Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 148 posts

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

#81

Post by eaandkw »

Bahamut wrote: post #25
szopa wrote: post #14

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…

It's probably even worse than you think - it's not just about carrying a lot of weight. You're expected to carry it and still move pretty quickly on humps. In infantry in the USMC, going at 1-2 miles an hour with all this gear isn't unheard of, or 20 miles a day. If someone is faltering, it means one more person's gear that has to be split up for others to carry. For some units, the amount of gear you have to carry c…

Depending on what battalion you were in you also had to carry the scouts gear like the SMAWs, M36 grenade launcher, radios etc. Soft sand in 29 palms or the hills of Camp Pendleton.

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

#82

Post by arethuza »

ryanmercer wrote: post #64
erikpukinskis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

The British Army apparently has more horses than tanks - though I suspect they aren't being kept for any practical purposes.

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

#83

Post by ryanmercer »

lazyjones wrote: post #67

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.

>They could provide some cover as well.

Visual cover maybe. Rounds are going to pass through it as if it isn't even there.

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

#84

Post by rbanffy »

sa46 wrote: post #38

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 d…

> Ammo is really heavy

Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition? One inherent limitation of firearms is that all the energy is released inside the weapon, which has, then, to dissipate the heat and remaining gases and particles. If bullets are self-propelled, a larger part of that output can be released outside the weapon, allowing it to be faster and impart more energy on impact. Unfortunately, it may make following the source of the bullet easier.

> avoid the fallout associated with losing Army equipment.

That a combatant needs to worry about paperwork is the cruelest thing I heard in a long time.

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

#85

Post by pmorici »

skh wrote: post #78
pmorici wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even including contractors there was still an order of magnitude more casualties in Vietnam.

Do you have numbers on contractor deaths? I’ve not seen them. I’m not disputing that Vietnam involved many times more deaths for Americans. Just stating that one should include contractor deaths since the U.S. military decided to contract out so much of its war effort.

Low hundreds if you only consider American citizens. There is some info on Wikipedia but it hasn’t been updated in a few years.

Thing is there were also a lot of contractors in Vietnam just not the Blackwater type that gets a lot of the press in this era.

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

#86

Post by desdiv »

arethuza wrote: post #82
ryanmercer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 h…

The British Army apparently has more horses than tanks - though I suspect they aren't being kept for any practical purposes.

Fascinating stuff! A 2015 article from the horse's mouth[0] shows 485 horses for ceremonial purposes vs 227 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks.

[0] https://www.forces.net/services/tri-service/leading-charge-t...

Also a related BBC article with more background: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22951...

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

#87

Post by lbotos »

barry-cotter wrote: post #59
taurath wrote: post #41

Earlier 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).

Yeah but no one in the median journalist’s social circle is dying. The change from a draft to a volunteer army was enormous. No one goes to war against their will anymore. People care much, much less if it’s not their brother, their son, their cousin. And when volunteers come home in a box their family knows they chose to go. Hard to organise a march against war out of people who either have no personal connection to…

>No one goes to war against their will anymore.

Please tell that to the kids that are enlisting so they can actually afford to go to college in the US.

I know there is a difference between drafting and enlistment, but I know there are a lot of people in the military because it was "the way out" of their situation.

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

#88

Post by dsfyu404ed »

rbanffy wrote: post #84
sa46 wrote: post #38

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 d…

> Ammo is really heavy Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition? One inherent limitation of firearms is that all the energy is released inside the weapon, which has, then, to dissipate the heat and remaining gases and particles. If bullets are self-propelled, a larger part of that output can be released outside the weapon, allowing it to be faster and impart more ener…

>Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition?

Welcome to 1944.

This is exactly why full power rifle cartridges were replaced with intermediate cartridges like 7.62x39 and 5.56x45.

Kinetic energy is only loosely associated with effectiveness, terminal ballistics matters just as much if not more. In the real world intermediate calibers kill people dead enough reliably enough that it's a non-issue and marginal decreased effectiveness is outweighed by increased capacity. The overwhelming majority of shots fired will hit nothing useful anyway.

Case-less ammo was tried (read up on the H&K G11) for slightly different reasons (weight saving was a goal but not the primary goal) but the cold war ended before it could make it into service.

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

#89

Post by pc86 »

rbanffy wrote: post #84
sa46 wrote: post #38

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 d…

> Ammo is really heavy Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition? One inherent limitation of firearms is that all the energy is released inside the weapon, which has, then, to dissipate the heat and remaining gases and particles. If bullets are self-propelled, a larger part of that output can be released outside the weapon, allowing it to be faster and impart more ener…

Compare the cost of a traditional round to the manufacturing cost of a self-propelled bullet. And that's ignoring R&D entirely.

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

#90

Post by baud147258 »

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), 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.
Post reply on HN