Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 301

Thread: Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

  1. #261
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    13

    Default

    JMA

    Bowman is not too bad in the HF, VHF and UHF roles as a radio. Data has been a complete busted flush and has never worked outside Salisbury plain
    But. TBH. I suspect that it's mostly MoD's fault messing around with perfectly good systems for the hell of it. Paying to removing GPS cards from within the VHF systems to then waste money on attached GPS systems or taking a HF/VHF radio and removing the VHF facility as 2 examples

    There is weight that can be removed, 5kgs can be slimmed down quite quickly

    If you're in CEFO+daysack order on a day time patrol why do you need the full commanders kit of Orders cards, TAMS, model kit and all the night sights ? You're not going to be giving any more orders with a model and you should be able to get away with HMNVS as a just in case. The G4 chain should be able to bring up equipment as required, otherwise you might as well carry everything "Just In Case"

    The TI and HMNVS has proved useful. Helped me PID a firing point at night and engage with GPMG from a sanger one night and has allowed us to pretty much move at will at night.......

  2. #262
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David I Evans View Post
    We were carrying HF as we were struggling with the VHF net, a problem found to be due to a fill for the VHF radios that had become corrupted.

    Breakdown

    Weapon + 6 full mags 9kgs
    HE, Smoke, WP, UGL+ link 5kgs
    Radio + spare batteries 3kgs
    Osprey + small plates 7kgs
    12 hr ration pack + 2litres of water 3kgs
    Commanders Kit + FIST 5Kgs


    FIST (future infantry soldier technology) is pretty much all the shiny new TI and HMNVS sights and LLM

    Topped out at 32kgs for a Section Cmdr.
    I understand NVG and letīs say IR strobo, plus VS17 panel as a FIST, plus field notebook with all the stuff needed, map, compass, and GPS. It goes about 3 kg, so we got 2kg down. 3kg VHF radio is quite heavy, AN/PRC 148 plus spare battery, multiband antenna, and headset fits easily into 2 kg. So one more kg down. Osprey 7kg (if included all the pouches and stuff, ballistic plates and also helmet) is reasonable weight, I would guess more. However something like TYR PICO plate carrier would cut down at least one kg just by using better technology and design. We canīt go down on ammo, frag and smoke, itīs already minimum. So yes 5 kg can go down, but itīs not decisive. And no one is going to issue light infantry guy with TYR Pico etc., unless you are very lucky and from very rich country. That it probably actually costs less than Osprey makes no difference. Also IFAK would take another 1kg up. Good to see no pistol, what an utter bull..it to issue it to every infantry soldier.

    Only viable solution from my point of view is to ditch body armour where itīs not needed or even counter productive - and itīs not gonna happen.
    Last edited by BushrangerCZ; 06-27-2014 at 01:38 PM.

  3. #263
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Green Mountains
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    A two-pronged problem we face in carried loads is centered on the almost unquenchable appetite for battery power. In the first prong we have increased a patrol's carried load for force protection purposes with the addition of body-worn counter-IED devices. In the second prong we have not been disciplined enough to curb our demand for tactical information, which in turn drives up the weight penalty due to the suites of communication equipment carried.

    We have created this vicious circle of demanding unrealistic reporting of reams of information, and it drives dismounted operations to carry ridiculous quantities of batteries to support 24-hour radio usage.

    It goes back to uneducated, ill-informed tactical planning by folks inclined to carry the kitchen sink as insurance against all threats, rather than conduct a smart analysis of requirements and the tactical risks involved.
    Couldn't agree more sir. And it infects everything, from majors at regiment calling down demanding storyboards for a cache find of a rusty old AK with two magazines to the expectation that we will have positive VHF comms at all times (God forbid HF be primary at a division exercise).

    Far too often we're in the risk avoidance business instead of the risk management business (let alone the calculated risk taking business).

  4. #264
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BushrangerCZ View Post
    Only viable solution from my point of view is to ditch body armour where itīs not needed or even counter productive - and itīs not gonna happen.
    I agree it seems that a sane and unemotional discussion on this matter is not possible. I do wonder though whether any studies have been carried out as to the wounds that have been prevented by body armour as opposed to all wounds that have been caused due to lack of proper route selection by stumbling, bumbling over loaded soldiers?

  5. #265
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    I agree it seems that a sane and unemotional discussion on this matter is not possible. I do wonder though whether any studies have been carried out as to the wounds that have been prevented by body armour as opposed to all wounds that have been caused due to lack of proper route selection by stumbling, bumbling over loaded soldiers?
    Very good question...

  6. #266
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    67

  7. #267
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BushrangerCZ View Post
    As does this:

    Donkeys led by Lions

    ... but is anybody listening?

  8. #268
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BushrangerCZ View Post

    I'm wondering at the weight of 6 MREs. That's in the wrappers I presume ?

