The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever(popularmechanics.com)
popularmechanics.com
The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25644619/soldier-weight/
147 comments
The Army decided some years ago to give every Company (~140 people) a Raven drone for recon. However, it's a huge deal if it gets lost (if the GPS guidance were to suddenly fail), so no one ever uses them to avoid the fallout associated with losing Army equipment.
Like many things in a large bureaucracy, the rules and norms are written in the blood and tears of previous generations. It has pros and cons. On the pros, you can usually count on everyone to not lose equipment. For the cons, you spend a huge amount of time dealing with inventories and maintenance.
- At most Army schools you will fail if you lose any equipment. Ranger school does a 100% equipment check at the end of every mission and will fail you if any equipment is missing.
- One of the more common ways for an officer to get "fired" (moved out of command early with a neutral or negative rating) is to lose property. This is harder than it sounds since even a Rifle company commander you might have a few million dollars of equipment. For mechanized units (tanks), it's much harder.
- At most Army schools you will fail if you lose any equipment. Ranger school does a 100% equipment check at the end of every mission and will fail you if any equipment is missing.
- One of the more common ways for an officer to get "fired" (moved out of command early with a neutral or negative rating) is to lose property. This is harder than it sounds since even a Rifle company commander you might have a few million dollars of equipment. For mechanized units (tanks), it's much harder.
> Ammo is really heavy
Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition? One inherent limitation of firearms is that all the energy is released inside the weapon, which has, then, to dissipate the heat and remaining gases and particles. If bullets are self-propelled, a larger part of that output can be released outside the weapon, allowing it to be faster and impart more energy on impact. Unfortunately, it may make following the source of the bullet easier.
> avoid the fallout associated with losing Army equipment.
That a combatant needs to worry about paperwork is the cruelest thing I heard in a long time.
Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition? One inherent limitation of firearms is that all the energy is released inside the weapon, which has, then, to dissipate the heat and remaining gases and particles. If bullets are self-propelled, a larger part of that output can be released outside the weapon, allowing it to be faster and impart more energy on impact. Unfortunately, it may make following the source of the bullet easier.
> avoid the fallout associated with losing Army equipment.
That a combatant needs to worry about paperwork is the cruelest thing I heard in a long time.
From the few known examples, self-propelled ammunition accelerating outside the barrel means it's relatively slow when leaving the barrel, which both makes it less effective at short ranges and causes accuracy issues.
Caseless ammunition is maybe a closer thing, but also tricky (heat dissipation is harder, difficulties in making ammunition robust enough). H&K made a military variant once, but no military adopted it (Germany almost did, but with the end of the cold war it wasn't considered worth the cost)
Even adopting improved versions of existing systems is a big process for militaries, switching to something entirely new for something as fundamental as the standard rifles needs to have really big and obvious benefits to be considered.
Caseless ammunition is maybe a closer thing, but also tricky (heat dissipation is harder, difficulties in making ammunition robust enough). H&K made a military variant once, but no military adopted it (Germany almost did, but with the end of the cold war it wasn't considered worth the cost)
Even adopting improved versions of existing systems is a big process for militaries, switching to something entirely new for something as fundamental as the standard rifles needs to have really big and obvious benefits to be considered.
Yep, the G11. Turns out with all its other problems caseless ammo is brittle, so if you drop a round it breaks. Not super practical in the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGKcvM2Hh4g&t=328s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGKcvM2Hh4g&t=328s
Yes! Forgotten Weapons is an amazing channel. I love Gun-Jesus (Florida-Man Edition), aka Ian. His simple, clear, engaging style is fantastic. The deep dives into engineering and history are fantastic. Infinitely bingeable.
>Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition?
Welcome to 1944.
This is exactly why full power rifle cartridges were replaced with intermediate cartridges like 7.62x39 and 5.56x45.
Kinetic energy is only loosely associated with effectiveness, terminal ballistics matters just as much if not more. In the real world intermediate calibers kill people dead enough reliably enough that it's a non-issue and marginal decreased effectiveness is outweighed by increased capacity. The overwhelming majority of shots fired will hit nothing useful anyway.
Case-less ammo was tried (read up on the H&K G11) for slightly different reasons (weight saving was a goal but not the primary goal) but the cold war ended before it could make it into service.
Welcome to 1944.
This is exactly why full power rifle cartridges were replaced with intermediate cartridges like 7.62x39 and 5.56x45.
Kinetic energy is only loosely associated with effectiveness, terminal ballistics matters just as much if not more. In the real world intermediate calibers kill people dead enough reliably enough that it's a non-issue and marginal decreased effectiveness is outweighed by increased capacity. The overwhelming majority of shots fired will hit nothing useful anyway.
Case-less ammo was tried (read up on the H&K G11) for slightly different reasons (weight saving was a goal but not the primary goal) but the cold war ended before it could make it into service.
Maybe a full power cartridge with a smaller/lighter bullet would be just as deadly as an intermediate cartridge with a heavier bullet. If you detonate the charge within the weapon and it produces a delayed detonation of a propulsion charge immediately after it leaves the barrel, it can effectively pack more energy than the equivalent cartridge with a lighter, faster bullet.
>Maybe a full power cartridge with a smaller/lighter bullet would be just as deadly as an intermediate cartridge with a heavier bullet.
You are basically describing this[1][2][3] and it's not really that great at anything in particular (especially not military use) and are primarily used by people who want to shoot a trophy buck that's 400yd away. IMO they're kind of the hipster beer of the rifle world. They do little a boring old Bud won't do but they sure put a bigger hole in your wallet.
Read up on the history of intermediate cartridges[4] and assault rifles (not "assault weapons", the former is a technical term, the latter is anything but). Earlier intermediate cartridges (were a standard size .30-ish cal bullet on top of a 30-40mm case instead of a 50-70mm case of a traditional full power rifle round. Later intermediate cartridges such as 5.56x45 and 5.45x39 (the Russians stuck a smaller bullet on top of the 7.62x39 cartridge) stick an even smaller bullet on top of an intermediate size case because the smaller bullet going faster does the job just as well with less weight (I'm painting with a really broad brush here). These 2nd gen intermediate cartridges are what I think you're getting at but you're hung up on the rifle cartridge. For simply killing people 0-350yd away you don't need that much bang, it's actually detrimental because it's extra weight and makes the firearm harder to handle.
You also need thinking in terms of energy. All the energy in the world is useless if you can't transfer it to the target properly. It doesn't take much energy dissipated in a human torso to immediately incapacitate and kill. Better understanding of the needs of combat troops and nature of engagements and terminal ballistics is what led to the switch from intermediate cartridges starting in the 1940s.
Of course you have to remember that everything is still a trade-off in cartridge design and the nature of the engagements you expect still plays a large role in what the "best" tool for the job is and often the difference is only marginal at best.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.270_Winchester_Short_Magnum
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.270_Weatherby_Magnum
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Winchester_Super_Short_Ma...
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge
You are basically describing this[1][2][3] and it's not really that great at anything in particular (especially not military use) and are primarily used by people who want to shoot a trophy buck that's 400yd away. IMO they're kind of the hipster beer of the rifle world. They do little a boring old Bud won't do but they sure put a bigger hole in your wallet.
Read up on the history of intermediate cartridges[4] and assault rifles (not "assault weapons", the former is a technical term, the latter is anything but). Earlier intermediate cartridges (were a standard size .30-ish cal bullet on top of a 30-40mm case instead of a 50-70mm case of a traditional full power rifle round. Later intermediate cartridges such as 5.56x45 and 5.45x39 (the Russians stuck a smaller bullet on top of the 7.62x39 cartridge) stick an even smaller bullet on top of an intermediate size case because the smaller bullet going faster does the job just as well with less weight (I'm painting with a really broad brush here). These 2nd gen intermediate cartridges are what I think you're getting at but you're hung up on the rifle cartridge. For simply killing people 0-350yd away you don't need that much bang, it's actually detrimental because it's extra weight and makes the firearm harder to handle.
You also need thinking in terms of energy. All the energy in the world is useless if you can't transfer it to the target properly. It doesn't take much energy dissipated in a human torso to immediately incapacitate and kill. Better understanding of the needs of combat troops and nature of engagements and terminal ballistics is what led to the switch from intermediate cartridges starting in the 1940s.
Of course you have to remember that everything is still a trade-off in cartridge design and the nature of the engagements you expect still plays a large role in what the "best" tool for the job is and often the difference is only marginal at best.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.270_Winchester_Short_Magnum
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.270_Weatherby_Magnum
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Winchester_Super_Short_Ma...
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge
>Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition?
There have been ongoing efforts for years, but there are significant technical obstacles to producing reliable, effective ammunition with reduced weight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Small_Arms_Technol...
There have been ongoing efforts for years, but there are significant technical obstacles to producing reliable, effective ammunition with reduced weight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Small_Arms_Technol...
Surprised nobody mentioned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer-cased_ammunition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer-cased_ammunition
It's worth mentioning that 7.62 ammo weights about 3X more than .223. It's my understanding most US military units use .233 largely for this reason.
The whole concept of .223 is to put more propellent behind a smaller projectile. This gives the projectile more speed which makes it exceptionally lethal and accurate at very long distance. Unlike handguns that basically poke a hole, .223 generates a shockwave when it strikes at a multiple of the speed of sound.
The whole concept of .223 is to put more propellent behind a smaller projectile. This gives the projectile more speed which makes it exceptionally lethal and accurate at very long distance. Unlike handguns that basically poke a hole, .223 generates a shockwave when it strikes at a multiple of the speed of sound.
> Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition?
Running just on the math, it seems the answer would be "of course":
But we're not only concerned with kinetic energy. Momentum also matters. Or, in shooting parlance, "power factor", measured in grains (1/7000th of a pound) x velocity in feet per second. Momentum has a much closer correlation to recoil than kinetic energy. It also affects ballistics - a hypersonic lightweight round will have a different curve than a dense, merely supersonic traditional round.
Other practical concerns are also relevant: lead is an excellent lubricant/bearing material and aluminum oxide being an extremely abrasive cutting material...lead, bronze, cast iron, and other dense metals are more amenable to firing out of an interference fit with a barrel than light metals (of which aluminum is just one example, but a fairly representative one). Lead is highly ductile and mushrooms on impact, but aluminum is brittle and shatters on impact. A round fired at higher velocity spends less time in the barrel, so you need more powder, faster powder, and longer barrels to accelerate it more quickly. And the bullet is not the only thing ejected from the barrel: There's a supersonic jet of propellant gasses that contributes to both recoil and noise.
500 years of (un)natural selection in the field of ammunition materials science has left lead at the top of the charts for a good reason. Most lightweighting efforts have focused on reducing weight in the brass case, which is just packaging and becomes extra mass.
Finally, a combatant worrying about paperwork says something about the one-sided nature of recent wars: Million-dollar soliders applying overwhelming force and unimaginable funds against desperate guerillas. I wonder how quickly the slow-changing military will be able to respond if there's a war between superpowers.
Running just on the math, it seems the answer would be "of course":
E_k = 1/2 m \* v ^ 2
But we're not only concerned with kinetic energy. Momentum also matters. Or, in shooting parlance, "power factor", measured in grains (1/7000th of a pound) x velocity in feet per second. Momentum has a much closer correlation to recoil than kinetic energy. It also affects ballistics - a hypersonic lightweight round will have a different curve than a dense, merely supersonic traditional round.
Other practical concerns are also relevant: lead is an excellent lubricant/bearing material and aluminum oxide being an extremely abrasive cutting material...lead, bronze, cast iron, and other dense metals are more amenable to firing out of an interference fit with a barrel than light metals (of which aluminum is just one example, but a fairly representative one). Lead is highly ductile and mushrooms on impact, but aluminum is brittle and shatters on impact. A round fired at higher velocity spends less time in the barrel, so you need more powder, faster powder, and longer barrels to accelerate it more quickly. And the bullet is not the only thing ejected from the barrel: There's a supersonic jet of propellant gasses that contributes to both recoil and noise.
500 years of (un)natural selection in the field of ammunition materials science has left lead at the top of the charts for a good reason. Most lightweighting efforts have focused on reducing weight in the brass case, which is just packaging and becomes extra mass.
Finally, a combatant worrying about paperwork says something about the one-sided nature of recent wars: Million-dollar soliders applying overwhelming force and unimaginable funds against desperate guerillas. I wonder how quickly the slow-changing military will be able to respond if there's a war between superpowers.
> One inherent limitation of firearms is that all the energy is released inside the weapon, which has, then, to dissipate the heat and remaining gases and particles. If bullets are self-propelled, a larger part of that output can be released outside the weapon, allowing it to be faster and impart more energy on impact.
If bullets are self-propelled, they are slower and less stable in the initial portion of their flight, which makes them much less accurate and gives longer time of flight assuming same top speed (which, for a similar quantity of propellant, isn't reasonable anyway; having a gun barrel is an advantage here), rocket and rocket-assisted projectiles work well enough when you can afford less inherent ballistic accuracy because of large targets or self-guidance, but neither of those is really practical for infantry smallarms.
If bullets are self-propelled, they are slower and less stable in the initial portion of their flight, which makes them much less accurate and gives longer time of flight assuming same top speed (which, for a similar quantity of propellant, isn't reasonable anyway; having a gun barrel is an advantage here), rocket and rocket-assisted projectiles work well enough when you can afford less inherent ballistic accuracy because of large targets or self-guidance, but neither of those is really practical for infantry smallarms.
For an example of self-propelled rounds, see the Gyrojet [0] which fired 'microjet' mini rocket propelled bullets. It turns out that militaries have been thinbking about this stuff for a long time, and spendinga lot of money trying to solve these problems. So, most ideas you think of will already have been lookedn at, tested, and devloped iff they actually work, otherwise abandoned - sometimes pending future technological progress and advancements, admittedly...
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet
IIRC, self propelled bullets were tried before, and they found that the amount of propellant that can be held in the bullet is so low that it severely limits the velocity of the rounds.
I wonder if there aren't explosives with higher energy density that aren't used because the gun would overheat or be damaged by residue. Those propellants would be perfect candidates for a hybrid that's launched from a conventional cartridge and ignites the propellant as soon as it leaves the barrel.
> Those propellants would be perfect candidates for a hybrid that's launched from a conventional cartridge and ignites the propellant as soon as it leaves the barrel.
If you look at the size of a common rifle projectile vs. a conventional cartridge, you’ll recognize that you’d need enormous energy density for any such booster system to do anything noticeable at all besides screwing with the reliably, safety, and stability of the round. A
If you look at the size of a common rifle projectile vs. a conventional cartridge, you’ll recognize that you’d need enormous energy density for any such booster system to do anything noticeable at all besides screwing with the reliably, safety, and stability of the round. A
Yeah, if electronic mules are so great, I would expect to see some actual mules still in service.
According to "FM 3-05.213 (FM 31-27) Special Forces Use of Pack Animals" from 2004 [1] "Today and throughout the operational continuum, SF may find themselves involved in operations in rural or remote environments, such as Operations UPHOLD DEMOCRACY or ENDURING FREEDOM, using pack animals."
[1] https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-213.pdf
[1] https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-213.pdf
Wow, this document is fascinating.
The USMC Small Wars Manual - has some fascinating info on how pre mechanisation troops used hoses mules oxen ect.
https://archive.org/details/UsmcSmallWarsManual1940Reprinted...
https://archive.org/details/UsmcSmallWarsManual1940Reprinted...
I love that it includes the line:
> Elephants are considered an endangered species and as such should not be used by U.S. military personnel.
>I would expect to see some actual mules still in service.
SF have been using horses in places like Afghanistan for the past 2 decades and while DARPA is working on a robotic mule the DoD has brought in consultants to advise them about actual mules.
You'd be surprised what the military still does with animals, the Army even still has the U.S. Army Veterinary Corps with 700 something veterinarians for dogs, ceremony horses, working animals etc.
SF have been using horses in places like Afghanistan for the past 2 decades and while DARPA is working on a robotic mule the DoD has brought in consultants to advise them about actual mules.
You'd be surprised what the military still does with animals, the Army even still has the U.S. Army Veterinary Corps with 700 something veterinarians for dogs, ceremony horses, working animals etc.
The British Army apparently has more horses than tanks - though I suspect they aren't being kept for any practical purposes.
Fascinating stuff! A 2015 article from the horse's mouth[0] shows 485 horses for ceremonial purposes vs 227 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks.
[0] https://www.forces.net/services/tri-service/leading-charge-t...
Also a related BBC article with more background: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22951...
[0] https://www.forces.net/services/tri-service/leading-charge-t...
Also a related BBC article with more background: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22951...
From one of those links:
"The figures don't necessarily mean we have got too many horses, it's more likely the figures mean we don't have enough tanks."
Edit: Mind you, on reflection, 485 horses does seem rather a lot.
"The figures don't necessarily mean we have got too many horses, it's more likely the figures mean we don't have enough tanks."
Edit: Mind you, on reflection, 485 horses does seem rather a lot.
I used a mule in the mountains of Afghanistan in 2010. It was the only way other than helo or a strong back to get supplies up the mountain to out observation point.
Funny story. I was listening to an interview with Chinese historian Carl Zha. According to Zha the CIA ran a breeding program for mules in the 1980s for use in Afghanistan to supply the mujahadeen. The breeding program was in Tennessee and used Tennessee mules. All the mules died after about a year because for whatever reason they couldn't deal with the conditions in Afghanistan. So the CIA went looking for a mule provider in the region and ended up sourcing mules from Uyghur tribesmen in western China. These mules didn't die. And thus began the CIA's relationship with the Uyghur.
I'm not vouching for the authenticity of this story, but it is a good story none the less.
I'm not vouching for the authenticity of this story, but it is a good story none the less.
...and now I understand why the Uyghur are persecuted in China.
>death of American service member a bigger deal than in past conflict
I guess the endgame is remote drones and similar with the controllers sitting in a safe building miles away?
I guess the endgame is remote drones and similar with the controllers sitting in a safe building miles away?
> Public perception and the news cycle makes the death of American service member a bigger deal than in past conflicts.
How does this compare to say Vietnam? It feels to me like the populace is worse divided, it’s disaffected. It seems like the new normal to have some god forsaken outpost where a few dozen soldiers die a year (not to mention thousands of local population - they’re even less of a consideration).
How does this compare to say Vietnam? It feels to me like the populace is worse divided, it’s disaffected. It seems like the new normal to have some god forsaken outpost where a few dozen soldiers die a year (not to mention thousands of local population - they’re even less of a consideration).
Yeah but no one in the median journalist’s social circle is dying. The change from a draft to a volunteer army was enormous. No one goes to war against their will anymore. People care much, much less if it’s not their brother, their son, their cousin. And when volunteers come home in a box their family knows they chose to go. Hard to organise a march against war out of people who either have no personal connection to the military or who want to honour the service of the fallen.
>No one goes to war against their will anymore.
<snark> Please tell that to the kids that are enlisting so they can actually afford to go to college in the US. </snark>
I know there is a difference between drafting and enlistment, but I know there are a lot of people in the military because it was "the way out" of their situation.
<snark> Please tell that to the kids that are enlisting so they can actually afford to go to college in the US. </snark>
I know there is a difference between drafting and enlistment, but I know there are a lot of people in the military because it was "the way out" of their situation.
Advantages to having chronic structural income inequality? A not insignificant proportion of the US military is foreign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanics_in_the_United_States...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanics_in_the_United_States...
The populace is not more divided now. They just don't remember how it used to be.
> “People have completely forgotten that in 1972 we had over nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States.” — Max Noel, FBI (ret.)
https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/
> “People have completely forgotten that in 1972 we had over nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States.” — Max Noel, FBI (ret.)
https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/
There has been an order of magnitude less casualties in both Iraq(4,424) and Afghanistan(1,856), than in Vietnam (58,220).
I agree with the overall point of your post but one should count contractor deaths. My understanding is that the U.S. military is much more reliant on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan than in Vietnam.
Even including contractors there was still an order of magnitude more casualties in Vietnam.
Do you have numbers on contractor deaths? I’ve not seen them. I’m not disputing that Vietnam involved many times more deaths for Americans. Just stating that one should include contractor deaths since the U.S. military decided to contract out so much of its war effort.
