The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[jcustis]

The weight of body armor has increased significantly since 2003, although it has started to drop. Where should we start cutting weight?

At the level of the individual Marine or Soldier, conducting a foot patrol or similar offensive movement in a small war, there aren't to many weight savings to achieve, from what I have thought of. There are certainly ways to have troops hot rack sleeping bags or forego carrying an entire sleep system if the weather is temperate, but that's typically not a tough nut to crack because we have so many vehicles to move us about the battlespace and from COP to COP, when we get in the rut of commuting to work. Having said that, every ounce counts, and I think I posted a few thoughts on this topic in another thread:

-For starters, not every Marine needs to carry the exact same load during every mission. For example, does every rifleman need an entrenching tool when 1/2 should be posting security as the digging commences? This is a deliberate planning process that requires not only leadership, but someone who can be a critical thinker in terms of what is actually required. We've gotten dumb over the years and gone away from good mission planning at the small unit level. Remember the warnord format with special equipment and equipment common to all?

-Not everyone needs to carry the same ammunition loadout. Corpsmen may be carrying rifles for their T/E weapon nowadays, but do they really need a full 210 rounds? Maybe he could carry more IV bags, or a portion of some other Marine's water supply.

-We are issued water filtration systems to attach to our issued hydration bladders, and maybe some units do use them, but I suspect it's often as an in-extremis measure only. Taking their use seriously and planning for it can cut down on a margin of weight.

-As we strive to make webbing more durable, we invariably increase the weight. Again, it's just a few ounces we are dealing with, but it adds up. It would be nice to have a lighter piece of equipment like a chest rig harness, and know that if it becomes unserviceable, I won't have to go through a lot of drama with a damaged gear statement in order to get a replacement.

-Our IFAKs are too big for what we need them for, and most troops will plod along with that paperweight hanging on their belt until someone who thinks about the problem tells them to modify things. I'm likely in violation of the strict letter of the law with even my own unit's SOP, but I don't need both a boo-boo pack and a trauma pack on my person. I can get band-aids, tylenol, neosporin from the corpsman, so I don't carry that out on foot movements.

-We probably carry too much ammunition as a whole, considering the other assets that are around to support us. Foot patrolling in the Korengal? You probably need all you can carry. Conducting census operations in southern Helmand, with a section of MRAPs in support of your squad (rein) patrol? Perhaps some of your ammo can be left in an assault bag in the truck.

[JMA]

No amount of conditioning can make you superhuman. There is plenty of research that says the fighting load should be limited to about 45lbs before you start interfering with the ability to fight effectively. Well, full IBA and helmet is over 30lbs, so you are GOING to bust this, and no amount of conditioning is going to fix it. Guys that wear their kit and hump the mountains day-in and day-out for a year still get smoked, and can't catch a Taliban wearing a pair of flipflops and carrying an AK and 3 mags. That's part of the reason that we are using plate carriers, and testing other means of lightening the load.

May I make a few comments.

Who defines what is superhuman? I am suggesting that we are starting to look at this from the wrong angle. If it is decided that the basic combat and approach march loads are to be set at a certain level then surely the ability of potential recruits to operate within these parameters is essential? The RAR (Rhodesian African Rifles) used to include a 'run' as part of their recruiting process. Something like 5 miles. Dropped the applicants off and then saw how long it took for them to get back to camp.

There is absolutely no point in signing up a weakling who will never be able to cope with the weight which is deemed to be 'essential' (what is essential or otherwise can be the subject of another debate).

Yes, the weight of just a MAG/M240 + ammo is doable. When you are carrying the weight of MAG + ammo, vest + helmet, and the rest of the crap you need, it becomes a serious degradation of capability.

OK, so its the body armour that is the center of the problem. One solution is to drop the body armour, another is to issue all soldiers 9mm pistols, then even another is to offer a $100m prize for the design and production of lightweight body armour. (all this said tongue firmly in cheek)

Then of course the next problem is that the soldiers arrive in a new war zone with the equipment scale from the last war. Has anyone sat down and worked through the modifications that are possible or necessary in the changing environment in Afghanistan? Or are they kitting up for a major sniper risk from another war zone which is a minor one in this one?

