View Full Version : Lightweight it ain't....
Since more troops have been sent to Afghanistan, the leading cause of evacuation has been knee and back pain apparently. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8473910.stm)
Unlike Iraq, more troops are "hiking" and in vehicles less. Most of the fighting in Afghanistan apparently is not exactly conducive to catching a ride in a vehicle. (Just an amateur historian...I'll let the people who have been there give the real info. :) )
Anyway, on the thread where I read this originally, this link was posted:
http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf
From 2003, but imagine the equipment is not too radically different.
The average march load (closest to our backpacking it seems) is 95 pounds for a rifleman! :O As one poster said...it ain't the AT they are hiking.
A "fighting load" is 63 lbs. (Equivalent to one of those dreaded day hikes it seems from a base camp. ;) )
Egads...
And here's a link on "lightweight backpacking" (if you will!)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_01-15_ch11.htm
Finally..carrying way too much while marching over mountainous terrain? Seems to be recurring theme. My grandfather did it 65+ yrs ago in Italy, southern France and into Germany....
http://hphotos-snc1.fbcdn.net/hs029.snc1/4291_111179170020_563440020_3121762_3405617_n.jpg
:)
JustaTouron
01-22-2010, 17:08
The average march load (closest to our backpacking it seems) is 95 pounds for a rifleman!
In comparision to what most soldiers carried on D-Day that would be considered going UL. :eek:
In comparision to what most soldiers carried on D-Day that would be considered going UL. :eek:
That might be equivalent to emergency march load listed in the same link: 120 lbs.... :)
According to my grandfather's papers, he was 5'5" and 155 lbs when he was drafted at 23 yo. Even in older age, he had a small, thin build. (2 generations later I'm 5'6" and 165 lbs... damn..how the Mags clan has grown. ;) )
I sure as hell wouldn't want to hump 120 lbs on a backpacking weekend..never mind assaulting a beach. Or even a "light' load of 100 lbs. Ahem.
Tipi Walter
01-22-2010, 18:03
I believe Dana Gleason worked with the Navy SEALS around 2004 and developed a series of military type packs as they were looking for something able to comfortably carry around 150lbs without sagging. Dana came up with his NICE system and his BDSB packs with civilian equivalents called the G7000.
Often times in combat or patrol(as in Vietnam) soldiers stripped down to fatigue pants and t-shirts, but in these recent wars it seems we want to keep soldiers and Marines fully clothed with a lot of gear, hence the extra weights. And of course the water loads have to be factored in. Maybe in Afganistan with more hiking the GIs will start wearing shorts and t-shirts like some of the old time Australian soldiers.
Maybe in Afganistan with more hiking the GIs will start wearing shorts and t-shirts like some of the old time Australian soldiers.
A bit brisk in Afghanistan at 14k ft. :O
Goes to show, no matter how "comfortable" your load, if you continuously hump that much of your body weight..it's gonna hurt. When healthy 25 yo have chronic knee and back pain..it ain't good.
Again, I'm just playing amateur here..I'll let the people who have been there/done that give the real answers! :sun
gunner76
01-22-2010, 18:30
You never know exactly what you will need in each combat situitation and can only hope you have it when the firefeight breaks out. To make sure you have what you need you end up packing more junk. Just pray you packed more ammo than the bad guy.
DrRichardCranium
01-22-2010, 18:51
Use android armies instead of human ones. Problem solved.
I don't know how many of those troops drop in, but apparently the new parachutes are causing more injuries because they figure since they can descend slower than the old chutes, they might as well load up the soldiers with even more gear so they descend at the old rate.
Use android armies instead of human ones. Problem solved.
I am waiting for the Sara Conner jokes...in the mean time:
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3179/medium/exoskeleton-DefenceTalk002.jpg
http://img.breitbart.com/images/2008/5/15/D90M7EDO7/D90M7EDO7.jpg
I don't know how many of those troops drop in, but apparently the new parachutes are causing more injuries because they figure since they can descend slower than the old chutes, they might as well load up the soldiers with even more gear so they descend at the old rate.
the army's last combat jump was into northern iraq/kurdistan back in 2003 or 04. air's too thin in the afghan mountains to parachute troops in anywhere, especially at the weights they're carrying now. helicopters can barely get a blade to bite the air at some of those altitudes in the summer.
biggest single weight item is the body armor...26#? something like that. in vietnam, troops sometimes cut the kevlar out of it to look like they were wearing it. that doesn't cut it today. the kevlar helmet is also a little heavier than the old steel pot, which adds spinal pressure to the equation.
batteries for all the electronics they carry is also something we didn't see in the past (GPS, night vision goggles for every soldier, more powerful radios, etc.)
as mentioned, water and ammo are also very heavy. you still need to be self-sufficient for a few days, as daily air resupply isn't always an option.
"...but apparently the new parachutes are causing more injuries because they figure since they can descend slower than the old chutes, they might as well load up the soldiers with even more gear so they descend at the old rate."
That doesn't make sense to me. When I did jump school in the 70's, one of the jumps required to get your "silver wings" was an equipment jump --- some 200' or so above ground the excess stuff was lowered on a tether so it hit the ground first. So I don't see why this should create more injuries. I would think that newer parachutes that allow a person to land more gently could only be a benefit (less impact == less injuries).
