PDA

View Full Version : Myth or fact? Wt of boots = ?? lbs in pack.



Wyoming
02-25-2005, 08:05
OK, I admit it. I am bored and felt like starting a "discussion". :D

Subject: Is it a fact or a myth that for every pound of weight on your feet it equals a much larger weight in your pack. :-?

Background: I have seen folks claim numbers from a factor of 3 (this was thirty years ago) up to 6 (in the last couple of weeks). To clarify my understanding of this claim it would go something like this: if your boots weighed 3 lbs apiece then it is the equivalent of adding from 18 to 36 lbs (depending on your favorite factor from above) to your pack over going bare foot.

Question: does anyone actually have scientific (sorry, I am an engineer) proof that some version of the above is true or false.

My opinion: There is some truth to the claim, as experience has demonstrated that the heavier the shoe the more exhaustion one feels at the end of the day. However, experience has also convinced me that the claim is wildly exagerated. For example, when I was much younger I participated in a mountain climbing expedition to the wilds of Alaska. At the time I weighed a very ripped 145 lbs and carried a 110lb pack (camping and climbing equipment plus 21 days of food). As you can imagine there was no room for extra shoes so I (as did everyone else) wore my mountaineering boots. I don't know the actual weight of the boots but I am sure that they were at least 3 lbs each (I think 4 but we will go with 3). Nothing was light 30 years ago! By the figures above this works out to an equivalent of 18 to 36 extra lbs. Or 128 to 146 lbs equivalent. Though I could and did carry that pack all day long, over rough trailless terrain, I do not believe that I could have actually carried the equivalent of 128-146 lbs. The 110 lbs kicked my butt good.

I have thought about this claim some and compared it to other examples I know of in mountaineering and extreme backcountry travel. I just do not believe it can be true. Other examples: in backcountry mountaineering and cross-artic or ant-artic travel it is not uncommon for people to carry 50 lb packs and pull 100+ lb sleds for long periods of time while wearing heavy footwear. Also, thirty years ago many long distance hikers (AT & PCT) carried 60 lb packs, wore heavy hiking boots and managed to do 20 mile days consistantly. I think these examples indicate that factors in the 5-6 lb range must be urban (rural??) legends vice fact.

Anyway, does anyone want to throw in their $.02? No fighting now :)

Wyo

J.D.
02-25-2005, 08:28
Question: does anyone actually have scientific (sorry, I am an engineer) proof that some version of the above is true or false. Wyo
Interesting! 'Cause I have often wondered about those claims myself and I am NOT an engineer. Especially this winter. Age or something and my feet have been freezing/painful cold wearing sneakers. Keep looking at boots.


Also, thirty years ago many long distance hikers (AT & PCT) carried 60 lb packs, wore heavy hiking boots and managed to do 20 mile days consistantly. I think these examples indicate that factors in the 5-6 lb range must be urban (rural??) legends vice fact. Wyo
In the '70's, I was very proud that I kept my pack under 60 pounds...<g>... And, yes, I did 20 mile days with heavy Vasque boots.

I'm guessing that it "may" be an age-thing....? Factor in the enthusiasm of youth versus the treachery of age!

J.D.
02-25-2005, 08:29
Good Morning, Wyoming! Just noticed "Round Hill"....! I'm up here in Woodbridge, VA. We're neighbors!

flyfisher
02-25-2005, 08:37
From an engineering standpoint, it takes slightly more work to move the boots than if they were in the pack. Taking a boot in my hand, if I wave it back and forth in front of me, it uses more energy than if I quietly hold it.

Moving them quickly takes more energy and I have felt this difference when I have tried to jog in my leather hiking boots. That gets me tired very quickly.

However, the 3X, 4X, 6X figures are different hikers ways of estimating how much harder it is for them to carry 4 extra pounds on their feet vs 4 extra pounds in their pack.

I do know that the weight of a 1 inch diameter blister on a heel seems incredibly heavy and weighs down my whole day.

My method has been to wear the lightest shoes that I am comfortable in. For winter and for this spring, that is an old fashoned pair of Vasque Sundowner boots, despite my allegiance to a lightweight/ultralight lifestyle and hiking style.

c.coyle
02-25-2005, 08:41
Subject: Is it a fact or a myth that for every pound of weight on your feet it equals a much larger weight in your pack. :-? ...
Question: does anyone actually have scientific (sorry, I am an engineer) proof that some version of the above is true or false.

