
The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever - dimitar
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25644619/soldier-weight/
======
sa46
Ah, an article I can comment on. I was an Infantry officer for 6 years and did
all the normal schooling and a deployment.

This is a pretty well done article. Here's some general ideas to keep in mind.

\- Most dismounted missions are run from trucks or an established forward
operating base, so you don't carry a huge rucksack most of the time because
you can just go back to your base.

\- Like the article states, even a day pack with body armor gets you up to
70lbs quickly.

\- Ammo is really heavy, it being made of lead and all. 100rds of 7.62mm ammo
weighs about 7lb. You want at least 800rds per M240B.

\- Rucksack weights are sometimes inflated because it's a way to brag.

\- The Marine infantry officer course requirement for 152lb load is excessive.
At that weight, you can only do an admin movement on a road. All the anecdotes
I found about combat loads that heavy were for an initial, short infil
followed by a stationary mission.

I think the article nails the root cause towards heavier protective equipment.
Public perception and the news cycle makes the death of American service
member a bigger deal than in past conflicts.

It will be a long time before we get electronic mules in the Infantry.
Adopting the mules adds a huge complexity budget to a simple movement. The
Army decided some years ago to give every Company (~140 people) a Raven drone
for recon. However, it's a huge deal if it gets lost (if the GPS guidance were
to suddenly fail), so no one ever uses them to avoid the fallout associated
with losing Army equipment.

~~~
rbanffy
> Ammo is really heavy

Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with
lighter ammunition? One inherent limitation of firearms is that all the energy
is released inside the weapon, which has, then, to dissipate the heat and
remaining gases and particles. If bullets are self-propelled, a larger part of
that output can be released outside the weapon, allowing it to be faster and
impart more energy on impact. Unfortunately, it may make following the source
of the bullet easier.

> avoid the fallout associated with losing Army equipment.

That a combatant needs to worry about paperwork is the cruelest thing I heard
in a long time.

~~~
detaro
From the few known examples, self-propelled ammunition accelerating outside
the barrel means it's relatively slow when leaving the barrel, which both
makes it less effective at short ranges and causes accuracy issues.

Caseless ammunition is maybe a closer thing, but also tricky (heat dissipation
is harder, difficulties in making ammunition robust enough). H&K made a
military variant once, but no military adopted it (Germany almost did, but
with the end of the cold war it wasn't considered worth the cost)

Even adopting improved versions of existing systems is a big process for
militaries, switching to something entirely new for something as fundamental
as the standard rifles needs to have really big and obvious benefits to be
considered.

~~~
ajmarsh
Yep, the G11. Turns out with all its other problems caseless ammo is brittle,
so if you drop a round it breaks. Not super practical in the field.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGKcvM2Hh4g&t=328s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGKcvM2Hh4g&t=328s)

~~~
Balgair
Yes! _Forgotten Weapons_ is an amazing channel. I love Gun-Jesus (Florida-Man
Edition), aka Ian. His simple, clear, engaging style is fantastic. The deep
dives into engineering and history are fantastic. Infinitely bingeable.

------
szopa
This sounds insane. My hobby is medium distance hiking in (say, 250 km/155 mi
na week) in the Scandinavian Arctic, so I have to carry all my food. I'm a fan
of ultralight hiking, so my whole summer baggage weights around 10 kg/20 lbs
excluding water. I invested some money in lighter equipment, yes, but most of
my weight savings is stuff I simply do not take with me, or things that serve
in multiple roles (eg. my hiking poles double as tent poles). A common piece
of advice in the ultralight community is "don't pack your fears" – take only
what you know you're gonna need, avoid redundancy (and be careful not to lose
your crap), and consider what you can do without (an example: you don't really
need a big ass knife).

Anyway, with 10 kg pack a trip is extremely physically challenging, but
overall pleasant. I can actually enjoy the view, as opposed to just wanting to
throw my backpack on the ground (I didn't get to my low weight immediately, I
used to carry much more before).

Hiking like I do, but with 100 lbs of gear sounds like a nightmare. A soldier
may not care about the views, but he should watch out for people who are
trying to kill him. If my experience translates at all, the weight is
interfering with that goal.

~~~
dingaling
> avoid redundancy

That's really dangerous advice for anyone inexperienced in a particular
endurance activity away from contact.

The military have a phrase: one is none and two are one. For anything that is
life-critical, having only one is too risky.

