....
Most of it is just bulky and awkward. The current issue assault ladder is a bit lighter but still a sod to carry
Bearing in mind the "coroner test" to what extent are the use of plates a matter of individual disgression?
None what soever.
The Army only just bought enough large plates for osprey so not enough for training for one Brigade in the UK on MST, getting ready to deploy whilst the Brigade out in theatre was active. Once in country it was large plate front and rear and small plates on both sides plus tier 2 nappies. No changes to that policy at all ever.
3 litres was the size of the issue camelback so you might as well fill :-)
Given the weight of stuff I was carrying at times, 300 rounds 5.56mm. 2 smoke, 1 HE, 2 WP, HF Radio plus spare battery, 200 rounds 7.62mm link and 3 litres of water as one days load any more weight was avoided :-) I'd have loved to brew up sometime :-)
The reference to patrol, contact, airstrike and home for tea was disparagingly referred to in a small article in BAR (British Army Review) as Dog bark patrolling
The article put it as "We go out, we get barked at, we go home" and contrasted the USMC response which was to promptly turn and go straight to the shooting at all times
It wasn't a very complimentary article.......
Last edited by David I Evans; 06-26-2014 at 01:45 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks