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.
The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
61–70 of 148 posts
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#62Interesting 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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#64Ah, 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.
>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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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).
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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#67I'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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#68I 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 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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever
#70Ah, 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…
>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?