|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 27, 2010, 01:51 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 450
|
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.
__________________
"Today is victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men." - Miyamoto Musashi [Insert random irrelevant religious quote here] |
February 27, 2010, 01:58 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Blackfeather, a full suit of armor probably weighed about 60 or 70 pounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour#Personal_armour |
February 27, 2010, 02:02 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 450
|
I was thinking mid to late 1600's... But yes, they did get up there. That is why knights were almost always on horseback.
__________________
"Today is victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men." - Miyamoto Musashi [Insert random irrelevant religious quote here] |
February 27, 2010, 02:20 AM | #29 |
Member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Posts: 28
|
weight
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.
|
February 27, 2010, 02:53 AM | #30 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 4, 2005
Posts: 2,017
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?" Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians. Last edited by Rangefinder; February 27, 2010 at 03:17 AM. |
||
February 27, 2010, 03:41 AM | #31 |
Member
Join Date: March 14, 2008
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 77
|
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.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle |
February 27, 2010, 04:01 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 450
|
Sorry, medieval Europe arms are not my forte. I have more knowledge in Japanese warfare. Excuse my ignorance.
__________________
"Today is victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men." - Miyamoto Musashi [Insert random irrelevant religious quote here] |
February 27, 2010, 04:05 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
|
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.
__________________
E Pluribus Unum |
February 27, 2010, 04:23 AM | #34 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 4, 2005
Posts: 2,017
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?" Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians. Last edited by Rangefinder; February 27, 2010 at 04:33 AM. |
||
February 27, 2010, 04:23 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,128
|
1/3 of body weight? I'm screwed. 120 pounds would not be fun!
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs |
February 27, 2010, 04:32 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 450
|
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.
__________________
"Today is victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men." - Miyamoto Musashi [Insert random irrelevant religious quote here] |
February 27, 2010, 04:42 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
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.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
February 27, 2010, 09:53 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 13, 2006
Location: Calgary Alberta, Canada
Posts: 307
|
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...
__________________
"If you put one in the snot locker, it doesn't matter what calibre it is". |
February 27, 2010, 10:18 AM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 13, 2006
Location: Calgary Alberta, Canada
Posts: 307
|
Quote:
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]â–ˆ[/color][color=#FF0000]â–ˆ[/color][color=#FF0000]â–ˆ[/color][color=#FF0000]â–ˆ[/color][color=#FF0000]â–ˆ[/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.
__________________
"If you put one in the snot locker, it doesn't matter what calibre it is". |
|
February 27, 2010, 11:27 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Location: gulf of mexico
Posts: 2,716
|
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.
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." |
February 27, 2010, 11:38 AM | #41 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 22, 2008
Posts: 416
|
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. |
February 27, 2010, 04:20 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 13, 2006
Location: Calgary Alberta, Canada
Posts: 307
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"If you put one in the snot locker, it doesn't matter what calibre it is". |
|
February 27, 2010, 05:46 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
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?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
February 27, 2010, 07:13 PM | #44 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
||||
February 27, 2010, 07:46 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2007
Posts: 455
|
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. |
February 27, 2010, 08:01 PM | #46 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 22, 2008
Posts: 416
|
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. |
February 27, 2010, 11:08 PM | #47 |
Member
Join Date: March 14, 2008
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 77
|
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.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle |
February 27, 2010, 11:31 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Location: gulf of mexico
Posts: 2,716
|
Quote:
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." |
|
February 28, 2010, 12:17 AM | #49 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 22, 2008
Posts: 416
|
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." |
February 28, 2010, 01:09 AM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Well, too bad.
Closed for failure to stay on topic. And for dragging politics into it. pax |
|
|