Is a 40lb fighting load possible for modern infantry?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I was reading a 1985 report on the Infantryman's load. This report cited several tests of the matter.

1. The Germans determined circa WWI that at 48lbs, an infantryman could manage on a cooler day; but on a warm day would become tired and require a full day of recovery before he was back to peak physical condition. Further they determined that no amount of physical conditioning improved changed these basic facts with regard to load and recovery.

2. A British review of previous research in the 1920s reached the conclusion that 40-45lbs should be the maximum load.

3. B. H. Liddell Hart - a British strategist whose influence on maneuver warfare is still felt today - argued for a weight of 31lbs 10oz as the maximum.

4. By the end of WWII, the Russians determined that 40lbs was the maximum load, which seems very telling given that the Soviets were not especially well known for their concern over the comfort and physical condition of their infantry.

So basically, we have several studies that all reach the conclusion that around 40lbs is the maximum load that an infantryman can fight with on a day-to-day basis without markedly degrading his physical condition.

This got me to thinking that my rifle, ammunition and the clothes on my back probably added up to 20lbs just by themselves - and this is on the range without water, food, body armor, night vision, radios or any of the other equipment so useful in modern warfare.

Even with daily resupply and flawless logistics, is a 40lb load even achievable? How would you even begin to approach an individual load of less than 40lbs after you consider the basic needs and then add squad/platoon/etc. gear into the mix?

[CPTMurdoc30]

When I was in the Army I was in a combat heavy engineer unit. We had dozer's and trucks to haul most everything. My ruk always weighed in at about 50 to 75# we would train with 55# in our ruks. Like you said what everything now that these guys have to carry it is amazing they can even walk. And now you have to add batteries for all the gizmos you just have to have now. of course warfare has changed somewhat now that we have infantry vehicles that will get the troops much closer to the fight much faster and with no fatigue. Also boots are much different now than they were during WWI or WWII.

[Scorch]

For a Recon Marine, standard combat load was between 60 and 80 lbs. Force Recon missions involve a heavier load, almost 100 lbs when fully geared up. The load carrying equipment is better and lighter, but they keep adding more to the load. 30-40 lbs combat loadout would seem like a cakewalk.

[Warchild]

40lbs. would seem like a holiday to most combat infantry ground pounders...

[tpe187]

My body armor and helmet weigh 40lbs with nothing else on it. Add ten magaizines, a full camelback, NOD's, radio, light, knife, compass, frag grenade, smoke grenade, GPS, batteries, pens/markers, map, notebook, weapon (about 10lbs) and you you get up around 60lb fighting load. Thats for a rifleman. Add spare barrel for a SAW gunner and more ammo and you get about 70lbs. M240 gunner carries a 28lb weapon, 9mm Beretta, and at least 200rds of 7.62. So, soldiers today carry about 60-80lbs for a fighting load. Now, we are seldom involved in the all day fighting or massed assaults like our WWI and WWII counterparts. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, because they are sure as heck doing it in Afghanistans Helmand province. It just means we can't manuever like we used to. The only solution is for commanders is to have the flexibility to go with no armor in the future.

[Mike Irwin]

OK, after a request from a member, and discussion with Pax and Capt Charlie, your friendly neighborhood moderators, this thread is being reopened in Tactics and Training.

As I said, it's an interesting subject.

IIRC the average American Doughboy of World War I went into battle with a load out that averaged between 50 and 70 pounds, most of it slung from that abysmal piece of crap carry system that was adopted in, IIRC, 1909.

[BlueTrain]

Don't you wonder what the enemy carries around with him? Maybe it's no wonder we can't catch them.

[5whiskey]

I do think a 40lb fighting load is POSSIBLE, but it will be rarely (if ever) utilized. Fighting load, as always, will be mission dependent. Given the fact that setting foot outside of the wire these days requires flak with full e-sapis, side plates, kevlar helmet, and weapon with basic load out... well you're over 40lbs right there. IIRC, just my vest, kevlar, and rifle weighed 38lbs in 2004. That was before side e-sapis and side sapis were required. Of course, I'm 6'4" and had to have an extra large everything, so for the normal guy you may could trim that back to 30 or 32 lbs.

America is all about protecting our boys who fight. Which is a good thing. However, there are some circumstances where manuever should be more critical than armour. YMMV, but the 40lb load is virtually unattainable these days. And when it is POSSIBLE to obtain, commanders usually won't be willing to risk less armour.