~~~
Moru
That advice might be why there is so many SOS-calls from the swedish mountains
every year, from hikers getting stranded somewhere in the wilderness. The
phone coverage isn't great everywhere either...

~~~
jimktrains2
I can't tell what you're trying to say. Are you being snarky and agreeing? Are
you claiming that people are stranded because of redundancy?

------
woodman
I actually wrote an essay that dug pretty deep into this topic, many years
ago, after I finished my enlistment as a Marine infantry machinegunner -
likely the most overburdened MOS. I'm surprised this didn't get a mention in
the article, especially considering the latest developments: women in combat
roles. The significant difference between male and female upper body strength
is going to be impossible to ignore under combat loads.

~~~
potta_coffee
I always felt bad for you weapons guys. We had a guy in our company that
barely met the height requirement. He was like, 5'3" and 95lbs soaking wet. He
was a machine gunner and he humped his heart out but it was painful to watch.

~~~
woodman
For a long time I was pretty irritated about landing in a line company instead
of a mounted weapons company... but after a combat tour, where the majority of
KIA was from roadside IEDs, I didn't mind walking so much. The loadout did get
more and more ridiculous though - after some officer got shot in the heart
through his armpit, we all got issued side SAPIs that added weight, interfered
with room clearing mobility, and cut off circulation in our arms. Backpacker
syndrome [0] was also pretty common.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachial_plexus_injury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachial_plexus_injury)

~~~
potta_coffee
At the end of a deployment, I had such severe shoulder pain that I could
barely carry a weapon. Of course, the corpsman "couldn't find anything wrong".
That shoulder pain is still with me. I've been to a number of doctors and
therapists, but haven't found anything conclusive.

~~~
woodman
Hopefully it gets better with time for you. My complaint wasn't with pain, but
numbness. I developed this problem very early on, in SOI, and kept it to
myself because I knew that it would get me medically discharged. Thankfully I
never had to explain to anyone why I'd go to the lengths I did in order to
avoid handling grenades. After 2 years of civilian life my knees and lower
back stopped bothering me, but 15 years later: my hands still feel like
they're falling asleep.

~~~
potta_coffee
I feel you. My toes went numb on a hump once and they've never fully come
back. I've been out since 2012 and still have the shoulder pain and numb toes
so I'm not holding out for that pain to go away.

~~~
nerpderp82
Have your Sciatic nerve looked into. I had a pretty bad bike crash (doored
going 30mph, bounced on pavement with left hip). I would have burning
sensations about the size of a fifty cent piece in my upper back, numb toes,
etc. After 10+ years it finally subsided. Chronic pain is highly correlated
with suicide. So best to get that fixed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciatic_nerve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciatic_nerve)

------
ggm
I'm reminded of the O/R story of PMS Blackett and removing armour behind
pilots. I know it's not the same but it's in the same space: armchair experts
can easily "see" less weight would make for a more effective fighting force.
Nobody in actual authority or chain of command wants to be the one turning up
at a soldiers funeral saying "I issued the order to have less armour"

It's not that the economics/efficiency argument isn't clear. It's that we now
value human life more than we did eg during the battle of the somme.
"Attrition" is not an acceptable battle plan in public.

I've never been in harm's way. I've never had to make decisions about people
going into harm's way. I don't for a minute assume it's easy to make these
decisions.

That more people die (D-Day landings, parachuteists drowning due to surplus
weight added before launch) is not surprising either. It's lose-lose decision
making.

------
potta_coffee
I was infantry, USMC. I have sustained permanent injury just from carrying
heavy shit around for years. It's pretty hard on your body.

~~~
cco
Looking back, would you leave anything out of your daily loadout to avoid
injury?

~~~
ganoushoreilly
The largest weight I experienced in the service was Sapi plates and Ammo.
Those are two things you definitely don't want to leave out, though it wasn't
entirely uncommon for people to leave out plates when deployed, leading to
forced inspections before movements.

~~~
potta_coffee
I remember a kid putting a laptop in his flak jacket in place of a sapi
plate...to watch movies on post or something. LCPL shenanigans.

