Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

[BushrangerCZ]

It´s beating the dead horse. Risk aversion is the motto of this war.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by BushrangerCZ

It´s beating the dead horse. Risk aversion is the motto of this war.

If you read back a few posts of mine I accept that half the infantryman's weight is in his personal weapon, his body armour and his water.

The other half would be his 1st line ammo plus a bunch of other stuff, 45 pounds worth.

Agree with you that the chances of the body armour being dumped are slim. But that weight is not the major weight problem (although it has a massive negative effect on mobility). So where to cut?

[Fuchs]

There are actually two weight problems;
1) on the march, which limits march mobility and exhausts
2) in combat, which limits tactical options

1) can be solved by dependence on carriers (vehicles, animals, humans)
2) is more tricky

[JMA]

Originally Posted by RJ

The Marine Corps just issued a field order that states Battalion and Squadron Commanders will determine the body armor policy in their Area of Operations.

The Corps determined Regimental Commanders (Col.) can over rule , but it is the BN. (Lt. Col.) Commander who is closer to the reality and intimate with the terrain and tactical situations their Rifle Companies are fighting in.

Politics and touchy, feely considerations may have just received a reality check.

The Field Order was dated April 20, 2009

I wonder if this order is still in effect?

[BushrangerCZ]

From my personal experiences, dumping the plates and wearing a soft cap instead of K-pot would make a decisive difference in my mobility. Of course it´s all mission dependent.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

There are actually two weight problems;
1) on the march, which limits march mobility and exhausts
2) in combat, which limits tactical options

1) can be solved by dependence on carriers (vehicles, animals, humans)
2) is more tricky

If you need to carry weight then (from my experience) you carry the combat essentials in your chest and hip webbing and all the other stuff mainly food and water and additional ammo etc in your Bergen. On contact hit the quick release belt-buckle and drop the Bergen and get on with the fight. First few minutes with the weight off you and the adrenalin it feels like you are walking on air. Kind of addictive. Go back and get your other kit later.

The stuff on your chest and belt only can't be too much more than 10kgs unless you are a machine gunner.

The change that is necessary for these longer ops is that the kidney pouches are removed from the back of the belt so the Bergen can ride on the hips.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by BushrangerCZ

From my personal experiences, dumping the plates and wearing a soft cap instead of K-pot would make a decisive difference in my mobility. Of course it´s all mission dependent.

Without the plates is the other stuff still necessary?

[BushrangerCZ]

Originally Posted by JMA

Without the plates is the other stuff still necessary?

For example MARCIRAS plate carrier still offers ballistic protection against shrapnels even without plates, and makes a good platform for ammo/grenade pouches, first aid pouch, radio and so on. I can imagine to wear it even for a longer dismounted patrol in the mountains (without plates) with the rucksack and still be able to move fast and maneuver, although it´s not so breathable as assault vest/chest rig/webbing.

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by JMA

If you need to carry weight then (from my experience) you carry the combat essentials in your chest and hip webbing and all the other stuff mainly food and water and additional ammo etc in your Bergen. On contact hit the quick release belt-buckle and drop the Bergen and get on with the fight. First few minutes with the weight off you and the adrenalin it feels like you are walking on air. Kind of addictive. Go back and get your other kit later.

The stuff on your chest and belt only can't be too much more than 10kgs unless you are a machine gunner.

The change that is necessary for these longer ops is that the kidney pouches are removed from the back of the belt so the Bergen can ride on the hips.

German tradition is to separate Rucksack and a small combat pouch (rear, on the belt). The Rucksack is almost never worn, though (exception: mountain troops). It's hard to impossible to find exercise or wartime photos where infantrymen carry Rucksacks. Platoon trailers and later squad vehicles carried the stuff.

Very early 1870-1914), soldiers were often portrayed or photographed with moderate march packs on their back, but that weighed less than a Rucksack.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

German tradition is to separate Rucksack and a small combat pouch (rear, on the belt). The Rucksack is almost never worn, though (exception: mountain troops). It's hard to impossible to find exercise or wartime photos where infantrymen carry Rucksacks. Platoon trailers and later squad vehicles carried the stuff.

Very early 1870-1914), soldiers were often portrayed or photographed with moderate march packs on their back, but that weighed less than a Rucksack.

Yes that is very much like the Brit system I grew up with. The "big pack" had spare clothing etc and was always in a vehicle in B Echelon for access when out of "the line". Then we had a '44 Pattern pack which was small on the back and was good for bedding and a few days rations and water but never taken into battle under conventional circumstances. Then there was the basic (hip) webbing which was all that was worn for combat.

