Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

[RTK]

Training!

So I see after a week and a half off the net that I haven't missed much.

[RJ]

"What unit was that!! I weighed between 120 and 145 while in service and I was a mortarman or RTO on active and both a 240B and and SAW gunner in the guard. I remember one night patrol when I had both the SAW and the singars and my SL saw an Iraqi out past curfew and yelled for me to chase him. I was like "yeah right" but I did anyway."
Reed 11B

My Marine Battalion (3/5) seemed to lean towards Machine gunners who were short and wiry and strong or short and built like fire plugs. Stocky and strong! i commented on the height issue to a Gunnery Sgt. and he said that the shorter the gunner, the less there is for the enemy to hit.
As good a theory as any, I guess.

I saw a gunner running across a rice paddy dike slip and fall into a freshly manured paddy. As his body arched out, off the dike, he pushed the gun off his shoulders and rotate his body to hit the water on his back. The picture of his wrists and forearms holding the gun out of the water was the most impressive thing I ever saw. We applauded him when his A/Gunner pulled him above the funky water.

Guns Up!

The "MG" in those days was the LMG 30.

[Ken White]

So I see after a week and a half off the net that I haven't missed much.

Hey -- we're consistent.

Hard not to be when confronted with such a massive long standing error.

[ODB]

So I see after a week and a half off the net that I haven't missed much.

But it does cover a lot (might be an understatement) of the issues discussed. I will have to go back an consult my post where I used the thesaurus so I can use different words to say the same thing.

[Schmedlap]

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.

[Ken White]

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

as well what little must be taken * and what should be left behind -- and more importantly, decent training will also develop leaders that can and will conduct risk assessments and who will allow (and take) responsibility for tactical decisions that may lessen 'necessary equipment' carried, 'force protection' or 'safety' restrictions to provide better conditions for mission accomplishment.

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

Unfortunately, it is also not obvious to many in high places.

I fully understand the political and media pressures on several levels that preclude better training, inhibit the ability of willing commanders to take risks and cause excessive emphasis on force protection.

I also understand that the American people -- as opposed to the political and chattering classes -- are able to discern what's important and make sensible decisions. It is my belief that we can train and operate a great deal more effectively if we stop trying to placate Congress and the media (which we will never really manage to do), stop trying to tap dance on the head of a pin (to convince people how special we are) and just concentrate on doing the job right...


* How much of what now 'must' be taken is a technological substitute for poor training?

[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]

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