------
robaato
Interesting to note:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomp)

The most famous yomp of recent times was during the 1982 Falklands War. After
disembarking from ships at San Carlos on East Falkland, on 21 May 1982, Royal
Marines and members of the Parachute Regiment yomped (and tabbed) with their
equipment across the islands, covering 56 miles (90 km) in three days carrying
80-pound (36 kg) loads.

Wonder what their kit was in comparison to the article.

~~~
gaius
I don’t think any of them had body armour. The weight would have been mainly
ammo, food and batteries. But it was over soft marshy ground.

~~~
swish_bob
They didn't have body armour, no, and fewer batteries. You can get a fair idea
of what how little they were carrying compared to current deployments from
[https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205194942](https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205194942)

Allegedly RM commandos deployed in Afghanistan are carrying roughly twice the
load ...

------
briandear
I carried roughly 48kg in the field, on “easier” movements, it might drop to
35kg or so. I was an officer so I was a bit luckier than the guy carrying the
MK 48. And God save us all when we had to go MOPP 4. (MOPP 4 is when you have
to wear full-Chem-Bio protective gear.) Doing all that at almost 6000 feet
makes it even less fun.

~~~
Synaesthesia
And you’re being shot at. Nah the military is not for me.

------
austincheney
Here is how this worked for me.

First, some background. During my second deployment I was frequently
traveling. If I wasn't traveling I wasn't working. I was based out of Bagram,
Afghanistan in a two person team that visited the major US Army bases to asses
the information security management position of the base, write a report, and
recommend changes.

Secondly, you have to understand the nature of air travel in a conflict zone.
Flag officers (generals and admirals) are on a list that allows them to
schedule travel so that travel works for them. For everybody else there is a
space available list. Grades E9, O6, and CW5 are considered VIPs and are
automatically at the top of the space available list. There are some people
who have special mission clearance so they just show up and bump other people
off the flight. The rest of us have to wait for a flight, often for many days.
That said, you have no idea how long a travel mission will take, so you bring
extra gear. You also have to understand that there are primary travel hubs and
relay locations, so often there isn't a direct flight.

I would pack double the number of extra under garments for the planned travel
duration and one or two extra uniforms. It gets cold in Afghanistan, so I
would pack my complete triple sleeping bag sleep system (which accounts for
half my personal gear) and a tiny pillow. You also need your personal hygiene
stuff. You were always sure to pack personal entertainment, which for me was
two novels, my laptop, and all necessary laptop accessories. Finally you also
packed survival gear, which for me were additional pens, spare boot laces,
spare hearing protection, a multi-tool, and some other stuff.

So, that was just personal gear that filled my large rucksack. You also needed
your combat gear: kevlar helmet, body armor with kevlar plates, weapon, ammo,
magazines, and any additionally needed tactical gear. You rarely actually
needed any of this, but it was absolutely necessary for riding on the bird
should anything unfortunate happen during travel or should you have to take a
land convoy.

We still haven't gotten to mission gear. I was the lower ranking member of our
two person team so I carried the gear. I carried an assault pack (standard
Army backpack but tougher and heavier) with three toughbooks. A toughbook was
a heavy Panasonic laptop in a thick aluminum shell tested for advanced shock
protection. These things were unnecessarily stupid tough and extremely heavy.
My personal laptop at the time was a small plastic netbook that I treated far
worse and it proved far more durable.

All this gear added up to about 120 pounds. I discovered that when visiting
Kandahar, which at that time the air terminal was run by NATO and they weighed
everybody before they let you hop on a bird. I remember wearing all this stuff
and leaving my living area on Bagram late for a showtime at the rotary
terminal (helicopter air terminal). I miscalculated how far away that terminal
was from where I was living, because the fixed wing terminal was really close.
I was trying to lightly jog that nearly 2 mile route with all that gear and
its the closest I have ever come to feeling like a heart attack.

~~~
wjnc
This is so interesting. Any thought on the cultural norms driving so much gear
to be individual? Personal gear could be common gear instead, with perhaps a
cost to hygiene and individual sensitivities. Combat gear (partially) as well,
especially for non-combat roles. And being the designated carrier in a two-man
team, that's cultural for sure.

~~~
AYBABTME
"one man one kit" you own your gear and are responsible for maintaining it,
knowing exactly where it is at any moment, and if it fails because you didn't
take care of it, it's your fault. Plus, reduces cognitive load when you know
your kit like the back of your hand, in stressful situations. It's your kit
and you don't lend it to others, also. Otherwise you compromise your safety.

~~~
C1sc0cat
Which is back in the day cavalry had assigned mounts - you looked after your
personal mount a lot better that way.

~~~
tialaramex
There's an RAF anecdote related to this in Most Secret War, in which the
officer asserts that his unit is more effective than other similar units
because it still assigns each specific crew to a specific plane, and so
knowing "their" plane they are willing to fly it despite minor problems that
in other units would cause it be taken out of service for repair.

I don't have the book with me, maybe somebody else will remember and dig out
the quote.

------
Johnny555
"King estimates that the average soldier goes into action with a hefty 20 lbs
of batteries."

That seems insane. And to think that I don't even like to carry my 4 lb
Macbook to the bus stop.

------
wyclif
This story reminds me of a scene from the movie Saving Private Ryan:

[https://youtu.be/inEY1dHXyGA](https://youtu.be/inEY1dHXyGA)

~~~
odn86
I cant find the particular scene, but in the beginning of Platoon, Elias goes
through Chris's (Charlie Sheen) pack and just starts throwing unnecessary shit
out after he nearly humped himself into being a heat casualty.

------
lazyjones
I'm surprised that these loads are carried on the body. Surely with 50+ Kg
soldiers cannot climb walls or jump over trenches, so why not use something
like a Chinese wheelbarrow, which would work even on narrow, bumpy paths? They
could provide some cover as well.

~~~
ryanmercer
>They could provide some cover as well.

Visual cover maybe. Rounds are going to pass through it as if it isn't even
there.

------
SQL2219
2014 top NHL draft pick can't do one pull-up

[https://www.nhl.com/news/no-pull-ups-no-problem-for-top-
nhl-...](https://www.nhl.com/news/no-pull-ups-no-problem-for-top-nhl-draft-
prospect-sam-bennett/c-721393)

~~~
odn86
He gets paid to skate hard, handle a puck, and take a hit. Infantrymen are
paid (fractions less)to take asymmetric warfare to the enemy in any
environment and at any time, with the expectation of no resupply available.

------
elmolino89
Maybe it is time to reinvent the wheel? Put the heaviest/extra loads on a fat
bike or a wheelbarrow or 1-2 wheel trolley to be dragged in turns. You are
unlikely to go slower than with +50kg backpack.

~~~
odn86
How do you get over a fallen tree? How do you get over a 5 foot wall in an
urban environment? It needs to be carried by the men on the ground to truly be
versatile.

~~~
elmolino89
Same thing with a mule, robo-mule or a self propelled vehicle. Wait, I can
detach the bags from a bike/trolley and throw them over the 2m wall with a
help of a comrade/short rope. Then goes the 15kg bike or or the trolley. And
unless we are talking about the jungle/fallen trees/mountain warfare etc.,
where probably anything non-human can not be used effectively, you will be
faster and less tired reaching the destination. Last but not least: simple
trolley is quite cheap, way cheaper than the load it can carry. You can throw
it away when the going gets tough.

------
benj111
I believe that the British Army's Land Rovers are being replaced at least
partly because they can't take the weight of all the extra weight required.

