Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

[BushrangerCZ]

We were carrying HF as we were struggling with the VHF net, a problem found to be due to a fill for the VHF radios that had become corrupted.

Breakdown

Weapon + 6 full mags 9kgs
HE, Smoke, WP, UGL+ link 5kgs
Radio + spare batteries 3kgs
Osprey + small plates 7kgs
12 hr ration pack + 2litres of water 3kgs
Commanders Kit + FIST 5Kgs


FIST (future infantry soldier technology) is pretty much all the shiny new TI and HMNVS sights and LLM

Topped out at 32kgs for a Section Cmdr.

I understand NVG and let´s say IR strobo, plus VS17 panel as a FIST, plus field notebook with all the stuff needed, map, compass, and GPS. It goes about 3 kg, so we got 2kg down. 3kg VHF radio is quite heavy, AN/PRC 148 plus spare battery, multiband antenna, and headset fits easily into 2 kg. So one more kg down. Osprey 7kg (if included all the pouches and stuff, ballistic plates and also helmet) is reasonable weight, I would guess more. However something like TYR PICO plate carrier would cut down at least one kg just by using better technology and design. We can´t go down on ammo, frag and smoke, it´s already minimum. So yes 5 kg can go down, but it´s not decisive. And no one is going to issue light infantry guy with TYR Pico etc., unless you are very lucky and from very rich country. That it probably actually costs less than Osprey makes no difference. Also IFAK would take another 1kg up. Good to see no pistol, what an utter bull..it to issue it to every infantry soldier.

Only viable solution from my point of view is to ditch body armour where it´s not needed or even counter productive - and it´s not gonna happen.

[JMA]

Only viable solution from my point of view is to ditch body armour where it´s not needed or even counter productive - and it´s not gonna happen.

I agree it seems that a sane and unemotional discussion on this matter is not possible. I do wonder though whether any studies have been carried out as to the wounds that have been prevented by body armour as opposed to all wounds that have been caused due to lack of proper route selection by stumbling, bumbling over loaded soldiers?

[BushrangerCZ]

I agree it seems that a sane and unemotional discussion on this matter is not possible. I do wonder though whether any studies have been carried out as to the wounds that have been prevented by body armour as opposed to all wounds that have been caused due to lack of proper route selection by stumbling, bumbling over loaded soldiers?

Very good question...

[BushrangerCZ]

This rounds it up nicely:

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/06/30/p...they-carrying/

[JMA]

This rounds it up nicely:

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/06/30/p...they-carrying/

As does this:

Donkeys led by Lions

... but is anybody listening?

[JMA]

As does this:

Donkeys led by Lions

... but is anybody listening?

I would have thought comment on this document would have opened up a new line in this thread. Alas not. Where are the enquiring minds.

TE Lawrence lamented way back then of the British officer being too much body and too little head. Lind tells us that this crisis extends to the US military as well. Deeply troubling times.

[carl]

I would have thought comment on this document would have opened up a new line in this thread. Alas not. Where are the enquiring minds.

TE Lawrence lamented way back then of the British officer being too much body and too little head. Lind tells us that this crisis extends to the US military as well. Deeply troubling times.

I re-read that article and the thing about it that was even more distressing than the soldiers carrying too much weight was the HQs burdening themselves with so much useless make work that they are approaching the point where they can't function. They sling a lot of trons, the HQ people are all sleep deprived from overwork and mountains of 'product' are produced but they are approaching the point where they can't do what they exist for, guide and assist troops in combat. Napoleon and Grant did that for hundreds of thousands of men with pen and paper.

We are in a bad place.

[David I Evans]

This rounds it up nicely:

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/06/30/p...they-carrying/

I'm wondering at the weight of 6 MREs. That's in the wrappers I presume ?

That's 48hrs of food. The equivalent British 24Hr Ration pack is about 2.1kgs packed or 4.6lbs ish. That's a 1lb shaved off. Once you start dumping stuff, I suspect you could shave at least 2lbs off and maybe 3.

From experience the MRE pack generates a mass of rubbish, nearly a large bin big per platoon the one time I lived on MREs as part of a Rifle Company on exercise in the States The 24Hr ration pack has nowhere near the same level of packaging as MREs

[BushrangerCZ]

Unfortunately the only way how to get soldiers moving again is to dump body armour on missions which does not require body armour - or where is it downright counterproductive (recce). But it seems to me that ordinary infantry is doomed with incredibly stupid presence patrols forever, getting hunted instead of being hunters, doing only overt ops "Here I am shoot at me if you wish".

[Granite_State]

Unfortunately the only way how to get soldiers moving again is to dump body armour on missions which does not require body armour - or where is it downright counterproductive (recce). But it seems to me that ordinary infantry is doomed with incredibly stupid presence patrols forever, getting hunted instead of being hunters, doing only overt ops "Here I am shoot at me if you wish".

Agreed. The armor is 60% of the equation, the risk-averse overloading of batteries, water, C-IED, ammo and food is the rest of it. The terrifying thing is that in most of Afghanistan the "war" is very low risk, and even in the worst parts of Helmand and RC-East it can't be compared to Vietnam.

I think we all know what the problem is, but no one at upper levels has the moral courage to make changes. That, and the nature of limited wars means that few individuals, and zero institutions, are playing for a win.

[jcustis]

I'm wondering at the weight of 6 MREs. That's in the wrappers I presume ?

That's 48hrs of food. The equivalent British 24Hr Ration pack is about 2.1kgs packed or 4.6lbs ish. That's a 1lb shaved off. Once you start dumping stuff, I suspect you could shave at least 2lbs off and maybe 3.

From experience the MRE pack generates a mass of rubbish, nearly a large bin big per platoon the one time I lived on MREs as part of a Rifle Company on exercise in the States The 24Hr ration pack has nowhere near the same level of packaging as MREs

We got a little bit better with a new ration that left out a ton of the BS packaging.

http://www.mreinfo.com/us/fsr/first-strike-ration.html

The development of the FSR came from the fact that prior to deployment, soldiers would "field strip" their MREs. Field stripping involves removing all the excess MRE packaging and unwanted items - bags, boxes, heaters, extra spoons, accessory packs, etc. Creative field stripping could reduce 3 MREs - one day's worth - down to the same size as a single MRE. While this practice reduced the soldier's load by only packing the most critical MRE parts, it also led to increased waste and a reduced consumption of food. A single FSR, which is 24 hours worth of food, is approximately 50% the size and weight of three MREs.

1 FSR = 2,900 calories

3 MREs = 3,800 calories

[carl]

This rounds it up nicely:

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/06/30/p...they-carrying/

From the article you linked to comes this statement:

"The body armor and winning the war are mutually incompatible. If we can’t contemplate giving that up, at least as a day in, day out piece of equipment, then we need to contemplate simply giving up on fighting wars. Of course, ultimately that means our national extinction."

That strikes me as pretty profound statement.

[jcustis]

It absolutely is a profound statement because it is a profound problem.

And it all goes back to the worry that there will be gnashing of teeth from Mom or Dad if Joe or Johnny is killed via an injury which--while of very low probability--might have been prevented by a protective plate.

Because after all, troops in the movies leap tall buildings in a single bound and aren't constrained by any off that body armor stuff.

[JMA]

Carl, I suggest Lind's comments on the weakness of officer leadership are germane to this discussion.

This psychological need for all this equipment "just in case" would normally be levelled at non-combat experienced leaders. Surely this is no longer the case in Afghanistan with both the yanks and the Brits?

From the article you linked to comes this statement:

"The body armor and winning the war are mutually incompatible. If we can’t contemplate giving that up, at least as a day in, day out piece of equipment, then we need to contemplate simply giving up on fighting wars. Of course, ultimately that means our national extinction."

That strikes me as pretty profound statement.

[carl]

Carl, I suggest Lind's comments on the weakness of officer leadership are germane to this discussion.

This psychological need for all this equipment "just in case" would normally be levelled at non-combat experienced leaders. Surely this is no longer the case in Afghanistan with both the yanks and the Brits?

Military leadership is the heart of the thing. If you haven't you must read Muth's Command Culture ( http://www.amazon.com/Command-Cultur.../dp/1574415336 ). He does a very good job of explaining why the American officer education system just gets it wrong. And it has been wrong for a long time. Bill Mauldin wrote once that they were amazed that a German medic stayed with a wounded German officer who couldn't be moved until they were both captured. He was amazed because the chances front line troops accepting surrender weren't all that good and neither he nor any of his mates could think of a junior American officer they would do that for.

A WWI French general opined that American infantry was just terrible. And we were ( http://www.amazon.com/The-School-Har.../dp/1603442979 ). Straggling (desertion) was so bad in 1918 that the American Army in Europe may not have been a viable combat force if the war had lasted into 1919 (my opinion, the author didn't specifically say that). And Ken White (come back if you can Ken) always said that the US military structure and especially the personnel system were WWI products and haven't been changed. We have gotten away with all this for various reasons of historical and political accident for a century but things have changed. The Royal Navy isn't around anymore.

As far as combat guys changing things, they may be able to fight, with bullets, anybody in the world to standstill and better. But they can't buck the big green machine, or even influence it much. It is just too powerful. I terribly fear only an outside actor can change it, like Napoleon changed the Prussians in 1806 or the Spanish changed the Aztec system. One group survived the change. One group didn't.