I, too, would like to see someone post a link or a reference to a credible source for this claim. It makes sense to wear the the lightest footwear you can, consistent with safety and comfort, but I am skeptical of the old 1=5 claim.

Obviously, you lift your feet over and over while walking, but you don't pick them straight up and put them straight down. I have no scientific or engineering background, but forward momentum has to play a part.

kncats
02-25-2005, 10:32
My recollection is that this "rule of thumb" came from a study done by the U.S. Army, so SGT Rock may be able to shed a little light on its origins. I'm not sure about the actual ratio, but it's easy enough to prove that it has some validity. From a strictly physics (or engineering) standpoint it takes no actual work at all to move an object (such as your backpack) in a straight line, as long as you do not raise or lower it any. Your feet, on the other hand, must be raised, how ever many inches, every time you pick them up to step forward. I know it sounds a bit strange to say that you're not doing any "work" carrying your pack while walking on level ground, but that's how the laws of physics define it. Realistically, we have to expend energy to keep our packs suspended and to move them forward, along with the rest of our body. But it's not the same as lifting.

hiker5
02-25-2005, 11:12
While I agree that weight on the feet has greater impact per pound on the energy you expend while hiking than weight carried on your back, I've couple of nits to pick with some of this discussion.

First,

From an engineering standpoint, it takes slightly more work to move the boots than if they were in the pack. Taking a boot in my hand, if I wave it back and forth in front of me, it uses more energy than if I quietly hold it.

I think this analogy could use some tweeking. I think if you compare waving a boot in your hand to hiking, then holding the boot still would be comparable to standing still. In a fairer comparison, you would still be making the same motion with your arm, but the mass of the boot would be supported elsewhere (perhaps your shoulder or upper arm, so as to demonstrated the reduced energy required to do a similar task with the same mass involved).

Second,

I know it sounds a bit strange to say that you're not doing any "work" carrying your pack while walking on level ground, but that's how the laws of physics define it.

Close but not quite. You would not have done any work ONLY if you ended up in the same place as you started. If you walk on level ground you will not change your gravitational potential but you may still do work (in the physics sense of the word) if you finish in a new spot. Work = force*distance, but is independent of the path taken.

hiker5
02-25-2005, 11:15
Where is that edit button when you need it? Those should have been "quote" tags instead of "code" tags.

hiker5
02-25-2005, 11:31
I hate to post twice in a row (so I REALLY don't like posting a third time) BUT, I think this might be a better example.

Consider the milage you would get in your car if you drove around with 4 bags of concrete in your back seat. Probably pretty close to your normal mileage. Unless you drive something like a Geo Metro.

Now consider what you happen if you took the concrete out of your back seat and filled your tires with it. Your mileage is toast.

As c.coyle mentioned it is a matter of momentum (or inertia as engineers call it). More specifically it has to do with the mass moment of intertia (a measure of the distribution of mass throughout a volume).

While this example had more to do with rotational inertial the same thing can be seen with linear motion if you just swing a sledge hammer the normal way (mass away from your hands) and then swing it backwards (holding it near the mass end and swinging the handle) and notice home much effort it takes for each way.

kncats
02-25-2005, 11:32
Work = force*distance, but is independent of the path taken. True, however, force=mass*acceleration. As long as you're moving at a constant speed there's no acceleration hence no work.

Regardless, it's still a bit confusing to try and think and say that we're not doing any work. That's strictly a physical sciences definition of the word which my tired back doesn't really care about. But I think it does help to show that there's more of what we would normally think of as work involved in picking our feet up (with boots) and moving them forward all day.

Youngblood
02-25-2005, 11:35
OK, I admit it. I am bored and felt like starting a "discussion". :D

Subject: Is it a fact or a myth that for every pound of weight on your feet it equals a much larger weight in your pack. :-?

Background: I have seen folks claim numbers from a factor of 3 (this was thirty years ago) up to 6 (in the last couple of weeks). To clarify my understanding of this claim it would go something like this: if your boots weighed 3 lbs apiece then it is the equivalent of adding from 18 to 36 lbs (depending on your favorite factor from above) to your pack over going bare foot.