I believe that these units should arrive in Afghanistan dressed only in their fatigues and be issued with what kit and uniforms they need for AFGHANISTAN. How many years have the US been in Afghanistan? Is it not possible to have a specific Afghanistan equipment scale by now?

Troops on arrival in Afghanistan should route through a "battle school" where their fitness for battle is assessed. Certainly fitness would be a major component but also other theater specific training and information is passed on. (Maybe able to be carried out stateside as well)

Here is study done of my BDE during its first deployment to OEF, in 2003. It has been posted before. The weight of body armor has increased significantly since 2003, although it has started to drop. Where should we start cutting weight?

http://thedonovan.com/archives/moder...LoadReport.pdf

Thank you for that. That was dated 2003. Has there been a revision?

Actually it makes it worse. Yes it pegs the maximum combat load at 48lbs (21.7kg in the new language) but goes on to state that 72lbs (32.6kg) is the limit for approach marches. Is this being applied? Can it be applied?

Then it says: "When the mission demands that Soldiers be employed as porters, loads of up to 120 pounds can be carried for several days over distances of 20 km a day." How would that be possible? and what % of todays soldiers could achieve that?

So the logical question is whether the 82nd has as an annual test a long march over 4/5 days with a 120lb (54.4kg) load at 20km per day? And what would happen to soldiers who fail such a test?

[JMA]

Well I cannot speak for the US, but the UK infantry are probably just as fit and just as robust as in past times. The same is probably true for their shooting.

Is that supportable with data?

..... but there are a number of pressing questions to be asked about UK infantry training, if only because what we did "back in the old days" was not good, and we might still be doing the same things today. IMO, a lot can be simplified. In my Kingdom, infantry training would be different from today and nothing like the bad old days.

I would love to hear more of your ideas.

For the UK, there is masses of data on every injury from Iraq and A'Stan, and it's all used to inform body armour design.
IMO, there are some sensible questions to be asked about body armour, especially the ballistic standards in relation to aerial density, and coverage.

What about using that data to assess whether given the cost, the actual reduction in wounding and the loss of mobility etc etc that body armour is in fact necessary for general issue rather than for issue only for certain types of operations. ( note I said "for certain types of operations" as oppossed to "to certain types of units only".)

I don't see any chance of the Brits making that data available in the public domain. Maybe the US have such data available?

[JMA]

At the level of the individual Marine or Soldier, conducting a foot patrol or similar offensive movement in a small war, there aren't to many weight savings to achieve, from what I have thought of. There are certainly ways to have troops hot rack sleeping bags or forego carrying an entire sleep system if the weather is temperate, but that's typically not a tough nut to crack because we have so many vehicles to move us about the battlespace and from COP to COP, when we get in the rut of commuting to work. Having said that, every ounce counts, and I think I posted a few thoughts on this topic in another thread:

-For starters, not every Marine needs to carry the exact same load during every mission. For example, does every rifleman need an entrenching tool when 1/2 should be posting security as the digging commences? This is a deliberate planning process that requires not only leadership, but someone who can be a critical thinker in terms of what is actually required. We've gotten dumb over the years and gone away from good mission planning at the small unit level. Remember the warnord format with special equipment and equipment common to all?

-Not everyone needs to carry the same ammunition loadout. Corpsmen may be carrying rifles for their T/E weapon nowadays, but do they really need a full 210 rounds? Maybe he could carry more IV bags, or a portion of some other Marine's water supply.

-We are issued water filtration systems to attach to our issued hydration bladders, and maybe some units do use them, but I suspect it's often as an in-extremis measure only. Taking their use seriously and planning for it can cut down on a margin of weight.

-As we strive to make webbing more durable, we invariably increase the weight. Again, it's just a few ounces we are dealing with, but it adds up. It would be nice to have a lighter piece of equipment like a chest rig harness, and know that if it becomes unserviceable, I won't have to go through a lot of drama with a damaged gear statement in order to get a replacement.

-Our IFAKs are too big for what we need them for, and most troops will plod along with that paperweight hanging on their belt until someone who thinks about the problem tells them to modify things. I'm likely in violation of the strict letter of the law with even my own unit's SOP, but I don't need both a boo-boo pack and a trauma pack on my person. I can get band-aids, tylenol, neosporin from the corpsman, so I don't carry that out on foot movements.

