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

91–100 of 148 posts

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

#91

Post by dsfyu404ed »

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…

Most infantrymen aren't carrying 7.62 and haven't since 'nam. The 240 is (on paper) crew served so you get to spread that load around several people.

I agree with everything else though.

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

#92

Post by swish_bob »

gaius wrote: post #74
robaato wrote: post #62

Interesting 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…

I don’t think any of them had body armour. The weight would have been mainly ammo, food and batteries. But it was over soft marshy ground.

They didn't have body armour, no, and fewer batteries. You can get a fair idea of what how little they were carrying compared to current deployments from https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205194942

Allegedly RM commandos deployed in Afghanistan are carrying roughly twice the load ...

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

#93

Post by dx87 »

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…

IIRC, self propelled bullets were tried before, and they found that the amount of propellant that can be held in the bullet is so low that it severely limits the velocity of the rounds.

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

#94

Post by arethuza »

desdiv wrote: post #86
arethuza wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

From one of those links:

"The figures don't necessarily mean we have got too many horses, it's more likely the figures mean we don't have enough tanks."

Edit: Mind you, on reflection, 485 horses does seem rather a lot.

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

#95

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Bahamut wrote: post #34
woodman wrote: post #32

Earlier 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…

Traditionally giving the individual soldier a giggle switch (aka full auto) has been a wash offensively but a great asset in defensive situations at the expense of burning through a lot more ammo (better to have spent brass than dead bodies though so it's worth it). I don't see what's changed in the last ~70yr that would change that.

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

#96

Post by detaro »

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…

From the few known examples, self-propelled ammunition accelerating outside the barrel means it's relatively slow when leaving the barrel, which both makes it less effective at short ranges and causes accuracy issues.

Caseless ammunition is maybe a closer thing, but also tricky (heat dissipation is harder, difficulties in making ammunition robust enough). H&K made a military variant once, but no military adopted it (Germany almost did, but with the end of the cold war it wasn't considered worth the cost)

Even adopting improved versions of existing systems is a big process for militaries, switching to something entirely new for something as fundamental as the standard rifles needs to have really big and obvious benefits to be considered.

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

#97

Post by jdietrich »

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?

There have been ongoing efforts for years, but there are significant technical obstacles to producing reliable, effective ammunition with reduced weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Small_Arms_Technol...

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

#98

Post by jimktrains2 »

Moru wrote: post #60
dingaling wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> avoid redundancy That's really dangerous advice for anyone inexperienced in a particular endurance activity away from contact. The military have a phrase: one is none and two are one. For anything that is life-critical, having only one is too risky.

That advice might be why there is so many SOS-calls from the swedish mountains every year, from hikers getting stranded somewhere in the wilderness. The phone coverage isn't great everywhere either...

I can't tell what you're trying to say. Are you being snarky and agreeing? Are you claiming that people are stranded because of redundancy?

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

#99

Post by btbuildem »

elmolino89 wrote: post #61

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.

What I got from the article was that if you increase the carrying capacity, the team will just bring more stuff with them.

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

#100

Post by MRD85 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #91
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…

Most infantrymen aren't carrying 7.62 and haven't since 'nam. The 240 is (on paper) crew served so you get to spread that load around several people. I agree with everything else though.

In a firefight, you need that ammo to get to the gun. This means it's not that easily distributed between an entire section. You're also going to need the correct sort of pouch on your armour/webbing to carry it. My experience is most of the time the majority of the gun ammo is carried by the gunner. The gun is also a lot heavier than a standard rifle.
Post reply on HN