Question: does anyone actually have scientific (sorry, I am an engineer) proof that some version of the above is true or false.
I think the mathematical model is too varied for anyone to have proven what the actual ratio is for hikers because we hike in varied conditions on a daily and hourly basis. On flat sidewalks, the difference is not going to be as much as when you are climbing up Mount Washington in NH because the biggest increase in work, or energy expended is when you lift your feet and likewise the difference will be even less when you are going down Blood Mountain in GA. For hikers, that means it is subjective because we are not always hiking the same terrain. I don't have a problem with the x5 rule... sounds about right to me.

This same argument also applies to maximum pack weight or maximum daily mileage. It all depends on many factors, too many to make detailed analysis useful... so we resort to rules of thumb to come up with useful models and then adjust the rule of thumb when and if we find that it is no longer applicable. I'm an old engineer and at least that's the way I do it.

Youngblood

hiker5
02-25-2005, 11:42
True, however, force=mass*acceleration. As long as you're moving at a constant speed there's no acceleration hence no work.

I know you really aren't interested in the technicalities of the physics, but I can't help myself. For this to be true we would have to make some assumptions.

-frictionless example (clearly not true, just see any of the chaffing threads :D )

- you did not start the hike from rest

- you did not end the hike at rest


I think the force in this example would be the force that you impart on the ground to propel yourself with each step.

I think we have covered all 3 of newtons laws of motion now. :clap :clap

TDale
02-25-2005, 12:22
I found reference to U.S. Army treadmill test in 1969 in an old magazine article: http://www.rockandice.com/gear/135%20Field%20Tested.pdf

That says:

"U.S. Army treadmill tests in 1969 found that an extra pound on the foot exacted the same energy output as an extra 3.5 to 5.25 pounds on the back. Similar tests published in Ergonomics in 1986 concluded that a pound on the foot equals 6.4 pounds on the back. Simply put, wearing a boot like La Sportiva’s Trango S (3 pounds 6 ounces for a pair of size 10.5, $225), which eliminates 1 to 1.5 pounds of weight, could be like tossing five to seven pounds from your pack."

Can't find the actual tests, though.

tlbj6142
02-25-2005, 13:50
Backpacker magazine had some sports medicine group (in CO?) do all kinds of test on various hiking/climbing superstars (flyin' brian, etc.) about 1.5 years ago. Besides listing various VO2 max levels for each person, they also listed that 1# on your feet is 6.2# on your back. Rather than the "common belief that 1# is 5# on your back".

I think, too, they showed that an hour of walking with treking poles consumed 30-40% more calories than without.

Nightwalker
02-25-2005, 14:03
Now consider what you happen if you took the concrete out of your back seat and filled your tires with it. Your mileage is toast. It'd be closer to realistic if only 180 degrees of each tire were filled with concrete.

c.coyle
02-25-2005, 14:25
It'd be closer to realistic if only 180 degrees of each tire were filled with concrete.

Sorry Frank. That had me howlin' for some reason. This is one of the best threads ever. :D

kaytee
02-25-2005, 15:32
I found reference to U.S. Army treadmill test in 1969 in an old magazine article: http://www.rockandice.com/gear/135%20Field%20Tested.pdf

That says:

"U.S. Army treadmill tests in 1969 found that an extra pound on the foot exacted the same energy output as an extra 3.5 to 5.25 pounds on the back. Similar tests published in Ergonomics in 1986 concluded that a pound on the foot equals 6.4 pounds on the back. Simply put, wearing a boot like La Sportiva’s Trango S (3 pounds 6 ounces for a pair of size 10.5, $225), which eliminates 1 to 1.5 pounds of weight, could be like tossing five to seven pounds from your pack."

Can't find the actual tests, though.

