Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

[ODB]

Are we saying that more/proper training...
a) will reduce the need for so much gear because we won't need it to be effective
b) better physically condition Soldiers so that the weight is not an issue
c) both
d) neither

This is one of those occasions where the connection between the problem identified and the solution suggested isn't completely obvious to me.

a) Ken hit some key points on this. Additionally through training we learn how to work those assets available for resupplies. Caches IMO are a lost art in the military today. Do operations for the sole purpose of caching supplies for future operations. There are a multitude of things that can be learned by training. Why carry 5 pound bolt cutters when I can carry .25 pound dikes? One has to train with the equipment to know what works, what can be utilized for multiple purposes, when and where something does or doesn't work.

b) This is a big one. The human body IMO is amazing with it's ability to adapt. We all know we are going to wear body armour, but how many PT in body armour? Weekly runs in body armour make a difference. To add to this, sorry the alotted PT time is not enough, individuals need to take there own time to condition themselves. How many times do leaders check soldier loads when conducting training marches? Sorry but a PT score does not tell me a single thing about a soldiers conditioning. So because a guy can score 300 he is a stud? Not at all, he knows how to pass a test. Pushing soldiers physically with heavy loads, physically demanding training will prepare them for the rigors they will face. Run those same "studs" through a 4 mile litter run in body armour, rope climbs, log drills, the list goes on......point is one has to train accordingly to the demands they will face. They have to train harder than those demands so when they face them they can reflect back on harder times and realize this is nothing compared to the time when we did this....

Finally I'll add that we need to get out of the risk averison mode we have entered. We are the business of accepting risks, but we must not continue to avoid risks. Yes, risk mitigation is a must. How do we learn to mitigate those risks, through training.

Yes, IMO most of this whinning can be avoided through proper training.

Anyone know why the Army stopped doing top down building clearing? If you do then you'll know how we have ended up where we are today.

[reed11b]

a) b) This is a big one. The human body IMO is amazing with it's ability to adapt. We all know we are going to wear body armour, but how many PT in body armour? Weekly runs in body armour make a difference. To add to this, sorry the alotted PT time is not enough, individuals need to take there own time to condition themselves. How many times do leaders check soldier loads when conducting training marches? Sorry but a PT score does not tell me a single thing about a soldiers conditioning. So because a guy can score 300 he is a stud? Not at all, he knows how to pass a test. Pushing soldiers physically with heavy loads, physically demanding training will prepare them for the rigors they will face. Run those same "studs" through a 4 mile litter run in body armour, rope climbs, log drills, the list goes on......point is one has to train accordingly to the demands they will face. They have to train harder than those demands so when they face them they can reflect back on harder times and realize this is nothing compared to the time when we did this....

I would disagree w/ you on the APFT (it is a fairly good indicator of overall fitness) except for the 2 mile run. 2 mile run is more of a skill then a fitness test. You do learn how to run the 2 mile. The rest of your post rings true with me however.
Reed

[carl]

I am deeply skeptical that any amount of physical conditioning will allow a 160 pound soldier carrying 85 pounds of equipment to catch or even keep up with a Taliban fighter carrying an AK and a blanket roll; especially if the race continues for several days. I also think it important that we be able to at least keep up with the Taliban in that race.

So this interested civilian doesn't see any alternative to shedding some of the weight. Also, as Ken said, if we ever get back into the tropics that weight will have to come off, so might as well get started now.

[ODB]

One should not have to chase the Taliban for days if one utilizes our doctrine and assets available.

1. Find them
2. Fix them
3. Finish them

So with that in mind I do not see an issue of trying to run down the Taliban for days on end. Worse case everything falls off with a pull of a few tabs if it truely comes down to that.