So it's not just the soldiers struggling.

~~~
signaturefish
The problem for the Land Rovers is not that they can't handle the weight of
all the infantry gear, it's that they can't handle the weight of their
modernisation package.

They're soft-skinned light fast patrol vehicles, originally specced for use
behind friendly lines and in Northern Ireland - up-armouring them for a modern
battlefield, improving their radio gear and extending their range adds a lot
of mass. It got to the point where the weight of the extra gear risked
breaking an axle if they drove off-road at one point, iirc.

Thankfully the REME engineers are actually listened to when they say "this is
provably unsafe, look", so they're getting new vehicles at long last.

------
baud147258
In term of high-tech making the situation worse, I know a soldier in the
French army, who have used the new high-tech system, FELIN
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%89LIN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%89LIN)),
which is adding a lot of weight between the batteries and all the high tech
gadgets. Apparently the added weight made that it was rarely used.

------
Noumenon72
I excerpted a thread about this ten days ago: www.unz.com/isteve/why-the-
infantryman-is-still-a-man/. Read on if you want some soldiers' perspectives.

"Most infantrymen lift, but that’s not the hard part. Civilians aren’t used to
carrying those loads on their backs, there are all sorts of muscles and
callouses you have to build and nerves you have to kill in your shoulders and
feet to be able to do it. This is why Infantry units ruck march weekly. My
first ruck in basic was only with a forty pound pack, rifle and water for five
miles. One of the worst days of my life. Within a year, I was running twenty
miles in full battle kit with an eighty pound ruck. In country, 120-150 lb was
common, but we didn’t march nearly as far."

"In the long run it would help if we didn’t torture the guys with excessive
training for long road marches that never happen in combat. We spent a
shitload of time getting good at moving by foot with everything we had for
days at a time over miles and miles of terrain. That’s fucking stupid. All you
get out of that is a bunch of guys who have blown out knees and backs by the
time they hit thirty.

We almost never moved miles and miles at a time with full rucks in combat,
that’s why god created blackhawks.

What we did do was a lot of patrols with half of our battle rattle and you
trained so that when someone got hit you could handle all of your gear and
theirs at the same time.

Oh and I can tell you guys something else that nobody wants to hear about
women in combat. The fact is that by the third deployment they are no longer
up against regular men, they are up against guys who have taken roids for the
injuries they have and to get ready for the next deployment fast enough.

It’s not enough to be able to get your body in condition enough to get through
Ranger School or something like that. That’s a one off situation where you put
everything you have into it and that’s it. Either you have enough or not.
That’s not how it works in real life. In real life it’s like getting ready for
the next season of football. Do we really think that women’s recovery time is
going to be good enough? Fat chance, that’s why roids are a secret now. Nobody
wanted to admit that even the MEN couldn’t get the job done without them, but
it was true. Sure some of the guys could hang without using them but the fact
that a lot of guys felt they honestly needed them to survive should tell you a
whole lot.

I’m not saying women don’t belong in combat either. I just don’t see the point
when it comes to straight up infantry units. Now if they want to put together
sniper teams with women, I’d be all for that. Some of them bitches can shoot,
I’ll tell you what!

Now aside from all the whoa whoah crap the best bet would be to stop this
nonsense and worry about our own country for a change."

"I was a lot older (enlisted at aged 27) so was relieved to be able to ride in
the Humvees. But, much to my chagrin, we still participated in a lot of
humping (road marches). We always brought along the completed .50 cal system
when we humped. For my unit, our basic combat load was 55lbs consisting mostly
of our Alice/Molle packs, plus whatever weapon we were assigned (most issued
M-16, squad leaders or gunners issued an M-9). Which by itself was a lot, but
then you add in the .50 cal and it was a bit much. The receiver of the .50 cal
weighs about 50lbs. The tripod was 44lbs and the barrel was 24lbs. We would
distribute the system among each other. With one Marine starting out with the
receiver, one with the tripod, and two Marines each with one barrel (spare).
Put them up front and the rest of the Marines fell in behind them (we
typically went on humps with two complete systems) and as they tired they
would yell “Barrel Right!” or “Receiver Left!” and the next Marine in line
would run up to them and take over carrying duties. We would do this the whole
hump. So, depending on what piece you were carrying our weight was as low as
55lbs, then would jump to 79lbs with the barrel, 99 with the tripod and 105lbs
when carrying the receiver. The tripod’s were later replaced with a
better/lighter version. The barrel was fine to carry lighter weight and could
sling across the pack quite comfortably, but the tripod and receiver were
nasty.

The Marines value physical fitness. We had a lot of PFT studs who could kill
it on the PFT test. I was fine with fitness always more athletic than strong.
Always scored a first class PFT score (not that hard to do really and I got
the old man discount). But in my platoon (and many other CAAT platoons) the
real mark was what you carried on the humps. We “conditioned” up to 25 miles
so we would do about 1-2 humps per month, culminating in the 25 miles hump. I
never fell out. Always there at the end, never ignored the calls from my
brothers when they could no longer carry their piece. The was the true test of
toughness in my platoon. Not PFT scores, not book knowledge, but what you did
on the humps.

We had some strong fellas. It was about the back and more importantly your
heart. I only did 7 years in the Corps but it wore me down a bit. "

Why we use heavy infantry like this:

"Wikipedia gives a fair answer:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_infantry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_infantry)
Roughly speaking, heavy infantry can destroy a lot more than light infantry,
but (a) can’t go everywhere and (b) doesn’t have the infantry to search an
area in detail. So, the opposition lives where (a) heavy infantry can’t go,
because of its equipment, or (b) hide in inhabited areas where heavy infantry
can’t search effectively enough to find them. On the other hand, light
infantry eats troops, both during and after combat. If we’re in an attrition
war (as tactics indicate), why use light infantry? The answer to that has been
obvious since the Port Arthur attack by Japanese forces in the early AD 1900s.
