Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Washington Post

Carrying heavy combat loads is taking a quiet but serious toll on troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, contributing to injuries that are sidelining them in growing numbers, according to senior military and defense officials.

Rising concern over the muscle and bone injuries -- as well as the hindrance caused by the cumbersome gear as troops maneuver in Afghanistan's mountains -- prompted Army and Marine Corps leaders and commanders to launch initiatives last month that will introduce lighter equipment for some U.S. troops.

As the military prepares to significantly increase the number of troops in Afghanistan -- including sending as many as 20,000 more Marines -- fielding a new, lighter vest and helmet is a top priority, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said recently. "We are going to have to lighten our load," he said, after inspecting possible designs during a visit to the Quantico Marine base.

Army leaders and experts say the injuries -- linked to the stress of bearing heavy loads during repeated 12- or 15-month combat tours -- have increased the number of soldiers categorized as "non-deployable." Army personnel reported 257,000 acute orthopedic injuries in 2007, up from 247,000 the previous year.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717.html?hpid=topnews

---

I know the troops need the gear for protection, but I've also thought this is one reason that insurgents have had some success against U.S. troops. It's tough to be light, fast and mobile when you're carrying all that armor and gear.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Suggestion: Could it be a length-of-deployment issue, more than a weight issue per se?

The weight might be fine, back when deployments were whatever they were. But maybe with the extended and repeated deployments, the weight doesn't work so well for the troops.

[happyslug]

13. "You Train as you will Fight"

This is related to the other motto of the Military "Train Hard, to fight Easy". Both slogans the concept that training be as close to combat (Without the casualties, i.e. firing blanks NOT live ammo) with the same equipment you would be using in actual combat. This gets the soldier use to using his or her equipment as it is design AND to modify that equipment when defects are found in training as while as in Combat.

Given that since at least the 1700s the doctrine has been that for every actual day fighting, you should have been in training for three days, adds up the time the body has to carry this weight.

AS to Weight, the Army has known since at least WWII (And from other records since the middle ages) that a person maxs out combat weight at about 40 pounds, you start getting over that number you have trouble (Another way to look at this is max weight for combat gears is no more then 20% of normal weight, thus a 200 pound solder maxs out at about 40 Pounds, smaller solider less weight, and I am talking "ideal" weight not the actual weight of the solder). Once you go over 20%, time in actual combat goes down drastically. For an example, look at a Football Player, he is carrying extra weight plus a helmet, pads etc and still can NOT play the full one hour of a game. At one time players did play both offense and defense, but once it was found out that you had to rest people, it was found better to have defensive and offensive players. While the reason for two different set of football players today is the plays they do on the field, the weight of the helmet and body protections remains a factor. The same with combat troops, the longer they are in armor, the less they can fight (In terms of time, not combat effectiveness).

Some other examples is the pre-gunpowder armies of the world. These troops would line up opposite each other and then engage in hand to hand combat while protected by heavy armor. The maximum time in actual fighting was about ten minutes, then you were relived by the person behind you in line. In The Roman Army this line was six persons deep (Except on the flanks of the legion, where it was 12 people deep). Until the introduction of Cannon, and its tendency to eliminate dozens of men at a time if formed into such deep formations, this was the norm. Cannon lead to thiner lines (by the time of the American Revolution it was down to two men deep) and with this reduction in depth, armor disappeared, its slowing down and exhausting troops do to its weight exceeded any protection value it had.

Now Desert storm is noted for several things, but one of the most important firsts was Desert Storm was the first War in History where one side (The US) did NOT have any troops MARCHING into combat (Yes, we marched troops into Combat in Vietnam, even through many where flown into combat by helicopters or rode in tanks, the US still Marched some soldiers into combat in Vietnam). This fact meant that Soldiers no longer had to worry (as much) of MARCHING with their full combat gear. Combat Gear includes, the tent (OR shelter half when I was in) to sleep in at night, Sleeping bag, wet weather gear (including rubber boots), extra clothing, coat for cold weather, in addition to your helmet, weapon and ammunition (The chief reason the M16 was adopted was do to it being the lightest rifle design possible). This quickly adds up to 40 pounds, thus until the 1990s Body Armor was disfavored by the Military do to its extra weight on the March (When used it was given to people most likely to come into contact with the enemy first, and then shifted as that role changed, so that no one soldier ever had to carry the extra weight for to long a time period.