ENERGY COST OF BACKPACKING IN HEAVY BOOTS.
Legg, S. J. (Army Personnel Research Establishment, Farnborough, Engl); Mahanty, A.
Source: Ergonomics, v 29, n 3, Mar, 1986, p 433-438
ISSN: 0014-0139 CODEN: ERGOAX

Abstract: Previous studies have investigated the oxygen cost (VO//2) of increasing boot weight during unloaded walking or running, and have shown that for each 100 g increase in weight of footwear there is a 0. 7-1. 0% increase in VO//2. In reality (except in athletic events) the use of heavy footwear is associated with load carriage, usually backpacking. We therefore investigated the effects of increasing boot weight by 5% of body weight on the VO//2 of backpacking a load amounting to 35% of the body-weight in five healthy young males who walked at 4. 5 km/hour (0% grade) on a motor-driven treadmill. The results indicated a mean increase of 0. 96% in VO//2 whilst backpacking for each 100-g increase in boot weight. In contrast the oxygen cost of increasing the backpack load was only 0. 15% indicating that it was 6. 4 times more expensive to carry weight on the feet as compared to the back.


True, however, force=mass*acceleration. As long as you're moving at a constant speed there's no acceleration hence no work.

Regardless, it's still a bit confusing to try and think and say that we're not doing any work. That's strictly a physical sciences definition of the word which my tired back doesn't really care about. But I think it does help to show that there's more of what we would normally think of as work involved in picking our feet up (with boots) and moving them forward all day.

I think that is the whole point. The physics definition of work dosen't apply to trying to figure out how much work is being done inside your body.

I could push agaist a wall for an hour, not move it and have a physicist tell me that I haven't done any work. A physiologist could measure the metabolic energy spent pushing against the wall and tell me that I have, in fact, done a lot of work.

Engineers would really like a mechanics type answer to this question. The big limitation to using biomechanics in a walking type of situation is that is that is walking is an extremely repetitive task (therefore dosen't take into consideration fatigue) and metabolic factors are going to be the limiting factor in terms of effort performed by the body.

ERTW :D

SGT Rock
02-25-2005, 21:27
I found reference to U.S. Army treadmill test in 1969 in an old magazine article: http://www.rockandice.com/gear/135%20Field%20Tested.pdf

That says:

"U.S. Army treadmill tests in 1969 found that an extra pound on the foot exacted the same energy output as an extra 3.5 to 5.25 pounds on the back. Similar tests published in Ergonomics in 1986 concluded that a pound on the foot equals 6.4 pounds on the back. Simply put, wearing a boot like La Sportiva’s Trango S (3 pounds 6 ounces for a pair of size 10.5, $225), which eliminates 1 to 1.5 pounds of weight, could be like tossing five to seven pounds from your pack."

Can't find the actual tests, though.

This makes perfect sense. See, my 'cruit boots in 1985 didn't weight very much at all.In about 1989 the Army came out with a new design that cost about twice as much, and weighed about twice as much. Then just recently they started issuing another boot that costs about 25% more than the last pair of boots and weighs about 25% more two. Lesson - the military is one place where they will spend millions to figure something out then ignore their own advise. I better get out before boots cost $!50 a pair and weigh 5 pounds.

Mouse
02-25-2005, 21:44
Perhaps the key is that the original study was a TREADMILL test. On a treadmill the feet move all over the place while the back stays nearly stationary. While actually hiking, all that weight on the back is getting moved along the Trail, up and down hills.

I bet that treadmill results are not the same as real life, giving an exagerated impact of boot weight.

But I agree with Sarge, the military has made some pretty weird footwear choices.

Wyoming
02-25-2005, 21:45
Hey, I really appreciate the comments. I would have never guessed there were actual studies done that verified this.

Perhaps the reason why there is something of a range in the results is that each person has a different bio-mechanical efficiency in how they stride? If you watch marathon runners you will notice that many of the very good ones seem to glide rather than run. Maybe it works the same way for hikers only in slow motion.

We need a film of "flyin brian" to evaluate :o

Wyo

cutman11
02-25-2005, 22:17
[QUOTE=kncats]True, however, force=mass*acceleration. As long as you're moving at a constant speed there's no acceleration hence no work.

Well, actually, although you are not accelerating, your foot is going from a stationary position, moving 24 inches or so ahead (accelerating at first, then decelerating) and coming to a stop when you plant that foot and begin the process of moving the other foot. So each step is actually a process of acceleration and deceleration, both requiring energy expenditure. Multiply that times the mass moved, and you arrive at the force. There would be additional expenditure if not on level ground, and some of the force would be calculated by circular motion equations because your foot is pivoting around your knee joint (the center of a circle) and moving in an arc forward. There is no doubt someone sophisticated enough in physics and mathematics and interested in hiking could come up with the formula that would calculate and determine the answer to this forum's question. But probably the time required would prevent him from ever hiking. So no one wants to do it.