Light infantry eats troops, don’t use light infantry in attrition wars. If you
have an attrition war and you can’t stand attrition, you’ve lost. Make the
best of it, try to win the peace negotiations, lose your table stakes, and
rebuild. Don’t throw your society into the furnace. Simple as that, and as
hard to face.

Disguising light infantry casualties by over-use of body armor, which produces
joint injuries that aren’t attributed to actual combat, is an attempt to
deceive the public, as is the “They serve so you won’t have to” advertising
slogan of a few years ago was. “We have casualties, but they don’t count
because . . .”. But they do. Each is a member of your society, as are that
person’s relatives. You need them."

From the same commenter:

"As I’ve said in other posts, our side isn’t good at attrition warfare. That’s
a consequence of having a K society, one that invests a lot in its members and
relies on competent citizens. Each infantryman that dies means an important
function not performed. Other societies have many completely non-functional
citizens, crunches they can lose in war and never miss them. The West used to
be like that as recently as the Napoleonic wars. People who could earn a
living in society strongly tended to remain out of military service, and there
was no legal conscription (barring press gangs and the like, small scale
affairs mostly). Mass mobilization for WW I left participating societies
without the people they needed to keep existing, and with considerable ill
feeling from those people left sound after the conflict.

So, to paraphrase myself in a couple of other posts, don’t get into an arse
kicking contest with a porcupine. If attrition is the only way you can win,
then lose and save what you can. That or use area weapons and disintegrate the
opponent’s society (that was the threat of the Cold War that prevented most
attrition contests with Russia). Either is better than disintegrating your own
society...

Or better yet, live in peace and fight wars only in video games. If possible."

A little more about body armor.

"Former infantryman here – answer is yes, they do lift, but in my experience
the big lifting craze started after 2001 and all the deployments. Very likely
had something to do with lugging all that armor around, but coincided with the
crossfit / free-weight renaissance. The lifting is a good thing, but I’m less
certain about the armor.

20 lbs doesn’t sound like much, but it matters when you’re trying to run, jump
or dive. The ballistic plates especially really bounce up and down, seriously
impacting the body’s natural motion. Add weapon and everything else (I was
almost always carrying at least one radio in my one Iraq tour) and the
struggle is real. It slows you down significantly. The experience gave me
sympathy for breast-reduction patients. Also – and this isn’t much discussed –
it affected my marksmanship. It’s just harder to tuck the stock into your
shoulder and draw a sight picture with all that bulk.

If the conflict had involved lots of movement and close combat, maybe the
armor wouldn’t have been worth it. In an environment where most casualties are
caused by unexpected explosions and sniper fire, armor is probably worth it.
But it’s miserable to wear."

"Current high coverage body armor was required by US Congress, not the Army,
during the early stages of the current round of Middle Eastern warfare.
Congress didn’t want large casualty numbers, and required more coverage than
the Army wanted. Current loads minimize combat casualties, but cause joint
injuries that manifest in later life — injuries Congress doesn’t much care
about as they don’t affect the next election."

------
chriselles
I’ve got 16 years in as a Light Infantry Senior NCO.

I’ve also led and conducted Lean StartUp focused sprints to work this specific
problem, internal to defence

Weight carried by soldiers is a critical problem.

I’ve carried in excess of 50kg on Operations, verified.

During my Infantry Platoon Commander’s Course we carried in excess of 50kg for
weeks, verified.

I’m 78kg and carry 25kg for 50-70km per week(in 10-20km increments, done for
over 1 year) on the beach for fitness.

My own long term personal experience mimics the article linked Project Payne.

Carrying 1/3 body weight is easily trainable and sustainable.

Carrying 2/3 body weight, especially over undulating or complex terrain is a
recipe for long-term joint/orthopaedic disaster.

I have peers in their 30’s who have had hip replacements due to injuries
sustained from sustained carriage of too much weight in training.

The article mentions 2 things:

1)“Soldiers carry 100 pounds of the lightest kit possible”

2)UK Army Project Payne, too much weight carried “just in case”

New capabilities particularly around communication networks carried by all
subunits(dismounted section/squid level) are increasing weight significantly.
The “weight carried” modelling has been done, and their is no current
solution.

In my experience, the ever increasing weight carried by dismounted Infantry is
not risk aversion as stated in the article, but risk shift.

While it’s not a tortoise versus hare binary choice, it is a continuum of
weight carried.

Turning dismounted Infantry soldiers into armoured tortoises not only shifts
the risk towards increased long-term orthopedic/muscular/skeletal health risk
of soldiers, but increased risk in lower operational capacity/capability due
to reduced speed/range of operation.

In light of politicised efforts to nudge induction of more women in combat
arms, the increased average weight carried combined with decreasing average
stature and fitness levels of soldiers is a guarantee of increased long-term
health consequences.

But the risk of crippling 100 soldiers tomorrow is viewed as acceptable over 1
soldier killed on Operations today.

I would suggest a machine learning system to log and analyze weight carried
both in training and on operations that incorporates all known environmental
and operational factors to recommend what is carried and what is left behind,
to reduce the “just in case” factor, but I believe culture would have to
change as well or risk a Patrol/Section/Platoon NCO filling the void again.

Personally, I’m for starting from scratch again and looking towards the highly
effective RLI of the 1970’s, at least in terms of counter insurgency.

Rifle, 5 magazines, two water bottles, two grenades, wearing shorts and high
top sneakers.

More hare, less tortoise. Much like current modern special operations direct
action doctrine applied to conventional forces.

But as we shift from counter-insurgency focus back towards peer or near peer
combined arms capable threats, this is not going to happen.

We will continue to carry more weight unless senior leadership, unit command,
and subunit NCOs we can trust rapid “just in time” battlefield logistics.

------
newnewpdro
PSA: the linked article is so riddled with obvious errors it's as if it wasn't
proofread at all.

------
Kiro
By reading this article the solution seems simple: mule robots only carrying
the “just in case” items.