Come Desert Storm and the fact we NO longer had any soldier MARCHING into combat, the amount of weight the soldier could carry could be increased (i.e. more ammunition, more body army, more batteries, more electronic equipment do to the fact he is jumping from a mechanized Infantry Fighting Vehicle (MICV, The M2 Bradly in the US Army) right into combat NOT marching for hours before he is actually in combat (This was done to an increasing degree at the end of the War in Vietnam with M113s). Since Desert Strom, the US Army wants to keep casualties low, even at a drop in Combat Effectiveness. Thus the tendency to add electronic warfare equipment (Mostly night Vision devices) into the hands of each soldier AND body armor for each soldier. Together with increase access to radios to communicate with support elements (Aircraft and Artillery) all lead to increase weight the solder is carrying into combat (The biggest increase ins the 25 to 35 pounds of Body Armor). Thus, the soldier still has to carry his clothing, tent etc, he also has to carry his Body Armor and helmet, rifle and ammunition, AND batteries to his electronic night vision goggles and communication gear. This all adds up to the 90+ pounds most soldiers carry into combat today. Fortunately, we have combat vehicles that can get them close to the enemy, so the weight is NOT as bad as it would have been in Vietnam. The problem is the vehicles require maintenances and fuel, so the COST of combat has increased tremendously since Vietnam. All of this has an effect on the ability of the Soldier to do his or her job AND to perform it in a way to minimize harm to his or her body. The Human body is NOT designed to carry 90 pounds, 12 hours a day, 3-4 days a week for up to a year or more. Something has to give and it is the body.

The US Army doctrine does not and can not assume combat with this amount of weight on a body for more then a month at a time (Which includes three additional months of training with such weight). This equipment level was for a one month or shorter period of Combat. At that level of Combat this level of weight the soldier can handle, but if longer then a month the weight has to be reduced. The problem with reducing the weight is the greatest increase in weight is the body armor the soldier is carrying. Most soldiers today do NOT want to lose that protection, even if it cost them combat effectiveness. Thus the Army (and the Marines) are in a box, they need to reduce the weight the soldier is carrying, but the single biggest increase in weight over the last 20 years is Body Armor. Taking away the body armor, will increase the combat effectiveness of the soldier (If in combat more then 30 days), but at the price of increase number of causalities do to enemy action. A secondary problem is a lost of Morale of the Soldiers whose Body Armor is stripped from them, they will feel more likely to be harmed then with the body armor. The Soldier's combat effectiveness will be affected by this fear, so taking away the body armor also decreases the combat effectiveness of the Soldier. In effect the Military can not win, it needs to take away the body armor to increase combat effectiveness over a greater then 30 day period of combat. but to do so will affect the morale of the Soldier so his combat effectiveness will decline when the armor is removed. What the solution? Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan so our soldiers are NOT facing a year or more of Combat at a time.

[Smith_3]

23. Wow.

Great analysis.

[sofa king]

26. Nice analysis.

There is a never-ending trade-off between armor/defense/weight and firepower/offense/movement. Perhaps the most tragic example of the wrong decisions piling up was on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, 1916. On that day poorly trained and cared for British soldiers loaded up with 70 pounds of equipment (very little of it protective armor), emerged from the trenches and stumbled into overlapping machine gun fire as their protective barrage "walked" away from them, until well over 50,000 of them were dead or wounded.

Due to the "pals" system of recruiting, most of the units engaged were formed from small communities at home, visiting a Bedford-level disaster upon hundreds of British towns and neighborhoods.

The problem persists to this day, where you have some of the finest soldiers in the world, the Delta boys, running around wearing modified hockey helmets and a couple million bucks' worth of training sloshing around right underneath. At the exact same time, service troops and engineers are being pressed into combat patrol duty in Iraq, undertrained and overloaded.

And I totally agree that the only real solution is to get the Sam Hill out of there as soon as possible.

