Is a 40lb fighting load possible for modern infantry?

[BlackFeather]

Honestly no, and I understand the difference between me sitting here saying it as opposed to actually having done it. I was just offering up a comparative note. I have had martial arts training and have worn weights for conditioning and I was quite exhausted from the extra efforts.

I meant no disrespect.

[Buzzcook]

Blackfeather, a full suit of armor probably weighed about 60 or 70 pounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour#Personal_armour

[BlackFeather]

I was thinking mid to late 1600's... But yes, they did get up there. That is why knights were almost always on horseback.

[big bug]

With full bodyarmor on I can imagine already 30-40 lbs. With all the other equipment and firearm and ammo...it should get up to 60lbs easy. Too old for that for me.

[Rangefinder]

I know everyone hates it when I go on this subject but I believe a few centuries ago the breastplate itself was 40 pounds not to mention the powder, musket, sword and possibly more armour. Most of their combat was with a sword as well.

Blackfeather--since you brought it up... You're a bit misinformed. The TOTAL weight of my Burgundian Plate is about 65 pounds including the 16 pounds of 14ga. steel German sallet with a full punched visor and bevor (yes, I have a bit of experience in medieval combat). But we're talking about a whole different animal where modern warfare is concerned.

I was thinking mid to late 1600's... But yes, they did get up there. That is why knights were almost always on horseback.

No, Knights were on horseback most of the time for speed and mobility when it suited the situation (as in commanding infantry, and needing to handle multiple facets of a battlefield quickly), and for show of status otherwise (as in "I am important--I have a very expensive horse to carry me around while the rest of you walk..."). When that 65-ish pounds is fitted correctly and spread over the entire body, it is a lot more mobile than one might think. ALL of my armored combat is on foot, and though tiring after going at it hard for several long days during a major event, no horse is required. You have some misconceptions about medieval armor and combat. Best not to dig your hole any deeper without a little more experience in the field.

Where modern combat is concerned... My average combat load was around 60 grueling pounds average (90% of which rode on my shoulders in one way or another and probably is a big reason my lower back still complains when it gets even a little cold outside) which got in my way almost as much as it was thought to help. Stripping down to what was acceptable as "combat-light" dropped the load down to about 45 to 50 pounds if you're lucky, but that just didn't happen very often and it simply couldn't happen because of some necessary gear for most. Could it be less? Sure! Everyone go in with a tee-shirt, 1911 with one spare mag, and a canteen. That should put the load about 4 pounds so long as your boot tread doesn't pick up unnecessary mud. But there is gonna be a trade off.

[grumpycoconut]

Hey Rangefinder,

Good info there. Have you armored up your 4 legged battle taxi yet? I've been toying with the idea of Kydex plate for my own pony but I just don't seem to have the time lately. Any idea how much a lorica segmentata, scutum, a pair of pila, helmet and pioneer tools weigh? I can't remember if legionaires wore greaves. Eh, what's another few pounds between friends. What our modern fighters need is either slaves or squires to lug the gear until it's needed.

The future soldier will finally get a 40 pound combat load when the spider silk armor get's into production, the built in micro electronics have super compact super efficient power sources and we perfect caseless ammo. Of course the non newtonian fluid armor layer in the full body armor will add on some weight and the desk bound geniuses will find other stuff to load soldiers up with. Maybe the powered exoskeletons will help some at least untill the batteries run down. 240 pound combat load anyone? Sorry. I've been reading too much David Drake lately.

[BlackFeather]

Sorry, medieval Europe arms are not my forte. I have more knowledge in Japanese warfare. Excuse my ignorance.

[KChen986]

I took a full day carbine course with ~30lbs of ammo, armor and water on my person. We were doing bounding drills all day, so that involved a lot of squatting, getting up and sprinting, then squatting (rinse, lather, repeat). At the end of the day, walking all my gear up the hill to my car winded me pretty badly.

I think (and I'm probably wrong), that while soldiers may be able to ruck 60lbs for an extended period, the stresses of combat (sprinting, leaning, squatting, climbing etc.) will tire someone much quicker with the equivalent amount of weight. In short, the 40lb figure is calculated due to the higher physical intensity of combat? I may be wrong here. Some edification from someone who knows would be great.

