Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 40 of 40

Thread: Infantry accompanying load carriers

  1. #21
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
    I don't remember the name of the nearest village (I'm suffering from a bad case of middle age) but I think it was considered part of the Tyrol. It might have been one of those areas that was sometimes Italy and sometimes Austria pre-WWII. I remember hearing people mention Folgoria. That's not where we were but I think Folgoria must have been in the same area.

    Anyway, the Airborne Battalion Combat Team went there from Vicenza to conduct winter training every year.
    I guess you trained with the Folgore. There are quite some places where you could have been, as IIRC the Folgore trained in quite some areas in Southtyrol. Many of them have been purchased over the years by the province.

    This list contains all the village names of the province. If you want you can revive memories. Could be Innichen, Toblach or others.

    Anyway you seem truly have enjoyed your stay. Personally I think the Akio is an excellent way to transport stuff in snowy winters even if I sometimes wondered why they could not have made some single parts of the obice smaller. Wikipedia informs us that being a pack howitzer it is designed to be broken down into 12 parts, each of which can be easily transported. Easily transported perhaps by a truck, a MTC or a helicopter, but not by some poor guys with only Akios up the Marmolada.

    While the MTC was and is a good idea mules could be faster in quite some areas and go where no wheeled thing could. At least as mountain infantry you need both. It would be of course ideal to pull the vehicles as close up to the units as possible. The MTC(motocarello/motorcart) can extend the reach of the wheeled transport. Especially with an additional cart he can pull quite some weight. Perhaps one could add remote control to something like it.


    Firn
    Last edited by Firn; 11-25-2009 at 06:43 AM.

  2. #22
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    175

    Default wheels are useful tools that reduce labour

    Quote Originally Posted by OfTheTroops
    How does one ride a bicycle in full battle rattle? Very carefully i would presume.
    A “pack bicycle” is best ridden side-saddle and downhill.

    My use of the term was intended to mean a pack carrying bicycle that is manually pushed or pulled, as opposed to a pedal bicycle that can be dismantled and packed. Pack bicycles used by the NVA/VC had the chain, gears, pedals and seat removed. The seat tube was extended for use as a push post. For control the handle bars were lengthened and any handbrake may have been retained.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen
    I know wheels have many mechanical advantages. The problem is that wheels are the thin edge of wedge. They enable stupidity.

    Allowing infantry to carry more weight, by allowing wheels, means that they will be get even more overloaded. Man-packing is a simple and coherent method of forcing the argument back to basics, as is Mules or Llamas, or even well trained Hamsters.

    We want to try and avoid making doing stupid things possible, because history shows that Infantry Officers always overload their men - almost always because of stupidity, and a failure to ask the right question in the right context.

    I also submit that a well trained and well lead army does not have load carrying problem because it has already exercised the judgement necessary to avoid it.
    Every infantry unit has load carrying problems. When self-propelled vehicles are not available/usable, a load carrying task is usually tackled by assigning infantry as porters: often using more than is operationally advisable and thus creating a problem. For example, three 81mm mortars and 300 bombs can be relocated across country by assigning 30 infantry to carry bombs alongside about 18 men in the mortar teams.

    Alternatively - if unit equipment included pack bicycles - the mortars and bombs could be relocated by 10 infantry push/pulling bicycles together with the mortar teams. The 20 unburdened infantry could then provide local security or be committed to other tasks. Hence fewer or less severe problems.

  3. #23
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    During the First World War the Germans had a type of harness to help the crews of machine guns carry the guns cross-country. These harnesses are said to have been the origin of the trench myth of "dead Germans found chained to their machine guns." I have a U.S. Navy landing force manual from the 1920s that has a diagram of a harness for use by sailors or Marines for pulling small field pieces on land.

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eustis
    Posts
    71

    Default Not for rifle platoons

    The pic of the Rangers carrying mortars on a 2 wheeled cart is great and the use is appropriate. I don't want to give anything to the rifleman - he has to carry his own equipment. More loadcarrying ability means more load. But what about the supporting elements?

    As the picture demonstrated, a single mortar team could move the mortar, baseplate, bipod, and several rounds, expending less energy and with more ammunition (I think), than if they were to hump it on their back. While the same load could be spread around to the rifle platoons, if 3 men could move the same amount, that leaves the riflemen unencumbered. That is the key, IMHO - keep the riflemen light, by enabling the mortars (and machine gun or automatic grenade launcher teams, if separate from the rifle platoon) to move their own loads.

    A basic cart, pulled by two and pushed/guided by a third seems effective. But you would need wide wheels for rough terrain/sand, skinny tires for hardpack or rock, and skis for snow. Maybe one set of tires could do both, I don't know.