    That's 48hrs of food. The equivalent British 24Hr Ration pack is about 2.1kgs packed or 4.6lbs ish. That's a 1lb shaved off. Once you start dumping stuff, I suspect you could shave at least 2lbs off and maybe 3.

    From experience the MRE pack generates a mass of rubbish, nearly a large bin big per platoon the one time I lived on MREs as part of a Rifle Company on exercise in the States The 24Hr ration pack has nowhere near the same level of packaging as MREs

  9. #269
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Unfortunately the only way how to get soldiers moving again is to dump body armour on missions which does not require body armour - or where is it downright counterproductive (recce). But it seems to me that ordinary infantry is doomed with incredibly stupid presence patrols forever, getting hunted instead of being hunters, doing only overt ops "Here I am shoot at me if you wish".

  10. #270
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David I Evans View Post
    I'm wondering at the weight of 6 MREs. That's in the wrappers I presume ?

    That's 48hrs of food. The equivalent British 24Hr Ration pack is about 2.1kgs packed or 4.6lbs ish. That's a 1lb shaved off. Once you start dumping stuff, I suspect you could shave at least 2lbs off and maybe 3.

    From experience the MRE pack generates a mass of rubbish, nearly a large bin big per platoon the one time I lived on MREs as part of a Rifle Company on exercise in the States The 24Hr ration pack has nowhere near the same level of packaging as MREs
    We got a little bit better with a new ration that left out a ton of the BS packaging.

    http://www.mreinfo.com/us/fsr/first-strike-ration.html

    The development of the FSR came from the fact that prior to deployment, soldiers would "field strip" their MREs. Field stripping involves removing all the excess MRE packaging and unwanted items - bags, boxes, heaters, extra spoons, accessory packs, etc. Creative field stripping could reduce 3 MREs - one day's worth - down to the same size as a single MRE. While this practice reduced the soldier's load by only packing the most critical MRE parts, it also led to increased waste and a reduced consumption of food. A single FSR, which is 24 hours worth of food, is approximately 50% the size and weight of three MREs.

    1 FSR = 2,900 calories

    3 MREs = 3,800 calories

  11. #271
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BushrangerCZ View Post
    From the article you linked to comes this statement:

    "The body armor and winning the war are mutually incompatible. If we can’t contemplate giving that up, at least as a day in, day out piece of equipment, then we need to contemplate simply giving up on fighting wars. Of course, ultimately that means our national extinction."

    That strikes me as pretty profound statement.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  12. #272
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    It absolutely is a profound statement because it is a profound problem.

    And it all goes back to the worry that there will be gnashing of teeth from Mom or Dad if Joe or Johnny is killed via an injury which--while of very low probability--might have been prevented by a protective plate.

    Because after all, troops in the movies leap tall buildings in a single bound and aren't constrained by any off that body armor stuff.

  13. #273
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Green Mountains
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BushrangerCZ View Post
    Unfortunately the only way how to get soldiers moving again is to dump body armour on missions which does not require body armour - or where is it downright counterproductive (recce). But it seems to me that ordinary infantry is doomed with incredibly stupid presence patrols forever, getting hunted instead of being hunters, doing only overt ops "Here I am shoot at me if you wish".
    Agreed. The armor is 60% of the equation, the risk-averse overloading of batteries, water, C-IED, ammo and food is the rest of it. The terrifying thing is that in most of Afghanistan the "war" is very low risk, and even in the worst parts of Helmand and RC-East it can't be compared to Vietnam.

    I think we all know what the problem is, but no one at upper levels has the moral courage to make changes. That, and the nature of limited wars means that few individuals, and zero institutions, are playing for a win.

  14. #274
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Granite_State View Post
    The armor is 60% of the equation
    Do the U.S. Army and Marine Corps have official doctrine on the use of body armor in jungle operations? That’s one environments where I find it hard to imagine that the benefits would outweigh the costs.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  15. #275
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    As does this:

    Donkeys led by Lions

    ... but is anybody listening?
    I would have thought comment on this document would have opened up a new line in this thread. Alas not. Where are the enquiring minds.

    TE Lawrence lamented way back then of the British officer being too much body and too little head. Lind tells us that this crisis extends to the US military as well. Deeply troubling times.

  16. #276
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Importantly - for the Brits in Afghanistan - the vast majority of their movement has been within spitting distance of their FOBs where they have (mostly) medium mortars, artillery and a vehicle mounted Fire-support Team based with air support on call. For the British when did this 'load' madness start?

    Quote Originally Posted by Granite_State View Post
    Agreed. The armor is 60% of the equation, the risk-averse overloading of batteries, water, C-IED, ammo and food is the rest of it. The terrifying thing is that in most of Afghanistan the "war" is very low risk, and even in the worst parts of Helmand and RC-East it can't be compared to Vietnam.

