# The Modern Warrior’s Combat Load



## daftandbarmy (12 Mar 2012)

The Modern Warrior’s Combat Load

http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf

Interesting. Too bad they never include fitenss levels as a success factor in any of these studies. Young, strong, fit people can always carry more stuff and slay more bad guys than people like me  ;D

I guess it's the negative influence of the PC police.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Mar 2012)

I will read this......looks interesting.


----------



## MedCorps (12 Mar 2012)

Also worth reading on this topic: 

Another US publication: Load Carriage in Military Operations: A Review of Historical, Physiological, Biomechanical, and Medical Aspects (2010) 

http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/other_pub/LoadCarriagePDF.pdf

Enjoy, 

MC


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Mar 2012)

The amazing thing - the body armour and helmet are already how heavy? That is BEFORE you take into account ammo, water, rats......


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The amazing thing - the body armour and helmet are already how heavy? That is BEFORE you take into account ammo, water, rats......



And the empty weight of the new rucksack....


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Mar 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> And the empty weight of the new rucksack....




I think the average load a soldier can comfortably carry is about 1/3 of body weight or so I have read somewhere. Yet we insist on having soldiers pack a house on their backs,,,,,,


----------



## PPCLI Guy (13 Mar 2012)

My carrying capacity is therefore increasing every year...


----------



## Infanteer (13 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I think the average load a soldier can comfortably carry is about 1/3 of body weight or so I have read somewhere. Yet we insist on having soldiers pack a house on their backs,,,,,,



That's actually a number I've seen in a scientific study of load bearing that I read in the Marine Corps Gazette.

In my opinion, the killer is the PPE; I actually didn't wear much in Afghanistan.  My LBE (webbing style) and a daybag; carrying rucks is (or should) generally be considered an admin movement unless one is deliberately avoiding contact (e.g. LRP).  It was the body armour that was the killer, accounting for most of the weight.  Following closely behind was the water one had to carry.  Radio weight (generally batteries) and ammo was a close third).


----------



## infant (13 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I think the average load a soldier can comfortably carry is about 1/3 of body weight or so I have read somewhere. Yet we insist on having soldiers pack a house on their backs,,,,,,



Maybe you read it here:
www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol.../CAJ_Vol12.1_08_e.pdfSimilar
page 62: 





> The Canadian infantry manual (volume 3) specifi es that a soldier can carry 35% of
> his or her own body weight and still maintain a high percentage of agility, stamina and
> mobility.13 When the load exceeds 45% of body weight, functional ability drops rapidly. For
> an average soldier (i.e. 80 kg) these limits correspond to 28 kg and 36 kg respectively. The
> ...


----------



## MJP (13 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Yet we insist on having soldiers pack a house on their backs,,,,,,



We also as leaders sometimes are not ruthless enough in ensuring our guys aren't carrying useless crap either.  I agree with Infanteer that PPE is the largest burden though.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Mar 2012)

I sent this article to a guy I know with (unlike me) lots and lots of combat experience. Good reply!:

"Lots of lists. Which is typical. Ninety pages to work out the average grunt has sixty to seventy pounds on his back as a minimum. Now there's a surprise.

And frankly why each guy has to have night vision and a cleaning kit is a unquestioned mystery. (Especially considering how only one man at a time should be cleaning his weapon.) Plus all that gadgetry they drape on the rifle. And as to knee and elbow pads, Oakleys, ear plugs, two MREs (for one day out)...

(Why the medic is also carrying a BP cuff and stethoscope is a mystery. If you can't recognize shock without these things he shouldn't be a medic. He's also carrying 2 liters of  normal saline vs one liter of Hetastarch, which is actually out there now. But never mind.)

They even admit towards the end that a quarter to a third of the weight always carried is armor and helmet. And how it's largely the weight and unbreathability of this stuff that leads to the ridiculous amount of water that has to be brought along.

And despite acknowledging this, there's absolutely no discussion of the possibility of just not wearing this crap. None. But they do think robot mules are a good idea.

Sigh. We're doomed."