Low hundreds if you only consider American citizens. There is some info on Wikipedia but it hasn’t been updated in a few years.
Thing is there were also a lot of contractors in Vietnam just not the Blackwater type that gets a lot of the press in this era.
Thing is there were also a lot of contractors in Vietnam just not the Blackwater type that gets a lot of the press in this era.
What's your opinion on soldiers addiing more of a fitness emphasis to strength, rather than just cardiovascular fitness? EG: https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/heavier-kit-stronger-soldiers/
There is a tradeoff in fitness (a person can only train so much). If you want a stronger soldier, then they are gonna be worse in a different way, ie, lose some cardio. A person can only do, and maintain, so much.
True enough, but I wonder whether strength is more relevant now? I.e. they get helicoptered/driven to within 5-10 miles of their mission site with a ton of gear, rather than having to march 30 miles with their gear.
Bit of a long shot, but have you been listening to Rippetoe lately? He talks about this from time to time
>rather than having to march 30 miles with their gear.
Not all of that is just physical conditioning, there's a sizable mental component to it that helps condition you to less than ideal situations so you don't go "welp, I'm tired, fuck it, I'm sitting down to die" when you're in a bad situation and instead you're like "I got this, I've done worse, this is nothing, just a little farther" as well as equipping you to know what your body is capable of and that the burning in your calves and quads isn't that bad yet and you know you've got to slow down for the next few minutes or that you've still got this much left in your tank and should be able to complete task without any rests.
There's a reason we readopted some of these conditioning practices from ancient militaries.
Not all of that is just physical conditioning, there's a sizable mental component to it that helps condition you to less than ideal situations so you don't go "welp, I'm tired, fuck it, I'm sitting down to die" when you're in a bad situation and instead you're like "I got this, I've done worse, this is nothing, just a little farther" as well as equipping you to know what your body is capable of and that the burning in your calves and quads isn't that bad yet and you know you've got to slow down for the next few minutes or that you've still got this much left in your tank and should be able to complete task without any rests.
There's a reason we readopted some of these conditioning practices from ancient militaries.
"There's a reason we readopted some of these conditioning practices from ancient militaries."
I'm curious, could you expand on this, or post a link for further reading?
I'm curious, could you expand on this, or post a link for further reading?
Off the top of my head the book Manthropology by Peter McAllister covers some of this, as far as what was expected of the ancient solider.
Also look into the history of Special Forces in the United States. WWI was in large part trench warfare, the Civil War was largely fought in open fields in lines not unlike trench warfare. Marching was something you did for parades and pageantry.
Basically though if you look at ancient armies like the Romans had you needed to be able to march 15-20 miles in full kit over most terrains and this is how you trained.
If you want to dive into the current Special Forces community you need to start with the First Special Service Force where you first start seeing long marches (on a 60 mile course) as well as learning things like hand to hand combat, skiing, mountain climbing, parachuting. Then go look at Darby's Rangers and Merrill's Marauders. From there jump to to Vietnam and the 5th SFG[A] and look at some of their feats.
Today you have stuff like Robin Sage and Operator Training Course which, special tactics aside, some ancient soldiers would felt right at home with the long range marches and covering unimproved terrain as well as handling shelter and meeting their basic needs.
If you really dive into the history of special forces and the backgrounds of the original trainers/leaders, you'll see men with well rounded knowledge of ancient tactics/warfare as well as knowledge/training in more modern, yet primitive, tactics like guerrilla warfare and taking on much larger forces (again, something that there are great examples of in ancient warfare like the Battle of Marathon, Battle of Julu, Battle of Badr) as well as ancient units/groups (Medjay, Akkadian, Spartan, Sacred Band of Thebes, Dacian, Varangian Guard etc).
Also look into the history of Special Forces in the United States. WWI was in large part trench warfare, the Civil War was largely fought in open fields in lines not unlike trench warfare. Marching was something you did for parades and pageantry.
Basically though if you look at ancient armies like the Romans had you needed to be able to march 15-20 miles in full kit over most terrains and this is how you trained.
If you want to dive into the current Special Forces community you need to start with the First Special Service Force where you first start seeing long marches (on a 60 mile course) as well as learning things like hand to hand combat, skiing, mountain climbing, parachuting. Then go look at Darby's Rangers and Merrill's Marauders. From there jump to to Vietnam and the 5th SFG[A] and look at some of their feats.
Today you have stuff like Robin Sage and Operator Training Course which, special tactics aside, some ancient soldiers would felt right at home with the long range marches and covering unimproved terrain as well as handling shelter and meeting their basic needs.
If you really dive into the history of special forces and the backgrounds of the original trainers/leaders, you'll see men with well rounded knowledge of ancient tactics/warfare as well as knowledge/training in more modern, yet primitive, tactics like guerrilla warfare and taking on much larger forces (again, something that there are great examples of in ancient warfare like the Battle of Marathon, Battle of Julu, Battle of Badr) as well as ancient units/groups (Medjay, Akkadian, Spartan, Sacred Band of Thebes, Dacian, Varangian Guard etc).
Not too quibble too much, but US Civil War soldiers were marching all over the eastern United States, not just for parades and pageants. They went through rough terrain, with no guarantee of supplies, and many soldiers ended up barefoot when their shoes fell apart. And many times they had to keep it up for days on end in order to escape or catch up to an enemy.
Fair, but they also carried considerably less weight at 40-50lbs versus the 80lbs that a Roman legionnaire carried and the 100-120lbs troops deployed in Afghanistan could be carrying.
The Civil War actually looks like it was a low point in historical military kit weights. (see The History of the Soldiers Load by Lieutenant Rob Orr Volume 7, Number 2, Winter 2010 https://www.army.gov.au/our-future/australian-army-research-... )
The Civil War actually looks like it was a low point in historical military kit weights. (see The History of the Soldiers Load by Lieutenant Rob Orr Volume 7, Number 2, Winter 2010 https://www.army.gov.au/our-future/australian-army-research-... )
Depends where they're going.
No end of scenarios where helicopter / jeep isn't going to work, or are being shot up, or can't fly. Yomping 50 miles across rough terrain, over 3 days with 100lbs and capability to fight when they arrive probably isn't a capability you want to scale back. It's used too often.
There's good reason it's a usual part of the combat fitness test for recruits.
No end of scenarios where helicopter / jeep isn't going to work, or are being shot up, or can't fly. Yomping 50 miles across rough terrain, over 3 days with 100lbs and capability to fight when they arrive probably isn't a capability you want to scale back. It's used too often.
There's good reason it's a usual part of the combat fitness test for recruits.
Most infantrymen aren't carrying 7.62 and haven't since 'nam. The 240 is (on paper) crew served so you get to spread that load around several people.
I agree with everything else though.
I agree with everything else though.
In a firefight, you need that ammo to get to the gun. This means it's not that easily distributed between an entire section. You're also going to need the correct sort of pouch on your armour/webbing to carry it. My experience is most of the time the majority of the gun ammo is carried by the gunner. The gun is also a lot heavier than a standard rifle.
As the M60 gunner on my team (because I wasn't present when they decided who would carry it), I carried a lot more ammo. Weight was shifted, and others picked up batteries and radios that I might have carried otherwise.
sa46 addresses it a little bit above that there are different loadouts depending on how you're operating. It wasn't uncommon to move from one place to another with 100 pounds, then drop gear and patrol with a far smaller loadout.
Then again, sometimes your vehicle breaks down and you're now "man packable", which means you do need to be ready to carry a lot. This is really one of the sticking points for women in the military. It's nice to imagine that a specific job will always have a vehicle, but it is doctrine to be prepared to step into the role of infantryman.
sa46 addresses it a little bit above that there are different loadouts depending on how you're operating. It wasn't uncommon to move from one place to another with 100 pounds, then drop gear and patrol with a far smaller loadout.
Then again, sometimes your vehicle breaks down and you're now "man packable", which means you do need to be ready to carry a lot. This is really one of the sticking points for women in the military. It's nice to imagine that a specific job will always have a vehicle, but it is doctrine to be prepared to step into the role of infantryman.
> The gun is also a lot heavier than a standard rifle.
Good point. This is a big deal because load carried in your hands or, to a lesser degree, on a shoulder strap is more taxing than load carried on a vest.
Good point. This is a big deal because load carried in your hands or, to a lesser degree, on a shoulder strap is more taxing than load carried on a vest.
Yep, the lucky grunts in the weapons squad get to lug around the 7.62 ammo.
The Army doesn't use the M249 as a crew served weapon (unlike the Marines) so the automatic rifleman on each team usually has 600 rounds of 5.56mm linked ammo to carry around.
I'd be curious to see standard ammo load-out by conflict and country.
The Army doesn't use the M249 as a crew served weapon (unlike the Marines) so the automatic rifleman on each team usually has 600 rounds of 5.56mm linked ammo to carry around.
I'd be curious to see standard ammo load-out by conflict and country.
Thank you for your service to our country.
This sounds insane. My hobby is medium distance hiking in (say, 250 km/155 mi na week) in the Scandinavian Arctic, so I have to carry all my food. I'm a fan of ultralight hiking, so my whole summer baggage weights around 10 kg/20 lbs excluding water. I invested some money in lighter equipment, yes, but most of my weight savings is stuff I simply do not take with me, or things that serve in multiple roles (eg. my hiking poles double as tent poles). A common piece of advice in the ultralight community is "don't pack your fears" – take only what you know you're gonna need, avoid redundancy (and be careful not to lose your crap), and consider what you can do without (an example: you don't really need a big ass knife).
Anyway, with 10 kg pack a trip is extremely physically challenging, but overall pleasant. I can actually enjoy the view, as opposed to just wanting to throw my backpack on the ground (I didn't get to my low weight immediately, I used to carry much more before).
Hiking like I do, but with 100 lbs of gear sounds like a nightmare. A soldier may not care about the views, but he should watch out for people who are trying to kill him. If my experience translates at all, the weight is interfering with that goal.
Anyway, with 10 kg pack a trip is extremely physically challenging, but overall pleasant. I can actually enjoy the view, as opposed to just wanting to throw my backpack on the ground (I didn't get to my low weight immediately, I used to carry much more before).