Wyoming
02-25-2005, 22:38
Backpacker magazine had some sports medicine group (in CO?) do all kinds of test on various hiking/climbing superstars (flyin' brian, etc.) about 1.5 years ago. Besides listing various VO2 max levels for each person, they also listed that 1# on your feet is 6.2# on your back. Rather than the "common belief that 1# is 5# on your back".

I think, too, they showed that an hour of walking with treking poles consumed 30-40% more calories than without.
tlbj, I found the article about flyin' brian and it does talk about the vo2 max testing but does not mention anything about #1 on the feet being = to 6.2# on the back. Nor anything about treking poles.

Were those items in other articles? Do you know which months? Thanks. Wyo

tlbj6142
02-26-2005, 12:18
Were those items in other articles? Do you know which months? Thanks. WyoIn was in a side bar in the same issue. What issue was it?

Lumberjack
02-26-2005, 12:41
Just a minor comment on the physics lesson in progress...

Due to the effect of gravity the pack is continually falling so you have to consider force in more then one dimension... If I remember my math right it should be some form of vectoring. You are also assuming a smooth motion when walking when the reality is we speed up and slow down with each step. Also we tend to move from side to side as well while our balance and weight shifts from one foot to the other.

as to the boot end we have to lift the foot with each step and also set it down which is not the same as allowing our foot to simply fall. this action expends a much larger amount of energy.

weight in the pack isnt lifted with each step but rather shifted from side to side with the skeleton supporting most of the weight at all times but foot wear must be lifted with each step.

:dance

pjdaddy
02-26-2005, 12:44
As a long-time lurker and hiker, need to add my two-cents to this one.


1. The discussions regarding the physics of work are essentially correct, but as others have pointed out, we're more concerned with biomechanical work than the strict physical definition of work.

Hold two buckets of sand in your outstretched arms. According to physics, you're not doing any work (providing your arms don't move). Maybe Jan Michael Vincent can go to a happy place and hold this position all day, but most of us recognize this as work.

2. That being said, physics can't be denied. If you are in a race that requires you to carry 20 pounds, do you want that on your back, or 10 pounds strapped to each ankle?

The mass may be the same, but your ankles are a lot farther from your center of gravity than a backpack. And weight on the feet will exert significantly more force about the center of gravity than the corresponding weight on your back.


The effect must certainly be inversely proportional to your mass. Given the same height (lever arm), 5 lb boots will exert more force on a 130 lb individual than on a 200 lb individual.

Maybe a few of us should start calculating? Except its sunny out this afternoon, and I'm taking the dogs for a hike...

weary
02-26-2005, 13:09
Now consider what you happen if you took the concrete out of your back seat ....
I understand that most of the gas mileage gain that occurred a decade or two ago was because cars had become lighter. And most of the recent mileage loss is because people have begun using heavier SUVs. I know my Toyota Tercel got 40 miles per gallon. My Dodge Ram was lucky to get 12. The difference was almost totally in the weight of the two vehicles

As for the impact of additional weight on the feet expending more energy than the same weight in a pack, I don't know the ratio, but I'm positive that heavy boots require more energy than the same weight in a pack. Why? I'm lifting the weight of my boot with every step, picking it up, putting it down, picking it up, putting it down.

Weight in my pack as I bobble down a trail with my wooden hiking stick, also is lifted up and down as I climb over rocks and such, but only rarely with every step.

Weary

Alligator
02-26-2005, 13:10
Yellow Jacket,


Here's two on poles. You could probably track the full text down.

The Cooper Institute of Dallas, Texas assessed the NordicWalking method of using the poles for fitness walking. They found an increase in calories burned and oxygen used by 20% compared with regular walking at the same pace. The study was published in early 2001.


Muscular and metabolic costs of uphill backpacking: are hiking poles beneficial?
http://www.ms-se.com/pt/re/msse/abstract.00005768-200012000-00020.htm;jsessionid=CgrxDSodPwXBmbrKmTSavy6ce2l5y ZnDCAd3r6NaCS8AMBabNzz2!-1995637984!-949856032!9001!-1
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 32(12):2093-2101, December 2000.
KNIGHT, CHRISTOPHER A.; CALDWELL, GRAHAM E.