[Crosshair]

Don't you wonder what the enemy carries around with him? Maybe it's no wonder we can't catch them.

That's one very serious problem that most people who have been there have said to me.

[BlueTrain]

In response to the previous comment, I'd suggest the formation of dedicated, actual light infantry components to a battalion that would operate in a true foot mobile fashion. It could be a platoon or larger unit but it would probably need to be picked men. And it could also operate in the tradition of the infantry scout, although that might be confused with the long range patrol scouts who typically operate with extra heavy loads.

It may or may not be a good idea and it might or might not work out in practice but it's a thought. And it might not even be the best solution to the problem. It certainly isn't a new idea but is one that goes back to the 18th Century. It was an idea picked up from the Indians. But come to think of it, just how successful were they?

[jhenry]

It is not uncommon at all for a backpacker to have 40+ on his or her back all day for many days. I have done so myself many times. Not the same, but interesting.

When in the military we commonly carried 50 to 70 in combined gear. Heavier upon occassion, especially if you had to hump extra batteries for a PRC 25, or PRC 77. Or M60 ammo, etc. etc. Add extra water depending on the situation it can add up real fast. We are larger and in better condition than the average WWI troopie, and we are also not walking accross Germany on poor rations and ditch water.

[MadHatter1]

The current max recommended load at a 'moderate" pace is 55#s or 1/3 of your body weight. Using this standard, you should be able to remain combat effective indefinatly.
The reality is that most loads definatly exceed 55#s, but are not being carried all day, every day. My current load out is close to 70# (M4 +15 mags, IOTV w/plates, ACH, 2x frags, 3x smoke, 2x flashbangs, PRC148, camelback, M9 + 3 mags, PVS14, IFAK, flashlight, batteries). Im 5'6" and 145#s. My FOB is 7500 feet above sea level, I've worked an area that was over 12k. I average 5+ days a week outside the wire. But I also spend at least 60% of that time in a vehicle getting from point A to point B. I can move dismounted with that load at a walking pace 8 hours a day regularly. 4 hours of sustained contact is a smoker, but rarely happens. I've had missions where I had a ruck that was over 100#s, but no helmet or armor, and it was a short walk.
The army (after only 9 years) has recognized that loads and equipment must be adjusted to the enviroment and mission. They're starting to test lighter armor, with reduced protection and coverage.
The modern loads are much heavier than in days past, but soldiers do not travel day in and day out by boot leather for weeks on end, either.

[Balog]

When we had the e-sapis and side sapis forced on us (and they had to force us, we didn't want any part of it) I noticed a significant reduction in mobility. However, unlike the grunts of older wars I spent the majority of my time driving around, with only short runs to and from houses and going through the houses clearing them.

[tirod]

As soon as the combat ground pounder commanders want to elevate the number of letters home to Mom and Dad telling them we took away 20# of life essential gear, too bad your boy didn't make it.

To put it bluntly, the American way of kissing up to civilian authority will never allow it. Strip the helmet, which is defense against artillery, the vest, also resistant to shrapnel and bullets, extra food, wireless commo, anything that uses a battery, and you can get a lightweight mobile force. They will also take more casualties, which Mom and Dad won't allow.

Spec Ops units can, the boy on the street has to hump the load. It's based on a worst case scenario that has a slim chance of happening, but protects against a guarantee that Mom and Dad will stir up a feces storm with Congress blaming their Senator.

Obviously the subject matter experts have been ignored on this one for a long time. Don't expect change.

[N.H. Yankee]

My son who was in Special ops for the JCSE used to run 5 miles with an 80lb RUK, drop it and do push up and sit-ups ( don't remember how many ) then put the ruk back on and run 5 miles back to base. This was on concrete and at any given time there were 1-3 members out due t knee surgery, gee I wonder why?

He also had to have his camelback, his weapons ammo and wearing his gear and BDU's in the Florida sunshine. One of the Master's had a heart attack and died during one of these runs. Didn't stop the process though, next day was different day same S$#T. He's still in special ops but in a different capacity, after 18 years active duty he's had 3 knee surgeries, on one knee, and 1 surgery on the other.

[Balog]

N.H Yankee: people who say "Joining the .mil is a good way to get fit!" have obviously never seen grunts. Infantry life just destroys your body.

[Big Bill]

Is a 40lb fighting load possible for modern infantry?

No! What should they leave behind? Body Armor? Weapon? Ammo? Water? Knife? Etc... Etc... ???