    I don't know if we will make substantial weight reductions in the weight of the soldier anytime soon. Body armor has really driven this to a new level of concern. However, if we can create a lower likelihood of adding more gear to him, that helps. The gator sounds great, but it creates its own logistical tail. Perhaps at the battalion level for 81s.

    One question - we don't use 'light' infantry in nice, flat terrain much anymore. In this territory, we use mech or motorized infantry, unlike WWII where almost everyone was just plain 'leg' infantry. Even light infantry in flat or urban terrain is probably going to use/acquire vehicles required for longer movements. The light guys will probably find themselves in really bad terrain, where only the mule is likely to be of much use. So perhaps this is all just OBE - only the flesh and blood mule is practical now, due to the likely terrain?

    Tankersteve

  5. #25
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tankersteve View Post

    One question - we don't use 'light' infantry in nice, flat terrain much anymore. In this territory, we use mech or motorized infantry, unlike WWII where almost everyone was just plain 'leg' infantry. Even light infantry in flat or urban terrain is probably going to use/acquire vehicles required for longer movements. The light guys will probably find themselves in really bad terrain, where only the mule is likely to be of much use. So perhaps this is all just OBE - only the flesh and blood mule is practical now, due to the likely terrain?

    Tankersteve
    I think you’ve raised some good points there. Just compare 2 Para in Arnhem and 2 Para in the Falklands. In Arnhem they could have (and did) made good use of any vehicle, including wheelbarrows. Not so in the Falklands.
    What ever type of cart or bike or whatever would be introduced as standard will sooner or later find itself in terrain for which it is not suited. In this situation (where these vehicles are left behind) the additional weight that the introduction of these vehicles will have allowed to become standard, will have to be man-handled…because the goodies can’t possibly be left behind. And I do think that introducing these vehicles will increase the standard loads because they will IMO be seen more as an extension to the human body than as a true vehicle. Don’t think we can compare ‘us’ using these gizmo’s with the VC in NAM using bikes. Different context, different attitude and philosophy, different situation, different motivation underpinning it (absolute necessity on a long supply route as opposed to just wanting to carry more on patrols). And I don’t think it likely that we will ever (never say never?) again operate like the Chindits or Merrills Marauders.
    Differentiate perhaps between strategic/operational use and tactical use.

    Note, I'm talking mainly about man-handled/powered vehicles.

    So back to Wilf’s:

    Allowing infantry to carry more weight, by allowing wheels, means that they will be get even more overloaded. Man-packing is a simple and coherent method of forcing the argument back to basics, as is Mules or Llamas, or even well trained Hamsters.

    We want to try and avoid making doing stupid things possible, because history shows that Infantry Officers always overload their men - almost always because of stupidity, and a failure to ask the right question in the right context.

    I also submit that a well trained and well lead army does not have load carrying problem because it has already exercised the judgement necessary to avoid it.
    I do think that the last statement is a bit simplistic though. Think again about the Falklands for instance. They did not plan to loose most of their helicopters. Murphy will always bring along the #### happens factor. We will always have load carrying issues, the trick is to minimise it. Do we do that by adding transport or by reducing weight? Bit of both I think.

    So, as much I do like the idea of load carrying aids like bikes or the 'trailer up your a..' below, I think that introducing them as a standard may do more damage than good, as Wilf suggests. Not sure about task specific issue…..
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  6. #26
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Compost View Post
    A “pack bicycle” is best ridden side-saddle and downhill.
    Not sure what other countries are like but in New Zealand we don't have downhill, only uphill.
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  7. #27
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
    ISo, as much I do like the idea of load carrying aids like bikes or the 'trailer up your a..' below, I think that introducing them as a standard may do more damage than good, as Wilf suggests. Not sure about task specific issue…..
    hehehe, That is a "Sparky" website pic..

    I say porters baby, just like them good ol' days. Ken remembers, I am sure of it.
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  8. #28
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Yeah I remember a back in the early 90's our heavy machine gun platoon would use some kind of wheel barrel/ricksha looking thing to pull M2 and Mk19's on humps. Only saw them a few times, and not being a heavy weapons guy not sure if it was something someone was experimenting with in our unit, or a legitimate device. Kinda reminded me of those old WW2 videos of Russians pushing there MG's on ski platforms, but it had wheels instead.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  9. #29
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Wilf (British camo is present), what for are those motorcycles (without suspension)?


  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Currently Kunduz, Afghanistan
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Hate the idea of having my Soldiers drag a cart around, when they already carry too much. Anywhere the cart can go for the most part, a vehicle can go, and you can mount the weapons to the vehicle.