----------



## Robert0288 (13 Mar 2012)

Until the robot breaks, then you have to carry all of its stuff + the robot.  And the additional 40 lbs of batteries which the soldier will have to carry to keep the robot moving.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Mar 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> We also as leaders sometimes are not ruthless enough in ensuring our guys aren't carrying useless crap either.  I agree with Infanteer that PPE is the largest burden though.



That is correct as well. Priority of loads should be ammo, water, rations then pers kit. 

I love kit lists put out by pers too high up in the chain, especially when we are expected to drag toboggans half way across the trg area.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2012)

Just to put this in some sort of perspective, soldiers have been carrying 30-35 kg of "kit" for thousands of years. Greek Hoplites had tht amount of bronze armour, shield and weapons (and generally a slave to help them carry it and put it all on prior to battle). The Roman _milites_ carried a similar amount, including chain mail or segmented armour, pioneer tools, rations and water canteen. Knights and men at arms in the middle ages had similar loads (and men at arms generally had no horses and fought on foot).

The only exceptional period seems to be the 500 years between the large scale adoption of gunpowder weapons and WWI, where PPE essentially vanished from the battlefield. By WWI, soldiers were again carrying huge amounts of "kit"; we have all read about British soldiers going "over the top" with up to 80 lbs of equipment, ammunition, rations etc.

Perhaps the introduction of superstrong synthetic materials and highly capable mini computers/communication devices rivalling the size and shape of an iPhone will reverse the trend (but then again we could be in the situation where I started: When I was a private I carried 100lbs of really heavy stuff. Now with modern technology I carry 100 lbs of reallylight stuff....)


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> When I was a private I carried 100lbs of really heavy stuff. Now with modern technology I carry 100 lbs of reallylight stuff....)



Fantastic  :rofl:


----------



## Farmboy (17 Mar 2012)

Hense why you now see a shift from manufacturers from double layered 1000 weight cordura to new materials for pouches, rigs, packs etc.

Cut down ounces on each pouch, each item carried and suddenly you start cutting large amounts of weight on the entire soldier.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Mar 2012)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> Hense why you now see a shift from manufacturers from double layered 1000 weight cordura to new materials for pouches, rigs, packs etc.



Are the new materials just as durable in your experience? I'd hate to save a few ounces only to have a pouch rip off in combat.


----------



## Farmboy (17 Mar 2012)

> Are the new materials just as durable in your experience?



Yes.


----------



## Armymedic (17 Mar 2012)

Reduce the weight even further by not allowing everyone to wear 4-8 different morale patches all over their body


----------



## JaY_III (28 Mar 2012)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Reduce the weight even further by not allowing everyone to wear 4-8 different morale patches all over their body



The stupid thing is some times you are made to take them off even at a FOB.
I had a BC Flag on the center of my Armour on the lower Velcro I had to remove.
It was always covered under my rig when we went out, so i don't get why it had to be moved.

I can get the Major League Gun Fighter ones and such that are on the outside as they are not professional.


----------



## HollywoodCowboy (29 Mar 2012)

Old school  - 100 pounds of "old" $hit
New school - 100 pounds of "light weight" $hit

That's about it in a nut shell…


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Mar 2012)

JaY_III said:
			
		

> The stupid thing is some times you are made to take them off even at a FOB.
> I had a BC Flag on the center of my Armour on the lower Velcro I had to remove.
> It was always covered under my rig when we went out, so i don't get why it had to be moved.
> 
> I can get the Major League Gun Fighter ones and such that are on the outside as they are not professional.


Jay - they pay people like me to enforce dress regs. You swore an oath to Canada, not British Columbia, which is part of Canada. Whoever told you to take it off was right.





			
				HollywoodCowboy said:
			
		

> Old school  - 100 pounds of "old" $hit
> New school - 100 pounds of "light weight" $hit
> 
> That's about it in a nut shell…



LOL too true!!!


----------



## JaY_III (29 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Jay - they pay people like me to enforce dress regs. You swore an oath to Canada, not British Columbia, which is part of Canada. Whoever told you to take it off was right.



