Results 1 to 20 of 301

Thread: Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

    Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll - Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post

    Carrying heavy combat loads is taking a quiet but serious toll on troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, contributing to injuries that are sidelining them in growing numbers, according to senior military and defense officials.

    Rising concern over the muscle and bone injuries -- as well as the hindrance caused by the cumbersome gear as troops maneuver in Afghanistan's mountains -- prompted Army and Marine Corps leaders and commanders to launch initiatives last month that will introduce lighter equipment for some U.S. troops.

    As the military prepares to significantly increase the number of troops in Afghanistan -- including sending as many as 20,000 more Marines -- fielding a new, lighter vest and helmet is a top priority, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said recently. "We are going to have to lighten our load," he said, after inspecting possible designs during a visit to the Quantico Marine base...

  2. #2
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default Never ever learn...



    This really annoys me. It's as if the corporate memory of every army ever involved in combat operations from the last 60 years, has just evaporated.

    The question not being asked is why, when everyone knows how to lighten the load, are they not doing it? Sure, it involves running risk. Risk is inherent to the job.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    The new equipment, called a "plate carrier," would protect vital organs and weigh less than 20 pounds. It would not include additional pieces that troops currently use to shield sides, shoulders, arms, the groin and other areas -- pieces that, with a helmet, weigh about 35 pounds.
    There is also the issue of agility. In our zeal to turn every Soldier into a walking fortress, I think some lose sight of the fact that our doctrine and tactics are about taking the fight to the enemy, rather than absorbing enemy fire and calling for exfil. You simply cannot move if you're kitted out like King Arthur and your effectiveness is degraded. Let's not forget why Soldiers are out there: to find and kill the enemy. In OIF III, we fielded the shoulder guards. I have never seen anything so restrictive to one's arm and shoulder movement. They might as well have issued us straight-jackets. We refused to wear them and sent them back to the warehouse to be removed from our property book. Eventually, "higher" deemed that only turret gunners were required to wear them. We generally complied (METT-T dependent).

    As for the total weight, it is surprising that if these items are only 35 pounds that Soldiers are still carrying so much weight. I wonder where the statistics come from. Obviously, Afghanistan requires heavier loads simply due to water requirements alone. But in Iraq, the average combat load for us was 13 magazines (probably less for most units), 1 gallon of water, 2 frags (probably less for most units), a first aid kit that weighed maybe a pound or so, another pound for an NVD, and then either a radio, shotgun with 8 rounds (probably not carried by most units), or some other item - none of which weighed more than 10 or 12 pounds. By my guestimation, that's about 40 or 50 pounds (I'm overestimating to account for batteries), to include an M4, at the most, added to the 35 pounds of armor and helmet. SAW gunners and M240B gunners did not carry the "other item" so the total weight wasn't too much more for them - maybe 10 pounds more at the most. (Note the several instances of "probably less" and "overestimate"). If all of this weight were being carried in an ALICE pack, then I could see how it would get old really quickly. But given how we carry this stuff now - close to the body, distributed evenly - this amount of weight was barely noticable. I've really got to question the physical training of someone who feels overly weighted down by this.

    Regarding one item of protection noted - the groin protection - that weighs almost nothing. I kept it folded up, underneath my RACK and when the shooting started simply leaned forward and brushed the guard down into position. I'll take the risk of muscular-skeletal injury over the risk of losing the family jewels.

    Lastly, there are some legitimate points in this article, but I've got to raise the BS flag on this part...

    Sgt. Waarith Abdullah, 34, is struggling to recover at Fort Stewart, Ga., from a lower-back injury that he says was caused by the strain of wearing body armor for long hours each day during three deployments to Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

    Abdullah's injury flared up painfully during his most recent 15-month deployment to Balad, Iraq, where he had to maneuver to search vehicles and stand for 12-hour shifts in guard towers.
    (emphasis added)
    What the heck is going on in Saudi Arabia that requires wearing heavy "combat" gear? "Maneuver" to search vehicles? And what is this guy weighted down with while standing in a guard tower? Body armor, according to the article, is 35 pounds. What other gear is this guy carrying, versus having readily available at his post? Could the author have found a more ridiculous example to illustrate an otherwise legitimate observation? I've seen pregnant Soldiers able to work harder than this.
    Last edited by Schmedlap; 02-01-2009 at 02:38 PM. Reason: Spelling

  4. #4
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Light weight, capable, flexible, is known. Pick up an REI catalog or GALLS. We've talked about this before, but nobody is listening.