  11. #31
    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 kaur View Post
    Wilf (British camo is present), what for are those motorcycles (without suspension)?

    Not a clue! - though from what I read and hear almost every UK Platoon deployed on Operations seems to get some sort of quad-bike and trailer for general load carrying and admin tasks.
    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

  12. #32
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

  13. #33
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    I can provide a scan of a brochure for that motorcycle (I met the company on an exhibition) if someone is interested.


    three gears, max. 74 km/h, 94.3 kg, 172 cc / 6.6 bhp engine,
    3.5 PSI, 381 mm ground clearance, "wheels: 12" or 15" aluminium drums"
    and if I remember correctly one or two tyres can be filled with liquid (drinking water or fuel).

    It's pretty much a LRRP tool in my opinion. Normal 4wd ATVs should be better for towing.

  14. #34
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Rokon licenses KADDB.

    LINK. Not on this site but I seem to recall they have a diesel variant, originally made to compete with Kawasaki LINK. There are probably a few Rokons in US service for special purposes. The Kawasaki has broader applicability.

  15. #35
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tankersteve View Post
    Some of my Canadian friends have told me of pulling sledges while wearing snowshoes, with 2 Soldiers pulling the sledge with over-the-shoulder traces, while a third pushes and steers.
    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    Not just Canadians. At Ft. Richardson we had/have akio sleds as well. We cursed them from the bottoms of our airborne hearts btw.
    Reed
    Good old winter warfare and the tobaggan groups. Although they enable us to live and operate in cold environments (been out in -30 C to - 40 with them), I often wonder what sort of tactical or operational effect we'd hope to achieve with them, although the unique TTPs make the training worthwhile (almost everyone takes winter warfare training to some extent up here).

    I've never worked with the Canadian Rangers in the Arctic, but I understand they use snowmobiles/dog teams. Snow and cold sllloooowwws operations right down - you spend 80% of your effort and energy fighting the climate. Foot mobility is severely hampered, although snowshoes help and a BV 206 is a godsend.

    I've often figured that if we had to fight in this sort of environment, we could just set up, piquet the bad guys (whatever they were doing in such a barren environment), and let mother nature do the rest.

  16. #36
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    A better load carrier will simply result in greater loads...that we don't need in the first place.

    Now, take my combat load and cut it to half its weight from lighter materials and then we're talking!
    Quote Originally Posted by OfTheTroops View Post
    The greatest problem with the combat load today is the body armor. When you start with 45 lbs burden it is a quick trip to 30% or 50% of the porter's weight. Soldiers are not meant to be pack animals and when used as such are less effective at soldiering. The best part of training is realizing what looks good on paper doesnt work in reality. Two things are important here, 1)you can not train the average Soldier to be a SuperSoldier no more than you can train an attack dog to be an attack mule and 2) the carts or jeeps or iBattles are not likely to solve this. Likely just adding to the stuff Joe can break or lose. I have often joked with my battle's that "They" weigh you down so "They" know you can't run away. You always need about twice as many troops to do what half could do in better circumstances.
    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I know wheels have many mechanical advantages. The problem is that wheels are the thin edge of wedge. They enable stupidity.

    Allowing infantry to carry more weight, by allowing wheels, means that they will be get even more overloaded. Man-packing is a simple and coherent method of forcing the argument back to basics, as is Mules or Llamas, or even well trained Hamsters.

    We want to try and avoid making doing stupid things possible, because history shows that Infantry Officers always overload their men - almost always because of stupidity, and a failure to ask the right question in the right context.

    I also submit that a well trained and well lead army does not have load carrying problem because it has already exercised the judgement necessary to avoid it.
    These statements really hit the mark. We don't need ways to carry more #### - we have too much #### and it is an essential command responsibility to make sure soldiers aren't carrying too much.

    Although S.L.A. Marshall gets rightfully blasted for shoddy research, the ideas in his Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation are, IMO, correct. There's been a few good articles in the Marine Corps Gazette that also concern themselves with the load carried by soldiers in both the approach and the battle. The way I see it, vehicles have a GVWR. Soldiers need a GSWR that commanders need to adhere to as a matter of force sustainment.

    Problem is, even when you cut your load down to the bare essentials (required or directed from above) you still end up with burdened soldiers. I cut my load in Afghanistan down to the bare essentials - ammo, water, a bit of food, batteries, comms gear and STANO. I still feel the weight load.