And like I said, every time i was outside the wire it was covered up with only the Canadian flag showing.
I don't see how it hurt.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Mar 2012)

JaY_III said:
			
		

> And like I said, every time i was outside the wire it was covered up with only the Canadian flag showing.
> I don't see how it hurt.



Because the guy beside you thinks it is cool and puts his "Infidel" patch on, and the next guy puts his naked lady one on, and then the guy in the other section puts all 17 of morale patches on and looks like a Christmas tree.

Gotta draw the line somewhere.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Mar 2012)

Morale patches were illegal on my tour, which is why only the higher ups in those strange command groups in KAF were allowed to wear them.
Theirs were mystically sanctioned by "someone?", we were told if we got caught wearing them we'd be sent home- love O-group threats.

This thread is a really interesting thread and interesting link (ModernWarriorsCombatLoad), thanks!.   It was interesting comparing that list with my own (got some good ideas too)

Any reason why one might think it's a bad idea that every soldier carry's a set of NVGs?

Our body armor isn't that heavy, it's only 3 pounds more than our (empty) rucksack..


----------



## JaY_III (29 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Gotta draw the line somewhere.



I would have liked and thought it was anything VISABLE once you leave the wire   :



			
				Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Any reason why one might think it's a bad idea that every soldier carry's a set of NVGs?




I would think its a bad idea not to carry them.
You dont always come back before the sun goes down.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The amazing thing - the body armour and helmet are already how heavy? That is BEFORE you take into account ammo, water, rats......



Observe the complete absence of personal armour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJDINSd-vk

Then again, what do the Royal MArines know about all that, eh?


----------



## TN2IC (31 Mar 2012)

Army Times - All Geared Up


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Apr 2012)

Splitting a thread from here
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/105288/post-1130341/topicseen.html#new
Canadian engineers at NTC Fort Irwin






			
				Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Indeed..
> 
> THIS is overburdened, 110lbs of kit per man in rucks, not including daysacks, body armour, FFO etc.
> 
> The only thing I see them overburdened with is the C9, useless bit of ironmongery that it is.



Sorry I should have been more clear. I was making observations from a first person perspective not just the picture.  The engineers were doing their engineer thing out desert but when they came into an urban environment I expected them to drop some kit.  The US (infantry) seemed to take a big step back and let the engineers clear houses.  That in itself made me damn proud of them , having the US recognize their skills, but personally I'm not so sure about using engineers as infanteers.

As for the kit the engineers seemed bagged right from first contact. Being on the other side gives you a really interesting perspective.  Bulging tacvest pockets, attached pockets to the straps at the back of the tacvest, bursting small packs (think I saw one guy with a 3 legged folding stool and snugpack bivy tent on his smallpack).  Stuff as getting caught and it seemed to really reduce their ability to climb through windows, climb ladders, move with any speed or dexterity. The enemy force had weapons, some mags and man jammies. Not sleighing the engineers at all but generally speaking you could see a huge difference between what we carry to battle and what the bad guys do.  You could argue a ton of pros and cons but as far as mobility goes the bad guys can (and did) literally run circles around the good guys.

In the future I'll definitely be experimenting with minimal kit- taking the side pouches off the tacvest. No drop leg holsters or bags. No smallpack or a very very limited one.  Either bring up extra ammo and special equipment as needed, have it close by OR make someone 'the mule' ;D


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2012)

Whatever happened to leaving that "stuff" with the CQ?

As for some of your observations, people who bring their stools, camp gear etc attached to their rucks or daybags are adding to their own burden. I con muster up the sympathy for carrying giant issue rucksacks and wearing body armour, but people who add the extras are really doing themselves no favours.

As an aside, I once participated in an exercise with the USMC, and they pretty much slept on the ground in bivvy bags and lightweight sleeping bags. The sleeping bags were clearly much lighter than ours; if there was a need to oerate in colder weather there was a second synthetic bag to make a 2 layer system. I don't remember the temperature breakdown of the sleeping bag system, but if really arctic conditions were anticipated, a lightweight mylar "space blanket" could be added to the mix. Our sleeping bag system is quite heavy and bulky, and is worth bugger all should it ever get wet.