-We probably carry too much ammunition as a whole, considering the other assets that are around to support us. Foot patrolling in the Korengal? You probably need all you can carry. Conducting census operations in southern Helmand, with a section of MRAPs in support of your squad (rein) patrol? Perhaps some of your ammo can be left in an assault bag in the truck.

I believe you are about to do your duty on OEF. Happy hunting.

Why not start with a blank sheet?

As the days pass you can list the items that you actually use and the frequency. The same with the men. At the end of a few months of combat you will have the basis for a Marine Crops Afghanistan essential equipment scale.

[William F. Owen]

Is that supportable with data?

March and shoot qualifying times haven't changed, in some 35 years, and they didn't even formally exist until the mid 1970's. Details alter but the basics have all stayed the same.
...and I really don't buy the idea that the Infantry men of WW1 and 2 were physically fitter than those of today. Many of them may been more used to hard physical labour, but many more were not. The 1914 "Infantry Training" doesn't even specify any type of fitness standards apart from to say "men should be exercised."

I would love to hear more of your ideas.

I think I've got about 2,500+ posts, so there all basically in there somewhere. Type "William F. Owen" + Infantry into Google. May be interesting. Nothing very original.

What about using that data to assess whether given the cost, the actual reduction in wounding and the loss of mobility etc etc that body armour is in fact necessary for general issue rather than for issue only for certain types of operations.

That's a policy question. It's nothing to do with "Operational Effectiveness," It's all about "risk management."

I don't see any chance of the Brits making that data available in the public domain.

Correctomundo!

[82redleg]

Thank you for that. That was dated 2003. Has there been a revision?

Actually it makes it worse. Yes it pegs the maximum combat load at 48lbs (21.7kg in the new language) but goes on to state that 72lbs (32.6kg) is the limit for approach marches. Is this being applied? Can it be applied?

Then it says: "When the mission demands that Soldiers be employed as porters, loads of up to 120 pounds can be carried for several days over distances of 20 km a day." How would that be possible? and what % of todays soldiers could achieve that?

So the logical question is whether the 82nd has as an annual test a long march over 4/5 days with a 120lb (54.4kg) load at 20km per day? And what would happen to soldiers who fail such a test?

There was not a revision- it was a fact finding mission that was conducted in 2003. The numbers are all from FM 21-28 (it's probably been re-numbered, but not updated), Footmarches, so it is standard US Army doctrine, not something specific to the 82nd.

I think most, if not all, of my Soldiers could have executed 120lbs over 20kms for several days, given that the pace wasn't too fast- we would probably have taken 8 hours (just a guess), with regular breaks, to cover the 20kms, instead of 3 hours like we practiced with 50lb loads. You can move fast, or you can carry alot of weight, but you can't do both.

Regarding what is superhuman, I mean that top 1% that physical behemoths can execute- that point that makes Olympians special, that you can't train to. There is a specific average capacity in human beings, and you can't train most past that. A few can do outstanding things- that's why they are special and set world records. If you set your "standards" too high, you will eliminate most of the recruiting pool. And being used to hard physical labor is only a partial solution- when you work on a farm you use every trick in the book to minimize the brute strength you use- yeah, somethings just have to be manhandled, but most can be worked around. In Infantry combat, you don't have that option- if you have to go over the wall, you go over the wall, you can't think about how to find a way around it while you are getting shot at, like you can while you are doing other things that need doing on a farm.

[JMA]

There was not a revision- it was a fact finding mission that was conducted in 2003. The numbers are all from FM 21-28 (it's probably been re-numbered, but not updated), Footmarches, so it is standard US Army doctrine, not something specific to the 82nd.

And these figures were arrived at through what method? There must have some means used to arrive at the 48lbs (21.7kg) limit for combat load just as for the approach march load of 72lbs (32.6kg).

I think most, if not all, of my Soldiers could have executed 120lbs over 20kms for several days, given that the pace wasn't too fast- we would probably have taken 8 hours (just a guess), with regular breaks, to cover the 20kms, instead of 3 hours like we practiced with 50lb loads. You can move fast, or you can carry a lot of weight, but you can't do both.