[Rangefinder]

Have you armored up your 4 legged battle taxi yet? I've been toying with the idea of Kydex plate for my own pony but I just don't seem to have the time lately.

LMAO!! Yah, i've been that route---partially... Once upon a time I agreed to help a friend hammer out a full harness for his battle taxi... Never again... Just trung to get the pattern for the lames was a chore that would probably have made a great youtube clip. Turn, look back, head up, head down, shake, side-step... all the while us two monkeys were trying to hold pattern pieces together, hold duct tape in our teeth, attempt to get more sharpy marker lines on the pattern than ourselves, and NOT get stepped on. IF you do decide to go for it, you'll have to keep me posted with progress. It might make me feel better about my own venture down that road.

Any idea how much a lorica segmentata, scutum, a pair of pila, helmet and pioneer tools weigh? I can't remember if legionaires wore greaves.

For the weight of it, I would be hard-pressed to guess. Depending on the time period, we're still talking about bronze--with modern materials it would probably run in the low 40-ish range, but we have to tack on a few pieces that they didn't, so a bit more. I'm pretty sure legionaires were bare from the waist down.

Blackfeather>> Japanese armor began with lacquered bamboo and leather or boiled and lacquered leather laced with silk cording, and only later went into segmented steel plate that was still only in the neighborhood of 35-40 pounds or less including all the undergarments. The Naginata is my preferred weapon from that region. Been that route as well.

[Ben Towe]

1/3 of body weight? I'm screwed. 120 pounds would not be fun!

[BlackFeather]

Yes, I knew the armour well. The Naginata is a lot of fun to hold, the receiving side is not so much fun. I have always gone the standard katana route, sometimes with a jitte or wakizashi.

[MTT TL]

Here is what I carried on patrol every day last tour, I packed light because we normally had a support vehicle no more than 500 meters away:

IBA + Helmet= 40 lbs
M4/ 203 (with gadets) + 7 full mags = 20 pounds
M9 + 3 mags = 5 pounds
3 grenades = 3 pounds
Camelback w/ water = 4 pounds
GPS, radio, various other gadgets and batteries= 8 pounds

I was in Iraq, I can't imagine having to haul it up and down mountains in Afghanistan at my age with a 40 pound pack on top of that!

So 40 pounds won't even get you started these days, more like 80. Let me tell you what, you sleep good after a patrol in 110 degree heat carrying all that crap.

[The Canuck]

Blackfeather:

Medievel & Renaissance warfare was not fought with swords, it was fought with spears. In fact I was informed that my rifle was merely the modern spear during BMQ. The sword was reserved for important people, not the grunts, due to expense (see, militaries have been doing the budget dance for eons)! Oh and the amount of training it takes to become proficient with one.

The full harness, or "plate" did weigh around 60-80 pounds, but was self-supported by its own construction, and I have seen guys run, climb and even do back-flips in the stuff. There are stories that knights and wealthy fighters had been caught swimming across a moat and climbing a castle fortification wall in the stuff.

And before we get into it, it was societal upheaval, not guns that led to harness going by the wayside.

If you want to discuss this further, PM me.

Now back to the topic at hand...

MTT TL:
Isn't it amazing how so few folks realize an M4/203 weighs in at 13-14 pounds with the LAM, light, optics and ammo? I remember when I was working with the arty guys, they always tried to get somebody else to carry that damned designator. Sure it only weighs about two pound, but put it at the end of a heavy stick and see what they think after walking for two hours at low-ready... I often shake my head when many of the civvies I know want to pile all the tacticool stuff on thier bang-stick.

One thing that was often a pain was that it takes calories to carry all that kit. We had to watch for the weight spiral over food and water (especially in hot environments) on prolonged foot patrols. I remember the total loadout for LRFP/LRRP Marching Order was pretty close to 160lbs. for us. It went up to 180 in winter. Yeah, I was almost carrying my own body weight in gear a lot of the time. Now cover a 140km route with all that...

[The Canuck]

Originally Posted by KChen986

I took a full day carbine course with ~30lbs of ammo, armor and water on my person. We were doing bounding drills all day, so that involved a lot of squatting, getting up and sprinting, then squatting (rinse, lather, repeat). At the end of the day, walking all my gear up the hill to my car winded me pretty badly.

