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.
The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
31–40 of 148 posts
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#32I 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…
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 t…
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).
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#33I 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…
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 t…
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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
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…
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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#35I 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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#37Here 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.
"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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#38Ah, 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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 int…
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).
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#40Ah, 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 d…
Yeah, if electronic mules are so great, I would expect to see some actual mules still in service.