Hiking like I do, but with 100 lbs of gear sounds like a nightmare. A soldier may not care about the views, but he should watch out for people who are trying to kill him. If my experience translates at all, the weight is interfering with that goal.
>A soldier may not care about the views, but he should watch out for people who are trying to kill him. If my experience translates at all, the weight is interfering with that goal.
Getting shot by enemy direct fire is actually quite rare. Infantrymen are killed by landmines, mortars, artillery, IEDs, grenades, cluster bombs, and all other various forms of shrapnel and explosive based weaponry at a much greater rate. The modern battlefield is an exceedingly hostile place to be a soft target of any kind, and that's what your armor is for. Wearing it demonstrably increases survivability over time in combat despite the increased weight load.
Getting shot by enemy direct fire is actually quite rare. Infantrymen are killed by landmines, mortars, artillery, IEDs, grenades, cluster bombs, and all other various forms of shrapnel and explosive based weaponry at a much greater rate. The modern battlefield is an exceedingly hostile place to be a soft target of any kind, and that's what your armor is for. Wearing it demonstrably increases survivability over time in combat despite the increased weight load.
> avoid redundancy
That's really dangerous advice for anyone inexperienced in a particular endurance activity away from contact.
The military have a phrase: one is none and two are one. For anything that is life-critical, having only one is too risky.
That's really dangerous advice for anyone inexperienced in a particular endurance activity away from contact.
The military have a phrase: one is none and two are one. For anything that is life-critical, having only one is too risky.
That advice might be why there is so many SOS-calls from the swedish mountains every year, from hikers getting stranded somewhere in the wilderness. The phone coverage isn't great everywhere either...
I can't tell what you're trying to say. Are you being snarky and agreeing? Are you claiming that people are stranded because of redundancy?
In my survival training, the instructor taught us about our "useless" water filter. He told us that he'd only ever had to use it for real once and that one time it made it worth it to carry for every time he didn't need it.
It's probably even worse than you think - it's not just about carrying a lot of weight. You're expected to carry it and still move pretty quickly on humps. In infantry in the USMC, going at 1-2 miles an hour with all this gear isn't unheard of, or 20 miles a day. If someone is faltering, it means one more person's gear that has to be split up for others to carry.
For some units, the amount of gear you have to carry can get bad, like carrying a 50 cal, or in the case of my unit, we had a lot of M240Bs to carry because that's what we had on our LAVs.
For some units, the amount of gear you have to carry can get bad, like carrying a 50 cal, or in the case of my unit, we had a lot of M240Bs to carry because that's what we had on our LAVs.
Depending on what battalion you were in you also had to carry the scouts gear like the SMAWs, M36 grenade launcher, radios etc. Soft sand in 29 palms or the hills of Camp Pendleton.
It's also clothing. I bet you don't wear a thick long-sleeved shirt, a helmet and a headset digging into your ear while you're hiking.
You do just get used to it quite quickly. 10kg is a light load for going for a run in the military community.
You do just get used to it quite quickly. 10kg is a light load for going for a run in the military community.
A lot of the weight is armor and ammo, 2 things directly keeping soldiers alive. How is that interfering with the goal?
Agreed. I remember going hiking, and having my rucksack weighed at the airport. It was 11kg, but my friend's was 14kg. That difference meant he got worn out much quicker than me.
I actually wrote an essay that dug pretty deep into this topic, many years ago, after I finished my enlistment as a Marine infantry machinegunner - likely the most overburdened MOS. I'm surprised this didn't get a mention in the article, especially considering the latest developments: women in combat roles. The significant difference between male and female upper body strength is going to be impossible to ignore under combat loads.
I always felt bad for you weapons guys. We had a guy in our company that barely met the height requirement. He was like, 5'3" and 95lbs soaking wet. He was a machine gunner and he humped his heart out but it was painful to watch.
For a long time I was pretty irritated about landing in a line company instead of a mounted weapons company... but after a combat tour, where the majority of KIA was from roadside IEDs, I didn't mind walking so much. The loadout did get more and more ridiculous though - after some officer got shot in the heart through his armpit, we all got issued side SAPIs that added weight, interfered with room clearing mobility, and cut off circulation in our arms. Backpacker syndrome [0] was also pretty common.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachial_plexus_injury
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachial_plexus_injury
At the end of a deployment, I had such severe shoulder pain that I could barely carry a weapon. Of course, the corpsman "couldn't find anything wrong". That shoulder pain is still with me. I've been to a number of doctors and therapists, but haven't found anything conclusive.
Hopefully it gets better with time for you. My complaint wasn't with pain, but numbness. I developed this problem very early on, in SOI, and kept it to myself because I knew that it would get me medically discharged. Thankfully I never had to explain to anyone why I'd go to the lengths I did in order to avoid handling grenades. After 2 years of civilian life my knees and lower back stopped bothering me, but 15 years later: my hands still feel like they're falling asleep.
I feel you. My toes went numb on a hump once and they've never fully come back. I've been out since 2012 and still have the shoulder pain and numb toes so I'm not holding out for that pain to go away.
Have your Sciatic nerve looked into. I had a pretty bad bike crash (doored going 30mph, bounced on pavement with left hip). I would have burning sensations about the size of a fifty cent piece in my upper back, numb toes, etc. After 10+ years it finally subsided. Chronic pain is highly correlated with suicide. So best to get that fixed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciatic_nerve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciatic_nerve
I just read Rob O'Neill's [1] book [2] and in it recounts an anecdote about when they were preparing to attack a building. They fired a couple of rockets at it, and were readying to attack when the guy responsible for carrying the ammo (who was also on the smaller side) asked if they could fire another one so he would have less ammo to carry back to base.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._O'Neill_(U.S._Navy_S...
[2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Operator-Operative-Mission-Changed-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._O'Neill_(U.S._Navy_S...
[2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Operator-Operative-Mission-Changed-...
The AAR is the best:
"Okay, so who made entry on this building?" "Carl Gustav"
"Okay, so who made entry on this building?" "Carl Gustav"
What isnt mentioned is how this weight is dictated by modern combat doctrine. We expect troops on patrol to be ambushed and to fight back and win. That is new. It didnt happen in ww2 because, if ambushed, retreat was always an option, a good one considering you often had no idea how big the enemy was ahead of you. But today we assume the enemy is always six guys with guns. We expect our patrols to never retreat. So they are layered in armor and need the ammo to hold down a nest for up to an hour.
Ive done some work with specials. They dont carry as much because thier missions are different. If ambushed they arent expected to stand and fight every time.
Ive done some work with specials. They dont carry as much because thier missions are different. If ambushed they arent expected to stand and fight every time.
I disagree. The USMC doctrine on this matter has remained the same for generations, so that doesn't explain the increasing loadout. Also, and I don't know what the official Army guidance is on matter, but we took over an AO where an Army unit had previously been responsible. They regularly got ambushed, and regularly broke contact.
One development that I heard about a couple of years ago, which should certainly ease the burden, is that the Corps dropped the M249 in favor of a heavy barrelled M16. That is a lot less weight, considering how every fireteam had previously been equipped with a belt fed machinegun (5.56, but still).
One development that I heard about a couple of years ago, which should certainly ease the burden, is that the Corps dropped the M249 in favor of a heavy barrelled M16. That is a lot less weight, considering how every fireteam had previously been equipped with a belt fed machinegun (5.56, but still).
It is a subtle change. In the past, a patrol was expected to move in stealth. The goal was to find the enemy and then decide whether to engage. That started to disappear in Vietnam. Today, patrols do not focus on stealth. They move in the open. Often the goal of a patrol is to be seen. First contact isn't 'finding' but being fired upon by the enemy. Being ambushed isn't considered a failure. It is the plan, the primary means of identifying an enemy position. Under that mentality, every soldier becomes a tank.
Not the M16, but the IAR (Infantry Automatic Rifle) - that gun has a tight spread for an automatic rifle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle .
I got to use it as my fire team's machine gunner before getting discharged in what was an unwinnable bureaucracy loop. It was a near total win over the SAW - not only was it more accurate & lighter, but it didn't breakdown anywhere near as much. The interesting shift though is that it sounds like every Marine is going to get an IAR, and not just the machine gunner for a fire team. This could have some ramifications on infantry tactics, since the machine gunner in a traditional fire team (i.e. fulfilling the suppressing firepower role) could switch depending on the scenario and yield some formidable advantages.
I got to use it as my fire team's machine gunner before getting discharged in what was an unwinnable bureaucracy loop. It was a near total win over the SAW - not only was it more accurate & lighter, but it didn't breakdown anywhere near as much. The interesting shift though is that it sounds like every Marine is going to get an IAR, and not just the machine gunner for a fire team. This could have some ramifications on infantry tactics, since the machine gunner in a traditional fire team (i.e. fulfilling the suppressing firepower role) could switch depending on the scenario and yield some formidable advantages.
It sounds like you never got to use the original SAW barrel. We got issued those stubby paratrooper barrels while in Iraq, which are nice for maneuverability, but it was at the cost of accuracy. The M249 was always a piece of junk when it came to reliability, which is why weapons guys are there with 240s.
So long as the tempo is kept up for flanking maneuvers, and everybody doesn't try to establish a fixing base of fire simultaneously, it sounds like a warrant officer had a really good idea in returning to something resembling the WWII pacific loadout (minus the flamethrowers).
So long as the tempo is kept up for flanking maneuvers, and everybody doesn't try to establish a fixing base of fire simultaneously, it sounds like a warrant officer had a really good idea in returning to something resembling the WWII pacific loadout (minus the flamethrowers).
The irony is that the Minimi ( M249 ) was originally developed by FN as a Baby MAG ( M240 ) to bring GPMG firepower to the squad. It was originally chambered in 7.62x51
It was rechambered in 6x45 and then 5.56x45 for the US SAW competition. It never seemed to adapt well to the smaller rounds, less power for the mechanism.
It was rechambered in 6x45 and then 5.56x45 for the US SAW competition. It never seemed to adapt well to the smaller rounds, less power for the mechanism.
