14 ms·

The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever

156 points by dimitar 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
newnewpdro 8y ago
PSA: the linked article is so riddled with obvious errors it's as if it wasn't proofread at all.
austincheney 8y ago
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.
- taneq 8y ago
  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.
- wjnc 8y ago
  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.
  - sebcat 8y ago
    > 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.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    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.
  - potta_coffee 8y ago
    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.
  - 8y ago
wyclif 8y ago
This story reminds me of a scene from the movie Saving Private Ryan: https://youtu.be/inEY1dHXyGA https://youtu.be/inEY1dHXyGA
- odn86 8y ago
  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.
Johnny555 8y ago
"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.
briandear 8y ago
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.
- Synaesthesia 8y ago
  And you’re being shot at. Nah the military is not for me.
woodman 8y ago
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.
- potta_coffee 8y ago
  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.
  - gadders 8y ago
    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_SEAL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._O'Neill_(U.S._Navy_S... [2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Operator-Operative-Mission-Changed-World/dp/1471148122 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Operator-Operative-Mission-Changed-...
    - odn86 8y ago
      The AAR is the best: "Okay, so who made entry on this building?" "Carl Gustav"
  - woodman 8y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachial_plexus_injury
Kiro 8y ago
By reading this article the solution seems simple: mule robots only carrying the “just in case” items.
- mcv 8y ago
  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.
- Animats 8y ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIaXEMOhihw
  - Kiro 8y ago
    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?
    - de_watcher 8y ago
      When you combine you get both problems.
      - Kiro 8y ago
        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.
        michaelt 8y ago
szopa 8y ago
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.
- dingaling 8y ago
  > 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.
  - Moru 8y ago
    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...
    - jimktrains2 8y ago
      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?
  - 8y ago
potta_coffee 8y ago
I was infantry, USMC. I have sustained permanent injury just from carrying heavy shit around for years. It's pretty hard on your body.
- tomcam 8y ago
  Thank you for your service. Man, I’m sorry to hear that.
- cco 8y ago
  Looking back, would you leave anything out of your daily loadout to avoid injury?
  - ganoushoreilly 8y ago
    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.
    - potta_coffee 8y ago
      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.
  - potta_coffee 8y ago
    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!
    - Bahamut 8y ago
      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.
poertaa 8y ago
somehow the page is odd when loading, why is that? the first part of the top of the page appears to be blank and then it loads. Anyway thanks for sharing it, it's really great to see people working for the nation
ggm 8y ago
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.
benj111 8y ago
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.
- signaturefish 8y ago
  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.
sa46 8y ago
Ah, an article I can comment on. I was an Infantry officer for 6 years and did all the normal schooling and a deployment. 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.
- taurath 8y ago
  > 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).
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    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/ https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/
elmolino89 8y ago
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.
- btbuildem 8y ago
  What I got from the article was that if you increase the carrying capacity, the team will just bring more stuff with them.
- odn86 8y ago
  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.
  - elmolino89 8y ago
    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.
robaato 8y ago
Interesting to note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomp 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.
- gaius 8y ago
  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.
  - swish_bob 8y ago
    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 https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205194942 Allegedly RM commandos deployed in Afghanistan are carrying roughly twice the load ...
lazyjones 8y ago
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.
- ryanmercer 8y ago
  >They could provide some cover as well. Visual cover maybe. Rounds are going to pass through it as if it isn't even there.
SQL2219 8y ago
2014 top NHL draft pick can't do one pull-up https://www.nhl.com/news/no-pull-ups-no-problem-for-top-nhl-draft-prospect-sam-bennett/c-721393 https://www.nhl.com/news/no-pull-ups-no-problem-for-top-nhl-...
- odn86 8y ago
  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.
usuasuasua1 8y ago
soldiers are murderers
baud147258 8y ago
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 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.
chriselles 8y ago
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.
Pica_soO 8y ago
Two Ideas- why cant amour not be manufactured fast in situ? Aka, i have a huge layered plastic bag, that is filled in a second with dirt from the ground, acting as armor? Could Ammunition not be catapulted in? Basically a mortar round with re-supplies that can be requested by the infantry at location? Also wasnt there a case-less ammunition program exactly to reduce weight? So replace ammunition-charge and batterys with one fluid standardize energy component? Guns ignite it, radios use it in fuel cells? Just dont have all those disjointed systems, and find more unions in stuff?
Noumenon72 8y ago
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 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."