I think (and I'm probably wrong), that while soldiers may be able to ruck 60lbs for an extended period, the stresses of combat (sprinting, leaning, squatting, climbing etc.) will tire someone much quicker with the equivalent amount of weight. In short, the 40lb figure is calculated due to the higher physical intensity of combat? I may be wrong here. Some edification from someone who knows would be great.

So after doing pepper-potting all day, you understand why an Infantryman's knees go pretty quickly...

Now the armour I wore weighed in at 30 pounds on its own, but it was made to "stop" rifle rounds at "100m". Add on the ammo, weapons (rifles, pistols, knives...tomahawks.... not kidding) and then EE kit, ordnance, optics, batteries, water, snacks, maps, comms, nav, PFAK/BOK the LBE itself and it all adds up, but its not just what you have, but where you put it all and how tight you have your [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] wired. If you put your stuff together right, you will find it a bit easier to hit the ground running. Maneouvering with all that stuff on is a learned skill and while it can be tiring, a fit soldier will be able to fight in it effectively for prolonged periods.

[troy_mclure]

Luckily i got out before side sapi's!

As a combat engineer team leader on the occasional foot patrol in iraq i carried 56lbs of armour, ammo, guns, demo, comms, water.

My saw gunner had 64lbs, and one of the other joes carried 2 more drums for it bringing him to 60lbs.

When you factor in the heat, plus the added heat of the helmet/vest and its just miserable.

I frequently did 12-18 mile ruck marches with 80+ lbs ruck, plus armour(minus sapi) before deployment.


Luckily in iraq it was more often "death before dismount" lol.

[JohnH1963]

The "enemies" that law enforcement and soldiers have to deal with do not carry all these things. That is primarily why the opposing team can be so effective. They carry a few weapons and little equipment where they can come out firing and then quickly retreat.

The reason why soldiers and law enforcement carry so much equipment is as a result of administrators who dictate what they carry. These administrators sit at desks and do not have to carry all this equipment therefore they don't care...they don't know. They get these complaints from politicians about body armor so they load everyone up to the point where they are like those Knights with the coat of armor walking stiff.

There was one saying in the military that there were two types of soldiers...the quick and the dead. What happened to that old saying? I can't see the current force as effective going into battle weighed down with 100lbs of equipment. Go to the gym and see how fast you can move holding a 45 lb plate.

My belief is that body armor actually puts the troops in a greater danger. The best defense against a firearm is your ability to move quickly. I think the Chinese proved that fact to us in Korea. They were able to march hundreds of thousands of soldiers in little time as a result of lightly equipping their troops.

I guess we will have to learn these lessons again the hard way as administrators do what is politically correct and weigh down troops like the Knights of old.

[The Canuck]

Originally Posted by JohnH1963

The "enemies" that law enforcement and soldiers have to deal with do not carry all these things. That is primarily why the opposing team can be so effective. They carry a few weapons and little equipment where they can come out firing and then quickly retreat.

The reason why soldiers and law enforcement carry so much equipment is as a result of administrators who dictate what they carry. These administrators sit at desks and do not have to carry all this equipment therefore they don't care...they don't know. They get these complaints from politicians about body armor so they load everyone up to the point where they are like those Knights with the coat of armor walking stiff.

There was one saying in the military that there were two types of soldiers...the quick and the dead. What happened to that old saying? I can't see the current force as effective going into battle weighed down with 100lbs of equipment. Go to the gym and see how fast you can move holding a 45 lb plate.

My belief is that body armor actually puts the troops in a greater danger. The best defense against a firearm is your ability to move quickly. I think the Chinese proved that fact to us in Korea. They were able to march hundreds of thousands of soldiers in little time as a result of lightly equipping their troops.

I guess we will have to learn these lessons again the hard way as administrators do what is politically correct and weigh down troops like the Knights of old.

I have a buddy whose grandfather served in Korea with the PPCLI. He told us about those Chi-com troops that moved so fast through the theatre. He told us about how his platoon of thirty-seven men held off THOUSANDS to good effect for two days. He even said that at one time, they were killing Chi-coms with the M1919 barrel as a club and/or taking the weapons off of Chinese bodies (I'm not sure about bludgeoning chinese troops with a machingun barrel under those circumstances, but salvaging enemy inventory is a long standing tradition in any desperate situation) . The account he gave indicated that when it was done there were literally hundreds of bodies around his postion. They had to call the Engineers in to cut a trench and bulldoze the bodies into it there were so many. Having no armour did not help the PLA maintain effectiveness, raw numbers did.