[NOW tense]

2. Bring in the robots. n/t

[Posteritatis]

3. Has the weight gone up or something?

I thought a typical soldier had 50-70 pounds of gear on him all told, which has basically been the standard weight of carried materials for soldiers for three thousand years.

[madrchsod]

4. the battery manufactures in the usa are developing

battery packs to power electronic gear for the new uniforms...

[FreakinDJ]

6. only if your on the machine gun crew

[tclambert]

10. This concern has existed for thousands of years, too.

How many arrows and spears and armor do you have each soldier yomp on his back? On the one hand, you want him to carry as much gear as possible. On the other, you want him light, mobile, and not exhausted when he reaches the battlefield.

[happyslug]

16. Actually other limitation keep weight down.

See my previous comment that included a comment on Armor in pre-gunpowder times, but other limitations existed for other reasons:

1. Archers generally were restricted to 60 arrows, more do to the fact that is the most you can fire before you arms start to give out when shooting 70 plus bows (And 100 pound pulls were NOT unheard of, Mongolian compound bows were of such pull weight AND recent discovery of 1500s bows from England indict the English also used 100 bows with 100 pound draws).

2. When Muskets replaced Archers, these were again limited to 60 rounds, do to the fact gunpowder is NOT a clean burning powder, but leaves a lot of residue. This is NOT much of the problem in a Cannon (Which tended to be roughly cleaned after each shot) but tended to make muskets useless after about 60 rounds do to clogging up of the holes to get the flash (either from a Flint in a Flint lock, a match from a Matchlock OR directly from a percussion cap). Until smokeless powder was invented in the 1880s, 60 rounds was all you could shot before the weapon was clogged by powder residue and needed to be totally cleaned. Modern Smokeless powder does NOT have this problem and Thousands of rounds can be fired in a weapon designed for Smokeless powder, but that was NOT the case prior to the 1880s and the invention of Smokeless powder.

3. Horses can only carry about 200 pounds on their back (and then for only about 6 hours a day). In the old days of Calvary, a Calvary unit had up to five horses per soldiers do to this fact. This forced most Cavalrymen to opt for lightweight equipment compared to infantry (Thus the 16 inch Carbine compared to the 30 inch Musket, saving almost 50% of the weight of the weapon, even if the range was reduced by over half, remember I am talking black powder weapons, smokeless weapons eliminated this difference for smokeless powder was not only cleaner but more powerful thus 24 inch barrels could be used by both infantry and Calvary).

In the days of the Middle ages, this 200 pound limitation forces Calvary to wear light armor compared to the Infantry. The horse permitted greater movement, but at the cost of having to wear less armor. The true Full Armored Knight occurred two times in History, the the end of the Roman Empire and again after the Black Death. both times are noted for massive peasant revolts, and the heavy armor was found to be effective for the peasants, untrained in combat, went after the rider not the horse. Thus the Armor of the Rider would protect him and the horse could carry the rider and armor for the short distance the Knight rode THAT horse when trying to put down a peasant rebellion. In front of even half trained infantry (Who accepted the fact, you killed the horse first and then the rider is an easy target) such heavy armor has little advantage. After about 10-15 minutes of combat it wears the wearer out and he becomes an easy target for even the most untrained infantryman. Thus when facing a real enemy, fully armor knights are quickly replaced by Cavalrymen with breastplates, helmets and that is all (A Chain-mail undercoat may be worn). Some protection of the horse is sometime given (In the form of some sort of frontal armor) but most times no armor for the horse is given, for it limits the weight of the rider. This lighter weight Cavalryman can survive better if he has to fight on foot against trained infantryman and is less of a load on his horse, so more likely to survive combat.