    STANO, especially MNVGs, are getting good and light. Comms gear as well, with the MBITR and the PRR being pretty handy, reliable, and lightweight comms systems. The biggest problem is ammo and personal protective equipment (PPE). Just wearing the armour gets uncomfortable after a while. If we approached this from an engineering perspective, getting our ammuntion (ball, link, frags, etc) and body armour reduced in weight by 25-50%, we'd be rolling. From a command perspective, tactical commanders (Coy level and below) need to consider carefully how they structure their TTPs (do you really need 10 mags or will 5 do?).

  17. #37
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Then again there are very useful things that are not part of a basic scout or infantry squad inventory yet.

    Examples:
    - mine search needles (just in case you're stuck and can't wait for engineers. Knifes are inferior for the purpose).
    - slim periscopes
    - LMG tripod with periscope kit
    - rifle attachments for easy cracking of windows (a few gram on a modified flash hider do the trick)


    There are more things that deserve to be considered, such as
    - helmet-mounted foldable cheek armour (not for scouts)
    - water purify equipment (advanced filters, not pills)
    - Reflex-style suppressors (for maximum flash hiding)
    - parascope UCS for carbines
    - cheek rest for (>1.5x scope) rifles


    By the way; scout squads and infantry platoons have often good use for a military dog. Some dog breeds were even used for towing loads (even in WW1), and they certainly could carry a few kg once they're trained to do it (vests of all kinds irritate dogs until they get used to them).
    (Dogs are also good for morale, not just for scouting/guarding, explosives detection and tracking.)

  18. #38
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    All of that could come in handy, but soldiers would be more effective with less weight and good TTPs. Some of that stuff is more suited to an approach or marching order - to be left in a patrol hide or vehicle.

    Cheek piece - no thank you. I'm not a Legionaire and I don't need a face shield until my Power Armour is issued.

  19. #39
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    175

    Default alternative solutions

    Extract from recent Janes’s Land Forces News Brief

    US Army evaluates load-carrying exoskeleton
    This is a revised version of a story first published on 22 January. A US Army science and technology group is set to begin testing a hydraulic-powered exoskeleton designed to help soldiers carry up to 200 lb (91 kg) of equipment. Lockheed Martin's HULC system is scheduled to begin evaluations with the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center on 25 January, according to Keith Maxwell, the company's new initiatives lead and a senior business development analyst.
    [See also Janes’s Defence Weekly - 29 January 2010]

    Which would be the more commonly usable: a pack bike, 2 wheel ATV, or hydraulic exoskeleton ?

    Where to next ?

    Perhaps a high energy exoskeleton that enables infantry to jump large obstacles in a single bound.

  20. #40
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Then again there are very useful things that are not part of a basic scout or infantry squad inventory yet.

    Examples:
    - mine search needles (just in case you're stuck and can't wait for engineers. Knifes are inferior for the purpose).
    - slim periscopes
    - LMG tripod with periscope kit
    - rifle attachments for easy cracking of windows (a few gram on a modified flash hider do the trick)


    There are more things that deserve to be considered, such as
    - helmet-mounted foldable cheek armour (not for scouts)
    - water purify equipment (advanced filters, not pills)
    - Reflex-style suppressors (for maximum flash hiding)
    - parascope UCS for carbines
    - cheek rest for (>1.5x scope) rifles


    By the way; scout squads and infantry platoons have often good use for a military dog. Some dog breeds were even used for towing loads (even in WW1), and they certainly could carry a few kg once they're trained to do it (vests of all kinds irritate dogs until they get used to them).
    (Dogs are also good for morale, not just for scouting/guarding, explosives detection and tracking.)
    I agree that most items on this list would be useful to very useful depending on the circumstances. Light and compact binoculars can be very useful and are often not issued to squads, at least not in sufficient numbers. The more comfortable you are at observing, the greater tends to be your performance.

    As a hunter and as friend of a good mountain rescue worker, who has to do a lot with rescue dogs, I have become aware just how well the capabilities dog can dovetail into ours. There is such many potential uses for a well trained dogs, that I ask myself if the high training costs are sufficient to stop a greater effort in this direction.


    As Infanteer remarked less can still be more. However it should not be difficult for most units to have such items not too far away.


    Firn
    Last edited by Firn; 02-10-2010 at 05:09 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization
    By Norfolk in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 306
    Last Post: 12-04-2012, 05:25 PM
  2. Mechanization hurts COIN forces
    By Granite_State in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 11-22-2010, 09:40 PM
  3. Infantry survivability - at the crossroads?
    By Fuchs in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-05-2008, 11:49 AM
  4. Infantry Transformed by New Tools, Training
    By SWJED in forum Equipment & Capabilities
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2006, 11:54 AM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •