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.
The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
11–20 of 148 posts
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#12By reading this article the solution seems simple: mule robots only carrying the “just in case” items.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#13Here 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 co…
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.
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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#14This 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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#15By reading this article the solution seems simple: mule robots only carrying the “just in case” items.
It's been tried. Legged Squad Support System.[1] Got far enough to be field-tested by the USMC. Too noisy.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#16I was infantry, USMC. I have sustained permanent injury just from carrying heavy shit around for years. It's pretty hard on your body.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#17I 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 unde…
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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#18Here 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 co…
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.
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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#19By reading this article the solution seems simple: mule robots only carrying the “just in case” items.
Ah yes, even more military spending!
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#20By reading this article the solution seems simple: mule robots only carrying the “just in case” items.
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
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?