    Next time somebody snags a Taliban insurgent, weigh his entire kit.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Next time somebody snags a Taliban insurgent, weigh his entire kit.
    I think the usefulness of that observation is limited. If we kill 100 Taliban in one day, our adversaries don't lose much sleep. If we lose 5 Soldiers in one day, it imperils public support for the war. Hence the body armor.

    Also, the Taliban can afford to travel light because he can hide among the people. If he runs out of ammo, he can throw down his weapon and mingle with the locals. If a Soldier runs out of ammo, then he's probably getting his head chopped off.

  6. #6
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Light weight, capable, flexible, is known. Pick up an REI catalog or GALLS. We've talked about this before, but nobody is listening.

    Next time somebody snags a Taliban insurgent, weigh his entire kit.
    True, but when the much heavier kit is more bulletproof, the senior leaders who made the right decision to go with the lighter gear will be crucified by the same media for not giving the soldiers the very best (now defined by how resistent vs how light) it is.

    Real Catch-22.

    I had to chuckle a bit at GEN Chiarelli's comments about humping a heavy ruck. I really like this guy as a person and have tremendous respect for him as an officer. This is a general who walks the walk when it comes to taking care of soldiers. The reason I chuckled though, is because he is Cav/Armor thru and thru, and is far more likely to put a dash of fuel in his coffee than ever hump a ruck! I had the privelege of working for him back in 2002 in Army G-3 during football season, and as he is a Univ of Washington alum, it led to some good banter with this Oregon State product.

    For weeks I had endured good natured ribbing about us SOF guys and our dewrags and general disregard for good military decorum. Come the week of the big game between UW and OSU I challenged him to a small wager during the evening shift change (which this 2-star never missed, morning and night he ran the rehearsal and the actual brief...not to cover his ass, but to ensure he knew the issues and the product was tight, and he did and it was). Gen C was immediately up for the bet and asked me what I would be willing to wager. Simple, if my team lost, I would stand the next shift change wearing a Kevlar. If his team lost, he would stand the next shift change wearing a dewrag. Suffice it to say the wager was too large...

    But I know this, whatever the best combination of light weight and good protection is available, this general will bet his stars to see that the soldier receives it.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  7. #7
    Council Member max161's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    142

    Default "A hundred pounds of lightweight

    S**t is still a hundred pounds" as the old saying goes.

    Part of the problem is that we default to a technical solution for everything. As we miniaturize something and make it smaller and more compact and lighter we (or industry) comes up with something new that will enhance our missions that much more. Communications, computers, more weapons and ammunition and of course the emphasis on force protection (which is not a bad thing but we have to understand that protecting a soldier from a kinetic weapon requires sufficient mass). And as long as we have large rucksacks and load bearing equipment and vests on which we can attach and hang things we are always going to add something new that we think we will need or supposedly help us to better accomplish the mission or protect us. Like nature abhors a vacuum, if there is space on a soldier (or in his ruck) we will fill it!!
    David S. Maxwell
    "Irregular warfare is far more intellectual than a bayonet charge." T.E. Lawrence

  8. #8
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    The thing that bugs me, is equipment that is fairly effective will be the first on the "cut" list. Body armor has grown, and perhaps needs to be scaled back, but I do not buy that it is the key weight holding us back. Part of this is from how the weight of the armor is carried and part is from what I have seen many units carry in the fields. I have seen units carry breaching kits on every patrol, take way more snivel gear then they need to survive, overload ammo, water etc etc. These items are carried in a backpack that carries the weight off balance from the body, while the armor weight is distributed across the torso. And really, do you need a breaching kit on every patrol? Why not keep it in the support vehicle and call it up if you need it, unless your going specifically on a raid. Just becouse there is space in your "3 day assualt pack" does not mean you need to fill it. I'll stop here before I wander too far from my point.
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    22

    Default InfantryMen tools weight

    Don't know if that topic have been debated yet, if so please tell me on what thread attach this one.
    If the subject seems to be sensitive, please remove this topic.

    One of the major enhancement for Infantry, without saying arms and ammunitions, seems to be networking the coy of infantry.

    As I can see some enhancements to put more tools in the hands of heavy infantry-mens, as they can leave some of them in the armored personnel carrier, I'm quite puzzled about benefits for light infantry, when I heard that the platoon level will have to choose what item is taken and what other not regarding to mission requirements.
    It will be temptation to take all items (nvg, lr bino, max protection, com ...) as nobody ever now :
    - what will be the new mission, or next sub-mission
    - when it will be possible to have access to his/her own package
    same problem as "what quantity of ammunition does I have to take ?" plus, nowadays, how many batteries shall I need ?
    And by that nullifying the purpose of networking by reducing maneuver ability ?