~~~
Animats
It's been tried. Legged Squad Support System.[1] Got far enough to be field-
tested by the USMC. Too noisy.

[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIaXEMOhihw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIaXEMOhihw)

~~~
Kiro
I mean the wheeled ones mentioned in the article, where the argument was that
it became a single point of failure and easy target due to it carrying all the
ammunition etc. However, the article later argues that too many items carried
by soldiers are "just in case" so my thought is why not combine these two and
get rid of both problems?

~~~
de_watcher
When you combine you get both problems.

~~~
Kiro
How so? The soldiers don't need to carry the "nice to have" items and if it
get struck it's not such a big deal.

~~~
michaelt
1\. Being OK to lose doesn't fix the problem of it being noisy.

2\. There aren't many truly "It's OK to lose it" items, as they'd all have
been lost by overburdened soldiers already.

~~~
Kiro
The wheeled mules I'm talking about are not noisy though. From the article:

> Although quadruped robots like BigDog from Boston Dynamics is no longer in
> the running (it turned out to be a bit too noisy), there are numerous
> wheeled alternatives.

Regarding your second point the article seems to come to a different
conclusion:

> A British army study, called Project Payne, found that far too much of what
> is carried is “just in case” and that the amount of ammunition carried by
> troops is excessive.

~~~
C1sc0cat
Ah yes the cant trust the squaddie with to much ammunition line from the
Quartermaster - no such thing as to much Daka Daka