The armour is a force multiplier, I can still move pretty damned fast wearing my rig and I'm old and fat now. If they required me to get back on the pointy end, two things would happen: 1). I'd get back into fighting fit shape 2). I'd reach for my patrol rig, complete with two layers of Multi-strike plates and two layers of kevlar.

[BlueTrain]

Wow! Peanuts, Popcorn, Candy, Lemonaide and Ice Cream. Someone call Pontius Pilate's Bodyguard. There's a party going on.

The best thing I've ever read on this subject was written in the 1880s and none of the priciples have changed one bit. It was written from a medical perspective, which is another way of looking at it, the other being the tactical standpoint. Still, there are good points being made. The soldier of the second half of the 19th Century was lightly equipped, relatively speaking, and probably really did manage to get by with less than sixty pounds, depending on the season and the place. It seems that troops in places that saw more active service tended to be a lot more realistic about things and attempted to lighten the load, mainly by utilizing carts and waggons to carry packs. Overall, one can reasonably say the attempt to keep the load down has been a never ending struggle as technology has introduced more gear that needs to be taken along, mainly things like commo gear, heavier weapons, faster firing weapons that require more ammo and all that protective gear. The soldier of around 1860 might have only carried about 60 rounds. When I was in the army the basic load was 120 rounds. What is it now? 240 rounds?

I wonder how Jackson, whose photo hangs in our house, managed his troops that achieved such remarkable marches during the Civil War?

[MTT TL]

The "enemies" that law enforcement and soldiers have to deal with do not carry all these things. That is primarily why the opposing team can be so effective. They carry a few weapons and little equipment where they can come out firing and then quickly retreat.

The reason why soldiers and law enforcement carry so much equipment is as a result of administrators who dictate what they carry.

Not really. The enemy dies at a rate of about 10 to 1 when facing an American soldier in the field. Modern allies report similar numbers. Much of the stuff we carry either makes us more effective at finding and killing the enemy or makes the enemy less effective at killing us. When the enemy can find body armor he wears it.

My belief is that body armor actually puts the troops in a greater danger. The best defense against a firearm is your ability to move quickly.

All the evidence points to the opposite being true. Deliberate, accurate fire is much more effective than the spray and pray employed by the other side. Running around the battlefield won't necessarily help you in any particular way. Being bullet proof in critical areas on the other hand does wonders.

When I was in the army the basic load was 120 rounds. What is it now? 240 rounds?

For M4/16 it is 210 rounds, for the M9 45 rounds. For the 203 the proscribed load was 20 rounds. But I only carried three. Two HEDP and a signal for medevac. At night I would carry two illum parachute rounds as well.

Luckily in iraq it was more often "death before dismount" lol.

Yeah, well we started patrolling inside the city and there was no way to get down some of the streets with an MRAP that had not seen a military vehicle in three years. Ah the smell, that smell of raw sewage stays with me now...

[bcrash15]

This figure may be of interest in this thread, but it doesn't quite extend to the current "modern times".

There is a difference between what I would call a "fighting load" and what the troops today carry, which is more of a "patrol load," for lack of a better term. If the crap really got deep (e.g. for some reason had do long distance running on foot in a combat area), the soldiers would probably do what they needed to in order to become mobile.

[JohnH1963]

So basically, what you are saying is that you are walking around Iraq or Afghanistan with the equivalent of a weightlifting bar and two 45 pound plates. No wonder 7 years has passed by and we have not secured either Iraq or Afghanistan yet.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/200...-injury-spike/

I am very grateful that the insurgents and Taliban are not better trained or organized. This has to be a comical site to see a bunch of guys try to manuever around with 135 lbs on their backs. You have to admit that this kind of warfare is, at best, ridiculous. Anyone who expects to win a battle or a gunfight with 135 lbs on their back has to be absolutely mad.

I can only wonder if we were facing a credible threat what the result would be. I now understand why they launch Hellfire missiles at the insurgents. Its because they can't possibly manuever in the troops because they are carrying around too much junk.

Can anyone here possibly explain the logic behind taking the kitchen sink into battle? What happened to the quick and the dead? China has nothing to fear if this is how we are waging a war.

