Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

[JMA]

To JMA :
When I was 2Lt (peace time, never been deployed), your package for 48h was between 10 and 15kg. If you add it the shield, the radio+batteries+Pda, the NVG, the 2 way telescope for everyone plus large Pda & LR Bino/LRF for team leaders it will be an extra weight i compute between 7kg (coy) and >10kg (leaders).

So, I have the same concern as you regarding a modern armored opponent.

Am I correct in understanding that apart from your uniform and boots your load for a 48hr deployment is about 20-25 kg? Then you add the 20 odd kg for the body armour?

[jps2]

Am I correct in understanding that apart from your uniform and boots your load for a 48hr deployment is about 20-25 kg? Then you add the 20 odd kg for the body armour?

There is different weight in body armor and I was trying to compute the extra weight for the guys having to fight with these new "toys" [my reference weight was an infantryman of 80', without backpack] (some sources said 25kg for a FFW complete suit, including 1 day food : body armor, weapon, helmet ammunition, definitive version is slightly different than that link especially the aiming device )

I'm trying to imagine the impact of that extra weight on efficiency. Less casualties is a political requirement. Does it means we have to completely give up mobility ? or does it means that nobody thinks that future opponents will be highly mobile and with modern weapons and TTP ?

[JMA]

There is different weight in body armor and I was trying to compute the extra weight for the guys having to fight with these new "toys" [my reference weight was an infantryman of 80', without backpack] (some sources said 25kg for a FFW complete suit, including 1 day food : body armor, weapon, helmet ammunition, definitive version is slightly different than that link especially the aiming device )

I'm trying to imagine the impact of that extra weight on efficiency. Less casualties is a political requirement. Does it means we have to completely give up mobility ? or does it means that nobody thinks that future opponents will be highly mobile and with modern weapons and TTP ?

Well to their credit the Brits have a programme to address the weight issue:

Reducing the Burden on the Dismounted Soldier Capability Vision
Task 1 – Lightweight Personal Protection

It is noted from that document:

"This reduction in burden will lead to a reduction in casualties/physical injuries and hence fulfil a wider duty of care to individuals."

I accept that there is a real issue with weight adversely affecting combat performance. The pendulum has swung to far in one direction now and it is certainly hoped that initiatives like the above programme will help bring all aspects into balance.

[jps2]

Thanks for the link JMA, will look at that carefully.

[William F. Owen]

I accept that there is a real issue with weight adversely affecting combat performance. The pendulum has swung to far in one direction now and it is certainly hoped that initiatives like the above programme will help bring all aspects into balance.

Don't hold your breath. The document is asking for the wind.
If we really wanted to, you could already make a substantial weight saving by reducing coverage and ballistic standards. We can do that now. We choose not to.
It's nothing to do with science and technology. It is an entirely policy based discussion.