If that is a specific army requirement then shouldn't that form part of an annual test of sorts? Should you not use the 72lbs (32.6kg) test if you are marching for three hours (approach march)?

Regarding what is superhuman, I mean that top 1% that physical behemoths can execute- that point that makes Olympians special, that you can't train to. There is a specific average capacity in human beings, and you can't train most past that. A few can do outstanding things- that's why they are special and set world records. If you set your "standards" too high, you will eliminate most of the recruiting pool. And being used to hard physical labor is only a partial solution- when you work on a farm you use every trick in the book to minimize the brute strength you use- yeah, somethings just have to be manhandled, but most can be worked around. In Infantry combat, you don't have that option- if you have to go over the wall, you go over the wall, you can't think about how to find a way around it while you are getting shot at, like you can while you are doing other things that need doing on a farm.

I am just questioning whether the modern soldier is able to function under these loads. For example if we are saying that in combat a person should have the ability to move, skirmish, fight etc in a measurable manner. We can then keep adding to his personal load until we reach tipping point. This exercise would either confirm the 'old' load levels or lead to a change. The result would read something like "The conclusion is that for a soldier who passes the standard military fitness test the maximum combat load is found to be 50 lbs." (or something like that).

Once these historical loads levels have been verified under modern conditions with todays soldiers one can make educated statements about personal loads of the infantry.

I suspect though that if the 48lb limit continues to stand that the avergae infantry rifleman not to mention a machine gunner would br over that limit what with body armour and all.

Perhaps it is best to start again from scratch with a clean slate and figure out what the load limits should be and what constitutes essential equipment that the infantry should carry.

[JMA]

March and shoot qualifying times haven't changed, in some 35 years, and they didn't even formally exist until the mid 1970's. Details alter but the basics have all stayed the same.
...and I really don't buy the idea that the Infantry men of WW1 and 2 were physically fitter than those of today. Many of them may been more used to hard physical labour, but many more were not. The 1914 "Infantry Training" doesn't even specify any type of fitness standards apart from to say "men should be exercised."

You made a claim that the modern soldier was just as fit and robust and able to shoot as were his predecessors. Until someone can provide data to support that or the converse it must be seen merely as speculation. This is why I have suggested that research be carried out to take the guesswork out of this.

Remember this started by people saying that the modern troops are overloaded (I happen to agree with this) but we surely need to explain and qualify the statement on the basis that through research we have found that 48lbs (21.7kg) is the maximum combat weight assessed as being fit (as measured by the standard army fitness test what ever that may be).

I think I've got about 2,500+ posts, so there all basically in there somewhere. Type "William F. Owen" + Infantry into Google. May be interesting. Nothing very original.

I was responding to your statement "In my Kingdom, infantry training would be different from today and nothing like the bad old days." Perhaps you have an article or a post which deals with this matter in some detail?

That's a policy question. It's nothing to do with "Operational Effectiveness," It's all about "risk management."

There should always be a trade off between the two, I believe. So it seems then that "they" (whoever that may be) has opted for 'risk management' at the expense of 'operational effectiveness'. So why send the squadies out then if they are too heavy to fight? They may be partially protected against small arms fire by not against IEDs.

But I must tell you that I don't see this risk aversion so often spoken about when both the US and the Brits still seem to cling to road transport as if it were the holy grail. Then certainly the Brits seem to love inviting TB snipers by walking all over the show exposed by the lack of cover from fire and view. Now this idiotic patrolling method would be OK if loitering 30 seconds out were a flight of Apaches waiting for the TB to expose themselves through opening fire. Somehow i don't think that is the case.

[William F. Owen]

You made a claim that the modern soldier was just as fit and robust and able to shoot as were his predecessors. Until someone can provide data to support that or the converse it must be seen merely as speculation. This is why I have suggested that research be carried out to take the guesswork out of this.

Research is carried out. I,personally have spent a great deal of the last 8 years doing it, and talking to those who do it. That's my opinion based on research, and how far back? Based on data, since the 1970's, I know that the shooting standards have improved, and again fitness standards have not declined

Remember this started by people saying that the modern troops are overloaded (I happen to agree with this) but we surely need to explain and qualify the statement on the basis that through research we have found that 48lbs (21.7kg) is the maximum combat weight assessed as being fit (as measured by the standard army fitness test what ever that may be).