[grumpycoconut]

John,

I don't see the value of the Iraq war any more than you apparently do (I've got fewer reservations about the Afgan war) but your interpretation of the foot soldier's role and his equipment seems skewed.

Soldiers are like any other war fighting tool. You have to find the magic balance between lethality, mobility and survivability and if you are smart you have to tailor it to the mission and environment. Lethality of the foot soldier really hasn't changed all that much since the Garand killed all them Axis baddies. Right now the focus seems to have swung toward survivability over mobility. Partly this is a reaction to the threats in the environment and the political reaction to being improperly equipped at the start of the war. Add in new tech additions to the soldier's load and the speed with which armor hasn't been developed and fielded and over loaded soldiers is the expected result. In defense of the modern combat load one can see how survivability can make our soldiers more effective under certain conditions. Being able to shrug off a center of mass 7.63x39 hit and then shoot back has it's advantages. Mobility is decreased but that can be compensated for in the short run by mechanizing troops as much as possible, giving them better indirect means of killing enemies and will be even better compensated for as armor tech and add on tech miniaturization progresses

It's an age old problem. Just look at the trojan war and compare the Dendra Panoply and a leather and laminated linen linothorax to see the trade off between protection and mobility.

When I was a mech infantry medic after the 1st gulf war we didn't worry about weight because we were still getting ready to fight the last war, an open desert mobility war. Now our troops are having to fight a tight urban war and a mountain war. It takes time to tune the instrument to the environment and that's what's happening now.

If we ever do have to take on a few billion screaming chinese we'll have to muddle through, killing as many as we can with the tools we have until we can fine tune our equipment and tactics to that war as well.

"What are the two kinds of bayonette fighters? The quick and the dead! What makes the grass grow? BLOOD, BLOOD, BLOOD!"
Lessons learned in basic.

Here endeth the lesson.

[troy_mclure]

Quote:
Luckily in iraq it was more often "death before dismount" lol.

Yeah, well we started patrolling inside the city and there was no way to get down some of the streets with an MRAP that had not seen a military vehicle in three years. Ah the smell, that smell of raw sewage stays with me now...

if you thought the iraqi sewage smell was bad, you dont even want to think about haiti. the smells there would actualy hurt.

[JohnH1963]

I see the US as making the same mistakes in Afghanistan as the Soviets in the 1980s. The average combat load for the Soviets in Afghanistan was 70 lbs. Today, the average combat load for a soldier in Afghanistan seems be over 70lbs. The Soviets could not chase down their attackers because they were weighed down with far too much equipment.

I can't see anyone being effective with a great load of weight. So you are carrying 90 lbs of weight and come under fire. How do you manuever with that much weight on?

Lets me show you an article that was written in 1996...its a commentary about Soviet forces in Afghanistan...

http://www.ciaonet.org/cbr/cbr00/vid...br_ctd_52.html

"The concept of the motorized rifle force was a marriage of soldiers and armored personnel carriers. The soldier was never supposed to be more than 200 meters from his carrier. His load-bearing equipment, uniform, weaponry, and other field gear reflected this orientation. Yet, Afghanistan was a light-infantryman's war--and the Soviets had very little light infantry. In general, the Soviet ground soldier remained tied to his personnel carrier and to the equipment which was designed to be carried by that personnel carrier. Consequently, the standard flak jacket weighed 16 kilograms (35 pounds). This was acceptable when dismounting a carrier and assaulting for less than a kilometer. However, a dismounted advance of three kilometers in flak jackets would stall due to troop exhaustion. The reconnaissance flak jacket was lighter and better, but in short supply."


"The Soviet emphasis on massed firepower instead of accuracy meant that the dismounted soldier carried a lot more ammunition than his Western counterpart would. Further, heavy crew-served weapons always accompanied the dismounted force. The 12.7 mm heavy machine gun weighs 34 kg (75 pounds) without its tripod and ammunition. The AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher weighs 30.4 kg (66 pounds) and each loaded ammunition drum weighs 14.7 kg (32 pounds). Dismounted Soviet soldiers were less agile and could not catch up with the Afghan guerrillas."

[pax]

Well, too bad.

Closed for failure to stay on topic. And for dragging politics into it.

pax