156 points by dimitar 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

newnewpdro 8y ago

PSA: the linked article is so riddled with obvious errors it's as if it wasn't proofread at all.

austincheney 8y ago

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.

taneq 8y ago
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.
wjnc 8y ago
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.
- sebcat 8y ago
  > 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.
- austincheney 8y ago
  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.
- potta_coffee 8y ago
  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.
- 8y ago

wyclif 8y ago

This story reminds me of a scene from the movie Saving Private Ryan: https://youtu.be/inEY1dHXyGA https://youtu.be/inEY1dHXyGA

odn86 8y ago
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.

Johnny555 8y ago

"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.

briandear 8y ago

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.

Synaesthesia 8y ago
And you’re being shot at. Nah the military is not for me.

woodman 8y ago

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.

potta_coffee 8y ago
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.
- gadders 8y ago
  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_SEAL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._O'Neill_(U.S._Navy_S... [2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Operator-Operative-Mission-Changed-World/dp/1471148122 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Operator-Operative-Mission-Changed-...
  - odn86 8y ago
    The AAR is the best: "Okay, so who made entry on this building?" "Carl Gustav"
- woodman 8y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachial_plexus_injury

Kiro 8y ago

By reading this article the solution seems simple: mule robots only carrying the “just in case” items.

mcv 8y ago
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.
Animats 8y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIaXEMOhihw
- Kiro 8y ago
  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?
  - de_watcher 8y ago
    When you combine you get both problems.
    - Kiro 8y ago
      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.
      - michaelt 8y ago

szopa 8y ago

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.

dingaling 8y ago
> 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.
- Moru 8y ago
  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...
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    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?
- 8y ago

potta_coffee 8y ago

I was infantry, USMC. I have sustained permanent injury just from carrying heavy shit around for years. It's pretty hard on your body.

tomcam 8y ago
Thank you for your service. Man, I’m sorry to hear that.
cco 8y ago
Looking back, would you leave anything out of your daily loadout to avoid injury?
- ganoushoreilly 8y ago
  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.
  - potta_coffee 8y ago
    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.
- potta_coffee 8y ago
  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!
  - Bahamut 8y ago
    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.

poertaa 8y ago

somehow the page is odd when loading, why is that? the first part of the top of the page appears to be blank and then it loads. Anyway thanks for sharing it, it's really great to see people working for the nation

ggm 8y ago

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.

benj111 8y ago

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.

signaturefish 8y ago
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.

sa46 8y ago

Ah, an article I can comment on. I was an Infantry officer for 6 years and did all the normal schooling and a deployment. 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.

taurath 8y ago
> 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).
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  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/ https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/

elmolino89 8y ago

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.

btbuildem 8y ago
What I got from the article was that if you increase the carrying capacity, the team will just bring more stuff with them.
odn86 8y ago
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.
- elmolino89 8y ago
  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.

robaato 8y ago

Interesting to note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomp 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.

gaius 8y ago
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.
- swish_bob 8y ago
  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 https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205194942 Allegedly RM commandos deployed in Afghanistan are carrying roughly twice the load ...

lazyjones 8y ago

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.

ryanmercer 8y ago
>They could provide some cover as well. Visual cover maybe. Rounds are going to pass through it as if it isn't even there.

SQL2219 8y ago

2014 top NHL draft pick can't do one pull-up https://www.nhl.com/news/no-pull-ups-no-problem-for-top-nhl-draft-prospect-sam-bennett/c-721393 https://www.nhl.com/news/no-pull-ups-no-problem-for-top-nhl-...

odn86 8y ago
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.

usuasuasua1 8y ago

soldiers are murderers

baud147258 8y ago

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 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.

chriselles 8y ago

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.

Pica_soO 8y ago

Two Ideas- why cant amour not be manufactured fast in situ? Aka, i have a huge layered plastic bag, that is filled in a second with dirt from the ground, acting as armor? Could Ammunition not be catapulted in? Basically a mortar round with re-supplies that can be requested by the infantry at location? Also wasnt there a case-less ammunition program exactly to reduce weight? So replace ammunition-charge and batterys with one fluid standardize energy component? Guns ignite it, radios use it in fuel cells? Just dont have all those disjointed systems, and find more unions in stuff?

Noumenon72 8y ago

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 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."