    I think we all know what the problem is, but no one at upper levels has the moral courage to make changes. That, and the nature of limited wars means that few individuals, and zero institutions, are playing for a win.
    Last edited by JMA; 07-20-2014 at 03:19 PM.

  17. #277
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Carl, I suggest Lind's comments on the weakness of officer leadership are germane to this discussion.

    This psychological need for all this equipment "just in case" would normally be levelled at non-combat experienced leaders. Surely this is no longer the case in Afghanistan with both the yanks and the Brits?

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    From the article you linked to comes this statement:

    "The body armor and winning the war are mutually incompatible. If we can’t contemplate giving that up, at least as a day in, day out piece of equipment, then we need to contemplate simply giving up on fighting wars. Of course, ultimately that means our national extinction."

    That strikes me as pretty profound statement.

  18. #278
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
    Do the U.S. Army and Marine Corps have official doctrine on the use of body armor in jungle operations? That’s one environments where I find it hard to imagine that the benefits would outweigh the costs.
    I don't know. But your comment reminds me of something that I have for a long time thought would be a good idea. The military should wargame some old situations the we know the outcome of and introduce modern elements to see what effect they would have upon the outcome. The thing that made me think of this was the Marines fighting their way out of the frozen Chosin through Red Chinese light infantry. Would they have been able to do it if the Red Chinese had had something like shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, something that light infantry could carry, that would have kept the Corsairs and Skyraiders off their backs?

    I asked Gian Gentile once if that had ever been done and I think he said he didn't know. But it would be an extremely useful thing to do now, especially in the light of your observation.

    Say we took the example of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), Merrill's Marauders. That unit operated for a long time in the tropics, depended upon mobility and eventually broke down because the men were just pushed too far. If people who knew what they were about looked at the experience of that unit and added 30 pounds of body armor to each man's load, what would the result be? That would be very useful, and probably alarming, information.

    You could do the same thing with all of our WWII ops in the Pacific, with the 3rd Infantry Division's ops in Sicily, even with Roger's Rangers. You could do it with LRRPs in Vietnam. Those guys had important effects on the fighting. Could they have done it with 30 pounds of body armor?

    The basic premise is that the need for those types of ops will arise again and when they do could the modern Army and USMC do what they successfully did in the past.
    Last edited by carl; 07-20-2014 at 08:16 PM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  19. #279
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Carl, I suggest Lind's comments on the weakness of officer leadership are germane to this discussion.

    This psychological need for all this equipment "just in case" would normally be levelled at non-combat experienced leaders. Surely this is no longer the case in Afghanistan with both the yanks and the Brits?
    Military leadership is the heart of the thing. If you haven't you must read Muth's Command Culture ( http://www.amazon.com/Command-Cultur.../dp/1574415336 ). He does a very good job of explaining why the American officer education system just gets it wrong. And it has been wrong for a long time. Bill Mauldin wrote once that they were amazed that a German medic stayed with a wounded German officer who couldn't be moved until they were both captured. He was amazed because the chances front line troops accepting surrender weren't all that good and neither he nor any of his mates could think of a junior American officer they would do that for.

    A WWI French general opined that American infantry was just terrible. And we were ( http://www.amazon.com/The-School-Har.../dp/1603442979 ). Straggling (desertion) was so bad in 1918 that the American Army in Europe may not have been a viable combat force if the war had lasted into 1919 (my opinion, the author didn't specifically say that). And Ken White (come back if you can Ken) always said that the US military structure and especially the personnel system were WWI products and haven't been changed. We have gotten away with all this for various reasons of historical and political accident for a century but things have changed. The Royal Navy isn't around anymore.

    As far as combat guys changing things, they may be able to fight, with bullets, anybody in the world to standstill and better. But they can't buck the big green machine, or even influence it much. It is just too powerful. I terribly fear only an outside actor can change it, like Napoleon changed the Prussians in 1806 or the Spanish changed the Aztec system. One group survived the change. One group didn't.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  20. #280
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    I would have thought comment on this document would have opened up a new line in this thread. Alas not. Where are the enquiring minds.

    TE Lawrence lamented way back then of the British officer being too much body and too little head. Lind tells us that this crisis extends to the US military as well. Deeply troubling times.
    I re-read that article and the thing about it that was even more distressing than the soldiers carrying too much weight was the HQs burdening themselves with so much useless make work that they are approaching the point where they can't function. They sling a lot of trons, the HQ people are all sleep deprived from overwork and mountains of 'product' are produced but they are approaching the point where they can't do what they exist for, guide and assist troops in combat. Napoleon and Grant did that for hundreds of thousands of men with pen and paper.

    We are in a bad place.
    "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
  •