Abstract:
KNIGHT, C. A. and G. E. CALDWELL. Muscular and metabolic costs of uphill backpacking: are hiking poles beneficial? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 32, No. 12, 2000, pp. 2093-2101.

Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to compare pole and no-pole conditions during uphill backpacking, which was simulated on an inclined treadmill with a moderately heavy (22.4 kg, 30% body mass) backpack.

Methods: Physiological measurements of oxygen consumption, heart rate, and RPE were taken during 1 h of backpacking in each condition, along with joint kinematic and electromyographic comparisons from data collected during a third test session.

Results: The results showed that although imposing no metabolic consequence, pole use elicited a longer stride length (1.27 vs 1.19 m), kinematics that were more similar to those of unloaded walking, and reduced activity in several lower extremity muscles. Although pole use evoked a greater heart rate (113.5 vs 107 bpm), subjects were backpacking more comfortably as indicated by their ratings of perceived exertion (10.8 vs 11.6). The increased cardiovascular demand was likely to support the greater muscular activity in the upper extremity, as was observed in triceps brachii. Conclusion: By redistributing some of the backpack effort, pole use alleviated some stress from the lower extremities and allowed a partial reversal of typical load-bearing strategies.

Wyoming
02-26-2005, 13:38
In was in a side bar in the same issue. What issue was it?
Unfortunately all I managed to pull up on Google was the article. None of the side bars showed up. I don't remember what month and issue it was.

Wyo

Doctari
02-26-2005, 15:52
Seems to me that bottom line, no matter if 1 foot Lb = 1.5 on the back Lbs or 6 OTB Lbs, to lighten the "apparent load", start with your feet & work up.

From my experience as a bicycle camper (Bikepacker), the first place you want to loose weight on the bike is the moving parts like the wheels, crank & chain. My experience is that as little as 0.5 Lbs lost on the wheels made riding much easier, wheras at the same time 2 Lbs off anywhere else was hardly noticable.

Doctari.

cutman11
02-26-2005, 16:27
On the other hand, you wouldnt want to put conestoga wagon wheels on a steam locomotive either. The footwear you use is partly dependant on the weight you are carrying (inside and outside skin). So if your load is higher, your footwear needs to be too to support the heavy duty work your feet are doing.

Nightwalker
10-17-2005, 12:05
Perhaps the key is that the original study was a TREADMILL test. On a treadmill the feet move all over the place while the back stays nearly stationary. While actually hiking, all that weight on the back is getting moved along the Trail, up and down hills.

I bet that treadmill results are not the same as real life, giving an exagerated impact of boot weight.

But I agree with Sarge, the military has made some pretty weird footwear choices.
I'll bet that if you walked on a treadmill inclined at a 15 degree angle, you'd change your mind.

That was one of my workout tools while getting ready for hiking season. I was able to get my heart up to 160 BPM if I cranked up the speed!

johnny quest
10-17-2005, 12:48
general s.l.a. marshal put out a report, after world war two i think, called "a soldiers load". i had a copy and will try to find it sometime this week. in it he went into great detail about studies showing combat load weight and performance. i dont know if the no. came from there but it sounds familiar and may be referenced. even if it is in there some of his stuff has since been discredited so it may not matter.

Ridge
10-17-2005, 20:44
I just weighed my husbands boots, using a digital fish scale. He is on the PCT and I've been mailing his drop boxes, using these scales. Here I have his spare pair of long distant boots, total weight 4.5 lbs. I got his day hiking boots (he calls these his 5 mile boots:feet start to sting after about 5 miles) they weigh 3 lbs. He claims the heavier boots protect his ankles and the bottoms of his feet, from the pressures caused by rocks and roots. Thus, even though he works a little harder to carry the extra weight his feet/ankles feel better the next day. He also says the feet don't flex as much using the heavier boots, which also helps save the feet.

