Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 301

Thread: Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

  1. #121
    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 JMA View Post
    Again the truth gets shrouded in secrecy.
    For good reason. Armour performance, as opposed to "armour standards" are classified. The OA that defines the standards is quite properly not up for discussion in open sources.
    However, anyone with any understanding of body armour could make some well informed estimates.
    There is only one reason why the the "full Monty" of body armour needs to the worn and that's because ops data confirms a significant reduction in KIA / WIA.
    Correct. It is the OA that supports the "Specification," - and that is what informs the policy. However a substantial part of that policy is based on risk mitigation balanced against trade offs.

    Thanks to the "Nimrod Case" there is very little appetite for taking risk right now.
    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

  2. #122
    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.

  3. #123
    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 ?

  4. #124
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    22

    Default

    To JMA :
    When I was 2Lt (peace time, never been deployed), your package for 48h was between 10 and 15kg. If you add it the shield, the radio+batteries+Pda, the NVG, the 2 way telescope for everyone plus large Pda & LR Bino/LRF for team leaders it will be an extra weight i compute between 7kg (coy) and >10kg (leaders).

    So, I have the same concern as you regarding a modern armored opponent.
    Last edited by jps2; 06-18-2010 at 01:48 PM.

  5. #125
    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

  6. #126
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    22

    Default

    So why do we continue to patrol on roads rather than patrol by foot avoiding roads and paths. And by the way, why patrolling instead of staying and living with the good guys, ambushing the bad armed ones during night ?

    please notice that I'm not an innocent about the "natives" expectations, everybody knows that the "natives" will have to stay there after we left.

  7. #127
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jps2 View Post
    So why do we continue to patrol on roads rather than patrol by foot avoiding roads and paths. And by the way, why patrolling instead of staying and living with the good guys, ambushing the bad armed ones during night ?
    We do that, although not necessarily as much as or where we should. One of the issues is the distances involved. Many of the areas that we go are not really within walking distance. Travel cross-country in vehicles is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that there is a good deal of terrain that is only passable to vehicle traffic where the roads are. It would be nice if we had enough rotary wing assets to be able to severly reduce the amount of vehicle traffic that we have but we do not and will not anytime in the forseeable future. As such, our guys walk when they can and drive when they have to.
    “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

  8. #128
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Thanks for clearing that point, Uboat509.
    In the same idea, do you think that FOBs are the best way for us to understand the expectations/limits of Afghanis and for them to accept us ?

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jps2 View Post
    To JMA :
    When I was 2Lt (peace time, never been deployed), your package for 48h was between 10 and 15kg. If you add it the shield, the radio+batteries+Pda, the NVG, the 2 way telescope for everyone plus large Pda & LR Bino/LRF for team leaders it will be an extra weight i compute between 7kg (coy) and >10kg (leaders).

    So, I have the same concern as you regarding a modern armored opponent.
    Am I correct in understanding that apart from your uniform and boots your load for a 48hr deployment is about 20-25 kg? Then you add the 20 odd kg for the body armour?

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    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.
    OK, so body armour is being used universally as opposed to what you believe it was intended for (which I happen to agree with you on).

    While the Brits are tight lipped on to what extent body armour has reduced KIA/WIA is there any open source info on this from the US side?

  11. #131
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Am I correct in understanding that apart from your uniform and boots your load for a 48hr deployment is about 20-25 kg? Then you add the 20 odd kg for the body armour?
    There is different weight in body armor and I was trying to compute the extra weight for the guys having to fight with these new "toys" [my reference weight was an infantryman of 80', without backpack] (some sources said 25kg for a FFW complete suit, including 1 day food : body armor, weapon, helmet ammunition, definitive version is slightly different than that link especially the aiming device )

    I'm trying to imagine the impact of that extra weight on efficiency. Less casualties is a political requirement. Does it means we have to completely give up mobility ? or does it means that nobody thinks that future opponents will be highly mobile and with modern weapons and TTP ?

  12. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jps2 View Post
    There is different weight in body armor and I was trying to compute the extra weight for the guys having to fight with these new "toys" [my reference weight was an infantryman of 80', without backpack] (some sources said 25kg for a FFW complete suit, including 1 day food : body armor, weapon, helmet ammunition, definitive version is slightly different than that link especially the aiming device )

    I'm trying to imagine the impact of that extra weight on efficiency. Less casualties is a political requirement. Does it means we have to completely give up mobility ? or does it means that nobody thinks that future opponents will be highly mobile and with modern weapons and TTP ?
    Well to their credit the Brits have a programme to address the weight issue:

    Reducing the Burden on the Dismounted Soldier Capability Vision
    Task 1 – Lightweight Personal Protection


    It is noted from that document:

    "This reduction in burden will lead to a reduction in casualties/physical injuries and hence fulfil a wider duty of care to individuals."

    I accept that there is a real issue with weight adversely affecting combat performance. The pendulum has swung to far in one direction now and it is certainly hoped that initiatives like the above programme will help bring all aspects into balance.

  13. #133
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Thanks for the link JMA, will look at that carefully.
    Last edited by jps2; 06-19-2010 at 08:00 PM.

  14. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jps2 View Post
    Thanks for clearing that point, Uboat509.
    In the same idea, do you think that FOBs are the best way for us to understand the expectations/limits of Afghanis and for them to accept us ?
    A question on FOBs. What percentage of the otherwise fighting troops are tied down in situ at any time so as to defend these FOBs?