My working baseline figure is 22kg, but that's just used for fitness testing, based on one possible load - which I have also discussed in some detail with the Australian DSTO - so I'm pretty happy with it. It's NOT the maximum weight that can be carried in combat. Overloading is purely a doctrinal, organisational and leadership problem. It could be solved, with ease. We choose not to because of other policies and doctrines.

I was responding to your statement "In my Kingdom, infantry training would be different from today and nothing like the bad old days." Perhaps you have an article or a post which deals with this matter in some detail?

This may help

[GI Zhou]

There are US Army studies that were conducted on weight and battle skill performance done in the 60s and 70s. That is where the figures came from. From memory the German Army used 35lb as a guide and obviously a MG-34 or MG-42 gunner would carry more. Troops in Winter carried heavier uniforms than those in the Afrika Korps and a different diet.

[JMA]

Research is carried out. I,personally have spent a great deal of the last 8 years doing it, and talking to those who do it. That's my opinion based on research, and how far back? Based on data, since the 1970's, I know that the shooting standards have improved, and again fitness standards have not declined

OK, so fitness levels have remained the same and shooting ability has improved.

This shooting ability is that out to 300m or beyond?

My working baseline figure is 22kg, but that's just used for fitness testing, based on one possible load - which I have also discussed in some detail with the Australian DSTO - so I'm pretty happy with it. It's NOT the maximum weight that can be carried in combat. Overloading is purely a doctrinal, organisational and leadership problem. It could be solved, with ease. We choose not to because of other policies and doctrines.

I understood that 22kg (48lb) figure to be a maximum not a baseline nor a mere guideline. The figure for maximum combat load is surely cited as the load level beyond which the soldiers ability engage in combat is seriously degraded. A seriously degraded combat fighting ability is surely not negotiable?

This may help

Thank you, I'll work through that.

[Firn]

There are US Army studies that were conducted on weight and battle skill performance done in the 60s and 70s. That is where the figures came from. From memory the German Army used 35lb as a guide and obviously a MG-34 or MG-42 gunner would carry more. Troops in Winter carried heavier uniforms than those in the Afrika Korps and a different diet.

From the "British commandos" manual I quoted in the other thread.

Each man wore battle dress, carried his own: arms, and kept all his rations and ammunition in his rucksack. Every effort was made to keep the weight of the load down to a minimum; the pack usually averaged about 35 pounds. As one instructor expressed it: "I tell them the job to be done; the number of days we will be out; the arms and ammunition required; and leave to the individual to decide what he will carry for his own personal comfort. As each man carries his own load, only the bare necessities are taken along.

...

If a man knows that others have marched 30 miles over mountainous country with heavy loads, and that he is fit and properly equipped, he will feel that he is able to do it, too. The men should camp out several days at a time, using different types of equipment, and living on concentrated rations. This will give them confidence. Gradually, as they get physically conditioned, they will think nothing of doing 30 miles a day in mountainous country with 40-pound packs

Firn

P.S: Sometimes higher loads seem to have been a necessary evil, most likely for longer missions. The quality and the type of the packs gets stressed. The standard loads were between 35 and 40 pounds ...

Awkward loads, such as Bren guns and amlmunition boxes, should be carried on Everest carriers,' whose frames leave the chest and arms free, do not interfere with balance, and can be adjusted to carry the weight in the right place. Another advantage is that they do not show a definite outline to the enemy. With such carriers, loads of 60 to 80 pounds can easily be carried with practice. For heavier loads a tumpline, or sling that passes from the load up toand around the forehead, should be employed to take up part of the weight. Once the neck muscles have been developed-in about 2 or 3 weeks-loads of 80 to 150 pounds can be carried with ease.