My point, is except for the time periods where the main enemy was class, most cavalrymen carried little if any armor, for the same reason the infantry slowly lost armor after the introduction of gunpowder into combat, the weight of the armor lead to shorter period of combat effectiveness. Cannon not only forces the Infantry to lesser its depth (Going from formation that were 6 men deep in the 1500s to two man deep by 1800) AND accept longer period in combat (Pre-Cannon Average Combat ranges were less then 100 yards, with the introduction of Cannon, that increased to 1500 yards by 1500). To be relatively safe from Cannon fire, most armies faced each other over a distance of 2000 yards by 1500 (as opposed to 200 yards in pre-cannon times). A 2000 yard march tires out a soldier wearing full armor more then a solder wearing no armor (After the introduction of Cannon such Combat marches became the norm). The same with Calvary, pre-cannon Calvary charges of 100-200 yards were the norm, after the introduction of Cannon these increased to 2000 yards so to keep the Calvary out of the Range of Cannon UNTIL it was time for the charge. Again, a Cavalryman with NO armor could ride his horse over this distance much quicker then a Cavalryman with armor. Thus after 1500 you saw a drastic drop in wearing of Armor not only among Infantrymen but also among Cavalrymen. The Calvary tended to retain breastplates (Some units did so till the time of Napoleon) much longer then Infantry, but those were intended to be used only when they came into contact with other Calvary (and after 1600 seems to have been retain more as a symbol of whom they were they any actual combat need).

My point is, while armor was a factor in most of history, its weight was more of a disadvantage then an advantage if you considered the time in combat (The longer the expected time in combat the less effective armor was). Today, the rule in the US Army is to ride Armor, MICV or a APC as close to the enemy as you can, dismount and then fight. This limits the time in combat, thus for the first time since the 1500s, the time in combat for a soldier has gone DOWN not up. The problem is that while each combat mission has gone down in duration, the number of such missions have gone up. This latter increase more then compensate for the former decease in duration. Something has to be done and the best thing is to pull out and keep our army geared to what it does best, rapid intervention NOT occupation.

[The Second Stone]

18. You do know that Calvary is the hill Jesus was

crucified on and that the horsie soldiers are the cavalry? Otherwise I loved your post.

[happyslug]

20. That is the problem with spell checks, they do NOT catch mistakes like that

Ode to the Spell Checker.
(A bit of doggerel for the computer-literate.)

Eye halve a spelling check her
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My check her tolled me sew.

http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/spellchecker.html
http://www.usd.edu/~bwjames/humor/spell.html
http://www.makingpages.org/pagemaker/humor/pome.html
http://7fatcow.com/2008/06/17/ode-to-a-spell-checker/
among other sites

[Blue_Tires]

24. great insights

are you a war historian?

[happyslug]

25. Amateur historian, more in WHY and HOW they fought then the result of any battle.

Who cares how Hannibal defeated the Romans at Carree, WHY the battle was fought is much more important. The Weapons used often reflect the doctrine, but also where each side could get weapons from. Weapons also reflect where the actual soldier came from (where they native born or foreign mercenaries) and this is a factor is determining WHY they fought (The Goths when they marched through Italy after 410 AD actually INCREASED in numbers, when it is normal for such armies on the move to LOSE PEOPLE, something else was happening, forcing people to join the Goths as the Goths marched through Italy. Most times when this occurs you have severe social divisions, the poor are getting the shaft but are to disorganized to fight the ruling elite. The biggest problem for the ruling elite is NOT invading barbarians but their own peasants. Invaders will leave sooner or later, the peasants must stay for the rich to benefit from the surplus the peasants produce (The Fall of the Roman Empire is more a dissolution of the Empire as the peasants opt to support the invading Barbarians then their own Roman Elite, in fact except for the Vandals and the Goths, ALL of the invading barbarians were defeated by the Romans, then resettled in areas where peasant revolts had occurred. The reason for this placement was to use the Barbarians to put down the Peasants. The problem was the Peasants and the Barbarians quickly started to work together and started to ignore (and take over the lands of) the ruling Roman Elite. In fact Justinian's invasions of Africa and Italy in the early to mid 500s was more to undo land reforms in both areas then to restore the Roman Empire (And the subsequent invasion of the Lombards was more the Lombards willing to work with the Italian Peasants when it came to restoring the land reforms first done by the last Gothic Rulers of Italy then any other factor). Another factor was the growing power of the Slavs under the allies of the Lombards, the Avers. These two actions, the movement of the Lombards into Italy in late 500s AND the growth of the Allies of the Lombards do to the expansion of the Slavs living under their rule (and this expansion had more to do with the introduction of the heavy plow to the Slavs then any other factor).

