Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

[slapout9]

Have known this was out there for sometime but could not remember the exact title so it was very difficult to find. This is one the most complete Load Bearing Equipment studies about the modern Infantryman. They even tested what the proper width of shoulder straps should be, the detailed reference bibliography is a gold mine. Enjoy!



"A Survey Of The Effects Of Load Carrying And Equipment Design Upon Tasks Performed By The Combat Infantryman" from 1962
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/294993.pdf

[Fuchs]

http://www.breachbangclear.com/site/...e-so-much.html

[carl]

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.

[BushrangerCZ]

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.

I am afraid even 100 lbs makes the same conclusion...

[castellanoc1]

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.

[Fuchs]

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.

[ganulv]

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.”

[David I Evans]

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.

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.

[JMA]

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.

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.

[David I Evans]

JMA

Osprey with the small plate front and rear weighs about 7Kg

[JMA]

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]

JMA

Osprey with the small plate front and rear weighs about 7Kg

Bearing in mind the "coroner test" to what extent are the use of plates a matter of individual disgression?