As I shake the cobwebs from the memory of Afghanistan in 02'. I have commented before about my load and lessons learned from that time. We wore IBA with mag pouches and one utility pouch. We carried 3 day assault packs with food (a lot of power bars and for myself milkbone dog biscuits and peanut butter), water, and ammo (cross loaded for the mortars or machine guns). In the mountains you threw in some snivel gear and a sleep system (usually bivy sack and patrol bag). Not a heavy load, very easily managable. We utilized UH-60s for resupply, mainly water. Was this the exception because I had decent leadership? To this day I question our lack of use of filteration pumps, chlorine tablets, etc..... Understand the focus not being on Afghanistan the past years and can see if there is a lack of assets in country to conduct resupplies, but also do not see how proper planning and coordination can't make it happen. Then do all resupplies need to be done by air?

Are we allowing technological advances to dictact what we carry, IMO the short answer = yes. Basically it comes down to the fact that we have forgotten basic skills that have worked for centuries, because we think technology is the answer. We have become soft and forgotten how to survive on what is available.

Wanted to stay generalized vs getting into "war stories" but do have specific examples of both ends of the spectrum from both theaters of operation.

[Schmedlap]

To this day I question our lack of use of filteration pumps, chlorine tablets, etc..... Are we allowing technological advances to dictact what we carry, IMO the short answer = yes. Basically it comes down to the fact that we have forgotten basic skills that have worked for centuries, because we think technology is the answer. We have become soft and forgotten how to survive on what is available.

I don't think it's a matter of "getting soft" or forgetting anything. What takes more time?
a) Locating, procuring, filtering, and chlorinating water
b) Bringing water with you
Answer: depends on the mission. I would argue that for the overwhelming majority of missions - your specific cases perhaps being the exception - the answer is (b). That's not "getting soft" or forgetting. That's doing what makes more sense.

I remember retired Soldiers complaining about us having bottled water in Iraq when I got back from my first deployment. I guess they thought that we were drinking Evian water and munching on caviar or something. I tried explaining to them that it simplified logistics and field sanitation, thus freeing up time for other stuff. Their response was, "back in my day, we drank water from our canteens and we filled our helmets with water to shave." That's nice. And that was better for what reason? I respect their nostalgia. I don't understand how it makes us more effective.

Regarding the earlier note about caching - same issue. For situations such as your anecdotal experiences, perhaps it makes sense. For most, if not all, operations in Iraq and probably many in Afghanistan, it seems like an unnecessary time killer. I don't know if you've deployed in a conventional unit since 9/11, but their responsibilities are significantly different than those of an AOB operating in the same AOR. In OIF III, my Infantry Company's tasks, just off the top of my head, included route security, fixed site security, OPs, training IA, IP, MoD (all at once - in different locations), securing new IA and IP sites as they are being built, flooding the AOR with small teams to eliminate IED emplacers in the act and maintain a state of paranoia amongst the insurgency (helping to make area more permissive for the ODAs to move about it), providing QRF and/or outer cordons for ODA missions, and providing QRF for MiTTs. Those are just off the top of my head. I could brainstorm dozens more. Those tasks are extremely time and manpower intensive - especially when you throw in the logistics and life support and the fact that we're operating from a patrol base where we provide our own security (couldn't hire Peshmerga guards like the ODAs could). Add to that mix specific missions to go out and cache supplies? Time and troops available are already tapped out. Joe is going to need to carry his ammo and water.

[ODB]

Did OEF 02' and OIF 03' with 101st. Went SF in 04.

[Ken White]

Did OEF 02' and OIF 03' with 101st. Went SF in 04.

Both do good work -- but they don't understand each other.

Almost as bad as SF and the whole Army.....

[Ken White]

I don't think it's a matter of "getting soft" or forgetting anything.

Wrong issue, I think -- soft isn't the question. The issue should be what works best for that AO and that mission. One does not have to practice to be miserable -- but one, if a soldier, should be prepared to do what it takes to get the job done. I'm sure you always did and always would. Most guys and gals do. Only a few will try to sluff for various reasons. Today, many are not inclined to take risks or to commit people to the boonies without eleventy gallons of water each even if that makes mission sense. Each theater, each AO, each individual mission deserves a clean sheet look. Preconcieved ideas of what's needed or best get people killed. Every situation differs.