I think you're right about the lack of power being the biggest contributor to the problems we had - which remained even after they tried to reduce the feature set (emergency magazine-well, user selectable gas tube aperture).
I think it was a poor idea in the first place to push a beltfed machinegun down to the fireteam level. People generally have a misconception about what machineguns are for - while volume of fire certainly figures into effective suppression, accuracy is more important. An effectively employed machinegun should be treated like some kind of sniper shotgun, where you can put 50% of your shots into a vehicle sized target a mile away. You aren't going to be doing that while playing the I'm-up-he-sees-me-I'm-down game.
I think it was a poor idea in the first place to push a beltfed machinegun down to the fireteam level. People generally have a misconception about what machineguns are for - while volume of fire certainly figures into effective suppression, accuracy is more important. An effectively employed machinegun should be treated like some kind of sniper shotgun, where you can put 50% of your shots into a vehicle sized target a mile away. You aren't going to be doing that while playing the I'm-up-he-sees-me-I'm-down game.
Traditionally giving the individual soldier a giggle switch (aka full auto) has been a wash offensively but a great asset in defensive situations at the expense of burning through a lot more ammo (better to have spent brass than dead bodies though so it's worth it). I don't see what's changed in the last ~70yr that would change that.
Isn't the current location where fighting is happening a factor either? Europe had a lot more forests, while the footage I'm seeing from Afghanistan, Iraq etc seems like a lot of open spaces with the odd building / wall. You don't want to turn your back to the enemy in retreat in an open space like that.
I'm reminded of the O/R story of PMS Blackett and removing armour behind pilots. I know it's not the same but it's in the same space: armchair experts can easily "see" less weight would make for a more effective fighting force. Nobody in actual authority or chain of command wants to be the one turning up at a soldiers funeral saying "I issued the order to have less armour"
It's not that the economics/efficiency argument isn't clear. It's that we now value human life more than we did eg during the battle of the somme. "Attrition" is not an acceptable battle plan in public.
I've never been in harm's way. I've never had to make decisions about people going into harm's way. I don't for a minute assume it's easy to make these decisions.
That more people die (D-Day landings, parachuteists drowning due to surplus weight added before launch) is not surprising either. It's lose-lose decision making.
It's not that the economics/efficiency argument isn't clear. It's that we now value human life more than we did eg during the battle of the somme. "Attrition" is not an acceptable battle plan in public.
I've never been in harm's way. I've never had to make decisions about people going into harm's way. I don't for a minute assume it's easy to make these decisions.
That more people die (D-Day landings, parachuteists drowning due to surplus weight added before launch) is not surprising either. It's lose-lose decision making.
I was infantry, USMC. I have sustained permanent injury just from carrying heavy shit around for years. It's pretty hard on your body.
Looking back, would you leave anything out of your daily loadout to avoid injury?
The largest weight I experienced in the service was Sapi plates and Ammo. Those are two things you definitely don't want to leave out, though it wasn't entirely uncommon for people to leave out plates when deployed, leading to forced inspections before movements.
I remember a kid putting a laptop in his flak jacket in place of a sapi plate...to watch movies on post or something. LCPL shenanigans.
I often ditched as much gear as I could. Sometimes it bit me in the ass though...one time in training we had to build entrenchments, but I'd left my e-tool behind. There's an old saying, "Pack light, freeze at night." I often chose to freeze. Infantry is not a comfortable life!
Sometimes you end up freezing anyway - I remember one time on a field op we settled down for the night, and there was freezing rain out. We put a tarp in the dark over where we slept, and got greeted a few hours later with a flood of rain over all of us. It rained so much that our tarp gave way to the rain.
True! "If it ain't rainin', we ain't trainin'."
Thank you for your service. Man, I’m sorry to hear that.
Interesting to note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomp
The most famous yomp of recent times was during the 1982 Falklands War. After disembarking from ships at San Carlos on East Falkland, on 21 May 1982, Royal Marines and members of the Parachute Regiment yomped (and tabbed) with their equipment across the islands, covering 56 miles (90 km) in three days carrying 80-pound (36 kg) loads.
Wonder what their kit was in comparison to the article.
The most famous yomp of recent times was during the 1982 Falklands War. After disembarking from ships at San Carlos on East Falkland, on 21 May 1982, Royal Marines and members of the Parachute Regiment yomped (and tabbed) with their equipment across the islands, covering 56 miles (90 km) in three days carrying 80-pound (36 kg) loads.
Wonder what their kit was in comparison to the article.
I don’t think any of them had body armour. The weight would have been mainly ammo, food and batteries. But it was over soft marshy ground.
They didn't have body armour, no, and fewer batteries. You can get a fair idea of what how little they were carrying compared to current deployments from https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205194942
Allegedly RM commandos deployed in Afghanistan are carrying roughly twice the load ...
Allegedly RM commandos deployed in Afghanistan are carrying roughly twice the load ...
I carried roughly 48kg in the field, on “easier” movements, it might drop to 35kg or so. I was an officer so I was a bit luckier than the guy carrying the MK 48. And God save us all when we had to go MOPP 4. (MOPP 4 is when you have to wear full-Chem-Bio protective gear.) Doing all that at almost 6000 feet makes it even less fun.
And you’re being shot at. Nah the military is not for me.
Here is how this worked for me.
First, some background. During my second deployment I was frequently traveling. If I wasn't traveling I wasn't working. I was based out of Bagram, Afghanistan in a two person team that visited the major US Army bases to asses the information security management position of the base, write a report, and recommend changes.
Secondly, you have to understand the nature of air travel in a conflict zone. Flag officers (generals and admirals) are on a list that allows them to schedule travel so that travel works for them. For everybody else there is a space available list. Grades E9, O6, and CW5 are considered VIPs and are automatically at the top of the space available list. There are some people who have special mission clearance so they just show up and bump other people off the flight. The rest of us have to wait for a flight, often for many days. That said, you have no idea how long a travel mission will take, so you bring extra gear. You also have to understand that there are primary travel hubs and relay locations, so often there isn't a direct flight.
I would pack double the number of extra under garments for the planned travel duration and one or two extra uniforms. It gets cold in Afghanistan, so I would pack my complete triple sleeping bag sleep system (which accounts for half my personal gear) and a tiny pillow. You also need your personal hygiene stuff. You were always sure to pack personal entertainment, which for me was two novels, my laptop, and all necessary laptop accessories. Finally you also packed survival gear, which for me were additional pens, spare boot laces, spare hearing protection, a multi-tool, and some other stuff.
So, that was just personal gear that filled my large rucksack. You also needed your combat gear: kevlar helmet, body armor with kevlar plates, weapon, ammo, magazines, and any additionally needed tactical gear. You rarely actually needed any of this, but it was absolutely necessary for riding on the bird should anything unfortunate happen during travel or should you have to take a land convoy.
We still haven't gotten to mission gear. I was the lower ranking member of our two person team so I carried the gear. I carried an assault pack (standard Army backpack but tougher and heavier) with three toughbooks. A toughbook was a heavy Panasonic laptop in a thick aluminum shell tested for advanced shock protection. These things were unnecessarily stupid tough and extremely heavy. My personal laptop at the time was a small plastic netbook that I treated far worse and it proved far more durable.
All this gear added up to about 120 pounds. I discovered that when visiting Kandahar, which at that time the air terminal was run by NATO and they weighed everybody before they let you hop on a bird. I remember wearing all this stuff and leaving my living area on Bagram late for a showtime at the rotary terminal (helicopter air terminal). I miscalculated how far away that terminal was from where I was living, because the fixed wing terminal was really close. I was trying to lightly jog that nearly 2 mile route with all that gear and its the closest I have ever come to feeling like a heart attack.
First, some background. During my second deployment I was frequently traveling. If I wasn't traveling I wasn't working. I was based out of Bagram, Afghanistan in a two person team that visited the major US Army bases to asses the information security management position of the base, write a report, and recommend changes.
Secondly, you have to understand the nature of air travel in a conflict zone. Flag officers (generals and admirals) are on a list that allows them to schedule travel so that travel works for them. For everybody else there is a space available list. Grades E9, O6, and CW5 are considered VIPs and are automatically at the top of the space available list. There are some people who have special mission clearance so they just show up and bump other people off the flight. The rest of us have to wait for a flight, often for many days. That said, you have no idea how long a travel mission will take, so you bring extra gear. You also have to understand that there are primary travel hubs and relay locations, so often there isn't a direct flight.
I would pack double the number of extra under garments for the planned travel duration and one or two extra uniforms. It gets cold in Afghanistan, so I would pack my complete triple sleeping bag sleep system (which accounts for half my personal gear) and a tiny pillow. You also need your personal hygiene stuff. You were always sure to pack personal entertainment, which for me was two novels, my laptop, and all necessary laptop accessories. Finally you also packed survival gear, which for me were additional pens, spare boot laces, spare hearing protection, a multi-tool, and some other stuff.
So, that was just personal gear that filled my large rucksack. You also needed your combat gear: kevlar helmet, body armor with kevlar plates, weapon, ammo, magazines, and any additionally needed tactical gear. You rarely actually needed any of this, but it was absolutely necessary for riding on the bird should anything unfortunate happen during travel or should you have to take a land convoy.
We still haven't gotten to mission gear. I was the lower ranking member of our two person team so I carried the gear. I carried an assault pack (standard Army backpack but tougher and heavier) with three toughbooks. A toughbook was a heavy Panasonic laptop in a thick aluminum shell tested for advanced shock protection. These things were unnecessarily stupid tough and extremely heavy. My personal laptop at the time was a small plastic netbook that I treated far worse and it proved far more durable.
All this gear added up to about 120 pounds. I discovered that when visiting Kandahar, which at that time the air terminal was run by NATO and they weighed everybody before they let you hop on a bird. I remember wearing all this stuff and leaving my living area on Bagram late for a showtime at the rotary terminal (helicopter air terminal). I miscalculated how far away that terminal was from where I was living, because the fixed wing terminal was really close. I was trying to lightly jog that nearly 2 mile route with all that gear and its the closest I have ever come to feeling like a heart attack.
Wow, that's a lot of stuff!