----------



## Lerch (1 Apr 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As an aside, I once participated in an exercise with the USMC, and they pretty much slept on the ground in bivvy bags and lightweight sleeping bags. The sleeping bags were clearly much lighter than ours; if there was a need to oerate in colder weather there was a second synthetic bag to make a 2 layer system. I don't remember the temperature breakdown of the sleeping bag system, but if really arctic conditions were anticipated, a lightweight mylar "space blanket" could be added to the mix. Our sleeping bag system is quite heavy and bulky, and is worth bugger all should it ever get wet.



I don't know if you've seen them, but the special order sleeping bags follow that system. The outer bag is made for +5°, the inner bag is for -40°, and then put them together and they're rated to -50°. They both compress MUCH better then the old sleeping bags, and come with built in hoods, making that arctic hood redundant.


----------



## Loachman (1 Apr 2012)

That in itself made me damn proud of them , having the US recognize their skills[/quote]

Are you sure that the Yanks weren't just letting them get killed first?


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Apr 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to leaving that "stuff" with the CQ?
> 
> As for some of your observations, people who bring their stools, camp gear etc attached to their rucks or daybags are adding to their own burden. I con muster up the sympathy for carrying giant issue rucksacks and wearing body armour, but people who add the extras are really doing themselves no favours.
> 
> As an aside, I once participated in an exercise with the USMC, and they pretty much slept on the ground in bivvy bags and lightweight sleeping bags. The sleeping bags were clearly much lighter than ours; if there was a need to oerate in colder weather there was a second synthetic bag to make a 2 layer system. I don't remember the temperature breakdown of the sleeping bag system, but if really arctic conditions were anticipated, a lightweight mylar "space blanket" could be added to the mix. Our sleeping bag system is quite heavy and bulky, and is worth bugger all should it ever get wet.



I've also seen the USMC rendered pretty much combat ineffective because they were improperly equipped for snow and 20 below - mild winter temperature by our standards.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Apr 2012)

Here's an idea for a new PT test in honour of the 30th anniversary: The Falkland's BFT. 

In the winter time, carry 120lbs for 70 miles in 3 days then assault an enemy brigade, well dug in on a series of mountain positions, and kill alot of them while suffering considerable casualties yourself.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iy1DvEytgo&feature=relmfu


----------



## Infanteer (3 Apr 2012)

Why do that?  I prefer Iraq PT - insert by helicopters or armoured vehicles and kill lots of bad guys while taking little to no casualties yourself.  ^-^


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Apr 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Why do that?  I prefer Iraq PT - insert by helicopters or armoured vehicles and kill lots of bad guys while taking little to no casualties yourself.  ^-^



Sigh.... mother was right: you just don't GET me  :'(


----------



## TN2IC (3 Apr 2012)

Pretty sure we can simulate that in Newfoundland, instead of going to the Falklands. Let me strap on me daisy-roots, and show the poodle-faker who is boss. After me brew, of course.




			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Here's an idea for a new PT test in honour of the 30th anniversary: The Falkland's BFT.
> 
> In the winter time, carry 120lbs for 70 miles in 3 days then assault an enemy brigade, well dug in on a series of mountain positions, and kill alot of them while suffering considerable casualties yourself.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iy1DvEytgo&feature=relmfu


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2012)

WRT the exercise; it was done during the spring, so sleeping under hoochies or in crew tents was possible for us. The sleeping bag system described upthread sounds sweet, it would make a great replacement for what we have now.

I spoke to a friend in 3RCR who did a trial with the new C-16 grenade launcher; the thing was so massive that each allegedly man packable part pushed the soldiers load well over 100 lbs; the guys carrying the gun were hardly mobile. (Apparently no one thought to complete the simulation by having the rest of the troops carry huge sand filled ammo cans to represent the belted grenade ammunition).