    Another question on FOBs. What percentage of the vehicle travel requirements are generated by having to resupply these FOBs?

  15. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    We do that, although not necessarily as much as or where we should. One of the issues is the distances involved. Many of the areas that we go are not really within walking distance. Travel cross-country in vehicles is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that there is a good deal of terrain that is only passable to vehicle traffic where the roads are. It would be nice if we had enough rotary wing assets to be able to severly reduce the amount of vehicle traffic that we have but we do not and will not anytime in the forseeable future. As such, our guys walk when they can and drive when they have to.
    OK, so there is a requirement for chopper lift capacity. If adequate lift was available by what % would the vehicle movement reduce? And likewise by what % would the requirement to walk between points where there is no specific tactical reason to do so?

  16. #136
    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 JMA View Post

    I accept that there is a real issue with weight adversely affecting combat performance. The pendulum has swung to far in one direction now and it is certainly hoped that initiatives like the above programme will help bring all aspects into balance.
    Don't hold your breath. The document is asking for the wind.
    If we really wanted to, you could already make a substantial weight saving by reducing coverage and ballistic standards. We can do that now. We choose not to.
    It's nothing to do with science and technology. It is an entirely policy based discussion.
    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

  17. #137
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    A question on FOBs. What percentage of the otherwise fighting troops are tied down in situ at any time so as to defend these FOBs?
    What do you consider a FOB? I ask because there is a difference between a piece of tactical infrastructure with a battalion on it and when where a platoon operates out of? Are we critiquing all tactical infrastructure?

    I ask because a Company in a FOB or three Platoons dispersed into small compounds in villages would likely require the same amount of people to secure the position.

    Another question on FOBs. What percentage of the vehicle travel requirements are generated by having to resupply these FOBs?
    Probably most - remember, that vehicle traffic would be required either way if the soldiers were in a FOB or not; it would probably require more traffic if delivery of classes of supply wasn't centralized at a few key FOBs.

  18. #138
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default Less is More. Force Protection has lost its balance.

    The issue at hand is how we look at Force Protection. Both in our vehicles and our dismounted combat equipment, there is a tendency to want to achieve Force Protection passively, through protective equipment. The mindset is that protecting a Soldier from threats involves wrapping him with protective layers. By doing this, his equipment protects him even from threats that he is surprised by or cannot react quickly enough to avoid. Unfortunately, this aspect of Force Protection is the one that adds the most weight and bulkiness to our Soldiers and our vehicles. This increased weight has several downsides associated with it that the Army has not prioritized in the equation adequately. Long-term injuries are one of those downsides, but I feel that the very Force Protection the equipment exists to provide degrades it.

    To solve the issue of weight, the Army as an organization should start concentrating more on the other aspects of Force Protection: Mobility, Lethality, Situational Awareness, and Maneuver. Each of these contributes as much to Force Protection as Kevlar and Ceramics do. If we prioritize these four things as much as we do ballistic protection, and therefore outfit our Soldiers with lighter gear, we will see a positive impact on casualties and mission accomplishment.

    Mobility, Lethality, Maneuver, and Situational Awareness are just as important to Force Protection and Mission Accomplishment as protective gear is. Mobility enables forces to vary their routes, surprise the enemy, and once in contact move around the enemy’s engagement area. Maneuver adds accurate fires to that mobility to allow the Soldier to close with the enemy and accomplish his mission. Lethality allows the Soldier to kill the enemy before the enemy can place effects on friendly forces. Situational Awareness is crucial to all three. Too much of the heavy and bulky gear commonly associated with Force Protection are the biggest detriment to these four factors of force protection. Too little protective gear also affects a Soldiers ability to perform these tasks. The goal is the correct balance between burdensome and inadequate.

    The impacts of too much weight on mobility and maneuver are obvious, but keep in mind the impacts of temperature, equipment load, and Solder fitness on lethality and situational awareness as well. Shooting accurately and thinking clearly in contact is hard enough without having to do it with the burden of dozens of extra pounds on your head and body. It is very difficult to see the enemy, or his IED, before he sees you, when you are barely able to walk and keep the sweat out of your eyes under the load you are carrying.

    As the Army makes decisions about how to equip our Soldiers, we must keep in mind that Force Protection is not a decision about protective gear alone. We need to look at Force Protection holistically and understand that the more weight Soldiers carry the worse they become at the other elements of Force Protection and their job.

    -- MAJ Steve Power, Student, Command and General Staff College

    The views expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

  19. #139
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kingston, Ontario
    Posts
    45

    Default

    I don't have an opinion on combat load except to say after slogging around Afgh in body armour and helmet, it's a PITA, but a few commentators have brought up the issue of drinking local water rather than carrying it, and after six months of treatment, during which time I lost 25 per cent of my body weight for what was eventually diagnosed as a form of blastocystis that hadn't been seen in the west since 2001, all I can say is DON'T.

    Got caught in the Aghan thing where it's impolite to refuse tea. My tropical diseases specialist later told me it wasn't the tea or the water but the cup, which probably hadn't been washed since a Soviet drank from it.

  20. #140
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    99

    Default

    I came back from a posting to South east Asia having explosive diarrhea. Some tropical bug I had picked up which saw me lkosing one kg a day at one stage. Finally got it sorted but I feel for you. Posting to the tropics often sees people end up with undiagnosed fevers of all sorts, until tested for them. I wonder sometimes why I keep going back.

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
  •