21–30 of 148 posts
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.
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 unde…
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 was infantry, USMC. I have sustained permanent injury just from carrying heavy shit around for years. It's pretty hard on your body.
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 hiki…
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.
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 hiki…
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.
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 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.
I was infantry, USMC. I have sustained permanent injury just from carrying heavy shit around for years. It's pretty hard on your body.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?