Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 301

Thread: Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

  1. #201
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Itīs beating the dead horse. Risk aversion is the motto of this war.

  2. #202
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BushrangerCZ View Post
    Itīs 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?

  3. #203
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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

  4. #204
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RJ View Post
    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?

  5. #205
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    67

    Default

    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 itīs all mission dependent.

  6. #206
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.

  7. #207
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BushrangerCZ View Post
    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 itīs all mission dependent.
    Without the plates is the other stuff still necessary?

  8. #208
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    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 itīs not so breathable as assault vest/chest rig/webbing.
    Last edited by BushrangerCZ; 05-02-2011 at 09:18 PM.

  9. #209
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    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.

  10. #210
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.

  11. #211
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    The perils of armour in days gone by.

    link
    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

  12. #212
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    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.

  13. #213
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    What is a Thor? What about a Goldie?

  14. #214
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default

    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

  15. #215
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Finally Found It!

    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

  16. #216

  17. #217
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    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.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  18. #218
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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...

  19. #219
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4

    Default optimistic?

    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.

  20. #220
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

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
  •