Yes, history is complex, but it goes into WHY things happens and often we can see similar actions today. The fall of the Roman Empire shows many of the same signs as we are seeing today, a generally decline in the economy of 95% of the population, an embarcement of a mercenary army, for a true universal army could no longer be raised for what 95% of the population wanted was NOT the same as the top 5% (and in affect what was wanted by both groups were OPPOSITE of each other). Sooner or later is conflict was bound to come out in the open, generally when the poor have an option other then just surviving (Thus why the Goths expanded in Numbers as their marched through Italy, just like Spartacus 500 years before BUT not Hannibal 600 years before, for unlike the Goths and Spartacus, Hannibal was facing a universal Roman Army, which he could not defeat and the peasants of Rome were NOT so dejected by their own elites to join his forces, some Italy allies of Rome did join Hannibal, but no where near the numbers that would join the Goths, the Lombards or even Spartacus). Rome kept losing territories until Heraculius reformed the Roman Army during the time of the last Roman-Persian War (c 627 AD). Rome would lose Egypt right after that reform, but that was do to the fact Egypt was still held like the rest of the Empire had been held, a Small Roman elite owned everything, unlike Greece and Asia Minor where small farmers were the norm. The key to the reform was to tie in land ownership with military duty. This would remain the norm for what modern Historians call the Byzantine Empire (The Country itself called itself the Roman Republic, just like the Roman Empire did even during the time period of its height, Augustus to Constantine). Thus the old Roman elite lost its land and its power. Some of the old Roman elite would survive in the West under the Various Barbarians but in the 900s even these surviving members of the old Roman Elite died out in the male lines (Some survive in the Female line, as their married various barbarian leaders). Thus by 1000, no one in Europe could trace themselves back to the Roman Empire in the Male line. The break with the old Roman Empire had become complete. The reason for this break was that it was found by the invading barbarians that they needed the support of the peasants, and that support could only be obtained by recognizing their rights (including the right of use of land for their own use i.e land ownership even if subject to some sort of taxes in the form of actual service with the peasant's lord. This is Feudalism, one does NOT own property outright, but has the first right to it PROVIDED you perform all duties required of you, by law, to your lord. The Lord could NOT ask for all of your time, what he could ask for was restricted by tradition (which everyone considered the law at that time period). Some of these laws sound barbaric to use today, but it fit their society and it worked better then the older Roman Tradition where the rich owned everything and the peasants were treated as little better then slaves (In fact the middle age term "Serf" came from the Latin word for Slave, but by the 700s these two terms had diverged as the invading Barbarians agreed to recognize rights of Serfs (Basically Serf were free men except to their lords, and then only to the extent such servitude was permitted by law). Slaves (A new term of use starting in the 500s, coming from the Slavic word for themselves, slav, when Slavs became the #1 source of slaves in Europe, and had to be called something else then Serf) did NOT have the rights of Serfs and were inferior in number to Serfs.

I fear a similar revolution is about to hit us. It took Europe almost 500 years to recover from the suppression of Roman Peasants to the more balance relationship between the ruling elites and peasants of the Middle ages. Woman Rights, the rights of lower classes, rights of foreign born people were at their height under Feudalism. The raise of the Middle Class from 1300 onward, came more at the expense of the peasants (and women) then the nobility (Through the Nobility lost their power either during the Reformation where the Middle Class took over the Churches in Protestant Countries, in the mid 1600s in Britain during the English Civil War OR during the French Revolution where the Middle Class took over the rest of Europe. In many ways the raise of the Middle Class (By which I mean the upper middle class as that term in used in America, i.e. exclude the working class) lead to a decline in the rights and power of Peasants and Workers. This seems to reverse in the late 1800s and 1900s but since 1980 has regain its prior strength. This is the main difference between the late Roman Empire and today, but as the Upper Middle Class loses its wealth in the recent decline in the Economy you see a return to a division in society between the top 5% of the population and the 95% of the rest of us. Something has to give, hopefully it is a willingness to work together to end the economic problems (Which is what happened under FDR during the Great Depression AND during the 900-1200 time period) but the other alternative is alive and well, a turn to Political dictatorship (Like the Roman Empire and Hitler's Germany) so that the elite can stay in power and preserve their wealth.