    If taking all items are not possible (size, load), how logistics will deal with it ? (give the right collective unit (package) to the right coy)

    Regards
    JpS
    Last edited by Ken White; 06-15-2010 at 09:00 PM. Reason: Moved to this existing thread

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jps2 View Post
    Don't know if that topic have been debated yet, if so please tell me on what thread attach this one.
    If the subject seems to be sensitive, please remove this topic.

    One of the major enhancement for Infantry, without saying arms and ammunitions, seems to be networking the coy of infantry.

    As I can see some enhancements to put more tools in the hands of heavy infantry-mens, as they can leave some of them in the armored personnel carrier, I'm quite puzzled about benefits for light infantry, when I heard that the platoon level will have to choose what item is taken and what other not regarding to mission requirements.
    It will be temptation to take all items (nvg, lr bino, max protection, com ...) as nobody ever now :
    - what will be the new mission, or next sub-mission
    - when it will be possible to have access to his/her own package
    same problem as "what quantity of ammunition does I have to take ?" plus, nowadays, how many batteries shall I need ?
    And by that nullifying the purpose of networking by reducing maneuver ability ?

    If taking all items are not possible (size, load), how logistics will deal with it ? (give the right collective unit (package) to the right coy)

    Regards
    JpS
    "Networking"? What do you mean?

    I suggest it is obvious that the personal equipment carried by a soldier will be dictated to by the nature and duration of the operation undertaken. This should not be a personal choice but rather dictated by SOP and confirmed in the verbal orders for that particular operation.

    I am supposing that the troops (be it a platoon or smaller patrol) will deploy from a base and will recover to that base once the operation has been completed.

    Where the troops are to be resupplied in the field for further and maybe a different type of operation (say from OP [observation] to say ambush) then according to prearranged and prepacked scales of equipment and/or against SOP scales this resupply can be dropped off with them.

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Ken, Thanks for correcting me.

    JMA : Networking is the ability given to coys, team & platoon leaders to "see" where there subordinates are, (gps related), to send/receive small messages (like sms), to report ammunition consumption and so one : all functions given by new features of FFW (called IdZ, Felin, ... in Europe). These gears have their own weight, and needs batteries...

    My question is relative to your advices/thinks regarding the balance between natural trend to bring the whole package and minimizing weight for better maneuver especially in high intensity conflicts and for light infantry, when nobody will knows when refilling/complement will be possible.
    (For armor infantry, the problem is quite different as they are not supposed to fight without/far from their armored carrier.)

    We have to think to future conditions and not focus on currents operations, when refilling/complement can be done within the 12h at worst, using our capabilities to operate by night. That ability will not be more effective against opponents with manpad and night vision devices.
    Last edited by jps2; 06-16-2010 at 08:08 AM.

  12. #12
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Weight was always one of my biggest fights. I always tried fiddling with what we carried but no matter what you do, you were burdened.

    My patrol loadout in Afghanistan consisted of:
    - Body Armour, Helmet and Ballistic Eye-wear
    - Carbine and 7 Mags
    - 1 Frag Grenade
    - 2 Smoke Grenades
    - 1 First Aid Kit
    - 1 GPS
    - 1 set of binos
    - 1 liter water
    - MBITR (small VHF radio)
    - 4 glowsticks
    - Small Folding Knife
    - Map, Pens, Paper

    In my bag I would have:
    - 2 x Rations (MREs; this was 24 hours)
    - 3-6 extra liters of water
    - 2 extra smoke
    - 1 belt 7.62 or M-72 (all patrolmen carry something with omph)
    - Ranger Blanket (got stuck once without it, never again)

    I would normally take the bag out if I was operating away from the vehicle/outpost for more than 4-6 hours.

    This is not much stuff, and it was heavy. If a guy had a support weapon or a radio, he was double screwed. Me and my NCOs looked at it, and you can't really get rid of much more. As someone already pointed out, the big key is to get rid of the weight of the hard armour somehow. The armour adds alot of weight and, usually, adds it in an uncomfortable and constricting way that only fatigues a soldier faster.

  13. #13
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    As someone already pointed out, the big key is to get rid of the weight of the hard armour somehow. The armour adds alot of weight and, usually, adds it in an uncomfortable and constricting way that only fatigues a soldier faster.
    That's a policy choice. It's not a military one.
    There is obviously one highly classified piece of data that informs the judgement as to why you "need" to wear hard armour.
    Excepting that, you are back to an issue of coverage and protection standard. Reducing each leads to some fairly major weight savings.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    Weight was always one of my biggest fights. I always tried fiddling with what we carried but no matter what you do, you were burdened.