Unconventional war/counter insurgency changed all that. If you were to search a river-line (for example) for sign of the enemy and it would take 8 days then you had to carry food for 8 days and spare this and spare that but water was obtained locally. The patrol was essentially a fighting patrol so when you bumped into them you needed to be able to fight immediately and could do so only if you dumped your pack/Bergen. Very seldom if ever established a patrol base camp and patrolled out from there.

[Kiwigrunt]

The perils of armour in days gone by.

link

[tequila]

Some additional data from Tom Ricks' blog:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/f...flePlatoon.pdf

Rifle Platoon Basic Load OEF XII
1st PLT, Alpha Co., 2/504 PIR

Some bullet points:

Average Paratrooper bodyweight - 184.7 lbs

Average Paratrooper 72hr kit - 103.69 lbs

Paratroopers are carrying 55% of bodyweight

Nothing new, of course, but thought some might like the most up-to-date info.

The PDF breaks down the loadouts by billet in the platoon as well.

[gute]

What is a Thor? What about a Goldie?

[Tzeentch]

Thor - IED jamming system

Wolf Hound - radio direction finder

Goldie - IED parts detector (not familiar with this system)

Minehound - Ground penetrating radar system and metal detector

Gizmo - metal detector

[slapout9]

Have known this was out there for sometime but could not remember the exact title so it was very difficult to find. This is one the most complete Load Bearing Equipment studies about the modern Infantryman. They even tested what the proper width of shoulder straps should be, the detailed reference bibliography is a gold mine. Enjoy!



"A Survey Of The Effects Of Load Carrying And Equipment Design Upon Tasks Performed By The Combat Infantryman" from 1962
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/294993.pdf

[Fuchs]

http://www.breachbangclear.com/site/...e-so-much.html

[carl]

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.

I hope the reporters made a mistake and are referring to 100 lbs, not 100 kg. If they are actually referring to 100 kg, western armies will never win another war. Never. The Brits can't be that far out of the mainstream and any military organization that would put that burden on a man has no clue at all what it is about.

[BushrangerCZ]

Originally Posted by carl

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.

I hope the reporters made a mistake and are referring to 100 lbs, not 100 kg. If they are actually referring to 100 kg, western armies will never win another war. Never. The Brits can't be that far out of the mainstream and any military organization that would put that burden on a man has no clue at all what it is about.

I am afraid even 100 lbs makes the same conclusion...

[castellanoc1]

There are a few things to be optimistic about in terms of weight savings. The first is a slew of somewhat new materials such as Blue Force Gear's Helium Whisper, which is significantly lighter, stronger, and more abrasion resistant than standard 1000 weight cordua nylon. With Helium Whisper and similar materials, we are starting to see some plate carriers, chest rigs, pouches, etc with huge weight savings and much slimmer profiles over standard counterparts. It is understood that the vast majority of conventional units won't be rocking the latest breed of plate carriers anytime soon, but it is at least a positive indication of things to come. In the meantime, many conventional units are ok with their men shaving a few pounds with better pouches and web gear.

The second aspect to be somewhat optimistic about is ammo weight. More SOF units have become comfortable with a 4-magazine loadout for their m4's, mk18s, etc. The readably accessible AAR, "The Eagle Went Over the Mountain" has a good reference to this. Better training, better optics, more accurate ammo, and increasingly accurate weapons have led to more accurate target engagement. However, it will be interesting to see how, or even if, this plays out in conventional units in the future. Less training = more rounds spent, and more ammo required. Furthermore, with the USMC and the m27 IAR, many infantry squads are finding themselves carrying more magazines than ever in order to spread-load the weight/bulk.

Finally, improving load carriage techniques have begun to not necessarily lower the weight, but to improve mobility and performance. Wearing a plate carrier or full armor vest with double m4 pouches all in front makes shooting in the prone an art-form, not a comfort zone. All the weight on the shoulders sucks. The first generation of the USMC MTV's that came out were heavy as hell, but were supposed to transfer weight onto the hips more. Me and my men didn't notice much of that, but we did notice our hips being worn raw by the placement of the side SAPIs. That actually became a planning consideration for me as I alternated mounted and dismounted patrols for the squads of my platoon. In a "back to the future" move, you see more guys now slimming down what they put on the front of their vests, and putting more ammo and kit on padded warbelts. The new generation of packs such as the USMC Pack are finally designed from the ground up to integrate with armor. When significant weight savings are impractical, improved load carriage is everything.

[Fuchs]

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.