Seeker
10-18-2005, 02:23
general s.l.a. marshal put out a report, after world war two i think, called "a soldiers load". i had a copy and will try to find it sometime this week. in it he went into great detail about studies showing combat load weight and performance. i dont know if the no. came from there but it sounds familiar and may be referenced. even if it is in there some of his stuff has since been discredited so it may not matter.
the roman emperor marius introduced changes in the roman army's structure, eliminating a lot of the baggage train, or 'impedimenta', and placing more on his soldiers' backs, resulting in their calling themselves "marius' mules"... it's estimated, based on reenactor trials, that his soldiers carried over 100 lbs of gear... armies throughout history have struggled with it... stonewall jackson seems to have solved it, moving his infantry troops so quickly that they were referred to as 'foot cavalry'... they didn't carry much of anything except a little food and a lot of ammo, but were probably really miserable in wet weather, like all light infantry. the brits attribute much of the failure of their attacks made during the battle of the somme in 1916 to over-heavy loads, resulting in immobile soldiers mowed down in droves as they plodded forward. s.l.a. marshall's study was seen as a milestone, covering WW2 as it did, but it's funny... after 60 years, with all our lightweight materials, plastics, synthetic fabrics, lighter and more lethal weapons, etc, the army is still stuggling with 'the soldier's load'... early reports out of afghanistan back a few years ago included some screaming about how to lighten the soldier's load... body armor weighing upwards of 25 lbs, batteries for night vision goggles, water, ammo, navigation gear, radios, etc, STILL caused a fully loaded soldier to be quite loaded down... and it's still an issue that's being worked on...

thus endeth the lesson... (sorry. i LIKE history.)

Teatime
10-18-2005, 03:07
LOL! When I was in Korea back in 1992, our CO allowed us to wear the new Hi-Tech boots. They were the black ones that you used to see Cops wearing, and very light weight. Since we were a USAF unit on an Army post, you can bet we got some dirty looks from the Army guys. They didn't seem to like our BDU/Umbrella ensamble either.
This makes perfect sense. See, my 'cruit boots in 1985 didn't weight very much at all.In about 1989 the Army came out with a new design that cost about twice as much, and weighed about twice as much. Then just recently they started issuing another boot that costs about 25% more than the last pair of boots and weighs about 25% more two. Lesson - the military is one place where they will spend millions to figure something out then ignore their own advise. I better get out before boots cost $!50 a pair and weigh 5 pounds.

SGT Rock
10-18-2005, 07:25
To soldier's load. It has been my experience there are three things wrong:

1. The people that design, test, and purchase our gear don't actually ever have to carry it in the field. Durability is always their number one concern when getting stuff, so it is often overbuilt in so many areas it isn't funny - but the part that is: there is almost always some part in the construction that they overlook somehow that is destine to fail and every soldier seems to find it about 1 month into fielding. The MOLLE pack is a great example: a rucksack that weighs 20 pounds empty.

2. Commanders ofter try to plan for every possible contingent. So a soldier often gets tagged to carry crap they may never ever use. My favorite was always the mes kit. I carried one for about 10 years and never used one once - because they were deemed to hard to clean to standard and a hazard to our health - but we still carried them!

3. The entire "Can Do Attitude" is great in a lot of ways, but it also leads people to accept things that are ridiculous. Anyone complaining about weight is really a wimp. And leaders often add a little hear and there for missions because they are so worried about mission failure because of a lack of gear. The truth is that the average soldier would probably make an extreme ultralighter cringe with some of the things they put up with since most of their load is stuff like ammo, NVGs radios, weapons, etc. In an attempt to lighten up, Joe will carry less socks, a poncho, a poncho liner, and maybe a little snivel gear, then field strip rations all in an effort to save their poor backs.

johnny quest
10-18-2005, 11:11
too true, rock. ive carried stuff around that never got used for years. but i have to tell a story about whent he reverse was true.

we had just returned from duty off the coast of beirut. this was before everything went to s***. we were doing an op in the western australian and we were actually told not to take rain gear because "it hadnt rained in 3 years" where we were going. i was a boot but my buddy was a terminal lance corporal who had been around. he didnt go nowhere without his poncho and poncho liner because "i been left too many sucky places too many times."

well sure enough, a hurricane blew in and 8 of us were left behind in the outback to guard ammo that couldnt be gotten out in time. we built log cabins out of 105 artillery ammo containers. buck was the only one with a poncho. i remember waking up with mud literally running into my mouth. ooorah! from that day on i have always carried certain items, no matter what the plan or forecast was.