Just on the Toughbook topic, I've found similar to you (although 'only' in mining, not in a military context). They're heavy and clunky and slow, and it really doesn't make them any more durable. I just use a cheap laptop and replace it whenever it gets too beat up and it's far cheaper and far more pleasant than using a Toughbook. Everyone I've talked to who uses them says that the slight increase in durability doesn't justify the overall annoyingness of using one.
Just on the Toughbook topic, I've found similar to you (although 'only' in mining, not in a military context). They're heavy and clunky and slow, and it really doesn't make them any more durable. I just use a cheap laptop and replace it whenever it gets too beat up and it's far cheaper and far more pleasant than using a Toughbook. Everyone I've talked to who uses them says that the slight increase in durability doesn't justify the overall annoyingness of using one.
This is so interesting. Any thought on the cultural norms driving so much gear to be individual? Personal gear could be common gear instead, with perhaps a cost to hygiene and individual sensitivities. Combat gear (partially) as well, especially for non-combat roles. And being the designated carrier in a two-man team, that's cultural for sure.
> Any thought on the cultural norms driving so much gear to be individual?
Fecal gravity. A lot times it could be fixed with better logistics, but the people making the decisions are not the ones who have to deal with the consequences of those decisions.
Fecal gravity. A lot times it could be fixed with better logistics, but the people making the decisions are not the ones who have to deal with the consequences of those decisions.
I think the primary social factors driving this issue through history is that this gear is not something you easily produce yourself (cost), supporting factors dictate the mission (enablers), and rapid portability is the driving force behind everything.
The "moms of America" don't like it when their kids die. So a huge percentage of the weight carried is bulky, heavy armor. Some of the other gear is necessary, and some of it you just carry because a guy with more rank than you thinks you might need it, or because he doesn't want to be responsible for you not having it when the need comes up.
"one man one kit" you own your gear and are responsible for maintaining it, knowing exactly where it is at any moment, and if it fails because you didn't take care of it, it's your fault. Plus, reduces cognitive load when you know your kit like the back of your hand, in stressful situations. It's your kit and you don't lend it to others, also. Otherwise you compromise your safety.
Which is back in the day cavalry had assigned mounts - you looked after your personal mount a lot better that way.
There's an RAF anecdote related to this in Most Secret War, in which the officer asserts that his unit is more effective than other similar units because it still assigns each specific crew to a specific plane, and so knowing "their" plane they are willing to fly it despite minor problems that in other units would cause it be taken out of service for repair.
I don't have the book with me, maybe somebody else will remember and dig out the quote.
I don't have the book with me, maybe somebody else will remember and dig out the quote.
It's fun to compare with what a Roman soldier carried:
https://www.unrv.com/military/legionary-weapons-equipment.ph...
https://www.unrv.com/military/legionary-weapons-equipment.ph...
"King estimates that the average soldier goes into action with a hefty 20 lbs of batteries."
That seems insane. And to think that I don't even like to carry my 4 lb Macbook to the bus stop.
That seems insane. And to think that I don't even like to carry my 4 lb Macbook to the bus stop.
This story reminds me of a scene from the movie Saving Private Ryan:
https://youtu.be/inEY1dHXyGA
https://youtu.be/inEY1dHXyGA
I cant find the particular scene, but in the beginning of Platoon, Elias goes through Chris's (Charlie Sheen) pack and just starts throwing unnecessary shit out after he nearly humped himself into being a heat casualty.
I'm surprised that these loads are carried on the body. Surely with 50+ Kg soldiers cannot climb walls or jump over trenches, so why not use something like a Chinese wheelbarrow, which would work even on narrow, bumpy paths? They could provide some cover as well.
>They could provide some cover as well.
Visual cover maybe. Rounds are going to pass through it as if it isn't even there.
Visual cover maybe. Rounds are going to pass through it as if it isn't even there.
2014 top NHL draft pick can't do one pull-up
https://www.nhl.com/news/no-pull-ups-no-problem-for-top-nhl-...
https://www.nhl.com/news/no-pull-ups-no-problem-for-top-nhl-...
He gets paid to skate hard, handle a puck, and take a hit. Infantrymen are paid (fractions less)to take asymmetric warfare to the enemy in any environment and at any time, with the expectation of no resupply available.
Maybe it is time to reinvent the wheel? Put the heaviest/extra loads on a fat bike or a wheelbarrow or 1-2 wheel trolley to be dragged in turns. You are unlikely to go slower than with +50kg backpack.
What I got from the article was that if you increase the carrying capacity, the team will just bring more stuff with them.
How do you get over a fallen tree? How do you get over a 5 foot wall in an urban environment? It needs to be carried by the men on the ground to truly be versatile.
Same thing with a mule, robo-mule or a self propelled vehicle.
Wait, I can detach the bags from a bike/trolley and throw them over the 2m wall with a help of a comrade/short rope. Then goes the 15kg bike or or the trolley.
And unless we are talking about the jungle/fallen trees/mountain warfare etc., where probably anything non-human can not be used effectively, you will be faster and less tired reaching the destination.
Last but not least: simple trolley is quite cheap, way cheaper than the load it can carry. You can throw it away when the going gets tough.
I believe that the British Army's Land Rovers are being replaced at least partly because they can't take the weight of all the extra weight required.
So it's not just the soldiers struggling.
So it's not just the soldiers struggling.
The problem for the Land Rovers is not that they can't handle the weight of all the infantry gear, it's that they can't handle the weight of their modernisation package.
They're soft-skinned light fast patrol vehicles, originally specced for use behind friendly lines and in Northern Ireland - up-armouring them for a modern battlefield, improving their radio gear and extending their range adds a lot of mass. It got to the point where the weight of the extra gear risked breaking an axle if they drove off-road at one point, iirc.
Thankfully the REME engineers are actually listened to when they say "this is provably unsafe, look", so they're getting new vehicles at long last.
They're soft-skinned light fast patrol vehicles, originally specced for use behind friendly lines and in Northern Ireland - up-armouring them for a modern battlefield, improving their radio gear and extending their range adds a lot of mass. It got to the point where the weight of the extra gear risked breaking an axle if they drove off-road at one point, iirc.
Thankfully the REME engineers are actually listened to when they say "this is provably unsafe, look", so they're getting new vehicles at long last.
In term of high-tech making the situation worse, I know a soldier in the French army, who have used the new high-tech system, FELIN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%89LIN), which is adding a lot of weight between the batteries and all the high tech gadgets. Apparently the added weight made that it was rarely used.
[deleted]
I excerpted a thread about this ten days ago: www.unz.com/isteve/why-the-infantryman-is-still-a-man/. Read on if you want some soldiers' perspectives.
"Most infantrymen lift, but that’s not the hard part. Civilians aren’t used to carrying those loads on their backs, there are all sorts of muscles and callouses you have to build and nerves you have to kill in your shoulders and feet to be able to do it. This is why Infantry units ruck march weekly. My first ruck in basic was only with a forty pound pack, rifle and water for five miles. One of the worst days of my life. Within a year, I was running twenty miles in full battle kit with an eighty pound ruck. In country, 120-150 lb was common, but we didn’t march nearly as far."
"In the long run it would help if we didn’t torture the guys with excessive training for long road marches that never happen in combat. We spent a shitload of time getting good at moving by foot with everything we had for days at a time over miles and miles of terrain. That’s fucking stupid. All you get out of that is a bunch of guys who have blown out knees and backs by the time they hit thirty.
We almost never moved miles and miles at a time with full rucks in combat, that’s why god created blackhawks.
What we did do was a lot of patrols with half of our battle rattle and you trained so that when someone got hit you could handle all of your gear and theirs at the same time.
Oh and I can tell you guys something else that nobody wants to hear about women in combat. The fact is that by the third deployment they are no longer up against regular men, they are up against guys who have taken roids for the injuries they have and to get ready for the next deployment fast enough.
It’s not enough to be able to get your body in condition enough to get through Ranger School or something like that. That’s a one off situation where you put everything you have into it and that’s it. Either you have enough or not. That’s not how it works in real life. In real life it’s like getting ready for the next season of football. Do we really think that women’s recovery time is going to be good enough? Fat chance, that’s why roids are a secret now. Nobody wanted to admit that even the MEN couldn’t get the job done without them, but it was true. Sure some of the guys could hang without using them but the fact that a lot of guys felt they honestly needed them to survive should tell you a whole lot.
I’m not saying women don’t belong in combat either. I just don’t see the point when it comes to straight up infantry units. Now if they want to put together sniper teams with women, I’d be all for that. Some of them bitches can shoot, I’ll tell you what!
Now aside from all the whoa whoah crap the best bet would be to stop this nonsense and worry about our own country for a change."
"I was a lot older (enlisted at aged 27) so was relieved to be able to ride in the Humvees. But, much to my chagrin, we still participated in a lot of humping (road marches). We always brought along the completed .50 cal system when we humped. For my unit, our basic combat load was 55lbs consisting mostly of our Alice/Molle packs, plus whatever weapon we were assigned (most issued M-16, squad leaders or gunners issued an M-9). Which by itself was a lot, but then you add in the .50 cal and it was a bit much. The receiver of the .50 cal weighs about 50lbs. The tripod was 44lbs and the barrel was 24lbs. We would distribute the system among each other. With one Marine starting out with the receiver, one with the tripod, and two Marines each with one barrel (spare). Put them up front and the rest of the Marines fell in behind them (we typically went on humps with two complete systems) and as they tired they would yell “Barrel Right!” or “Receiver Left!” and the next Marine in line would run up to them and take over carrying duties. We would do this the whole hump. So, depending on what piece you were carrying our weight was as low as 55lbs, then would jump to 79lbs with the barrel, 99 with the tripod and 105lbs when carrying the receiver. The tripod’s were later replaced with a better/lighter version. The barrel was fine to carry lighter weight and could sling across the pack quite comfortably, but the tripod and receiver were nasty.
The Marines value physical fitness. We had a lot of PFT studs who could kill it on the PFT test. I was fine with fitness always more athletic than strong. Always scored a first class PFT score (not that hard to do really and I got the old man discount). But in my platoon (and many other CAAT platoons) the real mark was what you carried on the humps. We “conditioned” up to 25 miles so we would do about 1-2 humps per month, culminating in the 25 miles hump. I never fell out. Always there at the end, never ignored the calls from my brothers when they could no longer carry their piece. The was the true test of toughness in my platoon. Not PFT scores, not book knowledge, but what you did on the humps.
