Weight of back packed gear study

[Ken White]

All true and none of this is as a product of absolute conditions or needs. Its how modern armies "choose" to behave. Soldiers are only overloaded when commanders make bad decisions, and use bad judgement.

wanted to shed vests and other impedimtia for just the reasons Eden cites. Permission denied.

Whose fault is that...

(My take is it's the units for asking; 'it is better to not ask and receive censure than ask...' But that's the modern yankee Army... )

[MattC86]

I know Cavguy talked about the political factor - the investigations into KIAs and the thus the imperative for more and more body armor - and in 28 Articles Kilcullen says we must "ruthlessly" lighten the soldier's load, but realistically what are we talking about here? Cut the armor and ammo to a minimum and you still have helmet, a vest/plates at least, weapon, considerable ammo load, water, radios, batteries, medical-supplies/first aid kits, etc., making soldiers still far more burdened than the opposition. Since there's no way to lighten troops enough to have equal tactical mobility on foot, what's the best that can be achieved?

Regards,

Matt

[Ken White]

...Since there's no way to lighten troops enough to have equal tactical mobility on foot, what's the best that can be achieved?

Every thing you mention is a choice (understanding that the vest/plate and helmet are a part of the armor ensemble); a 'command decision.' Those choices can be pared considerably. There IS a way to lighten to have equal tactical mobility on foot but it entails risk -- and we are, as your link on the other thread points out -- a risk averse society.

Marines in Korea were making three and four day patrols behind Chinese lines with small arms, a very light ammo load and two quarts of water plus one ration a day -- no armor, no helmet. Both the Army and the Marines in Viet Nam were frequently going out just as light in good units; other units burdened people with more junk. Most Army units had armored vests in Viet Nam but rarely or never wore them except for the supply convoys.

Today, that's not acceptable though some of the DA and OGA guys get away with it. Viewpoint dependent, it may or may not be the correct choice -- but it is still a choice.

[Cavguy]

(My take is it's the units for asking; 'it is better to not ask and receive censure than ask...' But that's the modern yankee Army... )

Until the first guy gets shot and the whole chain of command loses their career in the ensuing 15-6 and is the subject of a negligent homicide investigation for failing to obey a general order.

Initiative has its place, but not here IMO.

[Vic Bout]

I was made to write and sign a "memo of compliance" stating that my guys would wear full kit (body armor/helmet) whenever we were "outside the wire" or suffer the consequences... which at the time meant the detachments removal from the battlefield at the very least. This came straight from an SF Battalion Commander. I was never able to find out if that dictate came to him from the CJSOTF or higher.
So, I wrote the memo, signed my name and proceeded to perjure myself to varying degrees for the rest of the deployment; depending on the nature of the misison. I imagine I would have wound up in jail or some other form of UCMJ had one of my guys gotten killed without his helmet or body armor on.

Funny, I just saw a report where a 7th Grp team sergeant got the DSC for some absolutley heroic deed in Afghanistan, conducted entirely without body armor. god love him. I don't suppose his team commander had to sign a compliance memo...