[BlueTrain]

It is hard to decide what is essential and what isn't, whether you're walking the Applachian Trail or whether you're sightseeing in Afganistan. The biggest different is the protective gear the soldier will be carrying and the problem is that the army is extremely casualty sensitive, although we're not the only army that is. The Israeli army is also casualty sensitive because they don't have the population base. I wonder what their approach might be? And while we're on the subject, have there been parachute drops in Afganistan? Military parachuting has relatively high injuries even in peacetime exercises and I suspect that commanders may be reluctant to employ parachute assaults for that reason. Even the Germans in WWII had that opinion, though for a slightly different reason.

[Balog]

No! What should they leave behind? Body Armor? Weapon? Ammo? Water? Knife? Etc... Etc... ???

Ever had to raid a house in 80# of battle rattle? Trying to scale a 10' concrete fence and getting stuck on the top because of how much crap you're forced to carry might cause you to reconsider...

There is a point at which the extra weight (and attendant fatigue and loss of mobility it causes) far outweighs the good it is supposed to do. I'm reminded of when fed.gov started Prohibition to "save lives," found people were drinking industrial alcohol to get around this, and ordered that all such substances be poisoned. Somewhere around 10k people killed by fed.gov because of a law intended to "save lives."

[Buzzcook]

The military library that I used to access is behind a fire wall now, so this is from memory. If you can get in to the Dennis J. Reimer Training and Doctrine Digital Library, its worth a visit.

iirc the magic numbers are 52 pounds and 3 kph as the top weight and speed that troops can march without fatigue. Increase either number and the troops start to tire. In the appropriate field manual there is a table of weights and speeds for the jr. officers to work off of.

As has been mentioned we don't have to worry about Napoleonic era forced marches of 40 miles. The US infantry is blessed with a herd of vehicles that can drop them almost on top of their target. So what the ideal long term weight is, is moot,

imho what the load limitations should be focused on, is the troops ability to move and fire effectively.

I have read some reports from Afghanistan were soldiers had difficulties moving distances of less than 1 kilometer in mountainous terrains.

One of the problems with changing the burdens that soldiers carry is the US doctrine that has US troops acting as heavily armored close assault forces.
That is a role which they are superbly trained and equipped for. But in Afghanistan there is a great deal of difficulty placing troops close enough to an enemy force so that they can act in that role. Too frequently they are engaged in medium distance fire fights that play against their strengths.

I'm more familiar with conditions in Afghanistan early in the war so if the following is out dated please forgive me.
Another problem in Afghanistan that limits the ability of our troops to maneuver is that they don't have the same amount of supporting fire that they have in Iraq or in training.
Air missions take longer and long range artillery is very limited. Without that cover fire the troops ability to close on the enemy is much more limited than it could be.

Personally I don't have a number to give for a maximum load. Frankly that's well above my pay grade. I would like to point out that whatever load that may be should be determined by the conditions the troops face and tactical doctrine. It is a mistake to take a set of standards from one area and then apply it to the whole. That is what I think the OP is doing with the 40 pound standard.

[Deaf Smith]

Bartholomew,

Yes a 40lb fighting load is possible...

But that means doing without alot of things to make it possible.

The Afgan terrorist do have light loads. But they don't have our armor, communications, or mobility. If we were willing to take alot more casualties we sure could reduce the weight (but you know the answer to that... no... don't want to die out there.)

Best we can do is maybe 60 lb. Miniaturize the communications, use hardened titanium for most of the individual armor (and that will cost $$$ big time), caseless rifle ammo, and resupply by air increased.

But realistically, with what we consider essential nowadays, going down to 40 lb just won't happen.

[The Canuck]

My Battle Order weighed in at around 70-80lbs.

[Crosshair]

As soon as the combat ground pounder commanders want to elevate the number of letters home to Mom and Dad telling them we took away 20# of life essential gear, too bad your boy didn't make it.

Except that isn't what our military is doing. It is forcing the infantry to wear every piece of armor all the time and not letting them tailor their equipment to the mission. Forcing them to wear the armor at all times is just as bad as taking it away. A One-Size-Fits-All solution rarely works out.

There are plenty of situations where that extra weight will get you killed. Balog gave just a couple of examples. The increased protection comes at a cost of reduced mobility.

[BlackFeather]

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. That having been said I don't see the problem with carrying that much weight...

[Balog]

Blackfeather: have you personally carried a 60-80lb battle load in a combat environment?