[bertman]

12. When I see the gear these guys are carrying, plus the body armor they wear, it looks

like they are carrying a hell of a lot more than we ever did in Vietnam--at least on a regular basis. Not to mention that they are carrying cold weather gear to boot.

[RamboLiberal]

14. Yeah its gone up - look at the typical WWII soldier, or Vietnam

Then look at all the armor and gear the modern soldier is carrying. Plus in Iraq they had to deal with horrendous heat and in Afghanistan altitude.

From OP article:

Individual Marine combat loads -- including protective gear, weapons, ammunition, water, food and communications gear -- range from 97 to 135 pounds, well over the recommended 50 pounds, a 2007 Navy study found.

In Afghanistan, soldiers routinely carry loads of 130 to 150 pounds for three-day missions, said Jim Stone, acting director of the soldier requirements division at the Army Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga. In Iraq, where patrols are more likely to use vehicles, loads range from 60 to nearly 100 pounds, he said.

[quidam56]

5. But Halliburton/KBR made Billions in Iraq - so quit your whining !

In America, Profit Machines and Politicians come before We The People. Lie, fraud, mislead, sums up The Bush Legacy. http://www.wisecountyissues.com

[gratuitous]

11. Yeah!

And aren't they all volunteers, anyway?

[bemildred]

7. Remember what happened to the dinosaurs?

Quick, snappy little mammals against big, slow, armored dinosaurs? War with no dead soldiers is an oxymoron.

[Posteritatis]

8. Got a comet here that wants to dispute that analogy (nt)

[bemildred]

9. Doesn't stand up well, that's true.

But this IS the internet. "Man the Hunter" is one of my favorites too.

[The Wizard]

15. Overt time

more will have compressed or herniated disks in the neck from a helmet bouncing on the head, usually riding in a vehicle.

[happyslug]

17. Helmets are the most cost effective protection you can have.

The extra weight on your head is of minimal problems for your neck and back. The protection provided by the Helmet more then compensates for its extra weight. The problem is NOT helmets by Body Armor, which weight MORE and provides less long term protection (TilL Desert Strom the #1 cause of losses in combat was blood lost, the introduction of super clotting devices since the late 1900s have drop these losses from over 26% of all losses in Vietnam to almost none today. These Clotting packages have been the #1 reason for the drop in causalities in the War in Iraq compared to Vietnam. The widespread introduction of Body armor since Vietnam often gets the credit in the press, but seems to have minimal affect compared to the blood clotting packages (And the increase use of Armor compared to what the US used in Vietnam, especially in the 1965-1968 period).

[BrightKnight]

19. They need combat llamas - n/t

[Crowman1979]

21. It's always best to have a platoon leader with common sense and an armored vehicle handy.

In order to store that extra ammo, clothes or whatever is not needed immediately

[Squatch]

22. Last week I ran approximately 2 miles in my combat gear while on a mission

I was wearing boots, my uniform, my IBA (Individual Body Armor) with SAPI (Small Arms Protective Inserts) plates, and a helmet.

Additionally, I was carrying my M4 rifle, my M-9 pistol, 240 rounds of 5.56 ammunition, 45 rounds of 9mm, 2 hand grenades, and 2 knives (including my KM2000 knife).

On top of that, I had a "go bag" with 210 rounds of 5.56, 45 rounds of 9mm, 2 hand grenades, 2 smoke grenades, 1 MRE, 2 liters of water, a GPS receiver, a LOS radio, a combat lifesaver's bag, and some snivel gear.

I had to run through some muddy fields, so by the time I got to where I was going, I was pretty tuckered out. However, a quick rest and we were up again and moving out.

I'm not saying I'm superman or anything, but with proper conditioning, that load I was carrying should not be too difficult for combat soldiers. Now, the USAF fobbits might be another story. They *might* put on some armor once a month.