Blissful
01-22-2010, 23:19
All I can say is - the guys make me proud at what they do (and I'm a proud aunt of a nephew who just came back from Afghanistan)
RedneckRye
01-23-2010, 00:01
I believe Dana Gleason worked with the Navy SEALS around 2004 and developed a series of military type packs as they were looking for something able to comfortably carry around 150lbs without sagging. Dana came up with his NICE system and his BDSB packs with civilian equivalents called the G7000.
Often times in combat or patrol(as in Vietnam) soldiers stripped down to fatigue pants and t-shirts, but in these recent wars it seems we want to keep soldiers and Marines fully clothed with a lot of gear, hence the extra weights. And of course the water loads have to be factored in. Maybe in Afganistan with more hiking the GIs will start wearing shorts and t-shirts like some of the old time Australian soldiers.
Dana is a genius, his Mystery Ranch packs are great and the Dana Bomb Pack was one of the best 3000 cu inch packs ever, but there is NO WAY to come up with "something able to comfortably carry around 150lbs".
Hooray and godbless our military guys over there, but that is just too much crap to be carrying abound.
Tipi Walter
01-23-2010, 00:05
Dana is a genius, his Mystery Ranch packs are great and the Dana Bomb Pack was one of the best 3000 cu inch packs ever, but there is NO WAY to come up with "something able to comfortably carry around 150lbs".
Hooray and godbless our military guys over there, but that is just too much crap to be carrying abound.
Put 150lbs in a Kelty and 150lbs in a Mystery Ranch and you'll know why the SEALS consulted Gleason.
Outrider
01-23-2010, 01:04
I am deployed to Iraq right now. I just put my body armor on a scale and it was 25lbs. I wear a medium. I am going to call it on the light side. I only had the front and back plates in that we are issued. You can also add 2 side plates as well. I also just carry a 9mm side arm. so all I had on it was a few 9mm mags. Nothing anywhere close to what soldier on patrol would have. So if mine is 25lbs I would say 40-50lbs just for the body armor with a combat load. Now add a ruck sack loaded with food, extra gear and what ever each soldier carries for the mission. The body armor does pretty good for protection; but it does come at a price.
The General
01-23-2010, 01:52
I served 22 years in the Military during which time I carried some unusualy ridiculous loads using some pretty poor equipment, The Military is better equiped today however the infantryman carries a bigger load than ever before, the lighter they make it the more they give him to carry. History has never shone favourably on the Infantryman, It's not the load its the man under it.
I once saw a specialist with a knee injury the old Colonel during the examination asked me what sort of equipment I carried? So I start rolling off the list and part way through he stops me and say's, "Son the human legs are designed to carry the human body, if you were meant to carry loads like this you would have short stubby legs and be a Donkey" On a more serious side, I have Thru'd on two occasions and as old habits die hard I like to stay at around 40lbs pack weight as anything less I would consider slack packing. My hiking partner "Jukebox" used a Mystery Ranch pack, now that pack is one awesome peice of engineering. He purchased it from Mountain Crossings at Neels Gap and those guy's know a thing or two about packs. Next time I Thru I may just treat my knees to a Mystery Ranch pack from Winton and the boys.
Stay safe all
The General
add another 25lb if your a Medic or a Ratello, and god only knows how much for the High Angle guys
garlic08
01-23-2010, 10:29
...Next time I Thru I may just treat my knees to a Mystery Ranch pack from Winton and the boys.
Not meaning to sound snippy...I'm just wondering how a pack helps the knees? I'm serious--I carry a light load myself so the pack doesn't matter to me.
Last time I carried a heavy backpacking load, it was my Achilles tendons that suffered on the climbs.
Not meaning to sound snippy...I'm just wondering how a pack helps the knees? I'm serious--I carry a light load myself so the pack doesn't matter to me.
Not snippy it all...packs do not help the knees. I think the other people have not read the article I linked to.. :)
That's why so many troops are getting shipped out. I don't care what pack someone has. Carrying 100+ lbs consistently is gonna do some damage. When 25 yo troops (or younger) are no longer in combat condition because of knee injuries..the weight is too much.
...didn't think i'd find this thread interesting -- but i got to learn about dana and mystery ranch -- wow!
JustaTouron
01-23-2010, 20:13
...didn't think i'd find this thread interesting -- but i got to learn about dana and mystery ranch -- wow!
www.mysteryranch.com (http://www.mysteryranch.com) They ain't cheap, thats for sure.
I was fitted for a Mystery Ranch-Dana Bridger pack once. I think you could carry rocks in it.
I have heard hiking sticks help knees.
I feel the difference, so I would say, yes, hiking sticks help knees.
I also know hand position, and being able to change hand position makes a big difference to me. I have REI Komperdell Winter Touring carbon fiber PEAK UL WINTER hiking sticks for that reason.
I am very interested to know if Pacer Poles (http://www.pacerpoles.com/) make a difference to knees.
I will not be purchasing them anytime soon, as they are a bit pricey.
I think the soldiers in war, now, like their knee pads so much because they purchase knee pads that help keep their knees from blowing out.
. . .
Don't read too much into this, but I hope the men and women that return are running our countries within 10 years or so, if they want to, or doing something they love. WWII vets came back and ran things and I think our countries were much better for it.
Maybe start with the banks.
Doooglas
01-24-2010, 04:03
Shoe shine kit and 10 razors.
Only the military could come up with such idiocy.