No wonder the ideas of powered exoskeletons and robotic "mules" are so popular these days.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Apr 2012)

The sleeping bag we used in the sixties had a flannel liner and two "bags," an inner one and an arctic outer one. The combined bag would keep a soldier warmish for four or five hours in -50 f temperatues, and I am speaking from experience here. The bag also did not have any zippers for closure. Instead it used flaps and overlap. This apparently was because zippers could freeze in the cold. (There is the story we all heard about American troops in Korea discovered killed in their bags with frozen zippers, or at least that is what we were told.)


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Apr 2012)

TN said:
			
		

> Pretty sure we can simulate that in Newfoundland, instead of going to the Falklands. Let me strap on me daisy-roots, and show the poodle-faker who is boss. After me brew, of course.



Wizard!


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The sleeping bag we used in the sixties had a flannel liner and two "bags," an inner one and an arctic outer one. The combined bag would keep a soldier warmish for four or five hours in -50 f temperatues, and I am speaking from experience here. The bag also did not have any zippers for closure. Instead it used flaps and overlap. This apparently was because zippers could freeze in the cold. (There is the story we all heard about American troops in Korea discovered killed in their bags with frozen zippers, or at least that is what we were told.)



The only difference between your bag and the ones issued today are the zippers. There is a bit of overlap to cover the zipper portion, but otherwise pretty much identical.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Apr 2012)

For cold winters I've switched out the CF issue sleeping bag system with a snugpak antarctica re sleeping bag. It's great but way too hot for anything save a cold winter.

For the other seasons I'll use the snugpak Merlin 3, CF issue bivy bag and the CF issued cadpat poncholiner/ranger blanket with one of those emergency space blankets guntaped to the inside.

I'm looking at picking up the snugpak tactical series 3 sleeping bag to add to my combo set up for late fall/early winter.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Apr 2012)

Old Sweat: 





> The sleeping bag we used in the sixties had a flannel liner and two "bags," an inner one and an arctic outer one



Then there was the _Molitia_ sleeping bag consisting of two overlapping grey wool blankets, bottom tuck, and the old 1950 era poncho. Rolled over the small pack Civil War style. Weight: heavy dry, extremely heavy damp.

Can't remember if there was zippers or not on the sleeping bag in Germany 1968. We did take only the nylon outer cover (no zips) on some dismounted ops. Better than nothing. Trying to sleep on cobble stones beside a bridge with sleet coming down is one memory.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Apr 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Old Sweat:
> Then there was the _Molitia_ sleeping bag consisting of two overlapping grey wool blankets, bottom tuck, and the old 1950 era poncho. Rolled over the small pack Civil War style. Weight: heavy dry, extremely heavy damp.



I've used that sucker too as a regular force gunner with my boots, ankle, black for a pillow.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Apr 2012)

In Wainwright in 1979 we were out in a summer storm....the kind where the rain went sideways.....with a groundsheet per man. I slept under it for a few hours and even had a few smokes. Great fun.


----------



## Trail Rider (9 Apr 2012)

I saw a drawing somewhere of a medieval soldier on the road to his next battle.  They had wheelbarrows and hand carts to haul their gear.

With respect to combat load of today's soldiers, for years I've though that pack mules should be a standard issue.  But then, the procurement would be heck:  regional development and IRBs for a Newfoundland pony or another historic breed; complaints that a height, weight and load  requirements unfairly left someone out; cross-breeding to "Canadianize" correctly; able to respond to bilingual commands (haw-gee); pollution emission level certifications...

Or as one poster noted, unless you are in contact, just treat it all as admin move and leave it in a supporting vehicle.


----------



## Kalatzi (9 Apr 2012)

For most of their history a Roman "Squad"" had a pack mule. 

Also depending on where they where in pre-Marian/post-Marian forms about three auxiliaries as "Helpers"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZPRsrwumQ

Big Dog Robot

Sounds like my mother in law


----------



## Kalatzi (9 Apr 2012)

Even better -Big Dog Can be weaponized

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptyV1cpE14o&feature=relmfu


----------



## TN2IC (9 Apr 2012)

I figure this is a pretty interesting piece of kit. I would love to take that for a spin, then set up an ambush. Plus carry all your gear. Kind of reminds me of an ATV.

Mule

Regards,
TN


----------