We had some strong fellas. It was about the back and more importantly your heart. I only did 7 years in the Corps but it wore me down a bit. "
Why we use heavy infantry like this:
"Wikipedia gives a fair answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_infantry Roughly speaking, heavy infantry can destroy a lot more than light infantry, but (a) can’t go everywhere and (b) doesn’t have the infantry to search an area in detail. So, the opposition lives where (a) heavy infantry can’t go, because of its equipment, or (b) hide in inhabited areas where heavy infantry can’t search effectively enough to find them. On the other hand, light infantry eats troops, both during and after combat. If we’re in an attrition war (as tactics indicate), why use light infantry? The answer to that has been obvious since the Port Arthur attack by Japanese forces in the early AD 1900s. Light infantry eats troops, don’t use light infantry in attrition wars. If you have an attrition war and you can’t stand attrition, you’ve lost. Make the best of it, try to win the peace negotiations, lose your table stakes, and rebuild. Don’t throw your society into the furnace. Simple as that, and as hard to face.
Disguising light infantry casualties by over-use of body armor, which produces joint injuries that aren’t attributed to actual combat, is an attempt to deceive the public, as is the “They serve so you won’t have to” advertising slogan of a few years ago was. “We have casualties, but they don’t count because . . .”. But they do. Each is a member of your society, as are that person’s relatives. You need them."
From the same commenter:
"As I’ve said in other posts, our side isn’t good at attrition warfare. That’s a consequence of having a K society, one that invests a lot in its members and relies on competent citizens. Each infantryman that dies means an important function not performed. Other societies have many completely non-functional citizens, crunches they can lose in war and never miss them. The West used to be like that as recently as the Napoleonic wars. People who could earn a living in society strongly tended to remain out of military service, and there was no legal conscription (barring press gangs and the like, small scale affairs mostly). Mass mobilization for WW I left participating societies without the people they needed to keep existing, and with considerable ill feeling from those people left sound after the conflict.
So, to paraphrase myself in a couple of other posts, don’t get into an arse kicking contest with a porcupine. If attrition is the only way you can win, then lose and save what you can. That or use area weapons and disintegrate the opponent’s society (that was the threat of the Cold War that prevented most attrition contests with Russia). Either is better than disintegrating your own society...
Or better yet, live in peace and fight wars only in video games. If possible."
A little more about body armor.
"Former infantryman here – answer is yes, they do lift, but in my experience the big lifting craze started after 2001 and all the deployments. Very likely had something to do with lugging all that armor around, but coincided with the crossfit / free-weight renaissance. The lifting is a good thing, but I’m less certain about the armor.
20 lbs doesn’t sound like much, but it matters when you’re trying to run, jump or dive. The ballistic plates especially really bounce up and down, seriously impacting the body’s natural motion. Add weapon and everything else (I was almost always carrying at least one radio in my one Iraq tour) and the struggle is real. It slows you down significantly. The experience gave me sympathy for breast-reduction patients. Also – and this isn’t much discussed – it affected my marksmanship. It’s just harder to tuck the stock into your shoulder and draw a sight picture with all that bulk.
If the conflict had involved lots of movement and close combat, maybe the armor wouldn’t have been worth it. In an environment where most casualties are caused by unexpected explosions and sniper fire, armor is probably worth it. But it’s miserable to wear."
"Current high coverage body armor was required by US Congress, not the Army, during the early stages of the current round of Middle Eastern warfare. Congress didn’t want large casualty numbers, and required more coverage than the Army wanted. Current loads minimize combat casualties, but cause joint injuries that manifest in later life — injuries Congress doesn’t much care about as they don’t affect the next election."
"Most infantrymen lift, but that’s not the hard part. Civilians aren’t used to carrying those loads on their backs, there are all sorts of muscles and callouses you have to build and nerves you have to kill in your shoulders and feet to be able to do it. This is why Infantry units ruck march weekly. My first ruck in basic was only with a forty pound pack, rifle and water for five miles. One of the worst days of my life. Within a year, I was running twenty miles in full battle kit with an eighty pound ruck. In country, 120-150 lb was common, but we didn’t march nearly as far."
"In the long run it would help if we didn’t torture the guys with excessive training for long road marches that never happen in combat. We spent a shitload of time getting good at moving by foot with everything we had for days at a time over miles and miles of terrain. That’s fucking stupid. All you get out of that is a bunch of guys who have blown out knees and backs by the time they hit thirty.
We almost never moved miles and miles at a time with full rucks in combat, that’s why god created blackhawks.
What we did do was a lot of patrols with half of our battle rattle and you trained so that when someone got hit you could handle all of your gear and theirs at the same time.
Oh and I can tell you guys something else that nobody wants to hear about women in combat. The fact is that by the third deployment they are no longer up against regular men, they are up against guys who have taken roids for the injuries they have and to get ready for the next deployment fast enough.
It’s not enough to be able to get your body in condition enough to get through Ranger School or something like that. That’s a one off situation where you put everything you have into it and that’s it. Either you have enough or not. That’s not how it works in real life. In real life it’s like getting ready for the next season of football. Do we really think that women’s recovery time is going to be good enough? Fat chance, that’s why roids are a secret now. Nobody wanted to admit that even the MEN couldn’t get the job done without them, but it was true. Sure some of the guys could hang without using them but the fact that a lot of guys felt they honestly needed them to survive should tell you a whole lot.
I’m not saying women don’t belong in combat either. I just don’t see the point when it comes to straight up infantry units. Now if they want to put together sniper teams with women, I’d be all for that. Some of them bitches can shoot, I’ll tell you what!
Now aside from all the whoa whoah crap the best bet would be to stop this nonsense and worry about our own country for a change."
"I was a lot older (enlisted at aged 27) so was relieved to be able to ride in the Humvees. But, much to my chagrin, we still participated in a lot of humping (road marches). We always brought along the completed .50 cal system when we humped. For my unit, our basic combat load was 55lbs consisting mostly of our Alice/Molle packs, plus whatever weapon we were assigned (most issued M-16, squad leaders or gunners issued an M-9). Which by itself was a lot, but then you add in the .50 cal and it was a bit much. The receiver of the .50 cal weighs about 50lbs. The tripod was 44lbs and the barrel was 24lbs. We would distribute the system among each other. With one Marine starting out with the receiver, one with the tripod, and two Marines each with one barrel (spare). Put them up front and the rest of the Marines fell in behind them (we typically went on humps with two complete systems) and as they tired they would yell “Barrel Right!” or “Receiver Left!” and the next Marine in line would run up to them and take over carrying duties. We would do this the whole hump. So, depending on what piece you were carrying our weight was as low as 55lbs, then would jump to 79lbs with the barrel, 99 with the tripod and 105lbs when carrying the receiver. The tripod’s were later replaced with a better/lighter version. The barrel was fine to carry lighter weight and could sling across the pack quite comfortably, but the tripod and receiver were nasty.
The Marines value physical fitness. We had a lot of PFT studs who could kill it on the PFT test. I was fine with fitness always more athletic than strong. Always scored a first class PFT score (not that hard to do really and I got the old man discount). But in my platoon (and many other CAAT platoons) the real mark was what you carried on the humps. We “conditioned” up to 25 miles so we would do about 1-2 humps per month, culminating in the 25 miles hump. I never fell out. Always there at the end, never ignored the calls from my brothers when they could no longer carry their piece. The was the true test of toughness in my platoon. Not PFT scores, not book knowledge, but what you did on the humps.
We had some strong fellas. It was about the back and more importantly your heart. I only did 7 years in the Corps but it wore me down a bit. "
Why we use heavy infantry like this:
"Wikipedia gives a fair answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_infantry Roughly speaking, heavy infantry can destroy a lot more than light infantry, but (a) can’t go everywhere and (b) doesn’t have the infantry to search an area in detail. So, the opposition lives where (a) heavy infantry can’t go, because of its equipment, or (b) hide in inhabited areas where heavy infantry can’t search effectively enough to find them. On the other hand, light infantry eats troops, both during and after combat. If we’re in an attrition war (as tactics indicate), why use light infantry? The answer to that has been obvious since the Port Arthur attack by Japanese forces in the early AD 1900s. Light infantry eats troops, don’t use light infantry in attrition wars. If you have an attrition war and you can’t stand attrition, you’ve lost. Make the best of it, try to win the peace negotiations, lose your table stakes, and rebuild. Don’t throw your society into the furnace. Simple as that, and as hard to face.
Disguising light infantry casualties by over-use of body armor, which produces joint injuries that aren’t attributed to actual combat, is an attempt to deceive the public, as is the “They serve so you won’t have to” advertising slogan of a few years ago was. “We have casualties, but they don’t count because . . .”. But they do. Each is a member of your society, as are that person’s relatives. You need them."
From the same commenter:
"As I’ve said in other posts, our side isn’t good at attrition warfare. That’s a consequence of having a K society, one that invests a lot in its members and relies on competent citizens. Each infantryman that dies means an important function not performed. Other societies have many completely non-functional citizens, crunches they can lose in war and never miss them. The West used to be like that as recently as the Napoleonic wars. People who could earn a living in society strongly tended to remain out of military service, and there was no legal conscription (barring press gangs and the like, small scale affairs mostly). Mass mobilization for WW I left participating societies without the people they needed to keep existing, and with considerable ill feeling from those people left sound after the conflict.
So, to paraphrase myself in a couple of other posts, don’t get into an arse kicking contest with a porcupine. If attrition is the only way you can win, then lose and save what you can. That or use area weapons and disintegrate the opponent’s society (that was the threat of the Cold War that prevented most attrition contests with Russia). Either is better than disintegrating your own society...
Or better yet, live in peace and fight wars only in video games. If possible."
A little more about body armor.
"Former infantryman here – answer is yes, they do lift, but in my experience the big lifting craze started after 2001 and all the deployments. Very likely had something to do with lugging all that armor around, but coincided with the crossfit / free-weight renaissance. The lifting is a good thing, but I’m less certain about the armor.