[Uboat509]

The figure that was always quoted to us all through my time in the infantry was 30% of the soldier's body weight was the max that a soldier should carry. That means that someone like me at 170 pounds could carry around 51 pounds. That makes more sense to me. Bigger soldiers can carry more weight than smaller ones, theoretically anyway. I suspect that the 48lb figure comes from 30% of an expected average weight of 160 pounds for soldiers. I have no idea if that figure (160lbs) is accuarate or not.
Having said that, as much as they preached that number, we violated it on a regular basis. I can remember being at NTC walking to our company ORP for our trench live fire. We were short handed in my squad which meant that each of the Joes, in addition to their normal weight, carried two 60MM HE mortar rounds and each of the leaders, myself and the squad leader, carried the two HE rounds plus one smoke and one illum. I also had both a live claymore and a training claymore because they had failed to provide a means for us to download our training aids when we got the live stuff. At the ORP, before we downloaded our mortar rounds and any training ammo we had the OCs weighed all of our equipment. Mine was the heaviest in the squad, it weighed 139lbs. At the time I weighed 138lbs (this was several years and a lot of beer ago). So much for no more than 30% the soldiers body weight.

[Tukhachevskii]

Tukhas mate,

a.) Good job and well done for finding this. All new to me, as in...
b.) More good stuff, turned into utter b*llocks by Fuller's style of writing and byzantine thought process. He excelled in taking the simplest of ideas and making endlessly complicated and confusing.

Yes, Fuller’s “byzantine prose” is definitely an acquired taste although I must admit to having a taste for it. It brings out something of the era in which it was written with its post-war (WWI) fad pseudo-philosophies and mysticism. Fuller was, after all, “enamoured” with theosophy and through it found his way to...Aleister Crowley (Fuller even wrote a book about him) and, though in no way connected to it (that I can surmise), a brief flirtation with the British Union of Fascists. Indeed, it’s interesting how many post WWI military types got sucked into the mysticism of the times and such like (i.e., Ludendorff). Anyway, having been informed about the post WWI rifle platoon by yourself I have to say that I have been given a new spin on the doctrinal imbroglio of the time as well as the fact that Fuller, for all his other(worldy?) insight into realms military and strategic (and we can disagree on that), doesn’t seem to have grasped the infantry or small unit aspect of it very well. Still, I like him (is there a “byzantine” personality type?) and at least he’s easier to read than the Prophet Naveh!

[William F. Owen]

Still, I like him (is there a “byzantine” personality type?) and at least he’s easier to read than the Prophet Naveh!

I cannot say I do. I think he and Liddell-Hart did immense damage to the British Army. I've just given up with reading and re-reading Naveh. His work has, IMO, little or no contribution to military thought.
Annoyingly I am aware of an Israeli officer who really does have some really useful stuff to say, and is far more useful and insightful then Naveh, - but only writes in Hebrew. Luckily he speaks excellent English, and drinks beer, so not all is lost!

[B.Smitty]

Looks like the XM-25 is finally going to Afghanistan.

http://defensetech.org/2010/05/06/ar...o-afghanistan/

"The Army is set to send its high-tech “counter defilade” weapon to the war zone in the next few months, the first real-world deployment for the much-anticipated XM-25 Individual Airburst Weapon.
Officials announced May 5 that a group of Army Special Forces Soldiers will take the weapon with them to Afghanistan sometime this summer.

[reed11b]

Looks like the XM-25 is finally going to Afghanistan.

http://defensetech.org/2010/05/06/ar...o-afghanistan/

"The Army is set to send its high-tech “counter defilade” weapon to the war zone in the next few months, the first real-world deployment for the much-anticipated XM-25 Individual Airburst Weapon.
Officials announced May 5 that a group of Army Special Forces Soldiers will take the weapon with them to Afghanistan sometime this summer.

If it works well, I wonder if they will relook at the XM-109 and consider an airburst round for it.
Reed

[Kiwigrunt]

The new AK-200 with a 60 round mag. Could be just what the doctor ordered for the IAR. Reading the comments it appears there are some reliability issues with the mag though.

[JMA]

The new AK-200 with a 60 round mag. Could be just what the doctor ordered for the IAR. Reading the comments it appears there are some reliability issues with the mag though.

Why on earth would that need a bipod?

[Fuchs]

Why on earth would that need a bipod?

It's a combined bipod/fore grip. That kind of combination has even become widely used with M4 featherweights.