What takes more time?
a) Locating, procuring, filtering, and chlorinating water
b) Bringing water with you
Answer: depends on the mission. I would argue that for the overwhelming majority of missions - your specific cases perhaps being the exception - the answer is (b). That's not "getting soft" or forgetting. That's doing what makes more sense.

True -- based on your experience in Iraq. What is the mission of the average rifle company in Afghanistan? How many Platoons are out there, scuffling around away from the Flag Pole. How many even smaller elements are out there. Different AO, different everything. Carrying water may be necessary, may not be.

...Their response was, "back in my day, we drank water from our canteens and we filled our helmets with water to shave." That's nice. And that was better for what reason? I respect their nostalgia. I don't understand how it makes us more effective.

It wasn't better, it was the best that could be done at the time -- the point is not that it's better, it obviously is not -- point is simply it was done when it was necessary and could be again; METT dependent. Lacking a steel helmet to shave in, why not just go a couple of weeks without shaving? Quelle Horreur...

My personal best is 94 days without a shower and fourteen days on the button without shaving or brushing my teeth. That was then, this is now -- but I have no doubt that any number of troops today can do that without falling apart. I also have no doubt that whole units can do that and still be combat effective. The body will take a lot of abuse -- it'll pay you back later but why worry...

...Add to that mix specific missions to go out and cache supplies? Time and troops available are already tapped out. Joe is going to need to carry his ammo and water.

Make no sense in Iraq or for some in Afghanistan, it all depends, as you said, on the mission. For SF and for light infantry distributed patrols in Platoon or smaller size, caches can makes sense or not -- it all depends on the mission, routes, time, intel -- all those things. Caches can also be planted by Unit A in January for Unit E to use a year later. I don't think he means it should always be done, just citing it as a technique. So is a rendezvous with a wheeled or tracked resupply effort or routing a patrol to a friendly outpost for resupply. All sorts of options.

My point and that of ODB (I think. He can speak for himself but I think I know where he's coming from...) and those old dudes is just that you do what needs to be done and preconceived notions about what is good may need to be relooked. Proper training would enable more people to do that, partly by letting them know what's possible and how to do some things if they become necessary, partly by letting them know it's not only alright to think differently, it is in fact, in combat a really good idea to do so. Such training would also teach people that they could shave with less than a Porta Cabin sink or an electric razor, that you can find and drink local water and get by on a canteen a day for a week or two with no great harm if that enhances mission accomplishment and that you don't need ten magazines and any more clothing changes than three pair of socks fo a couple of weeks or month on extended operations.

Soldiering is not as nice as life can be elsewhere, discomfort is not really necessary in many cases but where it is probably necessary to do some things like that, one should be able to order it done or to do it knowing that it's temporary and it can be done.

It's a lot easier to do -- and to order it done -- if folks know how to do it and the one ordering it knows they know how. That's where we've erred...

[Schmedlap]

My personal best is 94 days without a shower and fourteen days on the button without shaving or brushing my teeth.

We may be neck and neck there. I don't have the exact dates. I took a shower in Kuwait in March 2003. My next was in June - at a car dealership in Baghdad. That was one funky uniform.

Proper training would enable more people to do that, partly by letting them know what's possible and how to do some things if they become necessary, partly by letting them know it's not only alright to think differently, it is in fact, in combat a really good idea to do so.

On most threads, I'm with you on the lackluster training. I don't think it's an issue here. If I'm not caching supplies, purifying water, going 3 months without a shower, or eating bugs - it's not for lack of training. It's because it's been unnecessary since the summer of 2003.

Most of the skills discussed are not the lost art that they are perceived to be. When we first arrived in Baghdad in April 2003, we were chlorinating and rationing water, conducting operations without night vision, radios, or flashlights (we had no batteries), living off the city (rather than the land), and not shaving or bathing. There was no "uh oh" moment where we thought, "yikes - chlorinating water wasn't part of our last gunnery density - how do we do this?" or "Gee, I can't go patrolling at night without seeing everything in a shade of green." Everybody knew how to use tracers and knew that it was easier to see objects at night if you don't look directly at them.

Maybe the old school techniques are necessary in Afghanistan - but I'd be surprised. I'd be curious to know the competing variables, such as impact on the mission (route selection, likelihood of water being too contaminated to purify, etc), how much weight is actually going to be shed, troops and time available, likelihood of cache sites being discovered and boobytrapped/stolen or observed as they are emplaced. Mr. Tallyban knows those hills better than the Soldiers. For many discussions on this board, lack of training is an obvious culprit because we can see substandard performance that would not exist were it not for substandard training. In the case of what Soldiers carry versus what they cache, leave behind, obtain en route, etc, that's not so obvious. We don't know the competing variables.

My take on the issues on this thread are as follows...
1) If the part of the mission is to significantly minimize casualties, then that is a risk aversion imposed by the civilian masters. That's not a error on the part of the chain of command. As much as I hated the mentality of the Army pre-9/11, it was driven by the civilian leadership. Risk aversion was a specified task in Bosnia. Just because the leadership made it happen, it didn't mean that they thought it made any sense. Given that it was simply absurd, as opposed to unlawful, I don't see what choice they had. Though less drastic, the same dynamic is pushing against us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can you imagine the hoopla that would have surrounded combat death number 5,000, had it occurred when President Bush was still in office? The media and anti-war protesters would have been dancing in the streets.
2) Earlier suggestions on this thread that leaders weigh down their Soldiers due to concern about their OERs are, for the most part, absurd and insulting. Who are these commanders who care more about their OERs than their men? I've had my share of oddballs and even some incompetent ones, but none that were just flat out evil.
3) 85 pounds in flat terrain - ok. 140 pounds in steep terrain - probably not. The former can be (and has been) solved by physical training. The latter is a physiological issue if it's continuous.
4) If your equipment gives you a significant edge, then I don't care if it's heavy, unless the loss of mobility offsets the edge that your equipment gives you. In Afghanistan, maybe that's the case. I find it hard to believe that leaders are routinely failing to adequately balance those variables.

[David I Evans]

that you can find and drink local water and get by on a canteen a day for a week or two with no great harm if that enhances mission accomplishment

Just as an aside. About 20 odd years there was a massive spike in men of about 70 years of age suffering from kidney related problems, some of them quite serious. Every single one of these men had one thing in common

Service between 1942 to 1944 in North Africa where at some point these men had been rationed to one canteen of water a day for prolonged periods.

But I agree, soldiers are going to have to get used to being wet or cold in the field again. The Project Payne brief has very funny image of a squaddie shuffling into an assault so weighed down he can't run

[Schmedlap]

This thread seems to get more generalized with every post.

Humping 140 pounds everyday up 15,000-foot peaks for 12 months? I'd say something is wrong. And I think that was the issue that began this thread. If physical training is the solution to that, then my credulity is strained more than those Soldiers' ligaments. If better training on Soldier skills is the solution, in order to remove the necessity of carrying all that gear and in order to give leaders a better sense of what they really need to bring - okay, got it. Agree on the latter.

I think that is the full scope of the problem - crazy big loads in rough terrain. But it is tough to distinguish whether some of the comments are referring to Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. I don't think there is a problem with the weight of our gear in Iraq. I say, if patrolling relatively flat terrain in Iraq in 85 pounds of gear is too much weight, then you need to see the gynecologist. If the concern is not that it's too much weight, but rather that "it could be less"... well, that's nice. I suppose that my teeth could be whiter, too. If the stuff that we're carrying gives us a significant edge and our Soldiers have the strength and conditioning to shoulder it and still operate effectively, then I want to know a good reason for leaving it behind - something better than just a general preference for being lighter.

[Ron Humphrey]

a) Caches IMO are a lost art in the military today. Do operations for the sole purpose of caching supplies for future operations. There are a multitude of things that can be learned by training. Why carry 5 pound bolt cutters when I can carry .25 pound dikes? One has to train with the equipment to know what works, what can be utilized for multiple purposes, when and where something does or doesn't work.

I'm always amazed at how you often don't hear talk about how much the history of large forces involves "livin off the land" stuff for exactly the reasons that we work so hard to overcome.

Guess it's cause it takes ????????? to know how to do it