20 lbs doesn’t sound like much, but it matters when you’re trying to run, jump or dive. The ballistic plates especially really bounce up and down, seriously impacting the body’s natural motion. Add weapon and everything else (I was almost always carrying at least one radio in my one Iraq tour) and the struggle is real. It slows you down significantly. The experience gave me sympathy for breast-reduction patients. Also – and this isn’t much discussed – it affected my marksmanship. It’s just harder to tuck the stock into your shoulder and draw a sight picture with all that bulk.
If the conflict had involved lots of movement and close combat, maybe the armor wouldn’t have been worth it. In an environment where most casualties are caused by unexpected explosions and sniper fire, armor is probably worth it. But it’s miserable to wear."
"Current high coverage body armor was required by US Congress, not the Army, during the early stages of the current round of Middle Eastern warfare. Congress didn’t want large casualty numbers, and required more coverage than the Army wanted. Current loads minimize combat casualties, but cause joint injuries that manifest in later life — injuries Congress doesn’t much care about as they don’t affect the next election."
I’ve got 16 years in as a Light Infantry Senior NCO.
I’ve also led and conducted Lean StartUp focused sprints to work this specific problem, internal to defence
Weight carried by soldiers is a critical problem.
I’ve carried in excess of 50kg on Operations, verified.
During my Infantry Platoon Commander’s Course we carried in excess of 50kg for weeks, verified.
I’m 78kg and carry 25kg for 50-70km per week(in 10-20km increments, done for over 1 year) on the beach for fitness.
My own long term personal experience mimics the article linked Project Payne.
Carrying 1/3 body weight is easily trainable and sustainable.
Carrying 2/3 body weight, especially over undulating or complex terrain is a recipe for long-term joint/orthopaedic disaster.
I have peers in their 30’s who have had hip replacements due to injuries sustained from sustained carriage of too much weight in training.
The article mentions 2 things:
1)“Soldiers carry 100 pounds of the lightest kit possible”
2)UK Army Project Payne, too much weight carried “just in case”
New capabilities particularly around communication networks carried by all subunits(dismounted section/squid level) are increasing weight significantly. The “weight carried” modelling has been done, and their is no current solution.
In my experience, the ever increasing weight carried by dismounted Infantry is not risk aversion as stated in the article, but risk shift.
While it’s not a tortoise versus hare binary choice, it is a continuum of weight carried.
Turning dismounted Infantry soldiers into armoured tortoises not only shifts the risk towards increased long-term orthopedic/muscular/skeletal health risk of soldiers, but increased risk in lower operational capacity/capability due to reduced speed/range of operation.
In light of politicised efforts to nudge induction of more women in combat arms, the increased average weight carried combined with decreasing average stature and fitness levels of soldiers is a guarantee of increased long-term health consequences.
But the risk of crippling 100 soldiers tomorrow is viewed as acceptable over 1 soldier killed on Operations today.
I would suggest a machine learning system to log and analyze weight carried both in training and on operations that incorporates all known environmental and operational factors to recommend what is carried and what is left behind, to reduce the “just in case” factor, but I believe culture would have to change as well or risk a Patrol/Section/Platoon NCO filling the void again.
Personally, I’m for starting from scratch again and looking towards the highly effective RLI of the 1970’s, at least in terms of counter insurgency.
Rifle, 5 magazines, two water bottles, two grenades, wearing shorts and high top sneakers.
More hare, less tortoise. Much like current modern special operations direct action doctrine applied to conventional forces.
But as we shift from counter-insurgency focus back towards peer or near peer combined arms capable threats, this is not going to happen.
We will continue to carry more weight unless senior leadership, unit command, and subunit NCOs we can trust rapid “just in time” battlefield logistics.
I’ve also led and conducted Lean StartUp focused sprints to work this specific problem, internal to defence
Weight carried by soldiers is a critical problem.
I’ve carried in excess of 50kg on Operations, verified.
During my Infantry Platoon Commander’s Course we carried in excess of 50kg for weeks, verified.
I’m 78kg and carry 25kg for 50-70km per week(in 10-20km increments, done for over 1 year) on the beach for fitness.
My own long term personal experience mimics the article linked Project Payne.
Carrying 1/3 body weight is easily trainable and sustainable.
Carrying 2/3 body weight, especially over undulating or complex terrain is a recipe for long-term joint/orthopaedic disaster.
I have peers in their 30’s who have had hip replacements due to injuries sustained from sustained carriage of too much weight in training.
The article mentions 2 things:
1)“Soldiers carry 100 pounds of the lightest kit possible”
2)UK Army Project Payne, too much weight carried “just in case”
New capabilities particularly around communication networks carried by all subunits(dismounted section/squid level) are increasing weight significantly. The “weight carried” modelling has been done, and their is no current solution.
In my experience, the ever increasing weight carried by dismounted Infantry is not risk aversion as stated in the article, but risk shift.
While it’s not a tortoise versus hare binary choice, it is a continuum of weight carried.
Turning dismounted Infantry soldiers into armoured tortoises not only shifts the risk towards increased long-term orthopedic/muscular/skeletal health risk of soldiers, but increased risk in lower operational capacity/capability due to reduced speed/range of operation.
In light of politicised efforts to nudge induction of more women in combat arms, the increased average weight carried combined with decreasing average stature and fitness levels of soldiers is a guarantee of increased long-term health consequences.
But the risk of crippling 100 soldiers tomorrow is viewed as acceptable over 1 soldier killed on Operations today.
I would suggest a machine learning system to log and analyze weight carried both in training and on operations that incorporates all known environmental and operational factors to recommend what is carried and what is left behind, to reduce the “just in case” factor, but I believe culture would have to change as well or risk a Patrol/Section/Platoon NCO filling the void again.
Personally, I’m for starting from scratch again and looking towards the highly effective RLI of the 1970’s, at least in terms of counter insurgency.
Rifle, 5 magazines, two water bottles, two grenades, wearing shorts and high top sneakers.
More hare, less tortoise. Much like current modern special operations direct action doctrine applied to conventional forces.
But as we shift from counter-insurgency focus back towards peer or near peer combined arms capable threats, this is not going to happen.
We will continue to carry more weight unless senior leadership, unit command, and subunit NCOs we can trust rapid “just in time” battlefield logistics.
PSA: the linked article is so riddled with obvious errors it's as if it wasn't proofread at all.
By reading this article the solution seems simple: mule robots only carrying the “just in case” items.
Exactly what I thought. You may not want the "mule" to carry vital stuff, but if soldiers are carrying too much, they need to get rid of all the 'nice to haves'. If you want to have them nearby anyway, put those on a mule that trails the squad. At some distance, if necessary, as long as it can eventually catch up or be found when it's needed.
It's been tried. Legged Squad Support System.[1] Got far enough to be field-tested by the USMC. Too noisy.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIaXEMOhihw
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIaXEMOhihw
I mean the wheeled ones mentioned in the article, where the argument was that it became a single point of failure and easy target due to it carrying all the ammunition etc. However, the article later argues that too many items carried by soldiers are "just in case" so my thought is why not combine these two and get rid of both problems?
When you combine you get both problems.
How so? The soldiers don't need to carry the "nice to have" items and if it get struck it's not such a big deal.
1. Being OK to lose doesn't fix the problem of it being noisy.
2. There aren't many truly "It's OK to lose it" items, as they'd all have been lost by overburdened soldiers already.
2. There aren't many truly "It's OK to lose it" items, as they'd all have been lost by overburdened soldiers already.
The wheeled mules I'm talking about are not noisy though. From the article:
> Although quadruped robots like BigDog from Boston Dynamics is no longer in the running (it turned out to be a bit too noisy), there are numerous wheeled alternatives.
Regarding your second point the article seems to come to a different conclusion:
> A British army study, called Project Payne, found that far too much of what is carried is “just in case” and that the amount of ammunition carried by troops is excessive.
> Although quadruped robots like BigDog from Boston Dynamics is no longer in the running (it turned out to be a bit too noisy), there are numerous wheeled alternatives.
Regarding your second point the article seems to come to a different conclusion:
> A British army study, called Project Payne, found that far too much of what is carried is “just in case” and that the amount of ammunition carried by troops is excessive.
Ah yes the cant trust the squaddie with to much ammunition line from the Quartermaster - no such thing as to much Daka Daka
But it does fix the problem of it becoming an attractive target for the enemy. If the mule carries special weaponry, taking it out is attractive to the enemy. If it only carries stuff that the squad isn't going to need in the current engagement, there's no reason for the enemy to focus on it.
Noise is a different issue of course, but the article mentions it only for the walking "big dog" mules, not for wheeled ones. And if the mule only carries stuff that's not immediately essential, it doesn't have to stay close to the squad. If it can follow them autonomously (which is probably a requirement anyway), it could trail them at some distance.
Noise is a different issue of course, but the article mentions it only for the walking "big dog" mules, not for wheeled ones. And if the mule only carries stuff that's not immediately essential, it doesn't have to stay close to the squad. If it can follow them autonomously (which is probably a requirement anyway), it could trail them at some distance.
Ah yes, even more military spending!
This is a pretty well done article. Here's some general ideas to keep in mind.
- Most dismounted missions are run from trucks or an established forward operating base, so you don't carry a huge rucksack most of the time because you can just go back to your base.
- Like the article states, even a day pack with body armor gets you up to 70lbs quickly.
- Ammo is really heavy, it being made of lead and all. 100rds of 7.62mm ammo weighs about 7lb. You want at least 800rds per M240B.
- Rucksack weights are sometimes inflated because it's a way to brag.
- The Marine infantry officer course requirement for 152lb load is excessive. At that weight, you can only do an admin movement on a road. All the anecdotes I found about combat loads that heavy were for an initial, short infil followed by a stationary mission.
I think the article nails the root cause towards heavier protective equipment. Public perception and the news cycle makes the death of American service member a bigger deal than in past conflicts.
It will be a long time before we get electronic mules in the Infantry. Adopting the mules adds a huge complexity budget to a simple movement. The Army decided some years ago to give every Company (~140 people) a Raven drone for recon. However, it's a huge deal if it gets lost (if the GPS guidance were to suddenly fail), so no one ever uses them to avoid the fallout associated with losing Army equipment.