    My patrol loadout in Afghanistan consisted of:
    - Body Armour, Helmet and Ballistic Eye-wear
    - Carbine and 7 Mags
    - 1 Frag Grenade
    - 2 Smoke Grenades
    - 1 First Aid Kit
    - 1 GPS
    - 1 set of binos
    - 1 liter water
    - MBITR (small VHF radio)
    - 4 glowsticks
    - Small Folding Knife
    - Map, Pens, Paper

    In my bag I would have:
    - 2 x Rations (MREs; this was 24 hours)
    - 3-6 extra liters of water
    - 2 extra smoke
    - 1 belt 7.62 or M-72 (all patrolmen carry something with omph)
    - Ranger Blanket (got stuck once without it, never again)

    I would normally take the bag out if I was operating away from the vehicle/outpost for more than 4-6 hours.

    This is not much stuff, and it was heavy. If a guy had a support weapon or a radio, he was double screwed. Me and my NCOs looked at it, and you can't really get rid of much more. As someone already pointed out, the big key is to get rid of the weight of the hard armour somehow. The armour adds alot of weight and, usually, adds it in an uncomfortable and constricting way that only fatigues a soldier faster.
    Can you put some individual weights to each item please?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jps2 View Post
    Ken, Thanks for correcting me.

    JMA : Networking is the ability given to coys, team & platoon leaders to "see" where there subordinates are, (gps related), to send/receive small messages (like sms), to report ammunition consumption and so one : all functions given by new features of FFW (called IdZ, Felin, ... in Europe). These gears have their own weight, and needs batteries...

    My question is relative to your advices/thinks regarding the balance between natural trend to bring the whole package and minimizing weight for better maneuver especially in high intensity conflicts and for light infantry, when nobody will knows when refilling/complement will be possible.
    (For armor infantry, the problem is quite different as they are not supposed to fight without/far from their armored carrier.)

    We have to think to future conditions and not focus on currents operations, when refilling/complement can be done within the 12h at worst, using our capabilities to operate by night. That ability will not be more effective against opponents with manpad and night vision devices.
    What weight are we talking about here?

    Is it progress or is it technology for the sake of technology?

    First versions of radios etc were too heavy and not very good. They got better with time. If this stuff is really needed then one must persevere with it until the nano-tech get interested then it will be a breeze from there.

    I don't really have a problem with every soldier getting to be a hi-tech warrior but have serious concerns as to what happens to all this stuff when the first enemy armoured division starts over running your front lines?
    Last edited by JMA; 06-18-2010 at 11:31 AM.

  16. #16
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Well i'm balancing between
    in tactical domain :
    - more immediate beedback to team member and team/platoon leader directly "on scene" can be an advantage to stay in contact, check progression, communicate silently.
    - Interferences from higher level than platoon and also leaders more concern in their tools than leading their guys (video games paradox).
    in mobility
    - more protection given by body armor means less mobility
    - less mobility means also more "targetable" infantrymen, moving slowly, tired quickly, less long-lasting capabilities

    For currents operations, you can plan active times followed by recovery times but what makes me anxious is high intensity fights, when recovery will not manageable : does that extra weight will not put us down ?

    When we looks at high intensity modern urban fights (I think to Grozny), and the localization of wondering, our body armors won't protect the boys, they will be injured (perhaps not heavily nor killed). So my concern is : does FFW items gain such advantage over classic infantrymen in hard/classic fights ?

  17. #17
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    The problem with body armor now has more to do with risk adversity than anything else. The body armor we use now was not originally designed to be used the way we do now. It was intended for short duration use on an assault, especially in MOUT. In MOUT, and CQC in particular, the ranges at which combat takes place necessitate the use of some kind of body armor. Weight is less of an issue because of the shorter distances moved (versus contact in a wooded area or an open area), and the need for protection outweighs the need for speed or endurance. The problem came about when it was determined that the need for protection outweighed all other factors in all cases. As Ken often points out, when politicians become too involved in military operations bad things happen. In this case it became popular to attack the Bush administration and Rumsfeld in particular for sending our troops to combat "without adequate protection," including, among other things, body armor and increasing amounts of armor on our vehicles. It eventually reached the point where, if little Johnny is killed and he wasn't wearing body armor, there is a good chance that some elected official or other is going to want to look into why. In those cases, any viable reasons either for or against the policy tend to get lost in the political catfighting and the troops on the ground get stuck with whatever policy is most politically viable, regardless of whether or not it is tactically viable.
    “Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”

    Terry Pratchett

Similar Threads

  1. Weight of back packed gear study
    By George L. Singleton in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 11-06-2008, 03:15 PM
  2. Light infantry TOEs
    By Rifleman in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 05:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •