Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 301

Thread: Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

  1. #221
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.”
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  2. #222
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Go slow to be safe and fail

    I suspect this short comment, with video clip, is not new. A joint ANA-US Army action April 2013:http://www.offiziere.ch/?p=11922

    Time and again this happens: the Afghans outpace the Americans and the Americans must reel them back in. The pace of the raid slows even further when the combined patrol rounds up several Afghan villagers and must enroll them in a biometric database using wireless devices that take 20 minutes to boot up.

    (Ends)"I hate minehounds,” Mullins growls, unfairly blaming technology — rather than the U.S. Army’s own unwieldy tactics compared to the Afghans — for his platoon’s failure to capture Mohammad.
    davidbfpo

  3. #223
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Gents,

    I am on a smart device and it is maddening to try to search through this thread, but does anyone recall mention of an older pack ( it might even be in a different thread) that had a design allowing it to clip into a socket or such on the wearer's belt. It definitely is not MOLLE generation 1, which I know had a ball and socket setup which was done away with.

    I want to say it was some sort of limited distro
    Lowe pack, but am not certain.

    Thanks in advance.

  4. #224
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    I want to say it was some sort of limited distro Lowe pack, but am not certain.
    This one, possibly?



    ETA: It doesn’t look like the belt is removable. It looks like the belt is designed like this one with two pockets to accept the end of the stays, but that might not be what you meant by “clip into.”
    Last edited by ganulv; 08-17-2013 at 05:11 PM.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  5. #225
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Now that I think about it, maybe it was the CFP-90 pack with stays and an adjustable yoke that I was thknking of.

  6. #226
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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.

  7. #227
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David I Evans View Post
    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.

  8. #228
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    13

    Default

    JMA

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

  9. #229
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David I Evans View Post
    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?

  10. #230
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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

  11. #231
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    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, Yes, those figures include Ospery.

    My trip on Herrick 15 started training in January, about 5 months before mobilisation(I'm a reservist) with just ECBA, which is lighter but doesn't have the facility to attach pouches to it. We only got Osprey in time for the last major exercise before deployment but that was without the large plates.

    Specialist equipment can be anything from assault ladders, cutters, ECM, Vallon and all the stuff that goes with marking, cameras and crap....

    Most of it is just bulky and awkward. The current issue assault ladder is a bit lighter but still a sod to carry

  12. #232
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    OK thanks, David.

    I guess we get to the question as to whether the British Army actually believe that a soldier can engage in any reasonably intense combat carrying the sort of loads you mention?

    As a matter of interest how much water is included in that load you mention?



    Quote Originally Posted by David I Evans View Post
    JMA, Yes, those figures include Ospery.

    My trip on Herrick 15 started training in January, about 5 months before mobilisation(I'm a reservist) with just ECBA, which is lighter but doesn't have the facility to attach pouches to it. We only got Osprey in time for the last major exercise before deployment but that was without the large plates.

    Specialist equipment can be anything from assault ladders, cutters, ECM, Vallon and all the stuff that goes with marking, cameras and crap....

    Most of it is just bulky and awkward. The current issue assault ladder is a bit lighter but still a sod to carry

  13. #233
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    OK thanks, David.

    I guess we get to the question as to whether the British Army actually believe that a soldier can engage in any reasonably intense combat carrying the sort of loads you mention?

    As a matter of interest how much water is included in that load you mention?
    About 3 litres.

    And I would say regardless of what the Army thinks, attempting to carry out the Mission of the Infantry, to close with and kill the enemy, was impossible with the normal weight I'd carry on a patrol intended to last only 4 - 6 hours and that was just equipment.

    Food was maybe 2 or 3 snack bar of some sort , wet/warm kit was a gortex jacket which I never wore.

  14. #234
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default

    There is a thread on the unofficial blogsite ARRSE which refers to Project Payne (which is a rather odd name choice, or humour):http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/thr...ne-ibs.201353/

    If you search Google using "project payne" + army one of the hits is a MoD publication, with no GPMS markings (i.e. official restrictions on use), from the Small Arms School Corps in 2013, which on the last page has a short article and a pie chart showing the breakdown of kit:http://www.sasc-comrades.org/Journal_docs/SECTION_3.pdf
    davidbfpo

  15. #235
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    OK thanks, David.

    I guess we get to the question as to whether the British Army actually believe that a soldier can engage in any reasonably intense combat carrying the sort of loads you mention?

    As a matter of interest how much water is included in that load you mention?
    IMO the U.S. errors with their risk management process/ideology. We went from a primary and alternate (contingency) approach to patrolling to the PACE concept (primary, alternate, contingency, and emergency) sometimes with different equipment for each category (especially for comms). Now add the modern body armor and you have fully suppressed soldier. Our loads were frequently well over a 100lbs without live ammo.

    The bottom line is commanders have to learn to assume intelligent risk again and not assume you can mitigate risk by putting an additional 50lbs of light weight gear in the soldier's ruck.

    If you're moving behind enemy lines the signature you leave with that type of load a blind man could follow, not to mention the noise, the inability to maneuver (skirmish), etc. I think these loads have an impact our tactics also, and soldiers too quickly default to calling in air strikes to resolve a problem in a situation where it risks collateral damage, because they can't skirmish effectively with the loads they're carrying. I have four forms of comms that I can call in air support with

    This is a serious problem that gets talked about a lot, but I have seen little movement to seriously address. The only thing I saw in theory was a walking robot accompanying soldiers carrying their rucks for them. That might work in some situations, but the infantry/SF I grew up in you wanted to avoid being detected if at all possible to enjoy the benefits of surprise (instead of being surprised), and I'm not sure you'll have that with a horse sized robot, but maybe it's quiet if you give it sufficient 3 in 1 oil?

  16. #236
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    This is a serious problem that gets talked about a lot, but I have seen little movement to seriously address. The only thing I saw in theory was a walking robot accompanying soldiers carrying their rucks for them. That might work in some situations, but the infantry/SF I grew up in you wanted to avoid being detected if at all possible to enjoy the benefits of surprise (instead of being surprised), and I'm not sure you'll have that with a horse sized robot, but maybe it's quiet if you give it sufficient 3 in 1 oil?
    Why not use an actual horse, mule or donkey? They don't need batteries.
    The Comanches taught them to be quiet. Mules were used to carry things for the Army soldiers and Apache scouts when they ran down the other Apaches. They worked great and those ops if I remember correctly were paragons of mountain mobility and persistence.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  17. #237
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Oh, I have another question for you guys.

    When a real hard war comes, how much of this problem will be solved by soldiers discarding equipment they judge not useful? It may be easier in a really hard war because command may have better things to do.

    I ask this because of two stories I was told. The first was by a Vietnam War Army infantry man who said they ditched their body armor because it was too cumbersome and they judged it not useful. Nobody bugged them about doing so.

    The second story was from a South African who went on long patrols in Namibia or somewhere around there. He said they were allowed to pick what equipment they each wanted to carry from a wide range of things available. He also said that the first small bit of the patrol's path could be found by tracing items of equipment dropped on the ground by guys who no longer felt the items were so useful.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  18. #238
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Fear not the Marines still train to use them:

    The Virtues of Stubbornness: Mules at War

    I suggest the key remains looking at what is being carried by the troops on operations. 70-100lbs load for a day patrol (6 hr ?) ... I can't imagine what 'essential' equipment comprises those loads.

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Why not use an actual horse, mule or donkey? They don't need batteries.
    The Comanches taught them to be quiet. Mules were used to carry things for the Army soldiers and Apache scouts when they ran down the other Apaches. They worked great and those ops if I remember correctly were paragons of mountain mobility and persistence.

  19. #239
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Why not use an actual horse, mule or donkey? They don't need batteries.
    The Comanches taught them to be quiet. Mules were used to carry things for the Army soldiers and Apache scouts when they ran down the other Apaches. They worked great and those ops if I remember correctly were paragons of mountain mobility and persistence.
    Carl,

    SF actually has done a fair amount of training with horse and mules, but I don't know how much they're being used today in Afghanistan, if at all. I think they would be good fit in some scenarios, but not all. Furthermore, that doesn't address the need to reduce the load to what is truly essential and not pack for every possible contingency. If we keep the same mind set, it will be oh boy, we have a horse now we can give the team another 250lbs of gear.

  20. #240
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Everyone seems to agree that the basic problem is a human one, the attitude of command. So the question is what will it take to change command attitude? The past 13 years of experience hasn't changed it. My fear is that this problem, like so many of the problems we have, won't change short of a really big war resulting in a really big defeat. Is there any hope that things can change in an important way short of that?

    Another example is contained in the post by Davidbfpo on May 7, 2013. A big bad guy was lost because we moved too slow. One helo was involved, a Kiowa. It occurred to me that in VN, if I read things correctly, an Aerorifle platoon might have been just the thing to do the mission shown in David's post. But I've also read that we just don't have the numbers of helos we used to have. One reason for that is Blackhawk's are far more capable but far more expensive than Hueys, so we just don't have as many. For this mission, a sophisticated machine wasn't needed, just something to get a few troops into a spot fast. But we didn't have it.

    It seems like if things go on like this, we may have a perfect everything, but only one of them-one perfect rifle, one perfect MG, one perfect plane, one perfect helo etc. We'll lose of course but our stuff will be cooler than anbody else's. After a catastrophic loss though, then we might change. Again, I fear that.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

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
  •